The Instigator
MattMan1
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
MidnightDaze
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Hockey is more athletic than swimming.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,801 times Debate No: 2047
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

MattMan1

Pro

Hockey is more athletic than swimming; it takes more skill and athleticism.
Hockey requires the athlete to use many skills at once, the players must think about their actions in order to perform effectively. Swimming on the other hand, is a straight forward race, from point A to point B. Hockey requires using your mind a lot, and swimming doesn't.
MidnightDaze

Con

Hockey is not more "athletic" then swimming. Athleticism is defined as the pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina.

I'd like to point out that you stated you must be smart to play hockey and not to swim. Being athletic has nothing once so ever to do with IQ. It might take more to plan out, examine, and understand but that does not make it more athletic.
Debate Round No. 1
MattMan1

Pro

Well, personally I think that athleticism is defined as showing athletic prowess. Which would be displaying exceptional skill in athletics, which would take body and mind. However, we are not debating the definition of the word. So, I will use yours instead.

"involving the use of physical skills or capabilities"
- Hockey involves many more physical skills than swimming. In hockey the player must learn to ice skate in a controlled manner, which some may find difficult in itself. Once they've learned to ice skate, they must now posses the ability to control a 3 inch rubber puck on the end of a large stick. In addition to controlling the puck and their body, the player must also be aware of his surroundings to avoid being checked by another player.

"as strength"
- Hockey players must have strength to shoot a rubber puck, (with accuracy) at speeds of up to 106 mph.

"agility"
- Hockey is a much faster paced sport than swimming. A swimmer may have to swim fast, but a hockey player not only needs to skate fast, but additionally needs to be quick, and agile to dodge players of the opposing team.

"stamina"
- Some distance swimming events would probably take more endurance, but not swimming as a whole. A sprint in swimming wouldn't take very much endurance as the swimmer could be done in under a minute.
MidnightDaze

Con

swimming is an amazing cardio-vascular exercise and with increasing effort will raise your heart rate and stimulate your muscles. It gives you a more toned body if done regularly and is also less stressful to your joints than other forms of exercise such as jogging.
If combined with a land workout such as a run or gym session it will help move your blood through your muscles to help them recover. It also is an extreme work out on abdominal muscles.

Aside from that, by making it seem like the body weighs much less than it actually does, swimming is the perfect alternative for those who are not capable of performing other types of exercises and activities. Individuals with a spinal cord injury, for example, are able to strengthen their muscles through swimming when they may not possess the strength to walk or in your case "play hockey".

As you earlier mentioned, I quote "the player must learn to ice skate" do you think a swimmer must not learn to swim? A hockey player needs to control a puck, do you not think a swimmer needs to hold their breath? Control different strokes, and avoid crashing into other swimmers?

As Strength: the arms and hips are responsible for propelling the body through the water and both are directly connected to the lumbar spine. A strong core will enable more energy to be transferred from the core to the pull and kick components of the stroke. A weak core will allow more energy to leak out, resulting in a less powerful pull and kick. Thus saying a swimmer must also have strength.

As Agility: The stronger a swimmer is the more agility they have. Because swimming is built on as above "arms and hips", The more power and speed put into a stroke the more agile they become.

As for stamina, in regards to your statement "A sprint in swimming wouldn't take very much endurance" I agree with you. But we are debating about this in the terms of a sport, not a night at the pool. In all actuality swimming would take just as much stamina as hockey as they are both a complete work out of the body.
Debate Round No. 2
MattMan1

Pro

I don't see the reasoning for the existence of your first paragraph. I don't disagree that swimming is a tough workout.

The same goes for your second paragraph. The fact that people with certain disabilities can swim has nothing to do with the amount of athleticism the sport takes.

As for your third paragraph, of course a player must learn to swim. That's all the swimmer must learn to do. If a swimmer can't control a stroke to the point where he wont crash into other players, then I don't think that the swimmer has learned to swim at all. So the swimmer must learn one skill, in comparison to the many skills of a hockey player.

As strength: A swimmer of course uses strength, as I'm sure almost every sport uses strength of some sport.

As Agility: Agility is the power of moving quickly and easily; nimbleness. I don't know about you, but I've never seen a hockey player that was clumsy, slow, or overweight. I have, however, seen swimmers that aren't quick, or nimble.

As endurance: A sprint wouldn't be considered "a night at the pool". Consider a 100 yard event at a swim meet. A 100 yard would range from 50 seconds to a minute and 20 seconds depending on the stroke. So even if you are using a lot of your body, your doing so for less than two minutes. I'd disagree that two minutes takes as much stamina as three periods of hockey.

When using the these things as the criteria for athleticism, my argument concludes as the following:

Skills: Hockey takes multiple skills, and swimming takes one.

Strength: Both sports use strength, arguing which uses more strength is purely opinion and is useless.

Agility: Swimmers are using constant strokes, they are paced. They know what is coming, it takes one stroke after the other. Hockey players have to dodge opposing players, and the puck. They dodge in many different ways, to protect themselves, and to help their team. They don't have the gift of knowing what they have to do next, like how a swimmer knows that their next action is to bring their arm around for another stroke. A hockey player must react quickly, as they might only have a few seconds.

Endurance: A sprint in swimming takes little to no endurance or stamina. There are longer distance events, but a good swimmer could complete them in less time than one single period of hockey. You said "they are both a complete work out of the body", therefore, as a hockey game lasts for a much longer period of time, it is workout out of the body, entirely, for longer than swimming; thus taking more endurance.
MidnightDaze

Con

First, I was completely unaware of the fact that we where debating on periods of length as far as the sports are concerned. Your title says that "Hockey is more athletic then swimming" not longer, not smarter. More athletic.

Secondly. Swimmers need to know far more then how to swim in order to compete in the sport. And yet I still fail to see how what the competitors need to know has anything to do with athleticism, besides the apparent "this is how the sport works"

Thirdly, endurance is defined as lasting quantity. Like you said, there are longer races in swimming and no, it's not as long as a hockey game. But with all do respect that doesn't make it any more or less of an athletic event then hockey. Oh, and just for the record, I've seen a couple fat hockey players, but I wasn't exactly aware we where talking about the shape of the competitors.

In conclusion, your accusations are faulty. Your claims of endurance are correct. But that's about it. Of course any voter who's a hockey fan is unlikely to say that swimming is more athletic. But as far as I'm concerned; as far as athleticism goes, their about the same from the view of saying that their both sports, athletics events. All competitors need to be aware of the rules and what they are doing. The sports differ to a vast duration but are still considered as athletic events, so to speak not as popular as one another but yet curiously enough under the same category.

^.~
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MattMan1 9 years ago
MattMan1
Your third statement is completely unreasonable. You began the debate by pointing out the criteria for athleticism. You said, skill, strength, agility and stamina. You then claimed that skills were "how the sport works". You failed to mention agility, and you seemed to agree with hockey taking more endurance. So, by using your own definition, it seems that we agree that hockey has more of the qualities that define athleticism, thus making it more athletic.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by HockeyAvatar 9 years ago
HockeyAvatar
MattMan1MidnightDazeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MidnightDaze 9 years ago
MidnightDaze
MattMan1MidnightDazeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sushiweed24 9 years ago
Sushiweed24
MattMan1MidnightDazeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lexmastaflex013 9 years ago
lexmastaflex013
MattMan1MidnightDazeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Keithinator 9 years ago
Keithinator
MattMan1MidnightDazeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MattMan1 9 years ago
MattMan1
MattMan1MidnightDazeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30