1. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    16 Nov '09 09:021 edit
    Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.

    Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.

    YouTube&feature=related
  2. Standard memberFleabitten
    Love thy bobblehead
    Joined
    02 May '07
    Moves
    27105
    16 Nov '09 21:32
    What sport is that?
  3. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    17 Nov '09 03:53
    Come on now, let's hear you all put your money where your mouth is...all you guys that were going on saying the ex-player knowledge thing is BS. Ok fine, prove it.....!!!!

    Bahk Bahk Bak!!!
  4. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91690
    17 Nov '09 07:28
    Originally posted by uzless
    All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.
    I suspect it's the POINT of the game?
  5. Joined
    07 Sep '05
    Moves
    35068
    17 Nov '09 10:01
    Originally posted by uzless
    Come on now, let's hear you all put your money where your mouth is...all you guys that were going on saying the ex-player knowledge thing is BS. Ok fine, prove it.....!!!!
    Nobody has tried to claim that watching once or twice on telly is enough to understand the game. The claim is that there is no magic barrier of understanding that cannot be passed without playing the game.

    I'll quite happily admit I know nothing about ice-hockey. Not only have I never played it, but I've barely watched it at all. So any comments I'd make would prove nothing either way.

    If the same goes for the others you were arguing with, this thread is pretty pointless 🙂.
  6. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    17 Nov '09 15:45
    Originally posted by uzless
    Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.

    Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7WQALmQdE&feature=related
    I don't understand the question. The goal was scored because the offensive player shot the puck into the net. What kind of analysis are you looking for?
  7. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    17 Nov '09 16:58
    Originally posted by uzless
    Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.

    Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7WQALmQdE&feature=related
    Why don't YOU tell us, master of the game.

    P-
  8. Joined
    07 Sep '05
    Moves
    35068
    17 Nov '09 18:36
    Originally posted by sh76
    What kind of analysis are you looking for?
    He's looking for something he can pick holes in, in the misapprehension that it will prove his contention that you can't fully understand a sport if you've not played it.
  9. Joined
    08 Oct '08
    Moves
    5542
    17 Nov '09 20:022 edits
    1. A major thing was the bad pass by the defenseman that originally set up the play. The pass overshot the intended recipient, bounced off the wall, and Ovechkin was able to intercept it. Ovechkin then made a nifty spin move to get around the guy with him, and now had an almost clear path to the net.

    2. A defender was able to catch up and checked Ovechkin to the ice. Ovechkin, however was able to drop his shoulder so that he could stay in front of that defender - and even though Ovechkin had gone to the ice, he was able to keep the puck in front of him, and very importantly never lost sight of the puck.

    3. The next major thing was that the goalie should have stayed at the right corner of the net, but instead started moving to his left - probably because he was anticipating the collision with Ovechkin sliding towards him. But that little slide to the left created an opening, and Ovechkin, still more or less in control of the puck, was able to steer the puck into that slightly open right corner before crashing into the goalie.

    another thing -- when Ovechkin went down, the goalie could have moved towards the play. Ovechkin would almost certainly have crashed into the goalie (creating interference that would've nullified the goal) before getting a shot off. But I'm not sure if there was enough time to think of doing that in the split second that it took for the play to occur
  10. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    53362
    17 Nov '09 20:11
    Originally posted by uzless
    Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.

    Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7WQALmQdE&feature=related
    This is very different than what you were arguing in the other forum. To be consistent with your previously absurd poistion, you need to show that no one who wasn't an ex-player can have an comprehension of what is going on that their explanation has enough meaning that they could enjoy watching the sport. No one would argue with you that most ex-players know more than Joe six pack what I found ridiculous is your claim that they an average person could not understand a sport.
  11. Joined
    08 Oct '08
    Moves
    5542
    17 Nov '09 20:171 edit
    Originally posted by quackquack
    This is very different than what you were arguing in the other forum. To be consistent with your previously absurd poistion, you need to show that no one who wasn't an ex-player can have an comprehension of what is going on that their explanation has enough meaning that they could enjoy watching the sport. No one would argue with you that most ex-player ...[text shortened]... what I found ridiculous is your claim that they an average person could not understand a sport.
    Am I the only one here interested in learning something here from uzless?

    The underlying point of uzless's argument is that a person with direct experience is going to be aware of subtleties that the non-player is going to miss. Being that I have never played anything close to real ice hockey (and never will), the next best thing is to gather whatever insights I can from those who have played. And I am very interested in finding out about what I might be missing.
  12. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91690
    17 Nov '09 21:52
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Am I the only one here interested in learning something here from uzless?

    The underlying point of uzless's argument is that a person with direct experience is going to be aware of subtleties that the non-player is going to miss. Being that I have never played anything close to real ice hockey (and never will), the next best thing is to gather whatever ...[text shortened]... m those who have played. And I am very interested in finding out about what I might be missing.
    The underlying point of uzless' ranting is utterly flawed.
    He chose an apt username.

    He gets all pretentious about these mythic 'subtleties of the game' and then chooses a clip with a blunder and some individual magic.
  13. SubscriberVery Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Joined
    04 Oct '06
    Moves
    414541
    18 Nov '09 04:371 edit
    Originally posted by Crowley
    I suspect it's the POINT of the game?
    You obviously got help with your answer! 😛

    EPIC FAIL!
  14. SubscriberVery Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Joined
    04 Oct '06
    Moves
    414541
    18 Nov '09 04:48
    Originally posted by uzless
    Okay, i found a clip that will do. All you have to do is tell us WHY this goal was scored.

    Let's hear some non-players first that have only watched the game on tv. The idea is to show that non-players don't understand the game as well as ex-players and non-players can't give you the kind of insight that ex-players can.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7WQALmQdE&feature=related
    Excellent example!
  15. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    18 Nov '09 09:271 edit
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Am I the only one here interested in learning something here from uzless?

    The underlying point of uzless's argument is that a person with direct experience is going to be aware of subtleties that the non-player is going to miss. Being that I have never played anything close to real ice hockey (and never will), the next best thing is to gather whatever ...[text shortened]... m those who have played. And I am very interested in finding out about what I might be missing.
    The question is not if uzless knows more about ice hockey than me. I couldn't care less about ice hockey. The question is if I, having never played the game, would be able to reach the same level of understanding than him.

    Obviously, the answer is YES, because my evidently superior intelligence (relative to uzless'😉 would eventually prevail over his fabled "experience".

    Case closed.
Back to Top