| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/06/2007 : 18:10:56
Considering that the players today are better trained and conditioned than 15 or 20 years ago, does this mean the game is better today than it was then? Most will agree that the worse to average skaters in the League are better now. Does bigger, stronger, faster equal better hockey?
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 18:55:21
quote:
Originally posted by ED11
Are we talking about the actual GAME of hockey? On the ice? Or are we now talking about going to the game and ticket prices and all that bad stuff? Obviously ticket prices have to go up with time. It's a business people. But I think that the game of hockey is better then it was 30 years ago. Thats just me though. Can I really even make a good assessment being only 22 years old? But I do know this. Guys are faster, stronger, and competition is STIFFER. That to me says that in order to be dominant in the NHL now you really have to want it, apart from the talent. That makes the game better to me. On the other hand I will say this. Because of all the other teams in the NHL now a days, the good old rivalries have taken a step back. Montreal vs. Toronto is not what it was from what I hear. Though I think that those two teams still have a special thing going. But that rivalry factor is the only thing that I can see that would put a damper on things on the ice to a lot of fans that watched the game for a long time.
No question it is a better game technically, but is it a better game to watch?
Being a bit older (37), I say nope. I'd take a 1978 Montreal - Boston, 1980 NYI - Flyers, or 1986 Calgary - Edmonton series any day over any series you could put in front of me today. |
| ED11 |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 09:45:02
Are we talking about the actual GAME of hockey? On the ice? Or are we now talking about going to the game and ticket prices and all that bad stuff? Obviously ticket prices have to go up with time. It's a business people. But I think that the game of hockey is better then it was 30 years ago. Thats just me though. Can I really even make a good assessment being only 22 years old? But I do know this. Guys are faster, stronger, and competition is STIFFER. That to me says that in order to be dominant in the NHL now you really have to want it, apart from the talent. That makes the game better to me. On the other hand I will say this. Because of all the other teams in the NHL now a days, the good old rivalries have taken a step back. Montreal vs. Toronto is not what it was from what I hear. Though I think that those two teams still have a special thing going. But that rivalry factor is the only thing that I can see that would put a damper on things on the ice to a lot of fans that watched the game for a long time. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 08:15:53
quote:
Originally posted by LeafsFan4Life
just one thing to say old time hockey is better then modern hockey...
my reasoning:
1- in old time hockey the game was violent, kinda quenches the thirst to watch a game that players had to be tough to survive and had to play with skill and toughness and also the days of the enforcer protecting the superstar on the team kicked butt.
2- Less teams better rivalry's- bet everyone can say they started liking or disliking the habs or the leafs or the bruins and habs, or Nj and Philly or Isles and Rangers or blues and black hawks from back in the day. When you looked forward a few weeks after your two rivals had played, to see them play again .
3 - The old time goalies where stand up goalies in the net instead of playing that stupid butterfly style of todays hockey.
4- No shootouts -- in my personal opinion shootouts are dumb, I used to love to watch a game that went on for like 2 or 3 ot periods to see who the better team was that night, not watch 3 guys try and score on breakaways.
5- More leeway with penalties -- modern hockey has penalties for everything from delay of game to puck obstruction whatever that is.
6- No helmets -- guys back in the day did not need helmets the tougher you where and the less teeth you had the tougher you where... ie The 76 Flyers lol.
7- Finally older hockey was better because it popularized the game... no $10.00 beers at the games no $100 - $500 seats at the games, it was something the avg Joe could take his family too for a night out to watch a great sport.
Long Live HOCKEY!
as for new hockey after the 90s
The players are better trained, have better equipment, better coaching, better training facilities, better off season training more resources and therefore are strong better and faster then the old time hockey players. they get more goals they get more assists and they fill more stadiums. The modern game is better then it ever was before. I just prefer the old school hockey. But still love hockey so whatever is out there to watch ill be watching it, still wanna see the leafs win a cup before i turn 80 though, probably wont happen though 
drunk 24/7
I like a few of these, but especially #2 and #7.
#2 - Last night, maybe the night before, I'm flipping around on my Centre Ice subscription (gotta have it), and I come across this class match-up: Nashville vs Columbus. I think to myself, who in there right mind would agree that this is what NHL hockey is about? With all due respect to the actual fans in these cities, seeing those names on my TV screen made me vomit a little.
#7 - Very, very true. I make a decent living. I should be able to go to a handful of NHL games every year. But as it is, I have to limit my NHL trips to one or two every few years. This is partly due to my geography (Saskatchewan), but also due to the fact that my seats at the last game I went to were $250.00. Throw in the stuff you mentioned, and it's a $500 night (just for me alone, not including my wife). That's not regular guy money more than a couple times a season. |
| LeafsFan4Life |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 00:05:01
just one thing to say old time hockey is better then modern hockey...
my reasoning:
1- in old time hockey the game was violent, kinda quenches the thirst to watch a game that players had to be tough to survive and had to play with skill and toughness and also the days of the enforcer protecting the superstar on the team kicked butt.
2- Less teams better rivalry's- bet everyone can say they started liking or disliking the habs or the leafs or the bruins and habs, or Nj and Philly or Isles and Rangers or blues and black hawks from back in the day. When you looked forward a few weeks after your two rivals had played, to see them play again .
3 - The old time goalies where stand up goalies in the net instead of playing that stupid butterfly style of todays hockey.
4- No shootouts -- in my personal opinion shootouts are dumb, I used to love to watch a game that went on for like 2 or 3 ot periods to see who the better team was that night, not watch 3 guys try and score on breakaways.
5- More leeway with penalties -- modern hockey has penalties for everything from delay of game to puck obstruction whatever that is.
6- No helmets -- guys back in the day did not need helmets the tougher you where and the less teeth you had the tougher you where... ie The 76 Flyers lol.
7- Finally older hockey was better because it popularized the game... no $10.00 beers at the games no $100 - $500 seats at the games, it was something the avg Joe could take his family too for a night out to watch a great sport.
Long Live HOCKEY!
as for new hockey after the 90s
The players are better trained, have better equipment, better coaching, better training facilities, better off season training more resources and therefore are strong better and faster then the old time hockey players. they get more goals they get more assists and they fill more stadiums. The modern game is better then it ever was before. I just prefer the old school hockey. But still love hockey so whatever is out there to watch ill be watching it, still wanna see the leafs win a cup before i turn 80 though, probably wont happen though
drunk 24/7 |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/08/2007 : 23:22:11
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
The arenas – MLG, the Forum, Chicago stadium and ESPECIALLY, the Gaaaaaden in Boston – these places had character and tradition – they each were a bit different and they were part of the storyline to a game. I wouldn’t blame younger guys for questioning why this old Andyhack guy is raising this seemingly minor point – but part of the “intangibles” that go into the “excitement” factor died for me when those arenas went by the wayside
I agree with this one full force. It's amazing what a bit of character in a building can create for a team. I remember watching games on TV from Chicago. That pipe organ made people insane. I bet it was the source of 5-10 wins per season, just for creating such an exciting atmosphere....the Forum with the blue (not yellow) dashers and the fans right behind the benches with no glass, and everyone wore suits to the games...and of course the Gardens in Boston and TO. Fans were right on top of players in those old barns. Man, you are 100% correct on this one. |
| Greg Smith |
Posted - 11/08/2007 : 15:06:51
That wasn't what I would call "incredibly dumb"
I would've prefered the helmets on the ice though, It's kind of scary seeing guys like Ricci without their helmets  
After playing in the NHL, it's hard to watch hockey games. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 18:42:03
I'll just say that I think the game was more exciting in the old days. And I mean not just fifteen, twenty years ago, but twenty-five, thirty years ago too. I am biased here though. I grew up in the 70s and I am very sentimental about that decade. Great movie decade, great for scandals, paranoia - but I digress.
Here are 3 quick reasons I think hockey was more exciting back then (in no order):
1. [Preface – Greg, get ready to write cause this may qualify as "incredibly dumb"]
Not Everyone Wore Helmets! - Let's start with a crazy one, right! I know it was nuts, but I gotta say it, as a fan I could identify a lot more with the players back then. It was simply cool to see the hair flowing off guys like Lafleur, Clarke, Ronny Duguay (remember him) or to get a better picture of the player's helmetless personality - looking at O’Reilly’s Irish mug for instance.
I know, I know - they have to wear helmets/it would be insane to change that rule…. I’m just being honest with ya though! I do miss those days.
2. Less Teams/Players - from a fan's point of view, the possibility of one of sixteen of even twenty teams winning the Cup was a lot more fun/interesting to me than what we have today - and, again, you knew the players better
* a big part of any comment I have with "knowing the players" is , I admit, just that I followed the game WAY more back then (up to about 92), than now
3. The arenas – MLG, the Forum, Chicago stadium and ESPECIALLY, the Gaaaaaden in Boston – these places had character and tradition – they each were a bit different and they were part of the storyline to a game. I wouldn’t blame younger guys for questioning why this old Andyhack guy is raising this seemingly minor point – but part of the “intangibles” that go into the “excitement” factor died for me when those arenas went by the wayside
|
| Greg Smith |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 14:08:48
I'm staying out of this one, unless someone asks for me, considering played in the 80's, or unless somebody, says something incredibly dumb.
After playing in the NHL, it's hard to watch hockey games. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/06/2007 : 19:19:10
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Considering that the players today are better trained and conditioned than 15 or 20 years ago, does this mean the game is better today than it was then? Most will agree that the worse to average skaters in the League are better now. Does bigger, stronger, faster equal better hockey?
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
I'm glad you put it into this context, willus. I'm a fan of modern hockey, but not necessarily because I find it more entertaining.
There is absolutely no question in my mind, however, that players are better today than ever before. Systems are better. Coaches are better. Goalies are better. Players are more fit, bigger, stronger, more dedicated to training, more educated in how to play a complete game at both ends with a game plan, and wearing better equipment (it makes a difference, believe me).
It is also a much more mechanical game now, which I fear has bred out some of the creativity of the players of the past. This is why I like Crosby so much (Ovechkin, too) - he plays like it's 1984, with all the other stuff a modern player has. This is why I will stand by my statement with an unflinching determination that Crosby is technically a better hockey player now than Gretzky ever was, than Orr was, than Mario was. This is hard for me to say, because Gretzky is my man, but I am a realist above all else.
Guys like Mario, Gretz, and Orr were able to be more special because of the creativity they could express on the ice, their anticipation which no one else (or defensive system) seemed able to keep up to, and overall passion that could not be contained by a Jacques Lemaire coached team. Look at film from the 80's. Some guys skated like their skates hadn't been sharpened for a month. They were not poor then, but now, they'd get laughed out of the rink. Guys routinely scored from the top of the circles in 1984 (Gretz included). Now if it goes in from there, the commentator says, "I bet Brodeur would like to have that one back."
Is it a better game now? Skill wise, by a lot. Entertainment wise, no. Nor will it ever be like 1984 again. |
| PainTrain |
Posted - 11/06/2007 : 18:16:58
I've watched some old hockey clips of hockey in the 80's and it seemed more open in my mind. More puck movement, a little less turnovers. If you can bring in the technology of today with the game of the 80's , that would be entertaining.
But do you guys think it was more open in the 80's? |
|
|
