19 Nov 09
Originally posted by Very RustyParis Hilton has more money than all of us posting here combined. Would you call her smart or a hard worker?
Without saying what you do of course.
I just don't think it is right that you call people dumb, when they are smart enough or have worked hard enough in their life to have more money than you do, is all. It is money that does the talking in this world, when all else is said and done.
19 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessBecause this will ALWAYS stay a theoretical debate. How can you not understand this?
I've been trying to back up that argument by using this thread to test/prove my argument but everyone who opposed me in the other thread won't even try to disprove my point by commenting on the goal.
The only way you can 'prove' your premise is to get every single couch-potato hockey watcher in the world to give their analysis of a set of randomly chosen hockey plays, probably including a set of "what happens next?" questions.
Then we have to get all the ex-and current players to give their analysis.
The actual players who were on the ice will then have to be roped in to give us their perspective on their own plays.
There then has to be some sort of knowledgeable, unbiased group of assessors (which is impossible, because we need everyone to give their analysis of the plays, so there can not be complete objectivity) who take all the 'answers' and gives them some sort of weighted score according to a set of pre-defined criteria (probably impossible too, since a degree of bias will creep in).
So, even if we get EVERYONE involved, there will be no-one left to assess the data.
The only way to ensure complete objectivity is to get everyone to assess everyone else and set up the assessment criteria, meaning we lose objectivity in the 'testing' phase.
19 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by CrowleyA scientific study would not need to get EVERYONE involved. A random sample of fans who are non-players and a random sample of players/coaches would suffice. This would leave plenty of people left over to be the objective assessors.
Because this will ALWAYS stay a theoretical debate. How can you not understand this?
The only way you can 'prove' your premise is to get every single couch-potato hockey watcher in the world to give their analysis of a set of randomly chosen hockey plays, probably including a set of "what happens next?" questions.
Then we have to get all the ex-and curre and set up the assessment criteria, meaning we lose objectivity in the 'testing' phase.
I would be very interested in the results of such a study. What things do the non-players quickly pick up on? and what things are they especially likely to miss? The results could be used to help TV analysts avoid harping on "the obvious", and focus more on those things that viewers are most likely to miss.
And maybe there could actually be things that the non-players are MORE likely to pick up on?
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesLook. This comes down to a very simple question: Is there anything intangible about a given sport?
A scientific study would not need to get EVERYONE involved. A random sample of fans who are non-players and a random sample of players/coaches would suffice. This would leave plenty of people left over to be the objective assessors.
I would be very interested in the results of such a study. What things do the non-players quickly pick up on? and what t ...[text shortened]...
And maybe there could actually be things that the non-players are MORE likely to pick up on?
The answer is a pretty obvious no and to claim otherwise you will need to accept the idea that sports are metaphysical. So there is no limit to understanding a sport that can only be breached by playing.
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by Very RustyYear or two back I've got a picture of me skating the parking lot at work in my hockey skates.
We, don't care if you jump.
Can you skate, and do you know the game of hockey?
I have played hockey, but never coached kind. I have my own skates, but never owned a stick. Never played on a painted rink, pond only with makeshift goals.
I do however have a cracked rib from the guy defending that got tired of me scoring 9 goals a game on him... checked me 'quarter-staff' style right in the small lower ribs.
Is that legal?
I don't know. I do know it hurt like heck, and I've still got the crooked rib to prove it.
My point is people can learn a sport they never played. My other point is who's to say the coaches teaching Uzeless knew the game. Did they play?
Just because you played doesn't mean you know everything about the game. Just because you didn't play the game doesn't mean you can't learn it.
Like I said about Kurt Schilling, he's pompous starting every baseball conversation telling the other guy "You don't know the game". That's crap.
P-
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by PhlabibitBut....Curt Schilling can spell his own name.
Year or two back I've got a picture of me skating the parking lot at work in my hockey skates.
I have played hockey, but never coached kind. I have my own skates, but never owned a stick. Never played on a painted rink, pond only with makeshift goals.
I do however have a cracked rib from the guy defending that got tired of me scoring 9 goals a game ...[text shortened]... conversation telling the other guy "You don't know the game". That's crap.
P-
And, for the record, he is quite intelligent, and studies his craft extremely well. I saw his set up in the Arizona locker room when he played for the D-backs. He showed me the set up of his computer system and the database compilation of every player he pitched against, pitching sequences, what worked and what didn't. It was quite elaborate and quite impressive. He poured over this information prior to each game he pitched and his preparation was rock solid.
Yes he is arrogant, but most of the best ones are arrogant. There are very few great ones who weren't arrogant. Brooks Robinson, George Kell, Ernie Banks and Al Kaline come to mind as ones who weren't arrogant. Arrogance is really misinterpreted as strong confidence too.
Like him or not, Schilling was a gamer and he could play for me any time.
Regarding your comments on players knowledge and coaches knowledge....
True, all players are not the strongest mental geniuses. But, the overwhelming number of former players who become successful coaches compared to the number of successful coaches who never played shows there is value in seeing the game from the inside. There is an old adage "Those who can do it..do it, while those who can't do it...teach it." That is true some of the time, but not all of the time. Coaches who have played the game will earn respect from players faster than those who did not play. That is a fact. The non player has to prove his mettle before he will be accepted. There are times when a person will understand the inner workings of the game brilliantly, but does not possess the physical tools to play the game. Likewise, there are some who have unbelievable talent and can't figure out which clubhouse they should be in. Both of these are the exceptions, rather than the rule because you have to have a helluva lot of thing go right for you to ever reach the show. There are many who never make it due to bad breaks, injuries, whatever.
The fact is, the majority of the best managers and coaches are former players, because they know the game from the inside out. You can't be on the outside and know everything there is to know.
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by shortcircuitBut the question is if that regularity is simply because players have more contact with the game than non-players or if it's because there is something intangible that you cannot learn unless you've been a player.
But....[b]Curt Schilling can spell his own name.
And, for the record, he is quite intelligent, and studies his craft extremely well. I saw his set up in the Arizona locker room when he played for the D-backs. He showed me the set up of his computer system and the database compilation of every player he pitched against, pitching sequences, what wo ...[text shortened]... e from the inside out. You can't be on the outside and know everything there is to know.[/b]
In football, things are changing and you see much more new coaches that weren't players before. Why? Because in the mid 90s we saw a boom in dedicated graduate schools teaching the game full-time to those that want to be coaches. I think this is evidence for the position that there is nothing truly intangible about the sport.
19 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyThat is another inane statement from you. How could you possibly know this to be true without knowing the exact amount of money Paris Hilton has.
Paris Hilton has more money than all of us posting here combined. Would you call her smart or a hard worker?
You would also have to know what the combined money of everyone at RHP was, which you do not.
Didn't you know Paris Hilton was born with a silver spoon in her mouth. She really didn't have to be smart or a hard worker, not saying she is not. I really don't know her well enough to say either way. Do you?
19 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by PhlabibitYou played the game on a pond, same as I did. I also played organized hockey, which you don't mention, so I assume you didn't. You scored 9 goals a game because the other person could not stop the puck obviously. 😛 Sounds like you learned to skate, but you didn't actually play in organized hockey?
Year or two back I've got a picture of me skating the parking lot at work in my hockey skates.
I have played hockey, but never coached kind. I have my own skates, but never owned a stick. Never played on a painted rink, pond only with makeshift goals.
I do however have a cracked rib from the guy defending that got tired of me scoring 9 goals a game conversation telling the other guy "You don't know the game". That's crap.
P-
I was talking more along the lines of where it organized and you have a coach, and actually learn the game, vs.'s couch potatoe who watches on tv. Even the kids today play systems (set plays to use during a game) which we never did. Playing the game does give you better knowledge of the game. I don't believe in playing systems for kids, they should be let go and to explore the game and be innovative.
Do I know 'everything; about the game? Probably not, but I would be willing to bet I know more than someone who has not played the game. I am sure there are things Wayne, & Mario could explain to me. 😉
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by uzlessDr. Rubinstein....what is the difference WHAT sport it is? The same parameters existin in every sport where players and coaches are parts of the team. Why do you believe that hockey is a special?
I think anyone who hasn't watched a lot of hockey games on tv shouldn't even be posting in THIS thread. this thread is supposed to test tv watchers versus players.
If you aren't in either category, your comments are worthless for the purposes of this thread.
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaIn which case, my proposed scientific experiment would show no difference between the players and the non-players in their ability to analyze plays (assuming, of course, that the non-players care about the sport as much as the players, and have watched a lot of games on TV and-or in person - and that the intelligence levels of both sample groups are similar).
Look. This comes down to a very simple question: [b]Is there anything intangible about a given sport?
The answer is a pretty obvious no and to claim otherwise you will need to accept the idea that sports are metaphysical. So there is no limit to understanding a sport that can only be breached by playing.[/b]
On the other hand, if the experiment was to show that the players did a significantly better job analyzing the plays, there would have to be some sort of explanation.
As I had mentioned before, I would be especially interested in those things that the non-players might be BETTER at seeing. Perhaps the experience of playing the game creates prejudices that interfere with your ability to see certain things?
But unless someone does the study, all we can really do is speculate about how it would turn out.
19 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuitThe difference is that hockey happens to be the sport that uzless has had experience playing. This thread started when uzless argued that he could explain what was going on in a given hockey play better than any of us who merely watch the game on TV (no matter how much we watch or care about the sport). I then suggested that perhaps uzless put post a clip and we could all take a crack at analyzing it, to see if there was anything that uzless was aware of that we were all missing.
Dr. Rubinstein....what is the difference WHAT sport it is? The same parameters existin in every sport where players and coaches are parts of the team. Why do you believe that hockey is a special?
I, for one, was up for the challenge. I was hoping that we could have all worked together in an effort to prove that the small group of us could indeed find all (or almost all) of the important points that uzless claimed we were unable to see. OR, on the other hand, if despite our best efforts, there were important things that we all managed to miss despite our very best efforts.
Obviously, our little exercise might only have proven that uzless himself happens to be exceptionally smart when it comes to analyzing hockey, or that we all here are rather dim-witted when it comes to hockey. (Which is why I proposed a theoretical scientific experiment). But it still would have been a lot of FUN. Just like playing a game of chess. Maybe uzless could post the clip on a new thread (perhaps in the Puzzles Forum) and anyone who doesn't want to participate in the exercise can stay out of it.
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by uzlessWhaaaaaaah!
I think anyone who hasn't watched a lot of hockey games on tv shouldn't even be posting in THIS thread. this thread is supposed to test tv watchers versus players.
If you aren't in either category, your comments are worthless for the purposes of this thread.
What are these people doing, making me look like a fool in MY OWN THREAD?
Whaaaaah whaaaah!