Originally posted by uzlessAs long as it can be learned your point still crumbles. You have to show one that can't be learned, which obviously doesn't exist.
You're the only trapper here palynka.
If i explain this one play, you only gain insight into one play. If we were to try this with another clip, the set of circumstances would be different and the players thought process would be different so for you to apply anything you get from what i say about why this particular goal happened wouldn't necessarily work.
Originally posted by uzlessOf course there is. I've shown that your argument is logically inconsistent and therefore cannot be true. 😏
There is NO OTHER WAY to do this properly. But you won't. We know it. You know it.
That you have been avoiding it so far and clinging desperately to your failed example is symptomatic.
Originally posted by Palynkasure It can be proven. I can explain this play and then put up another clip and let you guys try to explain it. When you can't, i will explain it again. Then i'll put up another clip and we'll repeat the process over and over and over. Not once will you guys be able to do it like I can...especially if we use different players in each clip.
As long as it can be learned your point still crumbles. You have to show one that can't be learned, which obviously doesn't exist.
Originally posted by PalynkaJust because you SAY you've proven something, it doesn't mean you ACTUALLY HAVE.
Of course there is. I've shown that your argument is logically inconsistent and therefore cannot be true. 😏
That you have been avoiding it so far and clinging desperately to your failed example is symptomatic.
you're "points" have all been refuted and shown to be not just full of holes, but not even having anything outside the hole either. Just a hole.
No substance. All Flash.
Originally posted by uzlessThat's because I couldn't care less about your crappy sport. Not because I haven't played.
sure It can be proven. I can explain this play and then put up another clip and let you guys try to explain it. When you can't, i will explain it again. Then i'll put up another clip and we'll repeat the process over and over and over. Not once will you guys be able to do it like I can...especially if we use different players in each clip.
Originally posted by Palynkaright, so you, like crowley, really shoudln't even be bothering to post in this thread. Your "arguments" contribute nothing to a debate that centres on people who've played hockey versus those who've only watched it on tv.
That's because I couldn't care less about your crappy sport. Not because I haven't played.
I've said all along, this should only involve people who think they've gained insight to hockey and can describe the play as well as I can.
You're just here for the argument and the genuflection.
Originally posted by uzlessMy argument is a logical one, so it's independent of your anecdotal examples.
right, so you, like crowley, really shoudln't even be bothering to post in this thread. Your "arguments" contribute nothing to a debate that centres on people who've played hockey versus those who've only watched it on tv.
I've said all along, this should only involve people who think they've gained insight to hockey and can describe the play as well as I can.
You're just here for the argument and the genuflection.
You can try to sweep it under the carpet, but it just won't fit.
Originally posted by uzlessOne more time, and then I'll give it up as a hopeless case.
what...and prove they are wrong and prove the people who don't believe me wrong too? Never!!
It would prove nothing. This is the fundamental flaw in your argument.
A. Some people who have not played the game do not understand it as well as someone who has.
B. No person who has not played the game can possibly understand it as well as someone who has.
You are trying to prove B. Your 'experiment' can only ever prove A. They are not the same thing.
Thankyou for listening...
I have a problem with the idea that every player in Ovechkin's position would be thinking exactly the same thing - so that there could only be one possible correct answer (that uzless clearly knows and the rest of us don't). I'm sure similar situations occur in hockey frequently, but they don't result in a goal. Are you claiming that this situation would ALWAYS have resulted in a goal no matter who the players were? - or even if it was the same cast of players each time?
I will use my own experience as a long distance runner. If I am watching a race, I definitely have insights into what the runners are thinking, feeling, planning, whatever. And I could probably make a pretty good guess about every runner's thought process and strategy. I would likely be able to make a much better guess than a non-runner would provide. But there's no way I could ever be absolutely 100% certain.
Because I myself have been in similar situations in many different races, and my own thoughts have often been different in each case -- who knows, maybe one race I'm just in an aggressive mood and I decide to push the pace in an attempt to lose the person running with me. The next race, I prefer to just maintain the pace and hope the other guy fades by himself. And the next race after that, maybe I'm worried about an injury, so I just let the other guy go.
So if I can't even predict what my OWN thoughts would be in a given situation with absolute certainty, there's no way I'd be able to perfectly predict anyone else's thoughts.
This was an interesting thread.
I think three things were very clear:
1. In general, players of any particular sport will know more about the sport (from the rules to
the nuances) than people who have never played the sport before. I don't think anyone has
argued against this.
2. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer to the video clip. There is only a differing perspective.
Show this video clip to 15 different former players and you'll get 15 different explanations "why"
the play happened. We all experience things from a different perspective--even players
experience the plays from their own perspective. Viewers experience the game from a
different perspective. Coaches experience the game from a different perspective, etc.
I'm sure Gretzky or Ovechkin could discuss more about this play than high-school Joe Schmo
who played one season of the sport (but still "played".) Are only the greatest players (Gretzky,
Jordan, Pelé, Ruth...) blessed with the "correct" knowledge about the sport?
3. Knowledge acquired is knowledge that can be passed on - even to someone who hasn't
played the game before. Many broadcasters/coaches can talk about the "whys" of a play
better than the players who actually were involved in the play. I'd bet a million dollars that Joe
Schmo who only played one season of hockey doesn't know half as much about the game as a
veteran coach or announcer that never played a lick. Having only ONE person who never
played the game understand the game more than only ONE person who played the game even
a little destroys the entire premise that a non-player can never understand the game as well
as a former player.