I have my own personal theories about this, but I think it has something to do with massed terrace support vs. freezing you ar*e off in an unheated barn at -30F. Canadians are a pretty phlegmatic bunch. We don't get overly excited about much. We're survivors, not conquerors, like our friends to the south. You go to a hockey game in Canada, and chances are the opposition are from a vast distance away, especially in British terms. My local club, the Oshawa Generals, have a local rival, the Peterborough Petes, who are an hour and a half away via road transport. There are no trains, so it's the only option. No more unheated barns, but general mixed seating without segregation. Very civilized. Football in Britain, on the other hand, has all kinds of local rivals literally on each other's doorsteps. In the days of terracing, you had to get there early in order to get prime spots. So what did you do in order to entertain yourself? You made up songs about your local inbred rivals. Very nasty stuff. And a little agro on the side was all part of the experience. Thank goodness things have calmed down (mostly).

Chanting isn't really a thing in North American sports like it is in football here - personally think it is as simple as that.

Too much too quickly happens in ice hockey,

Brilliant question nearly as good as ' why is there only one monopolies commission' I don't know the answer to either.

But why? Why didn't people bring their traditions with them when they came to this country. Conn Smythe, Orangeman founder of the Toronto Maple Leafs, once said, "If you can't beat them in the alley, you can't beat them on the ice." That doesn't mean that he went out and beat up the opposition owner.

ontario claret wrote:But why? Why didn't people bring their traditions with them when they came to this country. Conn Smythe, Orangeman founder of the Toronto Maple Leafs, once said, "If you can't beat them in the alley, you can't beat them on the ice." That doesn't mean that he went out and beat up the opposition owner.

As Claptrappers says. Hockey is too fast to develop prolonged chanting, except maybe on the PP

They chant at the Sheffield Steelers - but I guess if they’re English fans then they may be football fans too

And what happens on the ice has nothing to do with the general behaviour in the stands. Except that whenever there's a fight, everybody stands up, except me. When you've seen one hockey fight, you've seen them all. Besides, they seldom last very long. The players are on skates, and usually lose their balance and fall down. If you want to see real bare-knuckles fighting, go to a box lacrosse game. The participants are standing flat-footed.

A friend of mine used to own the Wightlink Raiders, on the Isle of Wight, until they went bankrupt and tore down the arena. I saw a few of their games. There was a feeble attempt at chanting. Mostly, there was a guy who banged on a drum. Other than that, they behaved like good, civilized Canadians. And they SO wanted me to like their team, but they were utter garbage.

Its quite simple.

Ice hockey is almost as boring as rugby.
Therefore, nobody chants, cos theyre probably asleep.

Let's not over analyse this.

Hmm. Not a fan, I assume, Electro.

ontario claret wrote:A friend of mine used to own the Wightlink Raiders, on the Isle of Wight, until they went bankrupt and tore down the arena. I saw a few of their games. There was a feeble attempt at chanting. Mostly, there was a guy who banged on a drum. Other than that, they behaved like good, civilized Canadians. And they SO wanted me to like their team, but they were utter garbage.

Tbh, anyone who skated there could tell you it was only good for tearing down.

Selby Claret wrote:They chant at the Sheffield Steelers - but I guess if they’re English fans then they may be football fans too

UK hockey is played at a tenth of the speed of the sport in North America. Barely even comparable.

I don't know much about Ice Hockey but one of the best films I've ever watched "Slap Shot".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd_vefMKk4o" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Icing when you're winning"

Is it not just because they are too busy keeping warm? That puck thing moves too fast to see it anyway, all I see is loads of blokes skating around covered in armour knocking seven bells out of one another to entertain the crowd. It's curling with speed.

I am a massive fan of Baseball, Basketball and NFL, and have tried so hard to like NHL, but whenever i watch it on tv, I find it really hard to keep track of the tiny puck. I assume it's even tougher in the arena?

I went to watch Blackburn Hawks not so long ago and there was a cringe worthy attempt at chanting. There was also a prick with a drum. As a spectator sport it was fairly difficult to tell what was happening.

Foshiznik wrote:I am a massive fan of Baseball, Basketball and NFL, and have tried so hard to like NHL, but whenever i watch it on tv, I find it really hard to keep track of the tiny puck. I assume it's even tougher in the arena?

I've tried watching baseball but gave up. I know I'm probably missing some subtlety of the game but all I see is a bloke throwing a ball at another bloke who then decides whether to hit it or not (mostly not) and it gets caught by another bloke behind. Meanwhile another bloke (or blokes) stand on bases waiting to see if the bloke with the bat actually does hit it. If I'm not mistaken as well the fielders (if that's what they are called) are allowed to throw the ball at the blokes if they leave the base and decide to run, which seems somewhat malicious. I file it in the same drawer as golf and cricket (not to mention darts) as very bad TV. However I am prepared to listen to anyone who can awaken any enthusiasm for the game that I currently don't have.

Isn't it just Rounders played by blokes?

houseboy wrote:I've tried watching baseball but gave up. I know I'm probably missing some subtlety of the game but all I see is a bloke throwing a ball at another bloke who then decides whether to hit it or not (mostly not) and it gets caught by another bloke behind. Meanwhile another bloke (or blokes) stand on bases waiting to see if the bloke with the bat actually does hit it. If I'm not mistaken as well the fielders (if that's what they are called) are allowed to throw the ball at the blokes if they leave the base and decide to run, which seems somewhat malicious. I file it in the same drawer as golf and cricket (not to mention darts) as very bad TV. However I am prepared to listen to anyone who can awaken any enthusiasm for the game that I currently don't have.

Isn't it just Rounders played by blokes?

Most newcomers to the sport see it as rounders, but it's not. I really enjoy it but it's not for everyone. Same with any sport. I live in Rugby Union breeding grounds and can't stand the sport.

I recomend watching Red Sox vs Yankees and if that doesn't get you interested, then it isn't the sport for you.

Foshiznik wrote: I recomend watching Red Sox vs Yankees and if that doesn't get you interested, then it isn't the sport for you.

..............only this is a Burnley website, and you are recommending the equivalent of Liverpool v Man United, so that's a pretty bad start as a lot of us on here would rather watch a re-run of Poirot than that.

Seattle Mariners v Toronto might be a bit closer to the mark.

Foshiznik wrote:Most newcomers to the sport see it as rounders, but it's not. I really enjoy it but it's not for everyone. Same with any sport. I live in Rugby Union breeding grounds and can't stand the sport.

I recomend watching Red Sox vs Yankees and if that doesn't get you interested, then it isn't the sport for you.

I know like most American sports it seems to rely a lot on stats and many people have tried to explain it to me but I think it is a bit stop start for me. Funnily enough American sport seems to fall into two categories: those which seem to have long periods of time where nothing happens (baseball, American football) and those which never seem to stop (basketball, ice hockey). Both to me have problems (and it's probably because I haven't been brought up with that mind-set). They seem to be boring for two different reasons, the one because nothing happens for ages, particularly American football, and the other because the action is so fast and furious you can't make head nor tail of what's going on. I actually can enjoy a game of American football but then basketball just seems like two teams where one goes up one end and scores then the other goes up the other end and scores and on and on. Basketball seems to be won or lost on misses rather goals, am I right?

The thing about basketball is that there is so much scoring (too much, really) that your team can be celebrated over and over again. The problem is that the other also scores about as much. More than any other sport, basketball is about an individual superstar. LeBron James dominates every game that he plays, and is almost unstoppable. I find it amusing that people on this site talk about the inaction in baseball. There is almost constant action, compared to cricket. And an "upper deck shot" can take your breath away if you see it in person. The key to watching hockey is to not watch the puck, but the players. They're the ones doing most of the work. And for a sport that features many 1-0, or 1-1 scorelines, football would be considered the most inactive in a scoring sense, but we all love it.

timshorts wrote:..............only this is a Burnley website, and you are recommending the equivalent of Liverpool v Man United, so that's a pretty bad start as a lot of us on here would rather watch a re-run of Poirot than that.

Seattle Mariners v Toronto might be a bit closer to the mark.

Not even that game interests me. I am a Red Sox fan so maybe biased, but I imagine that game as the pinnacle, so if you don't get excited by that game, you aren't going to like the sport. That was my point. Not sure what being a Burnley fan matters in this respect.