Do Canucks and Yankees view sports differently?

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
gscarpenter2002 said:
In addition to your mistaken assumption about basketball, as outlined above, the north american style of football also originated in Canada.

As well, the first recorded game of baseball took place in Ontario.

Other than that, great point.
The baseball game is false. It was like baseball, but with four bases (no home plate) and the bat was a stick.
Do you have a link with any info on this early stick-and-ball sport reported in Ontario? I'm curious.

And for other's edification - it is generally accepted that the first reported "baseball" game, a game under a set of rules whose lineage can be traced to the modern game, was on June 19, 1846 played at the Elysian Fields in Hoboken, NJ, under the rules written/published by Alexander Cartwright for his Knickerbocker Baseball Club ( http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rule11.shtml ). The New York Baseball Club defeated the Knickerbockers 23-1.

The story of Abner Doubleday as the inventor of baseball - the result of the Mills' Commision appointed in 1905 to determine the origins of baseball - has largely been discredited by scholars. Many of the innovations attributed to Doubleday in 1839 have since been discovered to be of earlier origin.

Baseball developed out of a whole set of ball-and-stick games which were popular in the US (and Canada) in the early 19th century - derived from the English game of Rounders (and other English stick-and-ball games).
 

marc-edouard grier

Registered User
Oct 16, 2006
1,359
0
Back to a previous point about no-namers making a big impact in the playoffs happening in hockey: although in hockey it might happen more, random ppl shine in the playoffs in every sport; Raja Bell w/ Philly a few years back, Ricky Ledee in 98 w/ the Yanks, etc. So while hockey has a good amount of those random playoff breakouts, other sports have them quite often also, and its just the nature of playoffs that allows this. Also, whoever said that ppl "like Thornton" don't show up in the playoffs are Pejorative Slured, since the only times Thornton played bad in the playoffs was when he was either 18 or had broken ribs, so yeah, he's the worst playoff person in the world I guess.
 

OG6ix

Registered User
Apr 11, 2006
4,453
1,350
Toronto
Do you have a link with any info on this early stick-and-ball sport reported in Ontario? I'm curious.

And for other's edification - it is generally accepted that the first reported "baseball" game, a game under a set of rules whose lineage can be traced to the modern game, was on June 19, 1846 played at the Elysian Fields in Hoboken, NJ, under the rules written/published by Alexander Cartwright for his Knickerbocker Baseball Club ( http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rule11.shtml ). The New York Baseball Club defeated the Knickerbockers 23-1.

The story of Abner Doubleday as the inventor of baseball - the result of the Mills' Commision appointed in 1905 to determine the origins of baseball - has largely been discredited by scholars. Many of the innovations attributed to Doubleday in 1839 have since been discovered to be of earlier origin.

Baseball developed out of a whole set of ball-and-stick games which were popular in the US (and Canada) in the early 19th century - derived from the English game of Rounders (and other English stick-and-ball games).

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-41-611/sports/baseball_canada/

There is a numerous amounts of video. No offense to you "hardcore patriotic Canadians" but I get a good chuckle some times on how you guys totally alienate a good portion of your history (in sports) for one game. It's almost like a defense mechanism.
 

Haute Couture

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
2,023
0
Bay of Pigs
Visit site
Back to a previous point about no-namers making a big impact in the playoffs happening in hockey: although in hockey it might happen more, random ppl shine in the playoffs in every sport; Raja Bell w/ Philly a few years back, Ricky Ledee in 98 w/ the Yanks, etc. So while hockey has a good amount of those random playoff breakouts, other sports have them quite often also, and its just the nature of playoffs that allows this. Also, whoever said that ppl "like Thornton" don't show up in the playoffs are Pejorative Slured, since the only times Thornton played bad in the playoffs was when he was either 18 or had broken ribs, so yeah, he's the worst playoff person in the world I guess.

Well, the Boston media looooved to criticize him. That was his reputation - whether it's true or not, you're missing the point. As far as other sports - well, nice job using a fallacy there. The whole point was that hockey is known for guys (and, well, teams) coming out of nowhere and dominating in the playoffs, while a bunch of others are mere disappearing acts. I'm not saying all of this is bad for hockey - it's bad for publicity of hockey in a country for which it nowadays depends financially. I find it exciting for Edmonton and Calgary to play so well and get so far. Only it's bad for the sport's overall popularity. And in today's situation, given how hockey is 6th or 7h most popular sport right in the U.S. we either lower the number of teams in the league or root for Bettman to succeed. The middle ground, like it is now, isn't working.

just beacuase most hockey players have enough common sense to keep their mouths shut, doesn't mean they are introverted. the problem with the nba and nfl is that the biggest Pejorative Slured gas bags are given way too much air time. does the public need to see another nba moron spewing some pointless tirade about his rap skills or his street cred? where have all the gentlemen athletes gone? i'd bet almost every 'oldtimer' is rolling over in their grave or retirement home to see the classless act their repsective league's have turned into.

pro sports no longer has real heroes, just egocentric infants whose only satisfaction come from having their face plastered across any type of media at any cost. where are the gordie howe's, lou gehrig's, larry bird's and walter payton's of today??? there might be a few, but they are truly the exception

Missing the point here. Read above - egocentric infants are good for popularity. Like it or not, most American fans like to listen to what their favorite players have to say. These things stimulate excitement and overall intrigue, and they do have a place in pro sports, in my opinion. I admire guys like Sakic and Yzerman, nonetheless, and think they're vital to the competitive integrity of the game - but they're disastrous for the sport's popularity. I would love to have just 10 teams in the league and see more competition, but not only is it not feasible, it would compromise the very existence of the Sharks if it were.

That's just it hockey is a winter sport. The NHL made a huge mistake putting teams in summer only cities. Look at the state of Minnesota where hockey is a way of live why? Because it is a winter state. Michigan also is a great hockey state. I know this is off topic but what would be your top 5 States for hockey. 1) Minnesota 2) Denver 3) Michigan 4) Massachusett 5) Alaska.
Ummmm.. .what about New York? Colorado and Alaska seem perfect for the game, but don't really produce that many NHL-ers, interestingly.
 

OG6ix

Registered User
Apr 11, 2006
4,453
1,350
Toronto
Man, there is plenty of ignorance on this message board. I don't know ANYONE who actually likes to hear T.O or Ron Artest talk, but they like basketball/football and it's a story. The bottom line is they are in the media, and hockey just isn't because it's a lack of interest for the sport overall. What about the days of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Jordan, they weren't egotistical, but basketball was popular. When has the NHL ever seen that?

Let's be realistic, Hockey has more major flaws than those other three sports in terms of TV, equipment, surface etc. I'm sure a lot of people think of speed skating/snow boarding as niche sports, but hockey really is no different.
 

Hoss

Registered User
Feb 21, 2005
1,033
0
The casual fan is drawn by success regardless of where you hang your hat. Two of the biggest American sports get little attention outside Toronto. Basketball and baseball are merely fringe sports to the majority of Canadians. Baseball had it's biggest effect on Canada when the Blue Jays took the World Series North and basketball was exciting when ...well never.
 

rekrul

Registered User
Mar 7, 2003
1,589
11
bittersville,ca
Visit site
Probably the biggest difference between the two countrys I see is the media beast that ESPN has created that needs to be fed. scores and highlights can't do it anymore, no they need to latch onto any nugget of controversy ( or create one see the filpe alou deal last year) and blow it up to supply enough discussion for most of their programming. Most sport writers are not clever or talented enough to talk about sports in a mostly possitive way, most can't breakdown NFL or NBA talent let alone MLB players. They couldn't tell you a slider from a fastball, anything beyond the pick and roll or explain what a blitz is. Instead most are into gossip and personality which is why the TO phenomon is what it is. And the more blowhard more caustic as in Skip Bayless rise from newspaper hack to ESPN TV.

In Canada from what I have seen maybe TSN which mimicks its USA dady a bit with Healy but even then he says some silly things but seems to understand the game. BoB McKenzie seems very knowlegable in personel and could probaly breakdown the strengths and weaknesses of say Anze Kopitar after seeing him in just a few games. I guess Don Cherry is really the one who is what he is because he can be a blowhard, but again he was a former coach and player so I still hear him point out desent info once in a while. But really what is Cherry do in Canada beyond the intermissions of HNIC? Does Canadaian media need a 24-7 of his charactor to comment on the lastest outburst/tireade/whinefest from a athelete? No I think North of the boarder doesn't have this beast that needs to be fed, nor does Canada want a bombastic in your face sports media in the first place.

On the other hand I do think Canadian culture takes hockey way too seriously, in the states if we lose the Olypics in Basketball, our game, we do not think of this as something truly bad for our country. I think Canadians take way more pride and or greif in their national hockey team than any type of team from here. If we lose we shug and still think of our selves as superior anyway.
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
ESPN is the say all in US sports and lately has been trying to appeal to a lot of the fast growing minority population in the US who seem to not latch so much to a team, but to Allen Iverson and his sneakers and to Terrel Owens doing crunches in his driveway like a thug, and Chad Johnson doing end zone celebrations and Chris Berman yelling "He Got Jacked Up" because it is (with some fault to ESPN for shifting culture this way) what a lot of youth and what a lot of the minority population enjoys.

This is a serious post, I'm not trying to be an *** or bring race into it (because we all know everyone can't wait to yell racist at someone) that's really what I think the problem is. ESPN appealing to controversal stuff that a lot of older traditional fans who don't care about tattoos and Cincinnati Bengals being arrested, but care about the sport and the team from a traditional standpoint because there father was a fan and there fathers father was a fan back to 1945 when the Rangers were still a young franchise.

It's a lot like the garbage MTV plays now, it has no substance, just drama. A lot of hockeys fading popularity has to do with the minority population growing, because the majority of minorities simply don't like hockey. Why do you think NASCAR is trying to reach out to the minority population (aside from being a new partner with ESPN)? Why do you think you see Lill John hanging out with the cup? Sports leagues are starting to recognize this. I remember a poll that came out in Canada last year in which basketball and football was growing as a sport and hockey was remaining basically steady. Those who ran the poll also concluded that the growing minority population in Canada was part to blame for this.
 

Haute Couture

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
2,023
0
Bay of Pigs
Visit site
Man, there is plenty of ignorance on this message board. I don't know ANYONE who actually likes to hear T.O or Ron Artest talk, but they like basketball/football and it's a story. The bottom line is they are in the media, and hockey just isn't because it's a lack of interest for the sport overall. What about the days of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Jordan, they weren't egotistical, but basketball was popular. When has the NHL ever seen that?
1. Well, not many people like T.O. and Artest. In fact, most people are tired of them. And for a good reason. There are plenty of other, less-controversial guys who are getting a lot of TV time for things they have to say. Not to mention that T.O., as annoying as he is, is a good "recurring" story for the NFL in terms of giving the sport more air-time.

2. The days of Bird, Johnson, and Jordan came after the years of stagnation and boredom in the NBA. The 70s were a terrible time for sport. But, hey, a few stars can carry the game, YES. That is true. That brings me back to my point - Bird, Johnson, and Jordan all carried their teams to championships. They created rivalries. Think back of Johnson-Bird seven-game finals in 1984. We don't have that lately in hockey. The NHL tries to alleviate the issue by awarding the Conne Smythe to younger players lately, like Ward, Richards, Giguere, etc. - but it's not going to work until guys like Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin make it to the cup and generate some legitimate excitement that will bring in the fringe-fans. These are the guys whom we can depend on actually being long-term stars in this league - but they aren't playing where it matters. Instead we have the "goalie-of-the-moment" type players. It's okay to have one once-in-a-while, but this is a sad recurring story in itself; Giguere, Ward, Roloson, Bryzgalov, etc. And then guys like Khabibulin and Theodore, and a little bit earler - Jim Carrey (aha!) - disappearing. And let me repeat - I like all this intrigue. It's just bad for popularity because it doesn't carry the message of who is really good in the sport and who isn't.

3. The basketball three you mentioned, while being much classier than current basketball elite, were nonetheless good in front of the camera.


Let's be realistic, Hockey has more major flaws than those other three sports in terms of TV, equipment, surface etc. I'm sure a lot of people think of speed skating/snow boarding as niche sports, but hockey really is no different.
I agree. TV will never do the sport any good, the equipment is too costly, etc. But marketability (if that's a word) is also important in today's pro sports. By expanding to 30 teams, many in cities like Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, and others, and by relying on ESPN to market it, Bettman was hoping that hockey would stay in top-4. But it turns out that it can't, the days of Detroit-Colorado rivalry are now gone, the sport lived through years of low scoring, inconsistent stardom, hard-to-pronounce names, and players that don't have much interesting to say. It can't be sustained as a top-4 sport simply because it's not one anymore no matter how much scoring is added and how many more people we put into the penalty box. What a travesty - and poor marketability also plays a part in this.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->