I'm from LA and don't know much about either but I pick Hockey. Somebody told me our team did pretty good last year.
Printable View
I'm from LA and don't know much about either but I pick Hockey. Somebody told me our team did pretty good last year.
The LA Kings were the best team in hockey last year and won the cup. And they almost went undefeated in the playoffs. Anyways not a fan of both really but our Chicago Blackhawks won it all a few years ago so I started following it a bit.
Hockey is more fun in my opinion, at least in america. I imagine if I grew up on any other continent I might think differently but Europe has some great hockey too
Rugby League.
Soccer, hand down.
What are you doing with the other hand?:jerkoffQuote:
Originally Posted by loren
At least in hockey you punch someone in the face and still not get tossed out of game. :rock2:
With all due respect to those "football" lovers on the otherside....soccer bores most Americans to tears. It will never be widely popular here. ( I can hear the purists now telling us we don't understand the game)...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
Playoff hockey is the fastest paced toughest physically most demanding sport there is. At it's best....there is no better sport to see in person. Go see the Kings Dino! The last guy you wanna piss of in a bar is a hockey player.
I used to go when they had Gretzky and Simmer. Went to a few playoff games too. Been awhile but it sure was fun in person. Haven't seen The Kings at Staples yet but I will eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
OMKs, you're a diehard Ranger fan, right? The tenant in my guest house is a Devils fan and my casualness really bothered him about The Stanley Cup. "Oh, we won. That's nice. Pass those chips."
Yes...The Broadway Blues for sure. Fuck the Devils...may they go the way of the Jersey Shore, but I give the Devil his due...they played well until the finals ! lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
I chose hockey; faster-paced and more action.
HOWEVER...both the Kings AND the Galazy both won the championship...
I was more happy than I pretended to my tenant. Just being a California prick to him acting like I didn't care.:party:Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
It's about class: 'soccer' is a working class sport, whereas hockey is/was one of the field games played by the upper classes at their expensive, fee-paying schools, same for both male and female players. In the school I went to in the UK I never saw a hockey stick or knew anything about it, and it was never on tv, it was just something posh kids played.
Just for the lollzQuote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
Meanwhile, the rest of the World, or, the other side, as North Americans like to call it, have no doubts that you do understand the game, you just don't have a 90 minute attention span. :shrug
Have you been on the Ouzo again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I think they're talking about that girls game, Ice Hockey.
Yea put a football player (soccer for North Americans) in hockey equipment and on the ice & the minute a REAL hockey player skates by said footballer/soccer player and he feels a breeze the footballer/soccer player will be on the ice clutching a body part writhing in mock pain. Now put a hockey player in cleats and shin pads/guards on the "pitch" and see him get red carded & tossed out for being "too aggressive". Hockey players would "destroy" any footballer/soccer player. No footballer/soccer player has the physical endurance to match a hockey player's. The reason football/soccer is a "world" sport is because even the poorest of the poor can play it because the only equipment you need is something round that even remotely resembles a soccer ball to kick around. Now compare trying to put a roughly 22 cm (8.65 inches) in diameter for a regulation size 5 ball into an 8' high X 24' wide goal versus 1" thick X 3" diameter puck into 4' X 6' goal (while skating & with a hockey stick). It doesn't take a genius to figure out which sport requires more "skill". Pfffffffftttttttt.........Jericho.......get a fuckin' clue! :loser:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
Willie.......you ALWAYS have the BEST avatars!:Bowdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Escalade
I enjoy watching both sports but hey why compare like with like?
Most probably true because ...Quote:
....soccer bores most Americans to tears. It will never be widely popular here.
... or rather you don't have more than a few seconds of attention span enough to last a down ( the commercial advertising opportunity between game plays). I was once informed by an American colleague that compared to American Football '... in soccer the game doesn't flow because the ref's always blowing the whistle and they just kick the ball from end to end'. Duh?Quote:
...you just don't have a 90 minute attention span.
American football is just a chance to stuff your face with corn dogs, burgers, southern-fried chicken bits, lizzards and gizzards and mega-maxxed up Coke whilst chit-chatting to your boyfriends. The game's totally incidental.
On to Hockey - like Comrade Stavros I was playing my school sports back in the days of the Cold War although I'm sorry to say I went to a non-fee paying school open to all where I did play Hockey and my ankles knew what a hockey stick felt like!
Let's face it Ice Hockey is an amalgam of a fast-paced skillful end-to-end demonstration of skating prowess and the sport of brawling which is positively encouraged for the Colisseum audience - just another evoloutionary step towards Rollerball.
.. apart from the sedentary dullard they park in front of the goal posts you don't see many hockey players staying on the ice for the duration do you? Unless substituted, red-carded or injured soccer players do it for the full 90+ minutes. No stamina those hockey boys... dry your eyes :dancing:
Results reflect the huge American bias here. How could anyone pick hockey over soccer. it defies any known law of logic.
And as for your version of football compared to soccer... its like comparing a thundering stampede by rhinos with a finely choreographed ballet.
Must have been a good school! Mind you the one I went to was paticularly bad, I recall one afternoon when my sole experience of sport was being shown how to throw the Javelin -once. I volunteered to run the mile with three other lads, and realised something was going wrong when they lapped me before I finished a circuit of the white lines marked out by tape on the grass. We played football in winter and cricket in summer and that was it. We had one set of wickets and bails, two cricket bats, a pair of wicket keeper's gloves, and one pad. After a few sessions of swimming at the public pool, I developed a double whammy of athletes foot and varoocas. My feet smelled like old cheese for years afterwards. They couldn't wait to get rid of us and most left at 15 for apprenticeships. I hung on for another grim year while ex-policemen from Colonial Rhodesia explained why we needed to support the Americans in Vietnam or took a sadistic delight in clipping the ears of the class Jew. The Revolution is over.Quote:
Originally Posted by rodinuk
Just out of interest, this is field hockey that is under discussion? I always assume that 'Hockey' is the field game, otherwise Ice Hockey must always be called Ice Hockey. Whatever it is I know nothing about it, other than that Canadians are good at it. They must be good at something with all those forests, lakes and mountains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulka_bewitched_me
Golf clap.....Yes, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, you keep telling yourself that!
Can't edit my last post, so....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulka_bewitched_me
Real easy to barge into each other and start chucking punches when you're wearing all that padding. Go on without it, the rest of the world might start believing it.
Pfffffffftttttttt.........Hoser.......get a fuckin' clue! :loser:
I assume the Poll question relates to Ice Hockey which is colloquially referred to as hockey by American/Canadian folk. Ice Hockey is also played rather well by Scandinavian and former Eastern Bloc countries whose players are present in the US/Canadian teams akin to the way we import players from anywhere else these days. (Watford FC now has 15 Udinese players apparently!)
And yes it was a good school Stavros mind you in those days hockey was more of a game associated with the female gender at school and I think the success of the Men's British Olympic squad in securing a gold medal changed the perception of the sport to an extent.
The playing field at school resembled the kind of terrain more suited to testing the Mars Lunar Rover than athletics. As well as your seasonal depiction of appropriate sports with 'one-size fits all equipment' we were subjected to rounders, softball and cross-country through some particulary pungent sprout fields when it was pissing down with rain.
The public pool was closed because it had a pre-alumina stressed concrete roof and by the time it was repaired we were being honed for academic examinations to the exclusion of all else.
Hockey without a doubt. I fail to see the excitement in a game that may only have one goal scored by both teams combined. Hockey is the fastest team sport on a smaller stage that allows for much more excitement.
North America seems to miss the finesse of football (soccer that is). Oh well....
Ah those were the days! The provision of lessons in sport, like music, should not be a hit and miss affair, but I fear that they are, even though students are supposed to do it. I can only hope it has improved since I was in school. I never heard of softball, but I do now recall cross country running, which in our case was cross-urban. We had one qualified PE teacher, the rest who 'mucked in' were either the teachers who played golf with him, or the music teacher who liked rubbing soothing oil on the thighs of a boy who, luckily, could run fast. Said teacher showed no interest in the two gay lads in our class, both of whom had letters from their mums exempting them from swimming. They both had a hard time -one of the gay lads was also the Jew repeatedly picked on by the 'Civics' teacher, a nasty ex-policeman from Rhodesia. Yet I met the other gay lad by chance years later and he was with his boyfriend and I had never seen him look so happy. He probably even swims now too.Quote:
Originally Posted by rodinuk
What, did you have to Google to find an appropriate insult lol? Hmmmm hoser hasn't been used by any Canadian um like since 1983! Maybe we're showing our age Jericho? Anyways.......ANYONE can play soccer while a "select few" can play hockey. THAT is the difference in the "skill" department. Like I said, just brush against a footballer/soccer player and they're on the ground writhing in agony. As for fighting in hockey you are obviously uneducated on the sport as you have fallen into the typical trap of stereotyping the sport for that and that alone. I've played both sports and can tell you at the speed that hockey takes place as opposed to football/soccer you'd be a complete imbecile to even attempt to play hockey without padding (unless you want to end up in a hospital for a few months). You can get away without padding on the pitch because the pace is as slow as watching paint dry. Are there some magnificent plays in football/soccer? Absolutely, but nowhere near as many in 90 minutes as opposed to 60 minutes if you were to average it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
The only finesse I've seen (lately) has been that of the Spanish National Team in the World and Euro Cups respectfully. MOST football is insipid and tedious in it's execution & delivery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Soccer played on an open pitch (345x222 feet) with 11 players (+ 6 subs ) who apart from injury/substitution/red-carding will stay the course of two 45+ minute halves with a 15 minute break for a typical game. A player's only protection is a pair of shin guards.
Ice Hockey played on bounded ice (200x85 feet) with 6 players rotated (on the fly sometimes) from a squad of 18-ish over three 20 minute periods. Players are protected by substantial padding.
Soccer players dont' 'get away without wearing padding' since they wear studded-boots and during tackles these can inflict injury on unprotected bodies at speed so blood injuries are common. A ball contested in the air can result in an elbow in the face causing a broken jawbone etc. granted some gamesmanship is involved in trying to win a free-kick from an advantageous position or a penalty. Broken legs are not uncommon and knee injuries too.
In Ice Hockey fighting is officially prohibited in the rules (so you think they'd have got a grip on that by now) but enjoyed by the crowd. In soccer we're more civilised and prefer to eliminate violence by penalising it.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Blanket statements seldom work, ask yourself why there's a lively transfer market in Soccer for example. I'll leave you to ponder.Quote:
ANYONE can play soccer while a "select few" can play hockey
Has anybody ever seen Slapshot? It's one of the best Hockey films ever The Hansons Play Dirty - Slap Shot (6/10) Movie CLIP (1977) HD - YouTube
Dude's gotta YouTube page of nothing but Hockey Fights. Looky. http://www.youtube.com/user/fchockeyfights
The Top Ten Hockey Knockouts of the Decade - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui1Lh...2&feature=plcp
The Broad Street Bullies - YouTube
1976 Broad Street Bullies vs The Red Army Bobby Clarke Interview - YouTube
Broad Street Bullies dirty play vs Red Army - YouTube
Bobby Clarke Breaks Valeri Kharlamov's Ankle - YouTube
Fighting in hockey IS prohibited BUT it is penalized as well so your statement "In soccer we're more civilised and prefer to eliminate violence by penalising it." is a mute point. Oh and although VERY rare I have seen all out brawls in soccer with both teams AND coaches/training staff getting involved. So get off your "high horse" about civility. There's a lively transfer market in soccer because you're referring to professional footballers but again anyone can hop onto a football pitch at the park and kick a ball around. The same can't be said about hockey. You have to learn how to skate not to mention skate AND use a hockey stick to stick handle the puck. WAY BIGGER LEARNING CURVE! Again I fail to understand why hockey players wearing padding is a bloody issue. The speed of the game requires it........not to mention have you ever been hit with a road hockey ball? If not a puck (vulcanized rubber) is 1000 times worse if you're hit by one and that's with padding on and it's significantly more painful/dangerous than an errant elbow or cleated foot and that's with protective body equipment, helmet and (more and more) a face shield. Those in the soccer/football camp seem to equate no padding = a more manly sport. As I said before you don't see the diving in excruciating pain as another hockey player skates by his opponent (barely touching him in the process) or the mock injuries that football/soccer players typically feign in hockey. Now tell me again which is the more civilized sport?Quote:
Originally Posted by rodinuk
Whoosh!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulka_bewitched_me
Indeed, hoser, I'm showing my age...And you're showing your lack thereof. :shrug
I'm thinking that last one was a bit subtle for you...So I'll go for the rim shot.
Said Sulka_bewitched_me! :hide-1:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulka_bewitched_me
:tongue:
Let's break it down into individual areas:
1 - Violence in the games
My impression was that considering the amount of officials on the ice they don't exactly rush over to break it up allowing players to get ready by dispensing with stick/removing gloves. Ok poor choice of phrase on my part then - would have been a better say that there seems to be little progressive regulatory movement to stamp it out. In recent years soccer has moved to make a two-legged diving tackle particularly from behind a foul that can result in broken legs/ankles can now mean instant dismissal from the game. Yes there is the occasional all-out brawl in soccer but as you say thankfully it is rare. However in both sports we'd all be naive to think that violence would be totally eliminated so yes it's a moot point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulka_bewitched_me
2 - Accessibility
Soccer is an easily accessible game - great isn't it? All you need is an area of flatt-ish ground plus a ball and something to demarcate the goals and you're away.
Ice hockey is clearly not an easily accessible game as you require an iced surface, specialised equipment in the form of helmets, skates, padding, sticks, goalnets (and an organ player :joke:). So you dont' see a lot of Brazilian hockey players I guess. Statistically speaking then there's a much smaller pool of players to choose from in hockey.
3 - Skill in the games
I'm not decrying the abilities of ice hockey players Acquiring the basic skills to play soccer may be simpler and quicker because of the easier accessibility but it still requires years of training and coaching plus natural talent. Just because anyone can access it doesn't mean they're any good at it.
4 - Protection
I never said this - I'm all for requisite body protection in contact sports.Quote:
Again I fail to understand why hockey players wearing padding is a bloody issue.
I have no idea of the mass or composition of a road hockey ball but I have suffered a regulation cricket ball hitting me at high velocity in the mouth so
I'm painfully aware of what it feels like to sustain such an impact.
I don't see what value there is in arguing that being hit by a puck into a padded body is 'significantly more painful/dangerous' than an action in soccer which results in a broken neck/leg/jaw or shredded testicles? To my mind it boils down to the fact that they're both dangerous sports which carry high-risk of injuries.
Apples and oranges and a pretty pointless debate. The aficionados of either sport will defend and advance their own as somehow being "better".
I've always been a soccer fan and played to a reasonably high amateur level in Scotland - right-side midfield - and still think of it as the beautiful game. It can achieve artistic flourishes that few other sports can.
Hockey generates an altogether different kind of excitement. When I lived in Germany I became a big fan of Cologne, with their mix of East Europeans, native Germans and second tier US and Canadian players. It's visceral, physical and very skilled, but it definitely has more of the Roman circus about it.
Agree to differ, then move on, chaps.
And I suspect Dino knew what he was starting.....
Smart man. I don't fight with anybody but I do start a little trouble admiring it from higher ground trying not to get any on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Is there any kind of Hockey played in Great Britain? I would imagine if you thought it was worth the effort that you guys could put together a decent team over time.
You could always try reading the threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
Field hockey, as you call it, is played in a lot of schools, and as Rodinuk has rightly stated, has gained a higher public profile because of GB success in the Olympics - both teams fared well in the London games, with the women taking a medal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
When it comes to ice hockey, I much prefer what we get in the Winter Olympics, when they're playing for national pride and not money, plus we get to see the US and Canada at each other's throats and every former soviet bloc country knocking lumps out of the Russians.
One of our biggest problems with ice hockey is the lack of suitable venues - dozens of ice rinks, even in major cities, have closed over the last fifty years. A lot of youngsters try to emulate by playing to ice hockey rules on inline skates. It's very popular at college level.
Gotcha. I was thinking you might have some small hockey clubs more than teams. Shame about the rinks. More for hobbyists than serious players at a beginning stage. We don't have California kids get into the NHL but Culver City has a great league for kids and teenagers to play and compete. Inline Hockey is popular here too.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis