sports cars of the 1950s image
Craig S
Seriously, 12-11? What is the point of even bothering with the game if it doesn't truly showcase the sport? I know goals are exciting, but this is cheapening it to the point that it's worse than the NFL's Pro Bowl.
There was a time when this game actually mattered to players and fans. I'm not sure how to get back to those days, but I think it would be great to see the best players in the world actually play to win.
LITY - Thanks for taking the time on research....I'm just curious why you think it's become so high-scoring as compared to thirty years ago. Was it a case where they didn't care but still played hard back then?
Answer
Since you first posted this question, I've taken the liberty of calling several dozen player who have played in the all-star game going back to the 1950s, and not one of them said the game mattered to them, in fact, several of the Canadiens greats I talked to felt it was a waste of time in the 60s and 70s. Several players admitted showing up simply because they were obligated to.
Similarly, 31 of the last 34 all-star games televised in Canada have drawn the smallest audience for a nationally televised game. The early numbers for this year indicate a similar trend. So, the game doesn't seem to matter to the fans.
There was an interview with Steve Shutt on a Montreal radio station this past weekend, and he thought the game was on it's last legs in the 70s when he played his first game, and what he saw and heard this past weekend amazed him it still continues.
This game was so important to the players in 1962 that several of Chicago's stars only played 4-5 minutes of the game against the NHL (I almost dressed for that game along with 9 other rookies) all-stars.
For the players, the game has never had meaning, and the inclusion of the mini-skills competition in 1990 and the full skills competition a couple of years later has revived the early portion of the weekend, but has actually lessened the importance of the game.
I was at the post-game party Saturday night, and there were lots of fans who had tickets for the skills competition, but could care less about the game. The actions of Lidstrom of Datsyuk have been heard loud and clear as well.
We'll have to wait and see what adjustments are made between now and Phoenix (if Phoenix is still there even).
Craig - I think you can chalk it up to Gretzky/Lemieux, higher salaries, etc. The top salaries are 26x what they were 30 years ago, and everybody wants to protect their investment. The game has become faster, more end to end, and the players are playing more for the fans these days than they did 30 years ago.
In the 70s, they played because they had to, now every player is out to be a star for himself (maybe the possibility of winning a car does that). I see less pride in playing as a team now as compared to 30 years ago , more of an individual show now (in my opinion)
Since you first posted this question, I've taken the liberty of calling several dozen player who have played in the all-star game going back to the 1950s, and not one of them said the game mattered to them, in fact, several of the Canadiens greats I talked to felt it was a waste of time in the 60s and 70s. Several players admitted showing up simply because they were obligated to.
Similarly, 31 of the last 34 all-star games televised in Canada have drawn the smallest audience for a nationally televised game. The early numbers for this year indicate a similar trend. So, the game doesn't seem to matter to the fans.
There was an interview with Steve Shutt on a Montreal radio station this past weekend, and he thought the game was on it's last legs in the 70s when he played his first game, and what he saw and heard this past weekend amazed him it still continues.
This game was so important to the players in 1962 that several of Chicago's stars only played 4-5 minutes of the game against the NHL (I almost dressed for that game along with 9 other rookies) all-stars.
For the players, the game has never had meaning, and the inclusion of the mini-skills competition in 1990 and the full skills competition a couple of years later has revived the early portion of the weekend, but has actually lessened the importance of the game.
I was at the post-game party Saturday night, and there were lots of fans who had tickets for the skills competition, but could care less about the game. The actions of Lidstrom of Datsyuk have been heard loud and clear as well.
We'll have to wait and see what adjustments are made between now and Phoenix (if Phoenix is still there even).
Craig - I think you can chalk it up to Gretzky/Lemieux, higher salaries, etc. The top salaries are 26x what they were 30 years ago, and everybody wants to protect their investment. The game has become faster, more end to end, and the players are playing more for the fans these days than they did 30 years ago.
In the 70s, they played because they had to, now every player is out to be a star for himself (maybe the possibility of winning a car does that). I see less pride in playing as a team now as compared to 30 years ago , more of an individual show now (in my opinion)
Could it be that most practiced psychology is just pseudoscience?
Dirt
Don't feel attacked.
Shouldn't we see beyond it, and just ignore what they say is wrong with us? DSMIV is very negative in its descriptions. It has also been proven that most psychologists don't really know how to diagnose a 'disease'. Isn't it sometimes ok to feel bad. Happiness seems so narrowly defined: as if only the winner matters (at least in our western civilisation, it seems)
Some clarification:
I have a girlfriend who is a kinesist. She basically gives people exercises to strengthen their muscles. But do people do the exercises? No. Do people believe these exercises work? No. Only when she does some sort of massage/heat therapy, people claim they feel better. When in reality, this is mostly a hoax and isn't scientificly proven. (kinesists do this just because people want it, and if it has an effect it is mostly just placebo). The exercises on the other hand do have a positive effect.
Same thing with psychology, but even worse. I have a feeling as a patient you have to follow first 'their' story about what is wrong with you. And then the treatment can begin. Instead of all this I think that most of the time it is the other way around: there is nothing wrong with me or you. Every person with my/your genetic/human make up, would react in the same way. I believe that our society is the true culprit.
Some examples that might clarify what I mean:
- tabaco: sigarets, big companies invest in publicity, people get addicted, people (smokers) get blamed for second hand smoke.
- cars can drive more than 200km/h while most places in europe wont allow speeds to exceed 120km/h, people get blamed for driving too fast, when in reality car companies could limit how fast cars drive.
- fat people get blamed for being fat: 1. publicity by sportsmen for mcdonalds or pizzahut, 2. 'more food is cheaper' 3. coaches who promote a healthy life style by excessive sporting, etc...
- global warming gets blamed on individuals, while the greater issues are left unhandled
They make you feel guilty, while most of it is out of your hands. It's like the hidden agenda from the 'Holy Church' all over again.
I'm sorry if my ideas seem somewhat disconnected, but there is a line running between blaming the common man and companies doing the most damage all be it subtle.
Answer
Pseudoscience? Hmmm. This is what I was told most psychologist "evolved" from- yes for a long time there has been followers of old Frued and then every one that came after. How ever, neuropsychology is what I have read, that psycholgist came from. That back during the the spooky 1950s they where "mapping" the brain in a different way. The neuropsychologist were suposed to be able to say what part of the brian was damaged by having the person answer questions or complete certain task. They were also doing greusome animal testing like finding out that electrical stimulation of the pituitary gland produced instant rage. Thus, they would conclude the pituitary gland was at least one affected part of the brain during mental diseases that included rage .
Then, one fine day in 1973, the MRI was invented. Bye bye. So the majority of them had to find something else to do. (No not really, but the job they used to function in is now filled by MRI.) It does a better job or course. And I think the majority will be phased out if not already happening. When I say phased out I mean function in a talk therapy setting only.We do still have neuropsychologist but they function as psychologist most of the time. People use them to discover learning disorders and some vague symptoms of brain damage.
My thing about psychology is this: a human is used to test another human. Humans are prone to mistakes, distractions,bad days, misunderstandings, memory, boredom etc. Also I have seen and heard many people say either a new psychologist (or even the same one) had changed the diagnosis. So we use an imperfect 'tool' to make a diagnosis. And it ends up in the end to be an opinion. Until there is some reliable test, I will remain a skeptic.
See how I slipped in calling them toools? LoL
And the 1973 thing is true. If your not too old then they came into somewhat regular use in select hospitals by around 1980. Even in 1990, when most large hospitals owned one they were used selectively. Now we can look up a cheap MRI on the net and get one at any radiology center for $650. Report included.
I don't and never have liked the idea of a person who could diagnose a person with a disorder and have all his peers still agree his education is still not good enough to prescribe medicine. If they can talk to some one and make them feel better, fine. I don't think they should be able to diagnose.
Pseudoscience? Hmmm. This is what I was told most psychologist "evolved" from- yes for a long time there has been followers of old Frued and then every one that came after. How ever, neuropsychology is what I have read, that psycholgist came from. That back during the the spooky 1950s they where "mapping" the brain in a different way. The neuropsychologist were suposed to be able to say what part of the brian was damaged by having the person answer questions or complete certain task. They were also doing greusome animal testing like finding out that electrical stimulation of the pituitary gland produced instant rage. Thus, they would conclude the pituitary gland was at least one affected part of the brain during mental diseases that included rage .
Then, one fine day in 1973, the MRI was invented. Bye bye. So the majority of them had to find something else to do. (No not really, but the job they used to function in is now filled by MRI.) It does a better job or course. And I think the majority will be phased out if not already happening. When I say phased out I mean function in a talk therapy setting only.We do still have neuropsychologist but they function as psychologist most of the time. People use them to discover learning disorders and some vague symptoms of brain damage.
My thing about psychology is this: a human is used to test another human. Humans are prone to mistakes, distractions,bad days, misunderstandings, memory, boredom etc. Also I have seen and heard many people say either a new psychologist (or even the same one) had changed the diagnosis. So we use an imperfect 'tool' to make a diagnosis. And it ends up in the end to be an opinion. Until there is some reliable test, I will remain a skeptic.
See how I slipped in calling them toools? LoL
And the 1973 thing is true. If your not too old then they came into somewhat regular use in select hospitals by around 1980. Even in 1990, when most large hospitals owned one they were used selectively. Now we can look up a cheap MRI on the net and get one at any radiology center for $650. Report included.
I don't and never have liked the idea of a person who could diagnose a person with a disorder and have all his peers still agree his education is still not good enough to prescribe medicine. If they can talk to some one and make them feel better, fine. I don't think they should be able to diagnose.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment