T1B

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
They've been televising hockey at least since I was a kid (albeit somewhat sporadically), so I don't think it's necessarily lack of experience that accounts for the poor quality of televised hockey as opposed to watching it live. I think many others have hit on some of the factors. Also, the hockey puck is much more difficult to track visually than the ball used in other sports, and TV only exacerbates that difference. There are ways to make the puck more easily visible, of course, but those would translate into even less scoring than you see now, so they would hurt ratings in that respect.

It's not lack of of experience, it's lack of interest. If you don't give a shit about hockey then you're going to post in this thread about what a horrible sport it is on TV. There aren't many sports more exciting than rugby, live or on TV, yet I could give a shit about the any sort of Tri-Nations or whatever so end up turning the channel after 10 minutes.

And what's so hard about following a black puck on white ice? No different than watching a tiny ass golf ball other than you're used to one sport and not the other. And even if you don't see the puck it's quite obvious where the action is focused.

If you don't give a shit about a sport by the time you've graduated high school then you're probably never going to come around on it.

Truman wrote:

smackaholic wrote:That being said, the single greatest TV sport moment of my life and I am quite sure many of your lives, was a fuggen hockey game

This.

/s/

Marty & Phibes
2010

mind yer place newb, don't forget your roots.

errr, who?

There have been some ugly moments in hockey's history too.
Like when this group of violent American thugs acted like...well...violent American thugs against my heroic Red Army team:



You bloody savages.

:x

can't see the puck :(

can't subtract five from ten either, help technology, help!

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Truman wrote:

smackaholic wrote:That being said, the single greatest TV sport moment of my life and I am quite sure many of your lives, was a fuggen hockey game

This.

/s/

Marty & Phibes
2010

mind yer place newb, don't forget your roots.

errr, who?

So you've got bigger wood remembering your Canuckleheads dispatching a rag-tag band of Americans in the quarter-finals of tournament that nobody remembers, much less cares about? BTW, a third of the countries that participated in the "Canada Cup" no longer exist. Fifty years from now, it'll be half, and one of 'em won't be America. But OUR hockey team should really kick ass! BTW, how'd the Olympics turn out for you that year, Phibes?

Screw_Michigan wrote:Those are your suggestions?

You are a idiot.

Interesting the self-asskickings that take place whenever someone tries to call another person an idiot.

M Club wrote:And what's so hard about following a black puck on white ice?

Hmmm, a small, almost flat, puck traveling at a high rate of speed, black skates, black tape on the blades of hockey sticks. Yeah, you're right, there shouldn't be any problem following it at all.

Have you ever been to a hockey game live? If so, I would assume you know what happens immediately after a player scores a goal. Why, pray tell, do you think that happens?

No different than watching a tiny ass golf ball other than you're used to one sport and not the other.

A golf ball is difficult to see as well, granted. TV probably does a better job of picking up the golf ball if for no other reason than the action is much slower, and with a number of TV cameras attempting to follow the shot, it's easier for at least one to pick it up under those circumstances.

But what gave you the impression that I'm a golf fan? I'd rather watch paint dry than watch golf on TV.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Hmmm, a small, almost flat, puck traveling at a high rate of speed, black skates, black tape on the blades of hockey sticks. Yeah, you're right, there shouldn't be any problem following it at all.

You should get your eyes checked or have IF hook you up with a better TV. It is not difficult to follow the puck. Even then, your eyes don't literally have to be on the puck every second to know where the action is or to know what's going on.

Martyred wrote:There have been some ugly moments in hockey's history too.
Like when this group of violent American thugs acted like...well...violent American thugs against my heroic Red Army team:



You bloody savages.

:x

I fuggen remember that!!!!

Didn't the russkie coach end up pulling his guys off the ice right in the middle of that prison rape game?

BTW, seeing as it was mid-70s NHL, I am fairly sure that a substantial majority of the flyers were canuck.

Rack the North American solidartity of the plungering of those godless commies!!!!!

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

M Club wrote:And what's so hard about following a black puck on white ice?

Hmmm, a small, almost flat, puck traveling at a high rate of speed, black skates, black tape on the blades of hockey sticks. Yeah, you're right, there shouldn't be any problem following it at all.

Have you ever been to a hockey game live? If so, I would assume you know what happens immediately after a player scores a goal. Why, pray tell, do you think that happens?

No different than watching a tiny ass golf ball other than you're used to one sport and not the other.

A golf ball is difficult to see as well, granted. TV probably does a better job of picking up the golf ball if for no other reason than the action is much slower, and with a number of TV cameras attempting to follow the shot, it's easier for at least one to pick it up under those circumstances.

But what gave you the impression that I'm a golf fan? I'd rather watch paint dry than watch golf on TV.

Jesus, Sgt. Tedious Double Down has doubled down. It's not that hard to follow a puck, and even if it were that doesn't explain why casual adult fans don't become rabid just because they watched a period or two. And like I and Mgo have already pointed out, you don't need to actually see the puck to follow the action. I don't see the actual baseball on TV during a flyout, but I can tell where it's going to land based on the outfielder. And I don't see the football half the time either during a game so just watch the guards instead.

Nothing gave me the impression you're a golf fan. I don't care what you like. It was an example.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Hockey is the suck on TV. You just don't appreciate the speed or violence on the tube. Plus, live you are so close to the action. Football and baseball are better on the tube, IMO.

That might be the worst take I've ever heard in my life. I love baseball but to say baseball is a better TV sport than hockey is ludicrous. Hockey is just fine as a TV sport, it just takes more than two brain cells to run together to appreciate, which apparently you completely lack.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. If you love hockey and understand the game, it works fine on TV.

Thought this was a great read http://www.thenation.com/blog/170585/me ... ng-sports#

Martyred wrote:There have been some ugly moments in hockey's history too.
Like when this group of violent American thugs acted like...well...violent American thugs against my heroic Red Army team:



You bloody savages.

:x

Rack the old school reset. The contrast between the Soviet players all wearing helmets and most of the Flyers not wearing helmets is pretty eye-opening.

I had almost forgotten about there being a time when most NHL players didn't wear helmets.

M Club wrote:And I don't see the football half the time either during a game so just watch the guards instead.

A football is in view almost the entire game. About the only exceptions to that are on a punt (where the ball is high enough to leave the camera angle) or a ballfake that is executed so well it fakes out not only the defense, but all the cameramen as well. That doesn't happen very often.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

M Club wrote:And I don't see the football half the time either during a game so just watch the guards instead.

A football is in view almost the entire game. About the only exceptions to that are on a punt (where the ball is high enough to leave the camera angle) or a ballfake that is executed so well it fakes out not only the defense, but all the cameramen as well. That doesn't happen very often.

So what's your point? A hockey puck is in view the entire game.

And ja, ball fakes. Sometimes players conceal the ball so well that it disappears from view. Doesn't mean millions of casual fans have insisted a homing beacon be attached to the ball so they're not confused at home about what's going on.

drive-by rack for phibes

Phibes always delivers, as per usualm.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Martyred wrote:There have been some ugly moments in hockey's history too.
Like when this group of violent American thugs acted like...well...violent American thugs against my heroic Red Army team:



You bloody savages.

:x

Rack Ed Van Impe and Ed Snider.

Marty, translate "keep your head up and on a swivel" or your boys still might die.