11/21/24
January 31, 2002
The Biggest Sports Event of the Weekend.: Psyche! The NHL All Star Game is this Saturday (Young Stars game, Skills Competition as well), in the middle of a grueling 82 game season with the Olympics a few weeks later. Does anyone in the world but myself care? Hockey is a great sport, and though common perceptions linger, it is not a bunch of lugheads fighting every night (ok, some nights...) Why does no one, relatively speaking, watch the Coolest Game on Ice?
posted by adampsyche to hockey at 02:16 PM - 18 comments
OK, so... <puts on floridian hat> I don't see the drama in hockey fights. I've never seen a single one that didn't end in a draw. If they weren't wearing so much padding, maybe there might be 'drama'- but as it stands, they punch each other, hit their pads, maybe break a nose, and then everyone goes back to the game. Now, if they took the pads off, and the loser's team had to go 4 on 5 the rest of the game, that would be drama... but as it stands all it does (for me) is interrupt the flow of what could be a smooth and fluid sport.</hat>
Oh, and aside from that: the reason no one watches the NHL All-Star game in specific is because it makes even more of a mockery of the game than most all-star games. Granted, no one plays D in All-Star games in any sport. But in no other sport do the point productions differ so much from the average values. I mean, if the NBA all-star game were played with as little D as the NHL game is, the final score would be something like 250-200. Great D and physicality (outside of stupid fights) is one of the beautiful parts of the average hockey game, and it just isn't there in the NHL all-star game.
posted by tieguy at 05:00 PM on January 31, 2002
Apparently you haven't seen Bob Probert fight ;-) Anyhow, the game needs to maintain fighting, not just because "it is part of the game," but for the reasons outlined by insomnyuk: remember McSoreley's hit on Brashear? True enforcement would have had McSoreley waking up "sorely" and regretting it (not that he didn't, but it was mostly an embarrassment to him and the rest of hockey). Barry Melrose (ugly mullett notwithstanding) is right on the money. The game could stand to go without the two-minute instigator penalty, and I could honestly do without ties as well. I hate ties, and making overtime 4 on 4 doesn't help that much. After five minutes of overtime, shootout. Why not brign the excitement of the Olympics into the NHL? What interrupts the flow of the game are the constant whistles (take away the red line, anyone?) and the shoddy and inconsistent calls by the refs. Go back to the one ref system, because I have seen more than one game absolutely ruined because of inconsistent calls in the same game.
posted by adampsyche at 05:07 PM on January 31, 2002
I have to admit that Hockey is the "coolest game on ice"--although Curling is a close second. The problem with Hockey in America is the competition. It doesn't really have its own season, at least in the minds of most people. Hockey seems to be flourishing, however, in cities that have lacked pro Sports in the past. I was in Nashville recently, and the folks there are crazy about the Predators. They also like the Titans, but everyone there seemed to want to talk hockey. It was amazing to hear Nashvillians talking so passionately about hockey. Now, about curling . . .
posted by jacknose at 05:18 PM on January 31, 2002
I haven't seen many fights at all; the floridian hat is not metaphorical. My real introduction to hockey came with the rats and the Panthers' crazy run to the Finals.
Having admitted I don't know what I'm talking about... it seems like a sport that needs intimidation to deter the 'little cowards' maybe has other balance issues that need to be looked at. Maybe the bigger international rink should be used to make the game more open and flowing, and give less of a competitive advantage to the teams who you guys feel would be brought 'in line' by less-strict fighting rules. Or maybe some other solution needs to be found. But (again, to someone with no clue) your solution (more fighting) really doesn't sound like much of a solution- it sounds like replacing one thing that disrupts and slows the game with another thing that disrupts and slows the game. And if that is the road hockey wants to take, it is going to continue to have falling TV revenues and to look ridiculous for expanding so far outside it's natural base in the North.
posted by tieguy at 05:25 PM on January 31, 2002
it seems like a sport that needs intimidation to deter the 'little cowards' maybe has other balance issues that need to be looked at. Precisely the opposite. Most players don't fight. The way hockey "should be," as most analysts think, is to have tough guys fighting tough guys, to give more space for the skilled guys to do what they do: score goals. It is not about big guys beating up little guys: it is to make big guys accountable, so that a big guy will think twice about taking a run at a smaller guy. It is the art of enforcement, but being a pugilist does not make a person a "whole" player. McSorely was placed along side Wayne Gretzky for that very reason. Fights serve many purposes in the game. Momentum is perhaps the most significant part of hockey, so getting into a fight when your team is getting creamed on the scoreboard may be just the thing needed to get your team going. Sounds messed up, but it's about stirring up the pot at times. A good brawl can unify a team (see Detroit vs. Colorado, 1997). Thank god the league got tough with the "stick work," though. I was cheering to see Tie Domi suspended for a long time after his hit on Neidermeyer in the playoffs last year.
posted by adampsyche at 05:50 PM on January 31, 2002
OK, I guess I can buy the momentum argument. But I still don't buy the need for enforcers. In other sports that's the role the refs play. Why can't that happen in hockey as well?
posted by tieguy at 06:30 PM on January 31, 2002
Good question. I think they like to share the responsibility. There are hits that are legal to take on players, but that doesn't mean you want some of your players to be taking those hits? Huh. Get back to me on that one. Any help here?
posted by adampsyche at 06:58 PM on January 31, 2002
Oh, and by the way (speaking of things done elsewhere) why do I get an error when I type http://sportsfilter.com instead of www.sportsfilter?
posted by tieguy at 07:26 PM on January 31, 2002
Thank God for the hockey category! =) I got into hockey in a big way back in '95. Became a huge fan and went to see loads of games (LA Kings - Forum) and loved every minute of it. The TV telecasts were great as well because when I was first learning the game, the commentators helped explain the rules and what was happening. I've seen a bazillion football games and I still don't understand all the rules for that game! I think that's why hockey appeals to so many people - it's pretty easy to follow and has lots of action. As for the use of enforcers and fighting ... it's a lot like the older, bigger brother looking out for his younger sibling to ensure the school bullies don't pick on him. Watching the fights was one of the best parts of the game. And this, from someone who can't stand boxing! They're padded up pretty well, so it's almost like a friendly little scuffle; they're not really looking to hurt the other guy, just get in his face. As opposed to say if two basketball players starting wailing on each other - then you know they're really pissed. But alas, now that I live Down Under, there's no ice hockey to be found.
posted by andrea at 08:09 PM on January 31, 2002
Here's the reality about fights and cheap shots(I played 7 years of youth hockey, and all through high school).Cheap shots injure people. Seriously. Players can get checked from behind and suffer serious spinal injuries. Marty McSorley seriously injured Brashear last year. These cheap shots are freely given because for one thing, the referees rarely catch all of them, even when there are two refs. (when you play the game you learn quite a few underhanded tricks) And even for the especially blatant ones, the penalty is usually only two minutes, and, more often than not, the player retaliating for the cheap shot goes to the box if anyone at all. When enforcers fight, it is usually to send a message: "You will not intimidate our injure our star player without threat of reprisal." This usually works, and it explains how Wayne Gretzky was able to stay in hockey for 20 years without any really serious injuries, there was always an enforcer looking out for him. Further, the fighting itself is usually one on one and measured, a few punches are thrown, and at worst the guys get a few cuts and bruises, as opposed to cheap shots where all sort of bones can be broken (remember when Hatcher broke Roenick's jaw with an elbow last season?). After the fight, the players are sent to the box, and things return to normal because tensions have eased. When there is no fighting to 'take care of business', reprisals come in the form of escalating cheap shots, and this is exactly what happens in NCAA hockey and youth hockey. I'm not advocating the kind of bench clearing brawls and senseless violence propogated by hot heads like Theo Fleury, mind you, but enforcing and light fighting are hockey traditions, and if anything makes a game great, it's tradition.
posted by insomnyuk at 09:39 PM on January 31, 2002
Confession: I know nothing about hockey, the only time I ever watched hockey was with that cool FoxTrax puck - otherwise, I have no idea what's going on. I didn't even watch when the Florida Panthers were in the championships, maybe 30 miles from my home at the time. Without looking it up, I couldn't tell you who the hell won the Stanley Cup last year. But Wayne Gretzky was kinda cool in that ProStars cartoon with MJ and Bo Jackson. :) I think you have to grow up with it. Neither I nor my friends grew up with hockey, and none of us are into it. [i did enjoy the old NES Ice Hockey game though]
posted by owillis at 10:33 PM on January 31, 2002
After five minutes of overtime, shootout. Why not brign the excitement of the Olympics into the NHL? Because, above and beyond, hockey is a team game. Having the game decided (and often, important semi-final/gold medal games) by one forward and one goalie doesn't prove what team is the better team. It might prove who has a better goalie, or who has a better breakaway shooter - but not the team. I'm looking forward to the Olympics because that will be as good a showcase for the game as anything... but I am really dreading the inevitable shoot-outs. Being a Canadian, I've had my heart broken many times by a shot hitting the post, or a lucky save, or an awkward goal. I'd much rather see my team lose handsomly (say, 5-0) than to see them lose in a shootout.
posted by mkn at 01:24 AM on February 01, 2002
i did enjoy the old NES Ice Hockey game though. C'mon, EA Sports NHL Hockey in the mid 90s. It doesn't get any better. Jeremy Roenick ruled in that game. Was it me, or did every group of guys think Swingers was about them?
posted by jacknose at 06:51 AM on February 01, 2002
[...the reason no one watches the NHL All-Star game in specific is because it makes even more of a mockery of the game than most all-star games. ] You nailed it there! I pay over $100 a year to get the CenterIce package on my dish and couldn't stomach the all-star game if you payed me $100 to watch it. [I have seen more than one game absolutely ruined because of inconsistent calls in the same game.] Play calling consistency was at an all time low for the first 30 games this year. Of course, officiating in the NHL has been more of an art-form than a science for the past few years. (No goal!) P.S. IMHO Barry Melrose is the best damn hockey commentator in the business.
posted by revbrian at 06:52 AM on February 01, 2002
I didn't grow up with hockey, but I learned to love it. In fact it was EA's NHL 93/94 that did it. After playing a great deal of it, I watched some hockey games and realized: hey! I know all the rules! I know all the players' names! I've been following rabidly since then.
posted by D at 12:24 PM on February 01, 2002
P.S. IMHO Barry Melrose is the best damn hockey commentator in the business. Not by a donut hole. John Buccigras. When Jagr came to training camp with his mullet cut, he was the first to say: "There's nothing like a shorn Jagr, it's breathtaking, really..." And who can forget him saying "surfing the net...double-u double-u double-u third goal of the game dot com" and stuff like "Yzerman drops the chalupa to Fedorov who scores Twisted Wrister!!! It might prove who has a better goalie, or who has a better breakaway shooter - but not the team. I agree, to an extent. There was an article on this on CNNSI.com recently, and when this point was made, the response: tough. Hey, I remember Shanahan choking on that breakaway to his (now teammate) Hasek, but what other way to settle a gawd-awful tie? Besides, it isn't just one person doing the breakaway, it is five. Sure, it may decide a game through breakaway skill and goalie skill, which is not the extent of the game, but it is a) exciting and b) a way to settle a tie. Unless you like ties... Confession: I know nothing about hockey, the only time I ever watched hockey was with that cool FoxTrax puck - otherwise, May the inventor of that FuxTrax puck rot in hell for all eternity. Seriously, what you said is why I started this thread: why the hell does no one watch??? [i did enjoy the old NES Ice Hockey game though] Aaaaahhhh what a great game. I liked to have two fat guys, a medium guy, and a skinny guy. But, if you knew the cheat code, you could take away the goalies, and make it so the puck never "stops"...the "never ending slide," so that when you shoot it, it bangs around until it scores or hits a player...the big guys are great for those games because they have the most shooting power.
posted by adampsyche at 12:43 PM on February 01, 2002
I still say hockey is my primary interest in HDTV. 16 x 9, higher resolution, bring it! Also, I notice that a lot of people really get into Olympic hockey. The last two Winter Olympics have had what seemed to me to be an increasing amount of hockey coverage, and I don't think they are doing that for anything other than ratings, ergo, people watch Olympic hockey. Now, other than nationalism, what is the difference in the play or the coverage that causes people to watch Olympic hockey, but not NHL hockey? I enjoy the level of play, as it seems there is less shenanigans, and more hockey, and the game is played both ways. Nothing like watching a lazy, looping center finally backcheck for once in his life.
posted by dglynn at 12:26 PM on February 02, 2002
I love hockey, and it's my favorite sport to play, by far. It's fairly fun to watch as well. Football is more fun to watch, however, because there are fewer games, it's made out to be a big event, and the media hype and production values are greater. Hockey games are a dime a dozen, it seems. That and the fights are gone. I like this quote: “If a player wants to hack somebody, he should have to stand up for himself on the ice,” Melrose adds. “But now you’ve got these little cowards who resort to stick work because there are no repercussions.” I completely agree with Barry Melrose. Penalties take a lot of the drama out of the game by preventing fights. Also, only really gutsy players would instigate fights back in the day by being obnoxious, or with cheap shots. (ala Tiger Williams, or Bobby Clarke) If you were cheap, you were asking to be pounded. (Talk about self policing). The number of games is an issue, plus the fact that televised games can be very boring to watch. Often there are only two primary angles used, and always at a distance. You can barely see the players faces, and goals don't look too meaningful. More in game close ups and more angles would be good too. Nice post. In conclusion, to see what's right with hockey, check out one of Don Cherry's many Rock Em Sock Em videos to see the best of hockey.