congratulatons to team canada hockey mens gold medal win
- Thread starter spaminator
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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. ;-)
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 was really referring to the loutish, boorish behaviour of the female team, YJ. There was nothing comparable on the part of the male team.
"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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.