Cheerleaders in Hockey? Dear God, NO!!!

[JuniperWoolf]

I put this in the serious discussions forum because really, where else would I put it?

Anyway, the Edmonton Oilers have cheerleaders now:



Now, you might think that I'd do the whole "it objectifies women!" blah blah blah, but I don't really care about that. I'm not against this for femminist reasons, I'm against it for nationalistic reasons. Hockey is a pure and traditional sport, it identifies our nation and we don't need American-style gimmicks to give it more zazz. Most Canadians that I know treat hockey like a religion, and this got to be so by the game existing exactly how it has for hundreds of years, when our fathers and grandfathers played. Lately, American business has changed the gave in fundamental ways, attempting to make it less "violent" and more sexualized. Is hockey suddenly so boring that you have to gawk at dancing girls in order to enjoy yourself? We don't need people to pump up our fans, they're already pumped up enough (which is obvious if you measure the octaves in an arena). This is just awkward and embarrassing, and it's an insult to our players. It's cheesy, campy, it cheapens the whole sport.

[keilj]

so do the Tampa Bay Lightning

and hey, for the record - Cheerleaders in ______ is a good thing (put any sport you want in the blank - badminton, curling)

[JuniperWoolf]

Ach! If you want to see dancing girls, go to a strip club. Canadian fans watch hockey because they love the game, not to get their rocks off.

[keilj]

so guys knocking each other's teeth out is OK, but attractive girls being jubilant is where we "draw the line for the purity of the game" - Canadians, go figure 'em

[JuniperWoolf]

so guys knocking each other's teeth out is OK, but attractive girls being jubilant is where we "draw the line for the purity of the game" - Canadians, go figure 'em

Yeah, I'm told that our ideas of violence are different than America's (the old "break your nose on the ice then buy you a beer after the game" mentality). Still, that's the way it is. Hockey is our most defining and important tradition. We're not cool with the recent trend towards American gimmicks, or to being told that the rules must be changed because they're "too violent." Hockey's been the same for hundreds of years, and we've always loved it just the way it was. It's a huge part of most Canadian's lives, and when our own local teams change because people in another country find it too violent or too boring (ergo the dancing girls), it's upsetting.

[Leland Gaunt]

Ach! If you want to see dancing girls, go to a strip club. Canadian fans watch hockey because they love the game, not to get their rocks off.

It's not as if they stopped playing hockey, just ignore the vaguely attractive women jumping about. Cheerleaders do not dominate any sport in which they are apart of, in fact, the only time I notice them is when they charge the playing surface to romp about during half time. This seems like it could only be highly entertaining in the case of ice hockey.

attempting to make it less "violent" and more sexualized

Call me when you have a Lingerie Hockey League, until then...


Also, I'd be sincerely interested in hearing about some of the negative effects brought on by an American influence. Like, how is it becoming less violent, and why are we able to change how local teams play? Thanks for any info.

[OrphanPip]

Meh, the cheerleaders are a definite effect of the increasing influence of ridiculous American concepts on hockey. I don't care about fighting in the game, but the Americans making the nets larger so that there would be more goals just made me cringe. The NHL is quickly becoming a joke because they always want to expand South, to reach a market that has never had an interest in the game and never will have an interest in the game.

This focus on the violence in the game is what I see as an American influence. I grew up playing hockey, and the focus on violence has always been a matter of sensationalism in the media. Anyone who actually watches hockey can tell you that a hockey fight rarely even involves punches thrown. There is not a fight in every game, and the fights are penalized. Physical play is part of the game, and a good part of the game, but to reduce that to violence is silly. Fighting has always been around, but it has never been tolerated until it began to be romanticized and hyped up for God knows what reason during the 70s.

I also think it should be a law that anyone who calls it a hockey "jersey" should be punched in the throat. It's a hockey sweater.

I don't really take to American style pomp around sports of any kind though. That whole face painting and cheer leader nonsense has always seemed ridiculous to me.

[JuniperWoolf]

How is making a sport that most people consider a huge part of their life more cheesy and commercial while at the same time negating our sense of sovereignty a negative thing? If you don't get it, then you won't.

Also, I'd be sincerely interested in hearing about some of the negative effects brought on by an American influence. Like, how is it becoming less violent, and why are we able to change how local teams play? Thanks for any info.

I'd be glad to.

In Canada, a lot of what we see and hear is controlled by American businesses. However, how does American opinion affect the NHL? It does so in the following way: Americans tend towards the opinion that the NHL is "too violent," and the powers-that-be have noticed that there are many more Americans then there are Canadians. It's a fun game, if it were a bit nicer and had a few more skimpy women dancing around, couldn't it make a lot of money off of these people who aren't watching right now because of the violence and lack of boobs? Despite how seriously Canadians take their hockey, and how much of their own money Canadians pour into the sport, it is true that if more Americans watched hockey (there being so many more Americans then there are Canadians) the sport could make much more money. In an attempt to appeal to Americans, some people in power have tried to soften up the sport. Even though many of the players and fans are from Canada, Russia and Nordic Countires, the teams themselves are owned and operated bv business men (mostly American) who want American money. There have been numerous battles in the last couple of decades between the fans, the players, the owners and the officials of the NHL concerning how the sport should be run. My personal favourite (sarcastic voice) is when they tried to have a little mini-puck along the top of the screen so that people could "see where the puck was." Jesus. American owners and officials are able to change the way that the game is played because they have the money to do so.

Don't even get me STARTED on the Winnipeg Jets. What the hell is a hockey team doing in Phoenix, Arizona in the first damn place, who thought that was going to be a good idea?

[Leland Gaunt]

Meh, the cheerleaders are a definite effect of the increasing influence of ridiculous American concepts on hockey. I don't care about fighting in the game, but the Americans making the nets larger so that there would be more goals just made me cringe. The NHL is quickly becoming a joke because they always want to expand South, to reach a market that has never had an interest in the game and never will have an interest in the game.

This focus on the violence in the game is what I see as an American influence. I grew up playing hockey, and the focus on violence has always been a matter of sensationalism in the media. Anyone who actually watches hockey can tell you that a hockey fight rarely even involves punches thrown. There is not a fight in every game, and the fights are penalized. Physical play is part of the game, and a good part of the game, but to reduce that to violence is silly. Fighting has always been around, but it has never been tolerated until it began to be romanticized and hyped up for God knows what reason during the 70s.

Making the nets larger does sound like bull****. But I will disagree with you about the South, your position is just a little bit pessimistic. The same thing was said of soccer, in regards to the entirety of the US, and that hasn't held up to reality.

How is making a sport that most people consider a huge part of their life more cheesy and commercial while at the same time negating our sense of sovereignty a negative thing?

Eh, I think you might be blowing it out of proportion. Now keeping rules, net sizes, and period lengths the same, I will agree with you. But if having cheerleaders be present at a sporting event honestly messes with your sense of sovereignty, then Canada needs to find something more substantial than a sport to define it's national identity.

It does so in the following way: Americans tend towards the opinion that the NHL is "too violent," and the powers-that-be have noticed that there are many more Americans then there are Canadians.

This seems to be contradictory to what Orphan has said, it is also contrary to my own personal experience. Not only do Americans not care about hockey, but they would like it better if it was more violent. I guess if you could, how have we reduced violence in the NHL?

It's a fun game, if it were a bit nicer and had a few more skimpy women dancing around, couldn't it make a lot of money off of these people who aren't watching right now because of the violence and lack of boobs? Despite how seriously Canadians take their hockey, and how much of their own money Canadians pour into the sport, it is true that if more Americans watched hockey (there being so many more Americans then there are Canadians) the sport could make much more money. In an attempt to appeal to Americans, some people in power have tried to soften up the sport. Even though many of the players and fans are from Canada, Russia and Nordic Countires, the teams themselves are owned and operated bv business men (mostly American) who want American money. There have been numerous battles in the last couple of decades between the fans, the players, the owners and the officials of the NHL concerning how the sport should be run. My personal favourite (sarcastic voice) is when they tried to have a little mini-puck along the top of the screen so that people could "see where the puck was." Jesus. American owners and officials are able to change the way that the game is played because they have the money to do so.

That does sound ****ty, if it helps not many Americans are impressed with the NHL. Are there any alternative leagues that are broadcasted?

What the hell is a hockey team doing in Phoenix, Arizona in the first damn place, who thought that was going to be a good idea?

Arizonans?

[JuniperWoolf]

This seems to be contradictory to what Orphan has said, it is also contrary to my own personal experience.

Not really. The fact that there are more people living in America than Canada is just sort of... well, a fact.

Not only do Americans not care about hockey, but they would like it better if it was more violent. I guess if you could, how have we reduced violence in the NHL?

General protest and nagging, mostly.

You ask a lot of questions that are easily answered by simple research. I'm just going to post a wiki article, so that you can take learning into your own hands rather than have to take the time to explain everything to you (which I can see right now, would be absolutely exhausting):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_in_ice_hockey

You could even try watching a hockey game, and be sure to pay attention to the guys that talk between periods. You'll learn all that you need to know.

But if having cheerleaders be present at a sporting event honestly messes with your sense of sovereignty, then Canada needs to find something more substantial than a sport to define it's national identity.

More substantial? Like what? That "sport" is our greatest defining factor. You really just don't get it.

Arizonans?

*frustrated sigh* Actually, no, that would be the source of the entire issue and the reason why the team is bankrupt. God, have you ever heard of google? Television? The accumulation of any knowledge whatsoever before you enter a debate?

[Leland Gaunt]

Your statements were contradictory because Orphan said that Americans had put an out of place importance on fighting, you said that we have instead tried to make it less violent. I made no comment on populations.

More substantial? Like what, hamburgers? Sorry. That "sport" is our greatest defining factor. You really just don't get it.

I do so hope that wasn't the same tired, and exaggerated stab at America. Nope, I guess I don't get how a game could be so important.

*frustrated sigh* Actually, no, that would be the source of the entire issue and the reason why the team is bankrupt. God, have you ever heard of google? Television? The accumulation of any knowledge whatsoever before you enter a debate?

Lol, like anyone would report on that!
Actually, I don't see the issue. The team failed, bummer. Maybe his will urge those businessman to make smarter decisions, and perhaps even begin to cater towards more traditional fans. Good news, yes?
Debate? I guess then that we would be arguing whether, this whole Americanization of hockey is important or not. As that is the only point where we have disagreed. In that case, I don't need to do a whole lotta research, to say "It's just a game!"

[billl]

Hey, Juniper. It strikes me as strange that Americans would be responsible for reducing violence in hockey (judging from my experience with U.S. hockey fans, anyhow), but you might be right. Maybe they are trying to appeal to families or something... In the NFL, there has (just this past week or so) been a severe crackdown on tackles that are led with the helmet, esp. against "defenseless" players. The disturbing news is that NFL veterans, and in particular linemen, have a high incidence of dementia and other brain disorders, and they are trying to reduce how many concussions happen.

So, it's hard to be scientific, but I would say there is evidence of U.S. concern about these things, at least these days... Still, the Wiki article references quite a few anti-fighting voices coming from Canadian reporters, physicians, and community leaders. Moreso than U.S. references, I think... The pro-fighting references seem to come from Canada, overwhelmingly (but most U.S. kids and single men would probably agree). Maybe this situation with the references in the Wiki are just because the sport is discussed more up north, though...

Anyhow, it seems like there are physicians and people concerned about their kids in Canada, that are at least providing cover for anti-violence U.S. forces that can't get Bettman to budge on the issue.

[JuniperWoolf]

Your statements were contradictory because Orphan said that Americans had put an out of place importance on fighting, you said that we have instead tried to make it less violent. I made no comment on populations.

No, Pip said that the American media was hyping up how violent and brutal hockey fights were when no one has ever really made big a deal about it before (like, for the last hundred years or so).

Nope, I guess I don't get how a game could be so important.

Right, you don't.

Lol, like anyone would report on that!!"

Except, like, eighteen thousand times a day. We live in different countries, genius.

I do so hope that wasn't the same tired, and exaggerated stab at America.

Yeah, I couldn't think of anything funnier and more original at the time that wouldn't get me banned. Schere is pretty disaproving of most of my material.

The team failed, bummer. Maybe his will urge those businessman to make smarter decisions, and perhaps even begin to cater towards more traditional fans. Good news, yes?!"

Actually, Oilers games are sold out every single night which was another point raised by Canadians. There's no need to attract more spectators, the building literally can't hold any more people. Again, you're talking about things that you're totally ignorant about and I'm wasting my time talking to you. I have no idea why you responded to this thread. Is this what a "troll" is? We don't get them that often on litnet.

Hey, Juniper. It strikes me as strange that Americans would be responsible for reducing violence in hockey (judging from my experience with U.S. hockey fans, anyhow), but you might be right. Maybe they are trying to appeal to families or something...

Yeah, Pip put it really well, it's all about expanding south to reach the American market (and American money) so the corporation is trying to mould hockey into what Americans want. It's really frustrating, but I think that Canadians will put up with it. A few people have said that they won't buy tickets or watch the game if it gets any worse, but I really don't think that this is going to happen because hockey is so much a part of Canadian life. I think that it could get to the point where they're playing rock music and putting on a lazer show with a written dialogue in which Crosby and Ovechkin have a passionate altercation about their respective childhood struggles, and I'm pretty sure that Canadians would STILL watch it.

[Leland Gaunt]

Me:Orphan said that Americans had put an out of place importance on fighting
You: Pip said that the American media was hyping up how violent and brutal hockey fights were when no one has ever really made big a deal about it before

Disagreement?

Except, like, eighteen thousand times a day. We live in different countries, genius.

Exactly! So why am I supposed to keep up with Canadian news shows?

Actually, Oilers games are sold out every single night which was another point raised by Canadians. There's no need to attract more spectators, the building literally can't hold any more people. Again, you're talking about things that you're totally ignorant about and I'm wasting my time talking to you. I have no idea why you responded to this thread. Is this what a "troll" is? We don't get them that often on litnet.

I'm so confused as to where the trouble is now. In Canada you sell out, in Arizona it is a different case. So what is the issue? How is that anything but reassuring to your position? Well in the beginning it was just to glean some knowledge out of your posts, but I'm still ever so confused as to what your point was in bringing up the South and you haven't really explained some of your other points. In fact I would question your point in bringing this up as their isn't much to debate, but there is plenty to discuss yet your unwilling to do so. Really, tell me what it is you think we are debating right now?

Nope, a troll is someone who tries to derail a thread from it's original topic. I'm not sure where I have done this, but if I have I apologize.

[OrphanPip]

Bettman is an infuriating commissioner of the NHL. All of the teams the NHL set up in the Southern USA during the mid 90s have failed, all of them are money pits. I don't understand how he managed to trick the government in Phoenix into wasting even more money on bailing out the Coyotes.