In Defense of...Hockey.

We here at Lack of Command are proud debut a new series to our chronicles of insanity entitled "In Defense of..."


Whenever the notion strikes us, we will take an aspect or issue that at best doesn't get the respect it deserves. We will present our subjective love for such things in the most unbiased way possible, dissecting the reasons against, while presenting reasons for. We will also invite you to add your two cents, feel free to comment on this blog or elsewhere, and we just may revisit the defense. Who knows, you might change our minds.


Our inaugural induction will be the defense of America's fourth sport, hockey.


HOCKEY



What’s wrong with hockey, America? Seriously? The other night I watched a game while at the gym (yeah, I go to the gym.) I was quite excited to watch the Washington Capitals vs. Philadelphia Flyers. A game I have no vested interest in seeing other than to watch some damn good hockey. What inspired me to take up the cause of hockey is that I had to ask the guy to change the channel to hockey.


Now, being in New York in the middle of the World Series, if baseball was on I wouldn’t bother. It is my opinion that early season games of one sport take a back seat to the post season of another, I think any sports fan agrees with this. I wouldn’t like it if someone wanted to switch from the Stanley Cup Playoffs to a pre-season Mets game.


However, what they were playing on ESPN? Poker. Seriously, ESPN was airing a game where the audience watches other people win money in a card game. This got me thinking, why doesn’t hockey get any love here in the states?


I’m not saying that hockey is somehow superior to other sports, I am saying that for my money, hockey is just as good as the other three. In terms of popularity or notoriety in the states, the big four are (in order) football, baseball, basketball and hockey. While I was on the treadmill, hating the fact that I was on a treadmill I asked myself, what about hockey doesn’t resonate with America? Here are a few reasons why Americans might be reluctant to embrace hockey:


1) Hockey isn’t an American sport.

The crux of the issue is that hockey A) was not invented by Americans or B) isn't dominated by American players. I would buy this point if the opposite were true for the other big three, but sadly it is not.


Football is based out of rugby which is about as American as Monty Python. Baseball’s roots have been traced back to England as well. In fact Basketball is the only sport with it’s official origin in America and was developed by a Canadian. Hockey is no less an invention of America than hamburgers and french fries.


In terms of Americans’ dominance of the sport, I truly don’t know where this misconception comes from, since a Canadian team hasn’t won the championship since 1993. For such a Canadian sport, there are only 6 teams out of 30 that call the Great White North home. What’s that? Oh it’s the players that aren’t American, like Yao Ming or David Ortiz right?


Sure the ratio to non-American hockey player to American hockey players is ridiculously in favor of non-American players, but is that legitimate reason to not watch a sport? Is it easier to cheer for a guy named Troy Polamalu over a guy named Sidney Crosby because the latter is not American? A fairly dubious argument.

A side note: With the Olympics coming up this year, Team USA is going to be one of the most exciting things to happen in the 2010 Olympics. It's a young team with a lot of heart and talent. They have the possibility of being the true underdogs of the Olympics. I encourage you all to tune into that.

So the "Un-American" argument doesn’t hold much water, unless you want to hold those same standards to ALL of the Big Four, which I sincerely doubt anybody would. So let’s move on, huh?


2) It’s a low scoring game.

Compared to what? How much different are baseball scores compared to hockey scores? Football has a lot of points sure, but imagine if every touchdown, conversion and field goal was worth one point. I suspect that, unless you’re watching Tom Brady take his frustrations out on the Tennessee Titans, the scores would look quite similar.


Basketball is the only acceptation, but when you think about it, the reason for that is simply because you’re not allowed to touch any player at any time. They call fouls for looking at a guy the wrong way. If that’s your idea of a good sport where a fast moving game screeches to halt because Lebron accidentally face palms Kobe, that’s your right.


3) It’s a game you actually have to pay attention to.

This is a point that hasn’t been presented to me, rather a theory that I conjured up, and it’s one of the reasons why I think that soccer (that’s right, I’m calling it soccer) and hockey are sort of in the same vein in terms of American “watchability.”


Think about watching football and baseball, it’s something you can easily watch at a bar or at a party. They are social sports. You can be engaged in a deep philosophical discussion during a baseball game and you won’t miss any action. You can be at a party playing beer pong, and still catch the big passes of the Superbowl.


In hockey, the big plays happen instantly. Blink and you’ll miss the great goal, the sick pass, or the nasty hip check. Play does not stop very often, certainly not as often as baseball, and when it does the stops are certainly not as long as football. This doesn’t really lend itself to drinking games or involved discussions during play. I seriously doubt however, that any sports fan would take this a knock against the sport.


So now that I’ve shaken you’re initial reluctance to the sport of hockey against your favorite sport, allow me to share with you the reasons why hockey may not deserve your fanatical devotion, but at the very least your respect.



Keep in mind that compilation is just from this past week in the early 2009-10 hockey season. You want finesse goals? Dramatic saves? Dynamic team plays? Brutal checks? Hockey as a sport, has it all.

Do yourself a favor and tune in January 1st for the Winter Classic in Boston. The NHL goes all out for this event as they pick a city to host an outdoor hockey game. The venue is usually something identifiable to the city, last year was at Wrigley Field, with the Chicago Blackhawks taking on Detroit Red Wings. This year, the Boston Bruins will take on the Philadelphia Flyers at Fenway Park. Should be some "old time hockey." What do I mean by "Old Time Hockey?"





So I propose a question to you, loyal follower(s), what does football/baseball/basketball have that hockey doesn't? If you're a sports fan, why not watch hockey?


Command Image: Missile Command

The beginning and the end: A random rant about albums.

I don't know how most people judge a music album when they first plug it in. I know that there are many variables to consider, such as how much do you liked the previous album, if this is their debut, who recommended it, etc... I think what makes people's musical taste differ is expectations. Those expectations are usually drawn from either what you know already or what you have been told. For example, if I were to recommend to a Brian Eno fan the new Sunn O))) album simply because it is "ambient like Eno," someone is going to be surprised (By the way, any Eno fans...check out the new Sunn O))) album). Meaning that, what I told the Eno fan wasn't a lie, it just wasn't the whole truth.

I, on the other hand, do take people's word for it a lot of times because I trust their music tastes, or rather I trust their knowledge of my own tastes. But, when I'm searching alone, and by alone I mean flying blindly into an album because it was on some internet Top Ten list, I always feel a little anxious but I think I've discovered my criteria in whether or not I like an album. It's either the first track or the last track.

Now, this standard applies with most albums that I consider to be my all-time favorite. From Pink Floyd to Earth. From Neurosis to Blackalicious. Usually my favorite of those favorite are the albums that connect the beginning from the end (Pink Floyd - Animals, Earth - Pentastar: in the style of demons, Leftover Crack - Fuck World Trade or any Frank Zappa album to name a few). But I wonder if my philosophy is flawed. How many albums have I discarded because the first song didn't do it for me? Note: I'm not including the 30 second intro track that a lot of good albums have.

Not to say that albums with solid beginnings and endings are the only good songs on the album. But I find when I'm new to a band or an album, I typically judge it by the first and last tracks. Harvey Milk, The Arcade Fire and Sonic Youth are good indicators of that.

Music is really the only medium that allows for these kind of lazy techniques. Movies and books can sure be tainted be a shitty beginning or end, but I'm still willing to take the journey with a little more vigor if they don't open strong than with a music album.


Now what so important about the beginning of an album to me is not necessarily to "wow" me. But to set me up for whats to come. Either buckle up or chill. The problem some albums run into is that the albums are too front heavy. I can get half-way through Choking Victims - No Gods, No Managers, and not be bothered with the rest of the album.

The point I want to make is the construction of an album is a delicate art that I don't understand. All I know is if I like the beginning I'm sold. If I don't, you better knock me out with that last track.

Command Image: Pushing command!