Which sport has more "contact" [Forum Archive]

Pages: 1

Which sport has more "contact"

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: LittleKid

Back around september I got in an argument with my football coach about hockey having more physical contact then football. I stated hockey DID have more contact.

My argument :
These guys are slap shotting pucks at about 80-100mph, tell me it wont hurt if you get hit
How fast are they skating? 10mph? It's not gonna hurt when you get smacked against the boards by someone with alot more momentum?
refs let you fight
checking & hip checking

I've only played football...

Posted by: Archangel

I picked hockey, although I feel Football is a more agressive game. Does that make sense?

Posted by: ihateschoolmt

I think football because the lines are always in contact during the plays. But it depends on your position.

Posted by: Eggs

Well, the best way to tell would be perhaps do a ratio of injuries (serious) that were caused to the number of players total. I'm not sure what it is, I think that there is more overall physical contat in the NFL, but the NHL has lots... and football doesnt really just let fights go down every game, but it is encouraged in hockey. So I think the NFL has more injuries, and more serious injuries, but damn... hockey players sure do their part in losing teeth.

Posted by: Flex

absolutely football.

when you're on the ice in hockey, you're making "contact" w/opponents maybe 10% of the time.

when you're on the field in football, you're either hitting, or getting hit.

Posted by: crazy_enough

Oh my I miss hockey and its truckloads of hits!!

Posted by: Dale Mabry

YEah, right about now hockey isn't having too much contact.

Posted by: Iceman

I agree with Flex....On every play 10 guys on the lines touch, the WR and DB jam each other and the running backs usually make a block or get tackled by the safety or linebacker.....thats like 25 instances of contact on one play. Hockey, you may get 25 checks a game, and another 50 bumps and brushes throughout. Hockey may be a bit more physical, but Football is def filled with more contact.

Posted by: I Are Baboon

Football. And it's not even close.

Posted by: IainDaniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Are Baboon

Football. And it's not even close.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Are Baboon

Football. And it's not even close.

I agree.

How many injuries are there in hockey compared to football?

I rest my case.

Posted by: njc

How could this even be debated? Football. Just watch the game. Contact is the name of the game in football. Theres allot of contact on every play. Thats not even close to being the case with hockey.

Posted by: BoneCrusher

You spend ALL our time in a football game getting up from, lining up to, or actually delivering "contact" ... the hit. They're both tough games not for the easily bruised or fragile of bone. Doesn't matter how ya slice it football is nothing but line up, hit, get up, rinse and repeat.

NOT ONE single player comes out od a game without having been knocked on his ass once or four times ... hockey?

Posted by: LittleKid

I don't know, call me an idiot if you will.

i've never played hockey, but in football i'm usually a linebacker or defensive end, yes I make alot of contact..

but i've watched many a games NHL & NFL.. I just think NHL has more contact.

Posted by: njc

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleKid

I don't know, call me an idiot if you will.

i've never played hockey, but in football i'm usually a linebacker or defensive end, yes I make alot of contact..

but i've watched many a games NHL & NFL.. I just think NHL has more contact.

What im saying is that its impossible to think that. Do yo actually WATCH the game? Explain yourself, that doesnt even make sense. Someone in football litereally gets tackled and taken to the ground on every play, while everyone around him is either blocking someone or getting knocked on there ass. In hockey,what?, 1 hit every 2 minutes or so?

Posted by: Archangel

FOOTBALL, definately

Posted by: LittleKid

http://www.hill-murray.org/athletics...neerhits01.mpg

http://www.muchosucko.com/video-hockeyboxing.html

Posted by: njc

So based on a couple of links of hits youve posted you've concluded that theres more contact in hockey? How scientific. No ones saying Hockey doesnt hurt, but count the hits in a football game, then count the ones in a hockey game you will find that theres probably a good 100 times the hits in a football game. Thats not exagerrating.

Defenition of contact- A union or junction of surfaces.

In football everyone touches on every play of the game.

This question isnt even a matter of opinion. Football has more "contact". Fact.

Posted by: ponyboy

Anyone ever seen foxy boxing? That's a high contact sport.

The point of football is to have contact - because you have to tackle a guy to complete a play. Every play has contact. Hockey isn't even close because you can play the game with no contact at all (like my old house league when I was ten). Can't say that about football.

Posted by: LittleKid

njc no need to get all defensive..

I worded it wrong, football no doubt has more "contact" no matter what you play.. linebacker, de, offensive & defensive linemen, but it's different "contact" yes a linemen is gonna be blocking but thats different "contact" as opposed to a linebacker sacking a QB, or your safety tackling a wr.

hockey has more of those kind of hits that "i can't believe that guy got up from that" granted i've seen some of those in football ( mainly when clothesline was a legal hit ) but i've seen it alot more in hockey, kinda funny what momementum can do.

Posted by: Eggs

Actually, I see alot more in football that I think is harder to get up from... the QB is about to throw the ball and he gets sacked by some big mofo who spears him in the back. Then after he gets up he shakes it off for a minute. I've seen some BIG hits in football.

Hockey has some hits, but it has alot less... and alot less hard contact. The most vicious thing about hockey is that they can pull their gloves off and duke it out. Getting smacked into the glass isnt always fun, but I still wouldnt compare it to getting hit by a 250lb dude thats calling your name.

Posted by: The__wenger

I would without a doubt choose hockey. Have you not all seen the major hit every year?(Bertuzzi)I also think the 04-05 basketball season should be up there(detroit,indiana)

Posted by: njc

Yeah i agree, Hockey MAY have the biggest hits, but not the most. The question wasnt what sport has the nastiest collisions but the most. the answer is unquestionably football. I wasnt gettin defensive either, just harmlessly pokin at ya a bit.

Posted by: Flex

Quote:

Originally Posted by njc

Yeah i agree, Hockey MAY have the biggest hits, but not the most. The question wasnt what sport has the nastiest collisions but the most. the answer is unquestionably football. I wasnt gettin defensive either, just harmlessly pokin at ya a bit.

I wouldn't even say hockey has the biggest hits.

The only reason they look big is cuz the guy who gets hit is (obviously) on skates, and doesn't have full balance to brace himself, therefore he goes flying.

But in football, that shit happens every single play, with guys who can change angles/direction in a split second and crush you while you're on the ground, running, or in the air.

Posted by: Pepper

You people saying hockey are freaking nuts! Football has way, way more contact.

You have to be in overall better shape to play hockey, but football is much more physical.

Posted by: njc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flex

True

Posted by: I Are Baboon

I think the 8 people that voted hockey also believe the Earth is flat.

Posted by: Hillside

funny stuff.
i love football fans.
I dont even get why it needs to be compared.

Posted by: njc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hillside

funny stuff.
i love football fans.
I dont even get why it needs to be compared.

Cuase thats what we do in converstion forums.

Posted by: Hillside

Why is it always the football fans that need some sort of reassurance of their sport being "tougher" or more "hard core".

Posted by: Eggs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hillside

Why is it always the football fans that need some sort of reassurance of their sport being "tougher" or more "hard core".

Why was this thread started by someone who was pushing hockey as tougher?

Sooooo, tell me... who really needed confirmation that a sport was more hardcore?

Nobody needs your assurance on anything, and really, if somebody wants to discuss it, why get your panties in a bunch?

Posted by: I Are Baboon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hillside

Why is it always the football fans that need some sort of reassurance of their sport being "tougher" or more "hard core".

There are at least a couple of people in this thread (including myself) who are hockey fans before they are football fans and still voted football.

Posted by: Hillside

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggs

The first guy that posted said he was arguing with his football coach...
You're the one getting all pissy. Relax.
You're right. You win. Football is tougher.

Posted by: njc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hillside

Why is it always the football fans that need some sort of reassurance of their sport being "tougher" or more "hard core".

I dont give a shit if football is tougher or not. It just is.

Posted by: fUnc17

You can't compare the two, two entirely different sports with entirely different objectives. I've played hockey since im 4, and yes the sport is full of hitting, contact, and ugliness, but by no means is the objective of a hockey player to hit someone else. It may be a part of his duty but hockey players are less exclusive so to speak. Football players such as linebackers, etc. their duty is to hit exclusively for the most part, in hockey, you only hit when its appropriate and when its going to be effective not just for the sake of it. Are both sports rough? sure, but its like comparing apples to oranges... theres no comparison to be made

Posted by: njc

Quote:

Originally Posted by fUnc17

You can't compare the two, two entirely different sports with entirely different objectives. I've played hockey since im 4, and yes the sport is full of hitting, contact, and ugliness, but by no means is the objective of a hockey player to hit someone else. It may be a part of his duty but hockey players are less exclusive so to speak. Football players such as linebackers, etc. their duty is to hit exclusively for the most part, in hockey, you only hit when its appropriate and when its going to be effective not just for the sake of it. Are both sports rough? sure, but its like comparing apples to oranges... theres no comparison to be made

Its not apples to oranges. Its contact to contact. No one was asking, " in which sport is there more contact relative to the objective of the game?" The question was simple. So is the answer.

Posted by: TriZZle305

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Are Baboon

I think the 8 people that voted hockey also believe the Earth is flat.

Agreed

Posted by: musclepump

Water Polo.

Posted by: Sh8kin

As far as "More Physical" between the 2, Football > Hockey. No doubt.

But if you want contact watch UFC.

Posted by: Vieope

Extreme golf.

Posted by: 19-chief

hockey.

Posted by: The Monkey Man

I like(d) hockey more, but...

Football... As soon as the first whistle blows, Both (almost) entire teams line up, and smash into each other!?

How can there be more Contact than that?

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36