Pens lost!!!

[Former Wildcat]

You take the 10 best players in every major sport and put them up against each other. The NBA wins hands down. There is no one in hockey with near the athleticism of LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant. Even Steve Nash, who is unathletic by NBA standards, is a great athlete. Baseball struggles to compete, but it is still a more athletic game than hockey. The NFL also has amazing athletes, but there are some football positions that do not require elite athleticism. You could throw professional soccer players in there as well. I would rate the best soccer players as better athletes than the best hockey players.

Hockey players are decent athletes who know how to skate. Yes, they have great skills and they have to think on their feet, but so do most other professional athletes. That is what generally seperates great athletes from professional athletes.

The problem is that you never see hockey players off of their skates, but do you honestly believe that Crosby and Ovechkin would compete athletically with LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Chris Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Alfred Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, Cristiano Ronaldo, or Lionel Messi? I don't. Like I said, we can't know because we only see them on skates. But do we assume that Bode Miller is an elite athlete because he is fast on skis?

[abpk2903]

You are claiming NBA players are the best athletes because they are on their feet? What are you basing your claim that NBA has the best athletes on other than personal bias? I could just as easily claim that NASCAR and poker has the best athletes because no one else could perform that well sitting down. Find me a non-kicking NFL player without elite athleticism. If you are tall, quick, and can shoot, basketball can take you far. IMO, a sport like hockey requires athletes to be much more well rounded overall.

Why didn't you just write in your last post, I like NBA so their athletes are better?

[abpk2903]

And like I said define great athleticism and see how many of those categories hockey players cover.

[The Ancient Enemy]

You dont have to be able to shoot to play basketball.

Isnt there also a case that can be made that basketball is the easiest of all these sports to play?

[deliverance]

Isn't there a case that Hockey is the easiest sport to play? It's really all a matter of opinion.

[abpk2903]

That was my point exactly.

[ham55]

I think the thing that sets hockey apart from the other mainstream big-time sports is that you don't have to have superior size to be great. Sidney Crosby is 5' 11", 200 pounds; Malkin is 6' 3" 192, Ovechkin is 6' 2" 212 pounds, Jonathan Toews 6' 1" 195 pounds, Patrick Kane 5' 9" 160 lbs, etc., etc..

[The Ancient Enemy]

So how is hockey the easiest to play, again?

[shocker]

When you say 'athlete' I have to think that it is a person who could play multiple sports and be pretty good at each one. There are alot of good one sport players. But to say they are athletic, to me, is not a true statement. A few athletes come to mind when you say "great athletes" Jim Thorpe (never seen him play)...Michael Jordan (NBA and the minor leagues)....Bo Jackson (NFL and MLB)....These are just a few that come to mind at this moment. I am sure there are many many more. Chris Wenke, Charlie Ward, etc etc.. These are athletes. I dont think Sidney Crosby would be very good on the baseball diamond or hardwood or even on the football fan. Just my opinion.

Dont get me wrong, you can be athletic and play just one sport, but when someone says 'great athlete' I think of a person who excels or could excel in multiple sports.

As for which sport has the better athletes.....A lineman for example needs quick feet but just about anyone can learn the technique of blocking. How good would an NFL blocker be in ice hockey? How good would a great ice hockey player be playing football or basketball? You can argue all day long about how hard it would be to skate, hit a baseball, or dribble, run and shoot at the same time. In baseball you are considered hall of fame material if you can hit the ball 3 times for every 10 at bats. If you shoot 3 of 10 from the foul line in basketball you suk. If you kick 3 of 10 field goals in the nfl you suk. So which of the 3 have better athletes?? I am not sure if you can compare which sport has better 'athletes'.

[abpk2903]

I think we are just going in circles with this topic. For the few that have managed to become professional at multiple sports, that separates them from the rest athletically. You can't, however, compare hockey, to football, to baseball, to basketball. There are very few NBA players under 6' 1" or 6' 2" and there are very few NHL players over 6' 5" because those taller than that have difficulty skating at a high level. The NFL is the only major professional sport you can play if you are 350 lbs. Being short carries its advantages in baseball and simply being left-handed can separate you from the rest. The point is any player in MLB, the NFL, the NBA, or the NHL is a premier athlete and all sports are geared toward people with the perfect body composition. You folks have no clue what hockey players are like on their feet but what is known is they are strong, flexible, balanced, explosive, smart, physical, have good hand-eye coordination, and have great stamina. You folks are under the opinion that because you haven't seen them on their feet they aren't as good as others but personally I feel that given the talents they have there is no reason why they wouldn't be competitive in any athletic competition. This argument is based on nothing other than opinion and that is why, IMO, they are all equal.