|
Post by thisiswhere on Dec 12, 2006 14:30:06 GMT
Just recieved a newsletter from FHM by email. These emails are often full of links to other websites like youtube etc showing funny/weird/insightful videos etc. So as i scrolled down the email i found it very interesting to see a picture of the nhl there. However i then read the Caption with it which said
"Fighting on Ice! Does anyone actually watch Ice Hockey to see a few men run around with a puck and sticks or is the real entertainment in the fights?"
I know the sport is seen as nothing more than "fighting on ice" by most people and hence why its a minority sport as it seems most people never look at the sport as anything more than this. And i must admit i would of said the same myself 8 years ago before i became a fan and watched my first games.
I personally dont have a problem with fighting in the sport as such, its always been there and i think it always will be in some form or another. There are occasions when things get a bit over the top but thats life. However what annoys me is the fact that people dont even give the sport the time of day to look at some of the amazing things players can do i.e. montages i've seen lately of Ovechkin ripping teams apart, scoring goals on his back etc. Instead the only recognition it gets is as a fight club!
|
|
Higgy
Les Strongman
Posts: 5,293
|
Post by Higgy on Dec 12, 2006 14:40:18 GMT
Yeh i agree with you, fighting is part of the game and now and again is great but there is no way that it should be the soul way in which the sport is advertised, friends who i have brought to games just want to see the fights and go on about it the whole game, its so annoying!
The sport is still seen as a bit of a theatre in the UK and not serious, it wont sell to the majority of the UK simply beacuse of the american nature of it and the the team names which some see as stupid. I remember listening to a radio show about hockey in the UK and the presenter who wasnt a hockey fan thought that team names such as storm (it was a manchester show) were just stupid and non-traditional, he saw it as too american and just a nights entertainement not a serious sport!
The majority UK sports fans like traditonal team names and 'Britishness' in sports, hockey is just too american for most of them!
|
|
sharky
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 46
|
Post by sharky on Dec 12, 2006 15:04:21 GMT
A lot of these people make these comments without ever going to see a game, I think most of my friends that I've taken to games have really enjoyed it and want to go again!
People are entitled to their own opinion its just a shame they don't like to broaden their tastes by trying new games and make their mind up after seeing a game!
|
|
|
Post by kilner on Dec 12, 2006 15:06:36 GMT
I personally have discovered that quite a few people like the fighting part just because they can fight, not the reasons behind it if you know what i mean?
|
|
|
Post by quoththeraven on Dec 12, 2006 15:18:55 GMT
Yeh i agree with you, fighting is part of the game and now and again is great but there is no way that it should be the soul way in which the sport is advertised, friends who i have brought to games just want to see the fights and go on about it the whole game, its so annoying! The sport is still seen as a bit of a theatre in the UK and not serious, it wont sell to the majority of the UK simply beacuse of the american nature of it and the the team names which some see as stupid. I remember listening to a radio show about hockey in the UK and the presenter who wasnt a hockey fan thought that team names such as storm (it was a manchester show) were just stupid and non-traditional, he saw it as too american and just a nights entertainement not a serious sport! The majority UK sports fans like traditonal team names and 'Britishness' in sports, hockey is just too american for most of them! To flip it over though, I think football team names are odd - for example, how can Manchester be "United" when there are two teams that play there and an intense rivalry between their respective fans? I suppose a happy medium would come when the team's name relates to their home. Has anyone seen BASEketball, where we are told the backstory to the sport being invented. Because it's made by Matt Stone and Trey Parker it does go slightly OTT, but beneath that there is a serious point - a lot of sports teams have names that don't have any relevance to their home.
|
|
Rich
Paul Adey
Go hard or go home
Posts: 6,691
|
Post by Rich on Dec 12, 2006 15:27:14 GMT
To be honest theres a phrase "come for the hockey, stay for the fights". This is possibly true for some people but for new fans its the other way round. They come because it looks a good agressive sport with fighting, they THEN get into it and appreciate hockey.
Take your stereotypical non fan, watches goals on monday for his footy team then rugby comes on which he understands from the TV then this ice hockey comes on. Someone rambles on about dekes, breakaway goals and he thinks boring, get on with it. Then all of a sudden it shows some hits, some fights and then he sits up and sees the goals and takes intrest in whats happening.
Ice hockey a minority sport because of fighting? What a ridiculous statement, sorry but its the physical side of the game that attracts new fans a majority of the time and is what keeps new fans coming. Anyone who knows the game appreciates Ovechkins skill. I love the physical side to hockey but hes magical and a joy to watch. However show someone whos never been to a game a montage of his skill and then a hits or fights compilation and which do you think they will more attention to and which will make them want to go to a game?!
|
|
|
Post by spik on Dec 12, 2006 15:45:18 GMT
I watch football players rolling all over on the grass each week from tackles. Complaints of wrong calling re-offsides that effect a good percentage of their breakaways. But fans of football accept this. People should thus accept hockey and things they might not at first understand. Open mind.....But ......
I like to see less fighting although , agreed ,it's part of the game.It is less so now with low-tolerance in place and both fight fans and those against, I think, are happy?
|
|
Higgy
Les Strongman
Posts: 5,293
|
Post by Higgy on Dec 12, 2006 16:28:21 GMT
Yeh i agree with you, fighting is part of the game and now and again is great but there is no way that it should be the soul way in which the sport is advertised, friends who i have brought to games just want to see the fights and go on about it the whole game, its so annoying! The sport is still seen as a bit of a theatre in the UK and not serious, it wont sell to the majority of the UK simply beacuse of the american nature of it and the the team names which some see as stupid. I remember listening to a radio show about hockey in the UK and the presenter who wasnt a hockey fan thought that team names such as storm (it was a manchester show) were just stupid and non-traditional, he saw it as too american and just a nights entertainement not a serious sport! The majority UK sports fans like traditonal team names and 'Britishness' in sports, hockey is just too american for most of them! To flip it over though, I think football team names are odd - for example, how can Manchester be "United" when there are two teams that play there and an intense rivalry between their respective fans? I suppose a happy medium would come when the team's name relates to their home. Has anyone seen BASEketball, where we are told the backstory to the sport being invented. Because it's made by Matt Stone and Trey Parker it does go slightly OTT, but beneath that there is a serious point - a lot of sports teams have names that don't have any relevance to their home. What i meant by that was that in traditional British sports, Football etc its the norm to have names like united or city or rovers after a team name, names like panthers, storm, steelers etc are pretty much alien to British sports, less so now as other teams (Rugby League Super League) for example have taken on animal names to try and gain a younger audience.....however it has a long way to go to convince everyone
|
|
matt44
David Clarke
Posts: 3,085
|
Post by matt44 on Dec 12, 2006 16:35:51 GMT
I think fighting is a great part of the game and is what gives it alot of appeal and a uniqueness. Alot of people I speak to think its all about the fighting and I tell them it isnt and a fight per 3-4 games is usual. Unless you are a VIPAZZZ fan or if you are trying to get bums on seats by signing a knuckledragger to go around fight everyone (Sheffield). I am generally disappointed if there isnt a fight but if its been a good skillfull game I generally dont mind. But would I fork out for a season ticket if there was no fighting? Probably not
|
|
|
Post by thisiswhere on Dec 12, 2006 16:47:57 GMT
Sorry Rich i didnt mean it to come across like i was saying its a minority sport purely because of fighting. What i meant is that the physical side of the sport is great, which no one can deny and is probably the reason many of us got into the sport. My point was that many people won't even give the sport a chance because of the reputation the sport has due to fighting. For instance me and some friends went skating a while back, they've always slated hockey claiming its "ice dancing" or"fighting with lots of padding" and whatever else they could think of to call it. Anyhoo after trying to skate, and failing miserably, they began to appreciate a little more that its not nearly as easy as kicking a football around. So after this i managed to persuade them to come and watch a match and a couple of them really enjoyed it and still make the odd appearance at games. But to many people see press coverage of the sport like the case with FHM and can be driven away by it. I admit it does attract some fans, but also has the opposite effect.
Also, look at the NHL ad's on NASN, (not the one's made by nasn, the american ad's made by the league itself), they always seem to end with a small montage showing some of the skill side but also the physical side (no fights though). If the sport could be portrayed like this more often, showing a combination of physical and skill aspects then the sport may gather a better reputation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2006 17:36:12 GMT
There is a school of thought (see Home Game, great book by Ken Dryden, ex-Montreal goalie) that fighting is essential as a safety valve given the unique nature of a sport where players skate around at high speed in a confined space banging into eachother, which really cranks up the adrenaline. That combined with the fact players have potential offensive weapons in their hands and on their feet.
I think it has been ok this season. We've not had fights week in week out, but when we have it's been really 'ritualised', i.e. Shmyr seems to quietly arrange when he's going to go, the combatants drop the gloves and helmets and circle for a bit while everyone starts cheering, then away they go. Is there anyone on this forum who didn't get a rush when he went with Clouthier here in Nottingham?
|
|
|
Post by heja on Dec 12, 2006 18:30:50 GMT
People only cheer in hockey for goals and fights.
get rid of fights and you get rid of the fans
i would rather watch than london team of a couple of years ago (they were rubbish at hockey) rather than what we are seeing from hull and edinburgh this season. It was also the most entertaining fixture as you could garuntee big hits and fights.
|
|
|
Post by texpef on Dec 12, 2006 18:38:28 GMT
and a catalog of injured players heja after the game too, seems to be a young/old divide here of who wants fights to be scattered thoughout a game and who actually goes along to watch the hockey and the skillful goals....
|
|
|
Post by heja on Dec 12, 2006 19:34:14 GMT
how many players get hurt from a fight?, other than maybe a bloody nose?
what players get hurt from is cheap hits, and out of control sticks
|
|
|
Post by texpef on Dec 12, 2006 20:09:40 GMT
who mentioned they were hurt in fights. You said you would rather watch us play london and i just replied stating that we seemed to get more injuries to our players after playing them than the norm.....
|
|
PeteW
Greg Hadden
Ageing anorak
Posts: 1,522
|
Post by PeteW on Dec 12, 2006 21:22:57 GMT
snip - The sport is still seen as a bit of a theatre in the UK and not serious, - snip I think there's some truth in that. How many on here are fairly comfortable with a mediocre season, providing they get a bit of socialising and an "entertaining" game. Personally, speaking as a long time fan, it' quite serious for me. I'd sooner see us beat the Steelers 2-1 in a dour encounter than lose 6-4 in an "entertaining" game. I put the "" around entertaining, because I don't personally find losses "entertaining", no matter how hard the announcer tries or how loud the music is. But then I've turned into an archetypal Grumpy Old Man snip - The majority UK sports fans like traditional team names and 'Britishness' in sports, hockey is just too american for most of them! Like Bradford Bulls and is it Wigan Warriors. Not sure, Rugby League isn't one of my strong points, but they all picked up a North American name of some sort a few years ago. The people who run Rugby League must have thought there was some advantage in it.
|
|
PeteW
Greg Hadden
Ageing anorak
Posts: 1,522
|
Post by PeteW on Dec 12, 2006 21:27:34 GMT
snip - friends who i have brought to games just want to see the fights and go on about it the whole game, its so annoying! If they are only going for the fights they are in for a disappointing time. They would be lucky to see three or four decent scraps a season.
|
|
PeteW
Greg Hadden
Ageing anorak
Posts: 1,522
|
Post by PeteW on Dec 12, 2006 21:31:15 GMT
I watch football players rolling all over on the grass each week from tackles. - snip Speaking of which (and totally off topic), but how funny was that Drogba v Lehman thing ;D
|
|
PeteW
Greg Hadden
Ageing anorak
Posts: 1,522
|
Post by PeteW on Dec 12, 2006 21:39:02 GMT
snip - seems to be a young/old divide here of who wants fights to be scattered thoughout a game and who actually goes along to watch the hockey and the skillful goals.... That's just what I was thinking. Seems the young fellas like plenty of scraps ;D Personally there's nothing gives me quite the same enjoyment as a sublime three way play ending in a bulging net.
|
|
Milkman™
Les Strongman
Always Delivers
Posts: 5,300
|
Post by Milkman™ on Dec 12, 2006 21:45:12 GMT
Speaking from a media perspective, the only pictures I was able to sell to the nationals were fight pictures.
A Nikes v Allison (rematch) picture got me £40 in the Daily Star.
A Lehman v Drogba shot netted £1500
Go figure
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Dec 12, 2006 22:10:26 GMT
Is there anyone on this forum who didn't get a rush when he went with Clouthier here in Nottingham? <puts hand up> I'm not totally against fighting, despite what some of my critics say. If an opposition player is getting nasty and the ref isn't doing jack all, then by all means - wheel out the man with the sledgehammer fists and deliver a bit of bare-knuckled attitude adjustment. But that Shmyr/Clouthier fight was so obviously staged, it was pitiful! Anyone else notice the ref having a quiet word with Shmyr on the bench just before the game? (maybe with Cloth-Ear as well, I didn't notice) - then lo and behold, they do the little dance and then have their scrap right after the game starts - no provocation, no apparent reason. Sheer ruddy pantomime... get a rush? I felt like getting a newspaper... Give me a fight where the blood is up, where there's an actual on-the-spot hot-blooded reason for it, and then I'll have some interest. Big Bad Baz pummelling seven shades of Shinedog out of Dennis Vial, for example... Jimmy Paek looking like he was about to rip the throat out of Claude Jutras.... Jordan Willis machine-gunning punches onto an astonished Mikko Koivunoro... Bazza again with the 'Two Seconds, Two Punches, Two London Players On The Ice' mini-bout... now that's more like it! I'll buy that. And that's what I mean... fights born from adrenaline, not pantomime.
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Dec 12, 2006 22:23:54 GMT
...fights born from adrenaline, not pantomime. Agreed.
|
|
LUFC
Ashley Tait
Game On!
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by LUFC on Dec 12, 2006 22:27:19 GMT
Fighting is a part of the game like it or not, it's here to stay. All leagues (except non contact) have fights, it's a way of expressing feelings over an injustice on the ice (usually only in the mind of the player or players caught by a stick or check etc) and there is also the need for enforcing fights to prevent a team over powering and crushing a team.
I love a good fight as much as the next person, sometimes it can really fire a game and team up. Other times it can be the only highlight of a seemingly dull game.
The press picks up on it being a fighting sport as that is a headline grabber and nothing else. it hits the so called primal instinct of a man and some women and they like that kind of thing. The sport over the years has had high profile cases especially from the NHL were violence on ice was the main instigator. This often gives out bad press and this is all that’s remembered by the readers and journalists so there is very little chance of changing the sports image.
If there was a few years without the fights due to a clamp down, the skill factor with excellent speed and cracking goals will start to grab the headlines, but that wont happen so the label of a fighting sport is what the sport has hanging around its neck.
|
|
Rich
Paul Adey
Go hard or go home
Posts: 6,691
|
Post by Rich on Dec 12, 2006 23:15:34 GMT
Is there anyone on this forum who didn't get a rush when he went with Clouthier here in Nottingham? <puts hand up> I'm not totally against fighting, despite what some of my critics say. If an opposition player is getting nasty and the ref isn't doing jack all, then by all means - wheel out the man with the sledgehammer fists and deliver a bit of bare-knuckled attitude adjustment. But that Shmyr/Clouthier fight was so obviously staged, it was pitiful! Anyone else notice the ref having a quiet word with Shmyr on the bench just before the game? (maybe with Cloth-Ear as well, I didn't notice) - then lo and behold, they do the little dance and then have their scrap right after the game starts - no provocation, no apparent reason. Sheer ruddy pantomime... get a rush? I felt like getting a newspaper... Give me a fight where the blood is up, where there's an actual on-the-spot hot-blooded reason for it, and then I'll have some interest. Big Bad Baz pummelling seven shades of Shinedog out of Dennis Vial, for example... Jimmy Paek looking like he was about to rip the throat out of Claude Jutras.... Jordan Willis machine-gunning punches onto an astonished Mikko Koivunoro... Bazza again with the 'Two Seconds, Two Punches, Two London Players On The Ice' mini-bout... now that's more like it! I'll buy that. And that's what I mean... fights born from adrenaline, not pantomime. Shaggy, whilst I have totally different opinions to you on the subject I understand what your saying. However you need someone like Shmyr on your team, period. Skiehar,Ndur,Shmyr,Clouthier,Voth have an under rated but important role for the top teams in UK hockey. They dont get paid like Ruff,Calder,Tessier,Mcaslan but play a very important role. If we had Shmyr last season instead of Say Patterson (Flaming suit on) we wudnt have been pushed around. Which brings me onto the point about fighting out of instinct... I totally understand BUT what you get then is people like Cote having to fight. He loses fights, hurts the team and isnt happy, whats the point. Put Shmyr on his line and hey presto. He can play at the top of his game and not worry. Then what you get is "our tough guy is tougher than yours" and theres always going to be an early fight the first time the teams meet. They have barely looked at each since, fair enough, total respect. Had Shmyr not had that fight Clouthier would be all over some of our guys and players like Petricko, Stevens and Krajicek (3guys who need protecting bigtime) and therefore hurting us. I think they still need to fight again for bragging rights and to ease the tension BUT id be disappointed in Shmyr if he took more than a 5 whilst hes doing a good job on D for us
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Dec 12, 2006 23:21:40 GMT
Rich - I agree with you 100% about Shmyr's deterrent value... we really could have used someone like him last season. I agree that you need to have someone to head off the opposition goons.
However, I don't think that you need pre-arranged pantomime fights to do that - hell, these guys all know about each other anyway... some of them have even fought before! The deterrent value is already there... I simply think that we don't need play-acting to get the message across.
|
|