congratulatons to team canada hockey mens gold medal win


spaminator
#1
if the world ends on december 21st, 2012, at least we go out on top.
 
SirJosephPorter
#2
There was no boorish, loutish behaviour on the part of the players, I see.
 
TenPenny
#3
I think one of the nicest things about Olympic hockey is that it was hockey, not thuggery and cheap shots.

140 players at the Olympics were NHL players. Think of how good NHL hockey could be, if the idiots/thugs/goons were left out.
 
talloola
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I think one of the nicest things about Olympic hockey is that it was hockey, not thuggery and cheap shots.

140 players at the Olympics were NHL players. Think of how good NHL hockey could be, if the idiots/thugs/goons were left out.

they don't actually have idiots, thugs and goons any more,
but they do have the NHL, who condone and welcome fights,
so they happen, it would be so simple to ban fighting, then
we would see hockey just like we see in the playoffs, and
in the olympics.

those players who fight, usually agree with each other to
start a fight, as the teams seem to think they need it,
but those players 'now mostly' can play the game,
not like the players years ago who could 'only' fight,
and do nothing else, just a handfull of those left.

The NHL only think of the bottom line, and spout that
the game needs the fighting, but they just want the 'gate'
money from people who come to 'see' the fights.

And, when one listens to sports talk radio, the callers,
usually all male, who do call in, want the fights to
stay, they think it would be boring without it, and wussy.
And, that is a pity.
 
AnnaG
#5
Why is this in "Christian Discussion"?
 
El Barto
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

Why is this in "Christian Discussion"?

hahaha i was going to ask the same thing
 
Mowich
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I think one of the nicest things about Olympic hockey is that it was hockey, not thuggery and cheap shots.

140 players at the Olympics were NHL players. Think of how good NHL hockey could be, if the idiots/thugs/goons were left out.

Wouldn't that be wonderful, TenPenny. If they were to do that I would begin to watch the hockey games again. So refreshing to see these talented men skate well and behave.
 
YukonJack
#8
"There was no boorish, loutish behaviour on the part of the players, I see."

"I think one of the nicest things about Olympic hockey is that it was hockey, not thuggery and cheap shots.

140 players at the Olympics were NHL players. Think of how good NHL hockey could be, if the idiots/thugs/goons were left out."

The above two quotes are by two people that usually disagree with me, reason or no reason, just because they consider disagreeing with me a testimony of their mental superiority.

However, the two quotes echo EXACTLY my sentiments about hockey.

In my opinion, we could have that excellent hockey that we used to see before the 1967 expansion, saw in 1972 and still see in international competitions, if the NHL came to its senses and reduce the number of teams to a reasonable level.

And if it eliminated the insane idiocy of shoot-outs.
 
Mowich
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

they don't actually have idiots, thugs and goons any more,
but they do have the NHL, who condone and welcome fights,
so they happen, it would be so simple to ban fighting, then
we would see hockey just like we see in the playoffs, and
in the olympics.

those players who fight, usually agree with each other to
start a fight, as the teams seem to think they need it,
but those players 'now mostly' can play the game,
not like the players years ago who could 'only' fight,
and do nothing else, just a handfull of those left.


The NHL only think of the bottom line, and spout that
the game needs the fighting, but they just want the 'gate'
money from people who come to 'see' the fights.

And, when one listens to sports talk radio, the callers,
usually all male, who do call in, want the fights to
stay, they think it would be boring without it, and wussy.
And, that is a pity.

Well said, talloola.

So let me get this straight. The NHL is simply catering to 'people who come to 'see' the fights' , right? What does that say about the overall caliber of people watching hockey? Are there really that many people paying to see well-paid talented players bust it up on the ice - something they could just as easily see if they watched wrestling, which they undoubtedly do?

What a waste of talent and time.

There is an entirely different audience out here just waiting for the day when hockey finally cleans up their act. Mind you, we aren't holding our breath.

But then, that's just my non-christian opinion.
 
Mowich
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

"There was no boorish, loutish behaviour on the part of the players, I see."

"I think one of the nicest things about Olympic hockey is that it was hockey, not thuggery and cheap shots.

140 players at the Olympics were NHL players. Think of how good NHL hockey could be, if the idiots/thugs/goons were left out."

The above two quotes are by two people that usually disagree with me, reason or no reason, just because they consider disagreeing with me a testimony of their mental superiority.

However, the two quotes echo EXACTLY my sentiments about hockey.

In my opinion, we could have that excellent hockey that we used to see before the 1967 expansion, saw in 1972 and still see in international competitions, if the NHL came to its senses and reduce the number of teams to a reasonable level.

And if it eliminated the insane idiocy of shoot-outs.

Okay, YJ. Why would a reduction in the number of teams and eliminating shoot-outs make a difference? I don't know much about hockey and am simply asking a question as I really am interested.
 
SirJosephPorter
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

"There was no boorish, loutish behaviour on the part of the players, I see."



However, the two quotes echo EXACTLY my sentiments about hockey.

In my opinion, we could have that excellent hockey that we used to see before the 1967 expansion, saw in 1972 and still see in international competitions, if the NHL came to its senses and reduce the number of teams to a reasonable level.

And if it eliminated the insane idiocy of shoot-outs.

I was really referring to the loutish, boorish behaviour of the female team, YJ. There was nothing comparable on the part of the male team.
 
YukonJack
#12
"Okay, YJ. Why would a reduction in the number of teams and eliminating shoot-outs make a difference? I don't know much about hockey and am simply asking a question as I really am interested."

If the NHL reduced the number of teams to a reasonable level, it would get rid of the louts, the goons, the fisticuffers, the no-talent space-fillers, the hangers-on and the remainder of the teams would be filled with talented gentlemen who need the eliminated scum like a fish needs a bicycle.

As far as shoot-outs, the game of hockey is a TEAM sport. Placing one shooter from one team against one goalie from the other team, while the rest of their team members are sitting on their a**es, is a total renounciation of the idea of team sport and can only be supported by people with mental deficiency.
 
Risus
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

I was really referring to the loutish, boorish behaviour of the female team, YJ. There was nothing comparable on the part of the male team.

Are you still harping about that non issue????
 
SirJosephPorter
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by RisusView Post

Are you still harping about that non issue????

It is not a non issue, Risus, it is a dead and buried issue. The players apologized for their wrong doing and it is over. But there is nothing wrong with referring to it.
 
talloola
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by MowichView Post

Well said, talloola.

So let me get this straight. The NHL is simply catering to 'people who come to 'see' the fights' , right? What does that say about the overall caliber of people watching hockey? Are there really that many people paying to see well-paid talented players bust it up on the ice - something they could just as easily see if they watched wrestling, which they undoubtedly do?

What a waste of talent and time.

There is an entirely different audience out here just waiting for the day when hockey finally cleans up their act. Mind you, we aren't holding our breath.

But then, that's just my non-christian opinion.

Yes, it would be interesting to know, just how many new
fans would come out to games, if they knew there would be
no fighting, compared to how many would 'not' come to games
if there were 'no' fights.

I wonder also, if there would be a connection to the fans
who want to see fights, and the fans who drink too much
at games, and become irritating and boorish and stupid.

If they got rid of fights, maybe they would get rid of the
drinkers too, BUT you see that wouldn't work, because the
buildings want the drinkers, brings in more profit.

And, also maybe a few of the teams that are not so talented,
do offer some excitement for people who know, that although
their team doesn't play very well, they are good fighters,
and they will show up to watch the fights and drink beer.
It just turns out to be a meeting place for the guys, to
drink and holler and shout, and get all hyper when the
players fight, hence more profit for 'building'.

It is all about profit, and nothing else.
 
Ron in Regina
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

Why is this in "Christian Discussion"?



Yeah...weird...moved the Thread just now.
 
talloola
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MowichView Post

Okay, YJ. Why would a reduction in the number of teams and eliminating shoot-outs make a difference? I don't know much about hockey and am simply asking a question as I really am interested.

I know the question wasn't asked to me, but here goes anyway.
There are many young kids playing hockey, and now there
are enough teams for the best of the best to have a team
to play on. Many years ago, the preparation of kids to
play at the NHL level was not there, the NHL was not as
good, just like everything, hockey has become better and
better, coaching is better, equipment is better, etc etc.
With the exception of the cities in the u.s. where the
fans couldn't care less about hockey, it is bigger and
better than ever before, they just need to juggle some
of the teams and move them to cities who will support
the game, by filling the buildings.
There is mixed opinion on shoot outs, but every game where
I watch a shoot out, the whole building is excited, as
well as all players on the benches. I have learned to
quite enjoy shoot outs, I find them exciting.
Maybe they could think about adjusting the point system,
so that, when a team actually wins in regulation time,
they will have one more point than a team who win in
either overtime or a shoot out.
Maybe 3 points for an outright win
1 point each for tie at end of regulation, and 1 more point for winner of game in overtime, or shootout.
 
Mowich
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

Yes, it would be interesting to know, just how many new
fans would come out to games, if they knew there would be
no fighting, compared to how many would 'not' come to games
if there were 'no' fights.

I wonder also, if there would be a connection to the fans
who want to see fights, and the fans who drink too much
at games, and become irritating and boorish and stupid.

If they got rid of fights, maybe they would get rid of the
drinkers too, BUT you see that wouldn't work, because the
buildings want the drinkers, brings in more profit.

And, also maybe a few of the teams that are not so talented,
do offer some excitement for people who know, that although
their team doesn't play very well, they are good fighters,
and they will show up to watch the fights and drink beer.
It just turns out to be a meeting place for the guys, to
drink and holler and shout, and get all hyper when the
players fight, hence more profit for 'building'.

It is all about profit, and nothing else.

I don't think it is a great leap of faith to tie over-drinking in with the people who demand fighting in hockey, at all, talloola. I think you are bang-on.

YK may just have a point about cutting some of the teams.
 
Mowich
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

"Okay, YJ. Why would a reduction in the number of teams and eliminating shoot-outs make a difference? I don't know much about hockey and am simply asking a question as I really am interested."

If the NHL reduced the number of teams to a reasonable level, it would get rid of the louts, the goons, the fisticuffers, the no-talent space-fillers, the hangers-on and the remainder of the teams would be filled with talented gentlemen who need the eliminated scum like a fish needs a bicycle.

As far as shoot-outs, the game of hockey is a TEAM sport. Placing one shooter from one team against one goalie from the other team, while the rest of their team members are sitting on their a**es, is a total renounciation of the idea of team sport and can only be supported by people with mental deficiency.

Now that all makes perfect sense to me, YK. Thanks for answering the questions. Got another for you. Why don't they cut down the number of teams and eliminate the shoot-outs? From the little I do hear about the state of hockey, many teams are having a hard time making ends meet at the box office. One would think it a no-brainer to reduce the numbers.
 
Mowich
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

I know the question wasn't asked to me, but here goes anyway.
There are many young kids playing hockey, and now there
are enough teams for the best of the best to have a team
to play on. Many years ago, the preparation of kids to
play at the NHL level was not there, the NHL was not as
good, just like everything, hockey has become better and
better, coaching is better, equipment is better, etc etc.
With the exception of the cities in the u.s. where the
fans couldn't care less about hockey, it is bigger and
better than ever before, they just need to juggle some
of the teams and move them to cities who will support
the game, by filling the buildings.
There is mixed opinion on shoot outs, but every game where
I watch a shoot out, the whole building is excited, as
well as all players on the benches. I have learned to
quite enjoy shoot outs, I find them exciting.
Maybe they could think about adjusting the point system,
so that, when a team actually wins in regulation time,
they will have one more point than a team who win in
either overtime or a shoot out.
Maybe 3 points for an outright win
1 point each for tie at end of regulation, and 1 more point for winner of game in overtime, or shootout.

So the league expanded to make way for all these talented youngsters? Did not know that, talloola.

My neighbors are die-hard hockey fans and both loathe the shoot-out for the reasons stated by YJ. Never having seen one live, I cannot comment on their appeal personally.
 
Kreskin
#21
The only people who drink too much at games these days are ones who leave a trail of cash falling out of their pockets. True fighting drunks don't have that kind of money.
 
talloola
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by MowichView Post

So the league expanded to make way for all these talented youngsters? Did not know that, talloola.

My neighbors are die-hard hockey fans and both loathe the shoot-out for the reasons stated by YJ. Never having seen one live, I cannot comment on their appeal personally.

The leage expanded, allowing more talented players to make
their way into the NHL, but didn't expand because of them,
it expanded because more and more owners wanted a piece of
the action.
 
talloola
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

The only people who drink too much at games these days are ones who leave a trail of cash falling out of their pockets. True fighting drunks don't have that kind of money.

hoards of young guys go to games in small groups, friends
gathering to have a good time, many of them drink too much,
talk too loud, spill beer on people, and generally make
asses of themselves, they are not necessarily drunks at all.

Drunks don't even go to games.
 
talloola
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MowichView Post

Now that all makes perfect sense to me, YK. Thanks for answering the questions. Got another for you. Why don't they cut down the number of teams and eliminate the shoot-outs? From the little I do hear about the state of hockey, many teams are having a hard time making ends meet at the box office. One would think it a no-brainer to reduce the numbers.

that's where gary bettman comes into the picture, he is the
NHL commissioner, and wants to expand the NHL all over the
u.s., has made quite a few blunders, as there are teams
now losing millions each year, those teams don't have to
be cancelled, just moved to cities who do want teams, and
will fill up the buildings.
There are lots of players, enough for existing teams, and
the league is not watered down at all, talent wise. The
hockey is better now than it ever was.
 
Bar Sinister
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I think one of the nicest things about Olympic hockey is that it was hockey, not thuggery and cheap shots.

140 players at the Olympics were NHL players. Think of how good NHL hockey could be, if the idiots/thugs/goons were left out.


I'm with you 100%. I have suffered through decades of Don Cherry type hockey and I am more than ready to have fighting tossed out of the game. - literally.
 
Kreskin
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

hoards of young guys go to games in small groups, friends
gathering to have a good time, many of them drink too much,
talk too loud, spill beer on people, and generally make
asses of themselves, they are not necessarily drunks at all.

Drunks don't even go to games.

The last time I went to GM place it was full of BMW-driving guys trying to impress their girlfriends. Not much drinking at all. The crowds are nothing like they used to be, from what I saw.
 
talloola
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

The last time I went to GM place it was full of BMW-driving guys trying to impress their girlfriends. Not much drinking at all. The crowds are nothing like they used to be, from what I saw.

Yeah, I've heard that GM place is very corporate,
but the very few times I was there, the beer drinkers
were there, you can hear them by the second period, but
you are right, not many.
The low cost of tickets to many u.s. games, must bring in the
party types, 4 tickets, 4 meals, $99.00, was an ad tonight on one
of those games.
 
Johnnny
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

Yeah, I've heard that GM place is very corporate,
but the very few times I was there, the beer drinkers
were there, you can hear them by the second period, but
you are right, not many.

The low cost of tickets to many u.s. games, must bring in the
party types, 4 tickets, 4 meals, $99.00, was an ad tonight on one
of those games.


ive been on the big screen at the GM place with beers in both hands, wearing a luongo jersey going insane ... emphasis on the insane cause they put me back up there that night a few more times
 
Mowich
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

The only people who drink too much at games these days are ones who leave a trail of cash falling out of their pockets. True fighting drunks don't have that kind of money.

Uh, Kreskin, we were referring to the fighting on the ice, not in the stands.
 
Mowich
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

The leage expanded, allowing more talented players to make
their way into the NHL, but didn't expand because of them,
it expanded because more and more owners wanted a piece of
the action.

Ah, gotcha, talloola, thanks.
 

Similar Threads

0
Canada to go for world hockey gold
by CBC News | May 12th, 2007
0
Team Canada wins second straight gold medal
by Vincent_2002 | May 10th, 2004
no new posts