Hockey is the most exciting team sport

[Guest wildpegasus]

I know I'm Canadian but I think I'm good at looking at things objectively.

 

 

A Few Statements:

 

Hockey is by far the most exciting team sport out there especially when it's at its peak(80s). There is no other team sport that come close to the excitement that hockey genereates. If it weren't for outside influences and everything was on an equal level hockey would be by far the most popular team sport.

 

Football? (NFL) a'int even close

 

Baseball? Closer than football but still a far way's off

 

Soccor? I love playing it but the pure excitement of hockey at its peak is not there.

 

Basketball? Not manly enough

 

Rugby? No.

 

Lacrosse? No

 

Anything that I've seen? No

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

This is a stupid fucking thread for many reasons.

[Guest Rrrsh]

At its best, Hockey wins easy. But game by game, its Football.

[Guest wildpegasus]

This is a stupid fucking thread for many reasons.

This is a stupid f****** response for many reasons.

[Highland 0]

You know, there was a time when I'd say "Hockey", but now I just don't care anymore. Football games mean more, but a good, and the keyword is "good" hockey game is fast paced and a pleasure to watch.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Get two good teams against each other, and if everyone plays to their potential, it will be an exciting game to watch. I don't care what sport it is...

[Guest MikeSC]

Get two good teams against each other, and if everyone plays to their potential, it will be an exciting game to watch. I don't care what sport it is...

Even with soccer?

 

I find that hard to believe.

-=Mike

[Youth N Asia 0]

I've been to pro hockey, football, baseball, and basketball games. And I have my most fun at hockey. Whether it's the Red Wings, Detroit Vipers, or Flint Freakin Generals, it's the most fun live.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Same here, I've been to games at all big 4 sports and hockey has the fastest pace and is the most entertaining that I've been to. Seeing a game live is amazing considering how fast the game flies by.

[Guest The Gecko]

Here's the thing with hockey. Its one of the only sports that is fast paced, which make its very exciting. Theres HUGE hits, and limited scoring.

 

Football - HUGE hits yes, but there is many play stoppages, just not as faced paced and fast moving as hockey.

 

Basketball - Can be fast paced, but there is a lot of scoring, its not as exciting when a team scores. Often times I don't find Basketball games exciting until the very end of the game.

 

Baseball - Wow... one of the slowest games ever...

 

Soccer - Even though I love watching soccer mainly because I play it, its slower than baseball with less scoring.

 

 

With all the continuous action for the most part, I mean granted there are a few stoppages for offsides/icing/penalties etc., Hockey IMO is the most exciting sport.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

ya, that trap style play is really fast and action packed! It was exciting up until about 93 or 94 when Goons started slowly being taken out. Now its boring and slow crap with no real enforcers.

 

In terms of excitement I go NFL

In terms of fast paced I go with the NBA

In terms of fan friendly and a good overall experience for the entire family its gotta be MLB

 

Also a random note. If Hardcore Discussion was used for what its suppose to be used for that would be the place for this thread.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

This is a stupid fucking thread for many reasons.

This is a stupid f****** response for many reasons.

Well you started a thread making a statement or whatever it was supposed to be and you made a bunch of half-ass arguments to support the statement. You didn't say why you thought hockey was so great and you didn't say why you thought the other sports were inferior. Just wrong.

 

What is exciting about hockey?

 

What "outside influences" keep hockey from being popular?

 

Why isn't NFL football as exciting as hockey is?

 

Why is baseball more exciting than football but not as exciting as hockey?

 

When is hockey at its peak and what excitement does it offer there?

 

How is basketball not manly? How is hockey more manly?

 

Why would you start such a half-assed thread?

[HarleyQuinn 0]

What is exciting about hockey?

 

Constant action in a smaller, more contained environment with no real slow portions. Even with the trap, there's still constant motion back & forth to the other side akin to the NBA.

 

What "outside influences" keep hockey from being popular?

Lack of marketing/spotlight on stations like ESPN. It was relegated to ESPN2 and given the look over during Sportscenter where as the other three sports garnered far more coverage on both ESPN and Sportscenter.

 

Why isn't NFL football as exciting as hockey is?

Far more time stopping in regards to time outs, challenges, and penalties. In hockey, the referee doesn't get a camera on his mug so he can explain the penalty. Also a bigger surface to cover means slower pace.

 

Why is baseball more exciting than football but not as exciting as hockey?

Baseball is all about the one on one matchup that you don't get in other sports. You have pitcher vs. batter with only one side winning. As far as hockey goes, baseball is far slower and I blame that on the constant commercial breaks after every half inning.

 

When is hockey at its peak and what excitement does it offer there?

When the game is embodying everything. High scoring, big bodychecks, and great saves. The anticipation of the next goal and which team will pull out the victory is the excitement.

 

How is basketball not manly? How is hockey more manly?

Far more physicality in hockey in terms of body to body contact. It's about avoiding the hits as much as scoring in hockey whereas basketball is mostly hands off as of late. Aside from taking charges, how often do basketball players physically hit each other?

 

Why would you start such a half-assed thread?

Maybe he wanted to garner discussion.

[nl5xsk1 0]

While I do agree that hockey is the most exciting team sport, you lost me when you said

 

Football? (NFL) a'int even close

 

Baseball? Closer than football but still a far way's off

First of all, who the hell spells ain't with the apostrophe between teh a & the i? Second of all, how can you even pretend that baseball is more exciting than football? Watching paint dry is more exciting than baseball.

[Anorak 0]

Get two good teams against each other, and if everyone plays to their potential, it will be an exciting game to watch. I don't care what sport it is...

Even with soccer?

 

I find that hard to believe.

-=Mike

Believe it. Everybody else in the world does.

 

I don't follow either but I can see the appeal of both Baseketball and Ice Hockey. There's a certain grace about how these athletes perform thier intricate skills in such a fast and furious setting.

 

Baseball is rounders for drug addicts, a sport that even people in America joke about not watching sober. What kills American Football is there being no flow to the game. A game which stops and starts in such an absurdly frequent manner does nothing for me.

 

Both these sports are justly ignored by the rest of the world while Baseketball and Ice Hockey are both proper international sports which people in several different countries find exiting enough to play and watch.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Stop saying baseketball.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

The Beers are looking to have another good season this year.

[Anorak 0]

Baseketball is the best American sport in the world ever.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

What is exciting about hockey?

 

Constant action in a smaller, more contained environment with no real slow portions. Even with the trap, there's still constant motion back & forth to the other side akin to the NBA.

 

What "outside influences" keep hockey from being popular?

Lack of marketing/spotlight on stations like ESPN. It was relegated to ESPN2 and given the look over during Sportscenter where as the other three sports garnered far more coverage on both ESPN and Sportscenter.

 

Why isn't NFL football as exciting as hockey is?

Far more time stopping in regards to time outs, challenges, and penalties. In hockey, the referee doesn't get a camera on his mug so he can explain the penalty. Also a bigger surface to cover means slower pace.

 

Why is baseball more exciting than football but not as exciting as hockey?

Baseball is all about the one on one matchup that you don't get in other sports. You have pitcher vs. batter with only one side winning. As far as hockey goes, baseball is far slower and I blame that on the constant commercial breaks after every half inning.

 

When is hockey at its peak and what excitement does it offer there?

When the game is embodying everything. High scoring, big bodychecks, and great saves. The anticipation of the next goal and which team will pull out the victory is the excitement.

 

How is basketball not manly? How is hockey more manly?

Far more physicality in hockey in terms of body to body contact. It's about avoiding the hits as much as scoring in hockey whereas basketball is mostly hands off as of late. Aside from taking charges, how often do basketball players physically hit each other?

 

Why would you start such a half-assed thread?

Maybe he wanted to garner discussion.

I wasn't talking to you.

[Lightning Flik 0]

I wasn't talking to you.

Doesn't matter if you weren't talking to him. Last I checked, this is open discussion, meaning anyone can jump in at any point to talk about the subject at hand.

 

BTW, nice write up HQ. Thanks for pretty much killing whatever I wanted to add to this convo, as you've summed everything up that I was wanting to say about it.

 

But I disagree on a trap game. If there's a trap game on, its less exciting since its pretty much a war of artrirtion and doesn't really flow nicely or that well.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Get two good teams against each other, and if everyone plays to their potential, it will be an exciting game to watch. I don't care what sport it is...

Even with soccer?

Yes.

 

Hell, I'll admit it -- I watch it. However, I don't watch it with any regularity but if it's on I'll tune in...

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

QUOTE 

What is exciting about hockey?

 

 

 

Constant action in a smaller, more contained environment with no real slow portions. Even with the trap, there's still constant motion back & forth to the other side akin to the NBA.

 

The constant action isn't necessarily a good thing. If you don't watch much hockey, it's very easy to lose such a small thing moving so fast.

 

QUOTE 

What "outside influences" keep hockey from being popular?

 

 

Lack of marketing/spotlight on stations like ESPN. It was relegated to ESPN2 and given the look over during Sportscenter where as the other three sports garnered far more coverage on both ESPN and Sportscenter.

 

Is it not popular because it's not on Sportscenter, or is it not on Sportscenter because it's not popular?

 

QUOTE 

Why isn't NFL football as exciting as hockey is?

 

 

Far more time stopping in regards to time outs, challenges, and penalties. In hockey, the referee doesn't get a camera on his mug so he can explain the penalty. Also a bigger surface to cover means slower pace.

 

11 players per side in football

 

22 players are on the field at any given time

 

almost half of those players are 300 + pounds

 

more than half of those players have the speed of a top sprinter

 

I think that a football field is a good sized playing field for the game involved. Also, in Arena Football, there is more scoring and the game is fast-paced and played on a smaller field.

 

QUOTE 

Why is baseball more exciting than football but not as exciting as hockey?

 

 

Baseball is all about the one on one matchup that you don't get in other sports. You have pitcher vs. batter with only one side winning. As far as hockey goes, baseball is far slower and I blame that on the constant commercial breaks after every half inning.

 

I like baseball more than hockey but less than football. I like the one-on-one matchups that are provided and the fact that you only get to see the matchups a few times per game. The thing that's exciting about baseball to me as that scores are hard to come by, but the potential to score is present on every pitch. There's also a million stats to keep track of in baseball, whereas I can only think of a few relevant hockey stats. I think that's one thing about hockey that holds it back.

 

QUOTE 

How is basketball not manly? How is hockey more manly?

 

 

Far more physicality in hockey in terms of body to body contact. It's about avoiding the hits as much as scoring in hockey whereas basketball is mostly hands off as of late. Aside from taking charges, how often do basketball players physically hit each other?

 

The body to body contact doesn't make a sport more manly in my opinion. Also, you could add physical contact to basketball, but it would take away all of the speed and explosiveness because the players would have to wear pads. You wouldn't get to see things like Vince Carter jumping over people to dunk the ball because he'd have 50 pounds of protective gear to keep from injuring himself when he falls onto a wooden floor. You'd lose all the finesse of basketball if you added alot of contact. You wouldn't see fancy dribbling, you wouldn't see any acrobatic shots and you wouldn't see someone hitting a jumper at the buzzer because they'd have someone mauling them before the ball leaves their hands.

 

QUOTE 

Why would you start such a half-assed thread?

 

 

Maybe he wanted to garner discussion.

 

If you're going to make a statement, you should at least support it in some way. He just listed a bunch of other sports and said that they weren't as good as the sport he liked. No reasons why. He just said hockey is exciting. That's half-assed.

 

Doesn't matter if you weren't talking to him. Last I checked, this is open discussion, meaning anyone can jump in at any point to talk about the subject at hand.

 

Thank you for telling me the rules.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

The constant action isn't necessarily a good thing. If you don't watch much hockey, it's very easy to lose such a small thing moving so fast.

 

True but then one could argue that it's your fault and not necessarily the games'. Although the more you watch hockey, the easier it is to pick up the puck so I think that's kind of a poor argument as to why constant action is a bad thing.

 

Is it not popular because it's not on Sportscenter, or is it not on Sportscenter because it's not popular?

 

I'd argue that it's the former. Kind of hard to be popular without being shown yes? Just look at the way ESPN hypes upcoming basketball, football, and baseball games on other programs. They didn't do that nearly enough when they were showing the NHL and as a result, hockey wasn't popular due to lack of press.

 

11 players per side in football

 

22 players are on the field at any given time

 

almost half of those players are 300 + pounds

 

more than half of those players have the speed of a top sprinter

 

I think that a football field is a good sized playing field for the game involved. Also, in Arena Football, there is more scoring and the game is fast-paced and played on a smaller field.

 

I liken arena football to hockey in that they are alot alike. They are both fast paced with a much smaller environment. Hockey isn't as high scoring but you'll get the occasional 6-5 or 7-6 game. I think the field's good too but again, with the 300+ pounders dominating several positions it means that you can only look at RB/WR/CB/S to really speed the game up and even then, that only happens when they have the football.

 

I still think that hockey is more exciting because everybody has a chance to handle the puck, regardless of position and also switching in and out happens seamlessly.

 

I like baseball more than hockey but less than football. I like the one-on-one matchups that are provided and the fact that you only get to see the matchups a few times per game. The thing that's exciting about baseball to me as that scores are hard to come by, but the potential to score is present on every pitch. There's also a million stats to keep track of in baseball, whereas I can only think of a few relevant hockey stats. I think that's one thing about hockey that holds it back.

 

I'm a baseball stat junkie, love stats. I don't think that the lack of stats hurts the NHL though since all ya need to focus on are goals, assists, points, +/-, and GAA. I'm sure that there are ways of including more stats in hockey but that there hasn't been a Bill James type to do it yet. I also think that hockey has the same thing as baseball as far as your scoring analogy went. In hockey, especially as of late, there aren't many goals scored so each shot at the net raises the anticipation of that being a goal(ala a swing of the bat being a potential run scorer/HR in baseball).

 

The body to body contact doesn't make a sport more manly in my opinion. Also, you could add physical contact to basketball, but it would take away all of the speed and explosiveness because the players would have to wear pads. You wouldn't get to see things like Vince Carter jumping over people to dunk the ball because he'd have 50 pounds of protective gear to keep from injuring himself when he falls onto a wooden floor. You'd lose all the finesse of basketball if you added alot of contact. You wouldn't see fancy dribbling, you wouldn't see any acrobatic shots and you wouldn't see someone hitting a jumper at the buzzer because they'd have someone mauling them before the ball leaves their hands.

 

I'm not saying that basketball players should be bodychecking each other but it does add to hockey. It basically allows a team to take advantage by having more guys get access to the puck. Keep in mind too that they're playing an hour and on ice which is just as hard as a wood floor. Even with the padding, they don't get much cushion when they hit the ground(ala football players). I'll just agree to disagree here since we both have different opinions on what makes a game manly.

 

If you're going to make a statement, you should at least support it in some way. He just listed a bunch of other sports and said that they weren't as good as the sport he liked. No reasons why. He just said hockey is exciting. That's half-assed.

 

Can't argue that though it did lead to our discussion.

[iggymcfly 0]

Actually, at its peak, I have to agree with hockey. As long as it's at least possible to get a few goals a game, there's nothing in sport like the Stanley Cup playoffs.

 

And in person, the NFL's kind of like watching paint dry. College football's awesome, but at an NFL game, it seems like half the time you're staring at an empty field because of the commercials, and another third of the time, they're just sitting there, not doing anything anyway.

 

Due to the organization of the leagues, I like college basketball and college football a little better than other sports, but as far as the actual athletic product taking place, nothing beats the NHL.

[Guest wildpegasus]

This is a stupid fucking thread for many reasons.

This is a stupid f****** response for many reasons.

Well you started a thread making a statement or whatever it was supposed to be and you made a bunch of half-ass arguments to support the statement. You didn't say why you thought hockey was so great and you didn't say why you thought the other sports were inferior. Just wrong.

 

What is exciting about hockey?

 

What "outside influences" keep hockey from being popular?

 

Why isn't NFL football as exciting as hockey is?

 

Why is baseball more exciting than football but not as exciting as hockey?

 

When is hockey at its peak and what excitement does it offer there?

 

How is basketball not manly? How is hockey more manly?

 

Why would you start such a half-assed thread?

Read the thread. It's all about wether people agree or disagree with the statements I said. It's a starting base for discussion. I never made any arguements because I was the first person to start talking. All I made were statements for the purpose of curiosity and discussion. You and whoever else decide if you agree or disagree with them.

 

 

Quick reasons since you want them so bad.

 

 

1)Hockey's excitement has pretty much been explained already here. I gather you haven't watched hockey at its peak. Besides your typical stuff you got lots of suspense with stuff like powerplays and Overtime. You got fistfights, collisions, breakaways and two on ones, speed, fast moving pucks and mad scrambles for the aforementioned puck. Than you have the goalie factor and the excitement of even though hockey is a team game it is the goalie that makes or breaks a game. And with that comes all the heart pounding action/drama a goalie can bring to the game. There is nothing better in sports than hearing a "ding" from a puck hitting a crossbar, the sight of a goalie scrambling to smother a puck before it crosses the red line or an unbelievable save.

 

What "outside influences" keep hockey from being popular?

 

2)Culture/enviornment. THe same reasons why different sports have different popularities all around the world.

 

3)Football isn't as exciting as hockey because of all the play stoppages.

 

4)Baseball's more exciting than football because I prefer the stragety and suspense so when something happens it's more exciting than football. Their highspots which are more frequent are more gratifying(to me anyway). Football's highspots don't work for me. Not as many play stoppages either in baseball either.

 

5)1980 to about 94 is when it Hockey was at his best.

 

6)Didn't say basketball wasn't manly. I said it wasn't manly enough. Hockey is more "manly" because of the physical demands it requires from the body. If we use the word manly in the typical sense we also find that hockey's rougher and more dangerous especially if you're a goalie.

 

7)Why not? If you hate this thread so much why are you posting in it?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Football is my favourite team sport because it is the most varied. You really can't have an offensive lineman be a quarterback, or a quarterback be a wide receiver, etc. It's the most team sport in the sense that the different positions are really different and everyone has different jobs to do. Success is the cohesion of those jobs working together.

 

The line blocks for the QB who throws a pass down the middle of the field towards his open man, the WR. So much goes in orchestrating this all out, and there is a lot of strategy in a football game. So much organization in just getting all of this to happen. Now combine that with the fact that the other team moves at 100 mph and tries to come up with schemes to stop you, and that makes things better.

 

But this is a stupid topic. There's no absolute choice. Some of us find different things exciting.

[The Czech Republic 0]

But there are too many players at once in football. I couldn't give a shit who anybody is on any offensive line in the league. They just kind of run into the defensive line, whom I also cannot name. A lot of football is just rows of men running into each other.

 

 

"BUT THE OFFENSIVE LINE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING! WITHOUT THE OFFENSIVE LINE YOU ARE NOTHING! WORSHIP THE OFFENSIVE LINE!"

 

Yeah still. Row of men butting into another row of men.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Yeah but there a lot of times in baseball when eight players on both teams aren't involved. Hell, every play starts out as a direct competition between two people.

 

In hockey and basketball there are many plays when not everyone is involved.

 

In football, whether you're watching them or not, at least on every play they are actually making a play. No one ever does nothing.

[The Czech Republic 0]

When do you only have two players participating? Somebody has to catch the pitch.

[iggymcfly 0]

When do you only have two players participating? Somebody has to catch the pitch.

Not if the batter hits it far enough they don't. And besides if there's no one on base, and it's not the third strike, it really doesn't matter if the pitch gets caught or not.