| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Matt_Roberts85
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
936 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2009 : 08:47:07
|
Poll Question:
Now that we are about 4 seasons into the "New" NHL and have had time to observe the direction of the game, which NHL do you prefer? The pre lockout NHL, which focused more on a rougher style of play combined with skill, or the post lockout NHL, which emphazises speed and skill, but has also brought in a ton of penalties.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E".
|
|
|
|
Matt_Roberts85
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
936 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 09:04:29
|
I really miss the old school violence of the NHL, I can see why many people wanted to see hockey evolve into a modern era, but it seemed like it used to be so much more of a mans game and the violence really made hockey an extreme sport. It was a game that was truly unique in that it combined violence with speed and skill, and its own code policed the game. Now it seems like the code is twisted. Guys are diving alot, marginal infractions are deciding games, and enforcers are being pushed out of the league. Any time anyone goes down, whether it was of his own fault or not, they are looking to the refs for a call. Every good check now seems to be considered dirty and a big kerfuffle seems to ensue after it.
Don Cherry;s tapes used to have hundreds of hits that would now be considered suspendable offences. Am I way off base here? Milbury said it was the "pansification" of the game, and I think hes right...
I do enjoy some aspects of the "new" game, but it really seems like the media, conservitives and americans have changed the game to be more "friendly" and I dont like it. Do more americans watch more now than before? It doesnt seem like it... this isn't the mens league on sunday night, this is the NHL. These guys get paid millions of dollars because there is the risk of getting hurt, should they still be paid the same if you reduce the risk?
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
Edited by - Matt_Roberts85 on 03/11/2009 09:11:01 |
 |
|
|
Matt_Roberts85
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
936 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 09:16:54
|
I guess it really boils down to the fundemental rules of hockey. The stick is used for 1 reason only, to propel the puck. Not to slash, hook, cross check or trip guys and you are also not allowed to interfere with guys, elbow them, or knock them senseless with a dirty hit..... but man, it sure was fun when you could get away with that stuff. Isn't it really f***ed up to think that all this stuff was tolerated for so long, even though those have been the rules for 100 years?
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
|
|
|
Guest7913
( )
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 09:23:53
|
| All I have to say is if they take fighting out of the NHL, then they will be taking out a big chunk of the excitement. Why does there always have to be a bunch of whiney cry-babies just because one person dies after 100 years of fighting in hockey. |
|
|
|
Matt_Roberts85
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
936 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 10:18:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7913
All I have to say is if they take fighting out of the NHL, then they will be taking out a big chunk of the excitement. Why does there always have to be a bunch of whiney cry-babies just because one person dies after 100 years of fighting in hockey.
I know, and it wasnt even in the NHL. The worst part for me is the fact that UFC is SO huge now, yet people still claim that fighting is somehow driving away fans. People LOVE fighting. UFC and boxing are huge and extremley popular yet fighting in hockey is wrong somehow...
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
|
|
|
Thrasher
Rookie
Canada
155 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 15:07:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7913
All I have to say is if they take fighting out of the NHL, then they will be taking out a big chunk of the excitement. Why does there always have to be a bunch of whiney cry-babies just because one person dies after 100 years of fighting in hockey.
Yah, someone died. Thats why they care. It almost never happens, and it wasn't even in the NHL. But they want players to be safe as well. Of course fighting is a part of the game, and should always be. Ian Laperriere got in a fight the other night (i dont remember against who), the other guy loses his helmet and Laperriere put his arm under the guy when he fell to make sure he didn't crack his head on the ice. Stand up move, but not everyone does this. They are talking about putting the instigator rule into effect (it always was, but hasn't been called in a long time). Fighting has actually increased in the new NHL. In the GM meetings, they are talking about giving a penalty to a player who fights a checker after a clean hit.
Now back to the topic, the NHL has always been good. But i did vote for the new NHL, because i love offense. I love watching teams on the PP and seeing how they rotate the puck. I also enjoy the shootout, and that brings a whole new element to the game. I know no one will agree with me, but i would love to see the play go down to 4 on 4. I think the game would open up even more, more speed, more skill. That would decrease the roles of fighters and 4th line grinders however, so i know this will never happen.
I Promise I didn't give her the STD, I'm not a sharing person. |
|
|
|
Jephman
Top Prospect
Canada
52 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 20:30:57
|
I personally enjoy Playoff hockey, where the games are finished 3-2 and 2-1, not these crazy 10 goal games. So i guess I fall under the Old NHL hockey category, but the new NHL isn't bad at all, and from what I've seen, the playoffs are as good as they ever have been, so I'm content.
As for the fighting, I think it would ruin the game if the take it out. The NHL's purpose is entertainment, and fighting is entertaining, so why take it out if one guy died (I'm sure there are more, but as far as I know) out of the millions who have played it over the past 100 years?
Also, the fighters in the NHL don't seem to mind, and it's their lives who are "on the line", so why not let them decide if we should change it, instead of asking the guys sitting in the press box?
Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Guest9538
( )
|
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 06:41:31
|
Matt Roberts dies in hockey fight.
Who cares, it was just one guy. |
|
|
|
Guest8141
( )
|
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 08:46:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9538
Matt Roberts dies in hockey fight.
Who cares, it was just one guy.
Thats not what Im getting at here man. The Don Sanderson trajedy was just that, a trajedy but all this stuff just seems to be BS to try and please to pc. Accidents happen, and there always seems to be a kneejerk reaction to them which, in retrospect usually wasnt neccessary. Dale Earnhart died while driving in Nascar, they didn't ban racing, they just made it safer. I endorse keeping helmets on in hockey, and making it a rule to have chinstraps done up tight, but hockey fights are part of the game and they should not be abolished.
I also think they should design a visor that is removable if a fight breaks out, that would solve the whole keeping helmets on but you cant fight with visors issue.
I wasn't even trying to start a fighting in hockey debate, im pretty sure there is another forum for that. I wanted to compare the two era's over a broader spectrum.
I still say that the playoffs were way more badass before. |
|
|
|
Guest0474
( )
|
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 09:37:01
|
Fighting is only in the NHL because the rules allow for it. I hate the instigator rule, and now they're trying to prevent staged fights by saying fights should only happen in the heat of the moment - well that is hard to accomplish when the instigator rule is in effect.
My view is that fighting is a hybrid of the rules of hockey. The rules have allowed fighting to become a part of the game. It is one of two methods to deal with dirty play. With the other being stiff penalties.
Personally, I could care less if fighting stayed or went. If I'm paying to see a fight, I'll go watch UFC and get my money's worth. However when a fight happens in an NHL, that's fine as well. I'm watching to see what team wins the game, not which 4th liner beats up the other 4th liner.
The bigger question that has to be asked is what direction is the game going. I believe that hockey is the only sport from North America that has a hope of breaking into the holy grail of TV markets - the European one. Looking at this from a marketing perspective, it would be suffice to say that maybe fighting would have to go in order to expand the sport. It's one vote to a customer, and there are a lot of customers on the other side of the pond.
To have the NHL become as big as FIFA, I'd throw fighting under the bus in a heartbeat. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 11:02:45
|
The Don Sanderson tragedy was not an accident. An accident results from an incident that shouldn't happen, or from strange/bizarre circumstances . . . but that was not the case. Fighting is condoned, promoted in some cases, and given a hallowed place in hockey. It is defended by the majority of hockey personalities. Yes, it is an automatic suspension for one game in the league he played in; but if fighting were truly banned, it never would have happened.
The Sanderson tragedy is a direct result of this policy. So is the Moore tragedy (maybe Moore wouldn't have even made it to the NHL then). So are countless concussions, facial plates, broken fingers and hands, etc etc. Don't give me some repeated line about hardly any injuries from fighting, btw, heard it all. To me, that's like saying there were hardly any head injuries before the mandatory requirement of helmets. The argument has little if any weight with me.
Arguments about fighting aside, I like the new NHL much better, and look forward to potentially seeing the Even Better NHL - Now with NO FIGHTING.
I love playoff hockey the best.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Guest8116
( )
|
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 12:25:12
|
quote:
slozo Posted - 03/12/2009 : 11:02:45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Don Sanderson tragedy was not an accident. An accident results from an incident that shouldn't happen, or from strange/bizarre circumstances . . . but that was not the case. Fighting is condoned, promoted in some cases, and given a hallowed place in hockey. It is defended by the majority of hockey personalities. Yes, it is an automatic suspension for one game in the league he played in; but if fighting were truly banned, it never would have happened.
The Sanderson tragedy is a direct result of this policy. So is the Moore tragedy (maybe Moore wouldn't have even made it to the NHL then). So are countless concussions, facial plates, broken fingers and hands, etc etc. Don't give me some repeated line about hardly any injuries from fighting, btw, heard it all. To me, that's like saying there were hardly any head injuries before the mandatory requirement of helmets. The argument has little if any weight with me.
Arguments about fighting aside, I like the new NHL much better, and look forward to potentially seeing the Even Better NHL - Now with NO FIGHTING.
I love playoff hockey the best.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Dont even start on the moore thing, if that "hockey player" would have jsut turned around and faced bertuzzi, yes he would have probally got his ass kicked, but he could have just turtled, but would he have a broken neck right now, he would probally still be playing
As anybody who has ever played competitve hockey knows, that there is a rule , and if your gonna run, let alone hit a teams star player from behind, your gonna have to face the music. By no means am i an vancouver, or calgary (infact i cant stand calgary) fan but i feel that bertuzi really got a rough deal and the way he is treated still to this date is pathetic, he is a very good player who plays hard every shift, and if moore had of man'd up none of this would have happened
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2009 : 04:49:24
|
Guest 8116 - Moore doesn't have to turn around and face anybody if he doesn't want to. Period.
There might be an unwritten rule about facing the music after running at guys . . . but more importantly, there are written rules to prevent the escalation of such a matter, or the occurrence of a tragedy such as what happened.
Unfortunately, your argument that starts "anyone who has played competetive hockey . . ." only shows the level of indoctrination and brainwashing at this point to further thuggish behaviour and condone it. Moore's hit on Naslund was looked at by Colin Campbell and he deemed it a non-suspendable offence. Period. You can bitch and moan about it, just like a you can complain about a hundred other hits this year or last that are in a similar category of questionable checks. That doesn't give you some kind of gangster logic to be a thug.
A "real man" (which Bertuzzi isn't: he's a thug and a goon, and a talented one) would have waited for a moment in the game to deliver a good, hard, clean bodycheck. THAT would have been stand-up behaviour.
Don't condone thugs.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Guest8984
( )
|
Posted - 03/13/2009 : 05:07:31
|
| people still defend bertuzzi? really? |
|
|
|
oilpark
Top Prospect
4 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2009 : 09:36:06
|
your right he doesnt have to turn around and face anybody, and he didn't
hindsight he probally should have
plus you cant tell me that if the on ice incodent with moore hadn't of happened that he still would not have been handed a suspention, i mean of course Colin Campbell isn't gonna suspend a guy that is in the hospital with his future in question. |
|
|
|
Guest4735
( )
|
Posted - 03/13/2009 : 09:59:41
|
Man, these were two separate games when it happened Oilpark.
But to stay on topic. I rather the New NHL vs the Old NHL, partly due to the fact that well I barely watched the Old NHL. I like the speed of the game and the emphasis of the skill. But, I must say I miss the toughness of the old game. More Hits and less systems. Overall, I like seeing dangles happen and some beautiful goals also. Though there is nothing wrong with 2-1 games ect. As long is it's good end to end hockey with intensity like a game matters with lots of chances. |
|
|
|
Bozonator
Top Prospect
57 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2009 : 10:00:25
|
| Me again. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2009 : 10:15:03
|
I think this is the age old question and has been asked for decades. If you asked hockey fans from the 60's if they liked the new expanded NHL of the 70's they would more than likely say no. Then the again expanded hockey from the 80's compared to the 70's. The deadpuck era of the late 90's vs the 80's and early 90's, and now the "New NHL" vs "The Old NHL".
In all honesty, the game today is better than the 5ish years before the strike. However, I would take just about any other age in hockey over today's NHL. There is little personality in today's game. It's more marketed and more media forced today and I hate that.
Personally, I would take the NHL between around 1970 to around 1990. That, to me, was the best hockey could ever get.
Today is better than before the strike, but neither hold a candle to the 70's or 80's. |
|
|
|
oilpark
Top Prospect
4 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2009 : 22:36:44
|
My bad bozonator i was under the impression that they were in the same game, i will with draw my previous comment, lol
But yes on the topic of which hockey is better i do enjoy the new elements of the post lockout game like the shootout and the no two line pass, but it seems like in the new nhl there are jsut too many penelties for me the small little hooks and such alot of them seem pretty questionable to me, but overall the id have to give it to the new nhl |
|
|
|
oilpark
Top Prospect
4 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2009 : 22:37:53
|
| and question , new obviosly, why doesnt my pic show up?? |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Old NHL vs New NHL 
