redwing77 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Sorry if that came off as something I meant to say. Of course I don't think that, but the fans at Engelstad are by far the least educated fans I have ever come across. The point I am making is that I don't expect people who barely understand the game, to understand the complexities that happen during the game on the ice. The things that are said, the things that happen, and the way things work. But you assume that, because there are some people at the Englestad who are only there to watch the game, not become rabid fans, dictate the whole of the Fighting Sioux fanbase. I don't claim to know everything about hockey. I don't know everything about hockey, but I know what I'd like to see and I know which opinions I agree with. Because I voice those opinions, I guess, makes me clueless and uneducated. Because I have never played hockey makes me unqualified. Gosh, fandom needs to be regulated if that's the case. Too many people are calling themselves fans of sports when they aren't qualified to be one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THETRIOUXPER Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 If you are as smart as you claim to be you might want to quit lumping everyone that posts here into what you think the typical "cookie cutter Ralph Englestad Arena hockey fan" is. I daresay you might be quite suprised and maybe even embarrassed to know who is on the other side of these screens. Not to mention who or what they might actually know. But hey, if you want to keep opening your mouth and sticking your foot in it, that's your business. As far as your take on fair fight, I ask this, what is a fight ? Isn't it trying to inflict physical harm upon a person that you are enraged with ? Someone explain to me the rules. I'm sorry folks, but if I set out to kick some ass, there's no holding back. Anything else is child's play, or grandstanding for the sole purpose of putting butt's in the seat's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 As far as your take on fair fight, I ask this, what is a fight ? Isn't it trying to inflict physical harm upon a person that you are enraged with ? Someone explain to me the rules. I'm sorry folks, but if I set out to kick some ass, there's no holding back. Anything else is child's play, or grandstanding for the sole purpose of putting butt's in the seat's. many times, there is no rage involved when fighting in the nhl. like has been said before, the reason for fighting in the nhl is to limit (notice nobody has said fighting completely stops) cheap shots. it is to back up your star player when they get speared or slashed or anything deemed worthy of a fight (but oh no! who is to decide what is worthy of a fight? ). in a perfect world, the refs would call cheap shots, the league would impose a stiff penalty and they wouldn't happen very often. however, as long as all you're punished is two minutes for slashing the opposing team's star, i think fighting should be an option. these are million dollar athletes who could have their careers ended by a cheap shot. if you were the owner, would you want those stars to only be protected by the refs and their calls for two minute minors? or do you want a player who can stand up to the cheapshot artists and protect your star player? two years ago we'd hear stories about opposing team forwards being scared to come into the sioux zone because our D would hit guys and hit them hard. is it that much of a stretch to think guys are less likely to cheapshot if they know they're going to get more than a two minute minor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 PCM, didn't you see this. All of your hockey knowledge is immediately and completely null and void, as you have never played the game. Please cease and desist being a fan and posting any more of your hogwash. But unlike you, I have played the game. Granted, I played on a crappy club-level team, but at least I played. So just shut up and let me do all the talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Gosh, fandom needs to be regulated if that's the case. Wrong! What we need is to make it legal for real hockey players to come into the stands and beat the crap out of clueless fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 If I cheap shot someone or put a good clean hit on a star forward (mind you not all fights start from cheap shots) I'm likely to get hit in return and very possibly get into a fight. That's another thing I don't get. Why should someone who makes a clean, legal hit have to fight anyone? What in the heck does that have to do with enforcement of the rules or preventing cheap shots? If you're truly interested in playing the game under the rules, then a player who makes a legal hit shouldn't have to worry about having some goon smash his face in. How does that many any sense? Is it likely to influence the amount of hits and the force I use on the ice, yeah it is, unless I know the other team doesn't have a fighter or anyone bigger than me.Ummm...you did it again. You've admitted once more that fighting doesn't change your behavior. The only thing that alters your behavior is if the other team has a bigger goon than you, which was the point of this post. Hockey is fundamentally different than football, baseball, or basketball. You cannot compare the physicalities of those sports to hockey. I know the sports are different because I've played them all. That's not the point. What I'm saying is that if the concept of player enforcement of the rules works so well in hockey, why not apply it to other sports in which cheap shots occur? That's a rhetorical question. I already know the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dikaia880 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 But you assume that, because there are some people at the Englestad who are only there to watch the game, not become rabid fans, dictate the whole of the Fighting Sioux fanbase.Again, you are mistaking what I am saying. I daresay you might be quite suprised and maybe even embarrassed to know who is on the other side of these screens. Not to mention who or what they might actually know. Why would I be embarassed? don't claim to know everything about hockey. I don't know everything about hockey, but I know what I'd like to see and I know which opinions I agree with. Because I voice those opinions, I guess, makes me clueless and uneducated. That was not directed at you or PCM. I was directing that comment at Thetiouxper, I question the amount he knows because he has said nothing reasonable so far, unlike others. Saying that "having played the game isn't proportional to knowledge of the game" is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. I'm not saying you cannot have a vast knowledge of the game without having played to a certain level, years, or etc. What I am saying is that without having played or been very closely associate with the sport beyond the level of fandom, you aren't going to understand the unwritten rules of the game (or that of any sport.) And certainly having experience playing the game is directly proportional to the knowledge one has of any sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dikaia880 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 That's another thing I don't get. Why should someone who makes a clean, legal hit have to fight anyone? What in the heck does that have to do with enforcement of the rules or preventing cheap shots?Because, how many clean hits have taken out star players? Enforcers are there to influence other players into hitting lighter or not as often. Ummm...you did it again. You've admitted once more that fighting doesn't change your behavior. The only thing that alters your behavior is if the other team has a bigger goon than you, which was the point of this post. Eh, sort of. I think what I was trying to say is that fighting is going to be influence to all but the biggest guy. Also, rarely are there two teams that go up against each other that don't have two guys that could beat the crap out of each other at any given point. I know the sports are different because I've played them all. That's not the point. What I'm saying is that if the concept of player enforcement of the rules works so well in hockey, why not apply it to other sports in which cheap shots occur? I was saying they are fundamentally different and that's why paybacks and enforcement is different. Football its settled in the piles and on the play to play basis. Football is based on contact and hits, cheap shots are standard and accepted more times than not. Baseball, if one guy gets beaned, you can bet the other teams guy is getting beaned. Those end up in worse fights than in the NHL don't they? Hockey isn't based on contact like football is, and cheap shots aren't accepted as part of the game. In football a defenseman has to make a hit to stop the other team, in hockey a good D-man wouldn't need to use contact to get the puck. The use of contact then causes tempers to flare whether it is legal or not, and because it you can't simply cheap shot the guy in the bottom of the pile on the next play, fighting and overt paybacks are the common place retributions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXELEVENS Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Wow,PCM needs to cue the dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THETRIOUXPER Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Again, you are mistaking what I am saying. Why would I be embarassed? That was not directed at you or PCM. I was directing that comment at Thetiouxper, I question the amount he knows because he has said nothing reasonable so far, unlike others. Saying that "having played the game isn't proportional to knowledge of the game" is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. I'm not saying you cannot have a vast knowledge of the game without having played to a certain level, years, or etc. What I am saying is that without having played or been very closely associate with the sport beyond the level of fandom, you aren't going to understand the unwritten rules of the game (or that of any sport.) And certainly having experience playing the game is directly proportional to the knowledge one has of any sport. You want reason, how about truth ? You are quite possibly the most misguided person I have seen on this board in quite some time. Your arrogance is disgusting. You may have hockey knowledge (or so you think). Go ahead put yourself up on your little pedastal. Because I disagree with your dillusion thoughts on hockey fights you chose to dismiss me as a person with little knowledge of the sport. You prove your ignorance with every post. A little friendly advice if you are going to try to impress people with all of your "wisdom", learn how to spell first there Jethro. Hooked on Phonics might be a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dikaia880 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You want reason, how about truth ? You are quite possibly the most misguided person I have seen on this board in quite some time. Your arrogance is disgusting. You may have hockey knowledge (or so you think). Go ahead put yourself up on your little pedastal. Because I disagree with your dillusion thoughts on hockey fights you chose to dismiss me as a person with little knowledge of the sport. You prove your ignorance with every post. A little friendly advice if you are going to try to impress people with all of your "wisdom", learn how to spell first there Jethro. Hooked on Phonics might be a good startWell you got me, I left out an R in your name and in embarrassed. You know, they say you've won your argument when all the other guy has left to argue about is your spelling. You're quite wrong about me, I'm not here to impress anyone with my "wisdom." I would like to know, however, how I am misguided or arrogant (other than because I disagree with your view on the subject?) Oh, and while we're on the subject of spelling and grammar. You probably don't want to have that extra space in-between truth and the question mark in the first sentence, and the commas go inside the quotation marks. You want reason, how about truth ? And this, in general, makes no sense... What are you talking about reason and truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Wow,PCM needs to cue the dog If we're going to starting fighting over spelling, grammar and sentence structure, you could be right. On the other hand, this could work to my advantage because I'm quite certain that in my lifetime, I've written more words than anyone else participating in this thread. I think that gives me the right to verbally abuse anyone who disagrees with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Leopold's length of the REA ice dump (Kollar in net) wasn't mistaken for a shot, but it counted as a goal anyway. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXELEVENS Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You can go verbal on their a$$es. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 "Cmon, THETRIOUXPER...gimme a hug." "OK, Dikaia880...big hug!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 ...I'm quite certain that in my lifetime, I've written more words than anyone else participating in this thread. Truer words have never been spoken. The man has more POSTS than most people have written words! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You can go verbal on their a$$es. Somehow, that doesn't sound quite right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dikaia880 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 What is this dog I keep hearing about... Is it warm and cuddly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Truer words have never been spoken. The man has more POSTS than most people have written words! Watch it there, buddy. Don't make me go verbal on your a$$! Nope. Still doesn't sound right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 What is this dog I keep hearing about... Is it warm and cuddly? Yes...I keep hearing about this 'doggy style' but when I pay girl and she show up to my hotel room, she bring no dog. Why is this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 What is this dog I keep hearing about... Is it warm and cuddly? I could turn the dog loose, but then I'd have to give up my verbal superiority. Besides that, it wouldn't have any effect on THETRIOUXPER. His dog is bigger and badder than mine. He just laughs at my dog while he verbally checks people from behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THETRIOUXPER Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Well, let me see if I understand this correctly. Here are some of your theories. A "fair fight" in which you insist there is some kind of code of conduct that is not understood by the average hockey fan, two combatants can erase previous wrong-doings (whether it is his own, or someone else's). This is done by squaring off and playing by some sort of unwritten law's, that again, the average fan does not know about. At this point all you have to do is knock the other guy to the ice, and in the intrest of (this is a stretch now) "SPORTSMANSHIP" you are declared the victor. At which point you cease beating the s&!t out of the other guy. Now in this same said code of conduct all those who have played the game of hockey will immediatley accept the outcome of the "fair fight". Then, and only then, all "dues" have been paid, all scores have been settled and everyone is back to square one (insert kisses and hugs here). Meanwhile the average hockey fan will have absolutley no idea that anything even transpired as they sit in their seat, drool on themselves, and cheer for things that you and only you dictate they should (because you have played the game and understand all of the unwritten rules that the average person does not). This is all because they have never played the game of hockey so they don't have a clue. So now you have been sent by a higher power to show all the rest of us the error of our ways. Hopefully to enlighten us to these unwritten laws which we are not aware of because we have never played the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXELEVENS Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Somehow, that doesn't sound quite right. That's all I had Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Well, let me see if I understand this correctly. Here are some of your theories. A "fair fight" in which you insist there is some kind of code of conduct that is not understood by the average hockey fan, two combatants can erase previous wrong-doings (whether it is his own, or someone else's). This is done by squaring off and playing by some sort of unwritten law's, that again, the average fan does not know about. At this point all you have to do is knock the other guy to the ice, and in the intrest of (this is a stretch now) "SPORTSMANSHIP" you are declared the victor. At which point you cease beating the s&!t out of the other guy. Now in this same said code of conduct all those who have played the game of hockey will immediatley accept the outcome of the "fair fight". Then, and only then, all "dues" have been paid, all scores have been settled and everyone is back to square one (insert kisses and hugs here). Meanwhile the average hockey fan will have absolutley no idea that anything even transpired as they sit in their seat, drool on themselves, and cheer for things that you and only you dictate they should (because you have played the game and understand all of the unwritten rules that the average person does not). This is all because they have never played the game of hockey so they don't have a clue. So now you have been sent by a higher power to show all the rest of us the error of our ways. Hopefully to enlighten us to these unwritten laws which we are not aware of because we have never played the game. Unwritten laws are those by which the Shepard led crew call the game. Someone should write them down so they can say they are calling the games by the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I could turn the dog loose, but then I'd have to give up my verbal superiority. Besides that, it wouldn't have any effect on THETRIOUXPER. His dog is bigger and badder than mine. He just laughs at my dog while he verbally checks people from behind. Oh, so now it's all about the SIZE of the dog? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.