Just finished watching a nail biting Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals. Now my Bolts are off to battle Calgary for the Stanley Cup.

Hockey. Keep that crappy ice dancing off my forum!

I'd rather talk about hockey than basketball or baseball. At least hockey is a real man's game.

Hockey sucks.

Hockey's pretty cool. :)

Hockey is awful. :(

[quote]Hockey is awful. [/quote]

Is it because you can't play it, or you don't understand it?

[quote author=Akamas link=board=6;threadid=6922;start=0#msg62228 date=1085699201]
[quote]Hockey is awful. [/quote]

Is it because you can't play it, or you don't understand it?
[/quote]
You don't have to suck at something or not understand it to think that it's complete garbage.

Hockey isn't garbage. It's probably the most physically and mentally demanding "team" sport.

[quote author=CrackS link=board=6;threadid=6922;start=0#msg62262 date=1085710519]
Hockey isn't garbage. It's probably the most physically and mentally demanding "team" sport.
[/quote]

Not a chance. Let's line up the best 5 NFL linebackers and 5 of your best 5 hockey twerps, see who can knock who out first. Btw, no gay sticks allowed.

[quote author=Grok link=board=6;threadid=6922;start=0#msg62271 date=1085715397]
[quote author=CrackS link=board=6;threadid=6922;start=0#msg62262 date=1085710519]
Hockey isn't garbage. It's probably the most physically and mentally demanding "team" sport.
[/quote]

Not a chance. Let's line up the best 5 NFL linebackers and 5 of your best 5 hockey twerps, see who can knock who out first. Btw, no gay sticks allowed.
[/quote]

I'd put Chris Pronger, Scott Sullivan, Darren McCarty, Donald Brashear, and Jeremy Roenick against any 5 linebackers the NFL has to offer ('cept maybe that loonie Romanowski ;) ). No facemasks allowed. :)

Someone like Derian Hatcher could go up against an NFL linebacker, but there aren't many.

As much as I love football, and view football as a better overall game than hockey, I would say that hockey is a more physically and mentally demanding game. If you've watched any of the Stanley Cup Playoffs you would see some of the major licks that hockey players take in stride. The difference is, in hockey you have no recovery time, you have to keep on skating 100%. In a hockey game, the players are moving full speed for 60 minutes, end of story. Football isn't a full 60 minute game as hockey is, football has its huddles and timeouts, and all that jazz. There aren't nearly as many breaks in hockey.

Big difference, "full speed" in hockey does not mean at a sprint. Even when it does, it relies heavily on momentum and frictionless ice. NFL players are not just running against friction of grass, but getting hit in the opposite direction. In hockey, most hits are at a significant angle, while making the change of direction dramatic for the camera, but largely reducing the force applied by the collision. Hockey players are better conditioned than baseball players, by far, but I don't see them being nearly equal to the average football player in strength, conditioning, or speed. Endurance is probably the only category in which hockey players exceed football players, but in that case, let's talk about NBA comparisons.

You seem to loose sight of the fact that NFL wide recievers are running full speed for what? 5-10 seconds? Then get a 35 second break. Then run for another 5 seconds. Then another 35 second break. Then run for 10 seconds. Then another 35 second break.

[quote author=Grok link=board=6;threadid=6922;start=0#msg62307 date=1085746569]
...NFL players are not just running against friction of grass, but getting hit in the opposite direction. In hockey, most hits are at a significant angle, ...
[/quote]
A lot of hits in hockey are a complete change in direction.
Example: http://66.98.192.76/broadstreetbully.com/paulnailed.mpg

[quote author=Hazard link=board=6;threadid=6922;start=0#msg62334 date=1085759909]
You seem to loose sight of the fact that NFL wide recievers are running full speed for what? 5-10 seconds? Then get a 35 second break. Then run for another 5 seconds. Then another 35 second break. Then run for 10 seconds. Then another 35 second break.
[/quote]

I think I'll have to disagree on that one. Going into a dead sprint for 10 seconds takes alot out of you, even if you get a 30 second break afterward. The player has to run at full speed (the receivers almost always need to sell that they're going for a pass, otherwise it's almost a dead giveaway that it's a run). Then, they have to jog back to the line of scrimmage, take a small break, and run again. This requires plenty of endurance, as receivers will be doing that for quite a while; sometimes an especially long stretch if the offense stays on the field for a while. And don't forget the receivers aren't the only position in football. RBs sometimes have to serve as workhorses, rumbling through the lines, running as fast as they can while dodging 300lb linemen. And don't forget the linemen themselves that have to run, hustle, push, block, runblock, etc. time after time. While hockey demands tons of endurance itself, it's not like they're skating full speed all the time. You'll only really see hockey players skating full speed when they're going for a puck or a guy who's controlling it. They spend plenty of time sorta skating zone in certain places, so it's not like they have to be exerting all the time. Plus, there are plenty of line changes to keep players as fresh as possible. Ofcourse, both sports require enormous levels of endurance, but it'd be really difficult to determine which sport requires more. IMHO, like Grok said, NBA players probably need the most "stamina", as far as hustling up and down the court goes, but then again, they usually don't have to deal with nearly as many collisions and physical contact as players in the NFL and NHL. Either way, I just don't think you can compare different sports as far as which is the most demanding; there are many different variables to weigh and consider. :)