Went to my first NHL game last nite.....

goose3

San Jose V Columbus

I won (2) 40.00 tix so a buddy and I went.

I was pretty impressed with it. I have watched it briefly on TV in the past and was bored. I thought it was much more interesting and entertaining in person. It also seemed to be (for whatever reason) sort of a family event for many people. There were lots of young kids and their parents there.

yawie99

Hockey is definitely way better in person than on TV. My friend with an HD widescreen TV says that the games on HDNet are really, really good, but you still can't beat the experience of being there.

baseballfanatic

Nothing can compare to watching a play develop during a hockey game when you can see the whole ice rather than the action thats being shown in a 25 inch diagonal picture..........

Coinhusker1

I miss the Whalers!!

DaBeef

Agreed, MUCH better in person. Sucks on TV.

stevek

I thought they were on strike.

iamthegreatcornholio

NHL games are pretty fun to see in person, and hey you got to witness a rare event - the blue jackets winning

ctsoxfan

<< <i>I thought they were on strike. >>





Truth be told - it wouldn't matter much to me if they still were.

Wabittwax

I agree. I was a semi hockey fan for years until I attended a game in person. Now it's an addiction. Cleveland needs a team so I can watch it more often. Maybe if the NHL expands someday, they will get one. Cleveland is a big metropolitan area to not have a team. I'll always be a Coyotes fan though.

Boopotts

It's the only sport I can think of that just doesn't translate at all to TV. In person it's like a whole different game. Not only can you see plays develop, as has already been mentioned, but the sheer speed of the game is unbelievable.

goose3

<< <i>I agree. I was a semi hockey fan for years until I attended a game in person. Now it's an addiction. Cleveland needs a team so I can watch it more often. Maybe if the NHL expands someday, they will get one. Cleveland is a big metropolitan area to not have a team. I'll always be a Coyotes fan though. >>




Cleveland doesn't need yet another team to suck for eternity.


One thing that I was surprised about was how often the players changed from playing to the bench. It was like a revolving door the entire time.

DirtyHarry

Even if you "know" the game, hockey is hard to appreciate unless you are viewing it in person. I recently saw a game at the Naval Academy with a friend - long time hockey coach - who's son was a participant from the visiting team. His play-by-play of what was going on as we stood behind the glass was a revelation and got me hooked on the game.

stevek

I have seen the Flyers live - agreed that hockey is an excellent game to watch live at the arena.

baseballjeff

"Cleveland doesn't need yet another team to suck for eternity"

Don't forget that Cleveland fans are the most loyal fans in the Country! And we are darn proud of our teams!


Anyone here going to the Tribes Home Opener this Friday? I'll be there!

Jeff

goose3

I won't make that game unless my contact comes up with my free tix, which is possible!

aro13

All very good points on this thread. I enjoy watching hockey just as much on TV but I am clearly in the minority. The perspective at the rink is definately different. If you want to make it even more different vary your seats at games. Apparently, the best spot is twenty rows up on the corners for optimal viewing and learning. It certainly is a different game when you are sitting one row up and when you are sitting in the top level.

~"One thing that I was surprised about was how often the players changed from playing to the bench. It was like a revolving door the entire time."~

I think the length of shifts is a significant change in the game today as opposed to 20 and 30 years ago. It is just another way that coaches and systems have modified and changed the game to make it more balanced and less risky. 30 years ago Phil Esposito used to play 2 to 3 minute shifts. Wayne Gretzky also had long shifts with the Oilers in the 80's. Today the shifts are so short it is hard to believe the superstars can get into any kind of flow.

bri2327

<< <i>
~"One thing that I was surprised about was how often the players changed from playing to the bench. It was like a revolving door the entire time."~

I think the length of shifts is a significant change in the game today as opposed to 20 and 30 years ago. It is just another way that coaches and systems have modified and changed the game to make it more balanced and less risky. 30 years ago Phil Esposito used to play 2 to 3 minute shifts. Wayne Gretzky also had long shifts with the Oilers in the 80's. Today the shifts are so short it is hard to believe the superstars can get into any kind of flow. >>




I havnt noticed a difference in shift lengths all that much over the years. Maybe it was just an oversight, but it just doesnt seem all that different. Also, Phil Esposito may have had 2-3 minute shifts because the only skating the guy did was to circle the net waiting for a rebound.

Michigan

<< <i>It's the only sport I can think of that just doesn't translate at all to TV. In person it's like a whole different game. Not only can you see plays develop, as has already been mentioned, but the sheer speed of the game is unbelievable. >>




Baseball is another sport that does not translate well at all on TV.
Too slow paced, just the opposite of hockey.


Experienced much better in person than watching on TV.


Football is a great sport to watch on TV of course. No, I haven't decided yet if I'm retiring.

phreakydancin

<< <i>"Cleveland doesn't need yet another team to suck for eternity"

Don't forget that Cleveland fans are the most loyal fans in the Country! And we are darn proud of our teams! >>

Sorry, remind me what happened to the Barons?