What is the World's Best Sport?

[bluearth]

hockey has been added

[silversnake]

Originally Posted by wilky61

How do you figure this?

In the last 28 seasons, only 8 different teams have won the NBA Championship.
In the last 22 seasons, 14 different teams have won the NHL Stanley Cup. (15 different teams in the last 28)

To me, that says that the NBA Championship is the hardest to win...
Maybe the Stanley Cup is the hardest to win twice.

NBA has only 8 different teams winning championship because those teams are stacked and while the salary is about the same, you don't have to have as many players on your roster so you can afford more superstars since you only need to 10 or so players. Hockey has 22 players and they roll all 4 offensive lines and 3 defense pairings. Hockey has to be a lot smarter in how they have stars and how much they pay them.

Because it takes 16 wins to win the cup. And they are the hardest 16 wins. There is almost no physicality aspect to NBA compared to the NHL.

NHL players are playing 82 regular season games hitting each other constantly and constantly skating. and then they have to win another 16 for the cup.

There's a reason why a shift for a hockey player is less than 1 minute normally, because it takes an incredibly amount of energy, stamina and endurance.

Players are playing with countless injuries. Players will put their face in front of the puck if it means stopping a goal. You have had players have their teeth removed while they are on the bench. In hockey it's possible to play 10 full minutes or more without a single whistle or stop in play, just constant action up and down the ice.

I could go on and on but the pure speed, physicality and mental aspect that is required to play the game of hockey is unmatched. And it gets pushed to 11 for the playoffs.

[Azyiu]

Originally Posted by silversnake

NBA has only 8 different teams winning championship because those teams are stacked and while the salary is about the same, you don't have to have as many players on your roster so you can afford more superstars since you only need to 10 or so players. Hockey has 22 players and they roll all 4 offensive lines and 3 defense pairings. Hockey has to be a lot smarter in how they have stars and how much they pay them.

Because it takes 16 wins to win the cup. And they are the hardest 16 wins. There is almost no physicality aspect to NBA compared to the NHL.

NHL players are playing 82 regular season games hitting each other constantly and constantly skating. and then they have to win another 16 for the cup.

There's a reason why a shift for a hockey player is less than 1 minute normally, because it takes an incredibly amount of energy, stamina and endurance.

Players are playing with countless injuries. Players will put their face in front of the puck if it means stopping a goal. You have had players have their teeth removed while they are on the bench. In hockey it's possible to play 10 full minutes or more without a single whistle or stop in play, just constant action up and down the ice.

I could go on and on but the pure speed, physicality and mental aspect that is required to play the game of hockey is unmatched. And it gets pushed to 11 for the playoffs.

Yeah, sure, playing hockey or specifically in the NHL is tough and physically demanding and all, but those things don't necessarily make me liking it or disliking it.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed watching hockey live, but if by "best sport" it means physically demanding and all like you sir have described above, then rock climbing or mountaineering would blow hockey out of the water. At least you are not likely get killed when playing a hockey game, but you potentially do when rock climbing and mountaineering. Just saying...

[D-Blitz]

Originally Posted by Azyiu

Yeah, sure, playing hockey or specifically in the NHL is tough and physically demanding and all, but those things don't necessarily make me liking it or disliking it.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed watching hockey live, but if by "best sport" it means physically demanding and all like you sir have described above, then rock climbing or mountaineering would blow hockey out of the water. At least you are not likely get killed when playing a hockey game, but you potentially do when rock climbing and mountaineering. Just saying...

His whole argument was explaining why it is the toughest championship to get. And the physicality aspect is a huge reason. Most teams will have players playing with broken fingers, feet, separated shoulders, torn muscles, broken noses, concussions, 5 missing teeth, etc by the time they reach the cup.

And the fact that more teams have won the cup is a testament to the competitive nature of this sport. It is THE most competitive sport - the physicality aspect just amplifies this to a level past any other sport. In football, you don't play the same team too many times. In hockey, you play 4 best of 7 series - at the end of each, both teams absolutely HATE each other and the intensity level can get overwhelming.

And your argument in the last paragraph there makes zero sense to me - not sure what wavelength you're on there. Hockey is physically demanding, requires skill and is a fast and action packed team game. I can go to a circus if I wanna see people do stuff that's gonna get them killed.

[Azyiu]

Originally Posted by D-Blitz

His whole argument was explaining why it is the toughest championship to get. And the physicality aspect is a huge reason. Most teams will have players playing with broken fingers, feet, separated shoulders, torn muscles, broken noses, concussions, 5 missing teeth, etc by the time they reach the cup.

And the fact that more teams have won the cup is a testament to the competitive nature of this sport. It is THE most competitive sport - the physicality aspect just amplifies this to a level past any other sport. In football, you don't play the same team too many times. In hockey, you play 4 best of 7 series - at the end of each, both teams absolutely HATE each other and the intensity level can get overwhelming.

And your argument in the last paragraph there makes zero sense to me - not sure what wavelength you're on there. Hockey is physically demanding, requires skill and is a fast and action packed team game. I can go to a circus if I wanna see people do stuff that's gonna get them killed.

Fair enough, but that's not what I meant.

[wilky61]

Originally Posted by D-Blitz

In hockey, you play 4 best of 7 series - at the end of each, both teams absolutely HATE each other and the intensity level can get overwhelming.

This is so true, but I still don't think NFL or NBA are any less competitive than NHL. If you watched this year's NBA Playoffs at all, then you'd know this.

I watch all sports and all sports' playoffs, and I enjoy all sports; I just don't think you can quantify competitiveness. I don't think you can argue why one sport is "better" than another because every argument that I've seen in this thread can just as easily be used to support another sport. It just comes down to personal preference.

I still think football (specifically, college football) is the most exciting to watch live and to follow each week, though, because the stakes are so high with each game.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by D-Blitz

And your argument in the last paragraph there makes zero sense to me - not sure what wavelength you're on there. Hockey is physically demanding, requires skill and is a fast and action packed team game. I can go to a circus if I wanna see people do stuff that's gonna get them killed.

I think the point was that physicality can't be the only reason you consider Hockey #1, because as physical as it is it's still not the most-physically demanding sport, so it has to be physicality combined with something.

I appreciate that Hockey players are tough, but I still don't like the sport. As "fast-paced" as the action is, most of that leads to nothing, and in my opinion there are only a handful of truly exciting moments per game.

Pointing out the poll is biased is silly however. People are raised to like certain sports, and you won't get a truly unbiased answer from anyone. It's not like there's an objective method of determining best sport.

*EDIT* Whoa, that last paragraph came out completely wrong the first time. I swear I'm going nuts.

[D-Blitz]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

I think the point was that physicality can't be the only reason you consider Hockey #1, because as physical as it is it's still not the most-physically demanding sport, so it has to be physicality combined with something.

I appreciate that Hockey players are tough, but I still don't like the sport. As "fast-paced" as the action is, most of that leads to nothing, and in my opinion there are only a handful of truly exciting moments per game.

Pointing out the poll is biased is silly however. People are raised to like certain sports, and you won't get a truly unbiased answer from anyone. It's not like there's an objective method of determining best sport.

*EDIT* Whoa, that last paragraph came out completely wrong the first time. I swear I'm going nuts.

It's geographic bias. Of course this is subjective - who said otherwise? If you read my post and some of those of others after me, I clearly meant to say that the only reason football dominates here is because the majority of members here are American. What you're saying here has no remote connection to what I actually did say. Put this poll in, let's say Sky Sports, and you'll be lucky to get 5% voting for football - would probably be Americans LOL.

[D-Blitz]

Originally Posted by wilky61

This is so true, but I still don't think NFL or NBA are any less competitive than NHL. If you watched this year's NBA Playoffs at all, then you'd know this.

I watch all sports and all sports' playoffs, and I enjoy all sports; I just don't think you can quantify competitiveness. I don't think you can argue why one sport is "better" than another because every argument that I've seen in this thread can just as easily be used to support another sport. It just comes down to personal preference.

I still think football (specifically, college football) is the most exciting to watch live and to follow each week, though, because the stakes are so high with each game.

No, I agree - I did watch the NBA playoffs a bit this year and the players were out there competing for sure. But the difference here is in the physical nature of the game. No question the intensity levels is raised by the physicality in hockey. I would know... the past playoff season was so intense/stressful, it took a few years out of my life.

[MrFattBill]

My vote was for Soccer/Football and I would argue that the World Cup is the hardest team based championship to win. Having to qualify to be in the tournament, going from a round robin aggregate scoring system into a single loss elimination bracket....and a single goal at the international level carries so much weight for a team it's crazy to think about. One goal can be the difference between playing Brazil or Australia (US Women I am looking at you ) Of course I would much rather watch a 1-0 pitcher dual in MLB then a 12-10 homer fest so maybe that's why I like soccer so much, lol.

Bill

[Almadacr]

Originally Posted by bluearth

hockey has been added

On your first you said Quote : This is only for sports that require a ball of some sort .

why ad hockey , as far a ball goes is " a round, usually spherical but sometimes ovoid " wile a puck is a disk . In the roller Hockey there is a ball and its not played on ice and normally almost nobody follows it in north america .

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by Almadacr

On your first you said Quote : This is only for sports that require a ball of some sort .

why ad hockey , as far a ball goes is " a round, usually spherical but sometimes ovoid " wile a puck is a disk . In the roller Hockey there is a ball and its not played on ice and normally almost nobody follows it in north america .

is this a joke lol?

[Terjyn]

The Bias part of my comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular. And the rest of my post absolutely DOES relate to what you said. It's not a contradiction, but more of a kick-off point. Just because you are quoted doesn't mean you are being refuted.

Originally Posted by D-Blitz

It's geographic bias. Of course this is subjective - who said otherwise? If you read my post and some of those of others after me, I clearly meant to say that the only reason football dominates here is because the majority of members here are American. What you're saying here has no remote connection to what I actually did say. Put this poll in, let's say Sky Sports, and you'll be lucky to get 5% voting for football - would probably be Americans LOL.

And if you post it on Sky Sports, it's STILL geographic bias. Just a different one. Bringing up the fact it's biased, thus, is silly. Of course it is.

[bluearth]

Hockey supporters have made a pretty good case that even got me thinking.

However football/soccer is #2 in the poll right now and nobody has given a case for it? This is a poll for the world's BEST sport, not the world's most POPULAR.

Rice is the most POPULAR food in the world, but is it the best?

I really like the purity that stems from the somewhat simplicity of the game of soccer, but outside of being the world's most popular sport simply by default becuse its so cheap to play (no pads or equipment needed) I'm still waiting for soccer fans to make a good argument.

I personally believe the game of soccer could be much better then what it is now if they made a few rule changes. American football is constantly changing the rules to speed up the game and make it more exciting. It seems to me soccer never gets any rule changes and its fans are simply satisfied with the level of excitement in it. Why not make it 10 on 10? That would increase scoring, fast breaks, everything.

I know the continuous play of soccer is praised as one if its greatest assets, but really, I can't watch a game for 50 minutes straight, then halftime, then another 50 minutes straight. Its not like there is alot of exciting moments. If a movie had the pace of a soccer game for its first 50 minutes critics would rip it to shreds. How many times are there scoreless halfs? Thats like there is no plot advancement or character development for the first 50 minutes of a movie. The ball is usually over 50 yards away from either goal most of the time so continuous play means little. The sport with continuous play that can hold my interst is hockey because in the blink of an eye someone can be in scoring range.

I remember watching a video of Wayne Rooney's bicycle goal a few months ago. If soccer can change some rules and make plays like this happen more often the sport would be much bvetter in my eyes.

[Almadacr]

So what rules would you change ???? Clearly you never played the sport , i already said it is there any other sport that it not played with the hands with the exception of a goalie ?? no .

[bluearth]

Originally Posted by Almadacr

So what rules would you change ???? Clearly you never played the sport , i already said it is there any other sport that it not played with the hands with the exception of a goalie ?? no .

I would have less players on the field from both sides to open the game up. I think the balance is off with the amount of players they have on the field now. Shutouts are far too common. I believe shutouts should be something difficult to obtain, like they are in baseball, hockey, and American football. It does take some defense of course to get a shut out in soccer, but not enough in my opinion. Have one less player on the field from both sides and it would truly be a test of defensive skills to get a shut out in soccer.

I honestly feel that one simple rule change would do wonders for the sport. Guys like Wayne Rooney and other superstars could really showcase their talent more without all the congestion of players on the field. I find it rediculous that these guys don't get to showcase their skills because they only get a handful of shots at the goal a game or even less. Its like Adrian Peterson from American football only getting a chance to carry the ball 5 times a game. If he only carried it 5 times a game it would take ages for him to create a spectacular highlight. But American football is setup where these guys can get the ball in their hands roughly 30 times a game. That's 30 chances to make some big highlight but big soccer talents like Wayne Rooney and others may not even get a chance to try and make a goal for a whole half, or even game? Thats rediculous.

As for not using your hands, I see that is a bit of a negative. Again, the reason why I think American football is so great is because the wide range of talent it takes to play the game. Could an armless guy play soccer? I find that kind of weird. But because I like American football more doesnt mean I hate soccer. I enjoyed playing it as a kid and wouldnt mind playing a pickup game with some friends even now, but IMO American Football is the ultimate "stick and ball" sport as it stands

And I had no idea this was a "North American" board. I thought it was international. Something similiar to this was posted at a half European/half American board and the soccer supporters were out in full force bashing American football, trashing the name, the ball, pretty much everything.

Personally I wouldn't mind calling it Gridiron, I think that sounds badass

[Ferris]

Originally Posted by bluearth

I would have less players on the field from both sides to open the game up. I think the balance is off with the amount of players they have on the field now. Shutouts are far too common. I believe shutouts should be something difficult to obtain, like they are in baseball, hockey, and American football. It does take some defense of course to get a shut out in soccer, but not enough in my opinion. Have one less player on the field from both sides and it would truly be a test of defensive skills to get a shut out in soccer.

I honestly feel that one simple rule change would do wonders for the sport. Guys like Wayne Rooney and other superstars could really showcase their talent more without all the congestion of players on the field. I find it rediculous that these guys don't get to showcase their skills because they only get a handful of shots at the goal a game or even less. Its like Adrian Peterson from American football only getting a chance to carry the ball 5 times a game. If he only carried it 5 times a game it would take ages for him to create a spectacular highlight. But American football is setup where these guys can get the ball in their hands roughly 30 times a game. That's 30 chances to make some big highlight but big soccer talents like Wayne Rooney and others may not even get a chance to try and make a goal for a whole half, or even game? Thats rediculous.

As for not using your hands, I see that is a bit of a negative. Again, the reason why I think American football is so great is because the wide range of talent it takes to play the game. Could an armless guy play soccer? I find that kind of weird. But because I like American football more doesnt mean I hate soccer. I enjoyed playing it as a kid and wouldnt mind playing a pickup game with some friends even now, but IMO American Football is the ultimate "stick and ball" sport as it stands

And I had no idea this was a "North American" board. I thought it was international. Something similiar to this was posted at a half European/half American board and the soccer supporters were out in full force bashing American football, trashing the name, the ball, pretty much everything.

Personally I wouldn't mind calling it Gridiron, I think that sounds badass

You'd probably enjoy indoor soccer more than outdoor then...

Personally, I'm a huge fan of most sports to begin with. But, when you say "world's" best sport, there's no doubt that it's soccer (I'm an American, and "football" means something different to me). LOVE the sport. Played it in high school, college, and semi-pro. If you know the game (like 80% of the world does) there's no question it's the best sport, IMHO...

[D-Blitz]

It's a shame that many in the US don't give sports like hockey and soccer a chance. Most just restrict themselves to the sports they grow up watching. Hopefully if the NFL lockout does happen, some of you football lovers will give other sports a shot.

[Dexter Morgan]

Originally Posted by D-Blitz

It's a shame that many in the US don't give sports like hockey and soccer a chance. Most just restrict themselves to the sports they grow up watching. Hopefully if the NFL lockout does happen, some of you football lovers will give other sports a shot.

It's laughable that you assume Americans don't like or watch soccer and hockey out of ignorance. I've personally tried to get into both (because I love most sports), and I just can't do it. Neither of them interest me one bit.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Part of the problem is the lack of media support for sports outside of the Big Four, which in the U.S. doesn't mean Hockey, but College football/basketball.