|
|
|
|
|
elzo
|
Joined: 7/23/2006
Msg: 1 | |
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/25/2007 5:07:59 PM | The initial thought that everyone has is that hockey is a tougher sport on the body, maybe the toughest of the professional sports. But I believe that if one looks at the sports and the movements, soccer is tougher. Here are my reasons..
-For one thing, the act of skating is low impact, while running is high impact.
-Even the best hockey players rarely are on the ice for more than thirty minutes, with most playing under twenty minutes, while each soccer player, except for players injured or subsititued, play the entire ninety minutes.
- The play in soccer is continuous, with breaks only to retrieve the ball, injuries, and setting up for free kicks. Hockey continually has breaks for commercials, and two intermissions instead of soccers one half time.
- Hockey players wear padding. There are more hits than in soccer, but for most of them the recipient of the hit is prepared and easily absorbs the hit. The only padding soccer players have is shin guards.
- During the playoffs, hockey teams play basically every second night. This would be impossible for soccer, since the body needs much more recovery time from the pounding of just the running.
- Maybe someone can help me here with definite numbers, but there are a good number of NHL'ers in their late thirties to early forties. In professional soccer, there are several goalies who are of this age, but once an outfield player is in his early to mid thirties, he is over the hill. This is because the sport of soccer is tougher on the body, I believe. | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/25/2007 5:41:57 PM | | Have you ever played hockey before?? From the sounds of it you haven't. Sure the ice skating part isnt as high impact as running, but how much of the game is a soccer player running. Hockey players have to wear padding because the level of impact of a hit is soo much more intense than a soccer impact. Finally, whats the concussion rate in soccer?? | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/25/2007 6:18:29 PM | There is also more velocity in hockey, both with the players and the puck, hence the need for protective equipment; not to mention the hard ice surface and boards.
If you've ever seen somebody's arm or leg after a blade went over it, you'll understand another reason for the padding.
Oh yes, and there is the risk of getting slashed by a stick.
I'm not sure I would agree that there are more hits in soccer. I've seen more hits and harder hits in the dullest of hockey games than I have seen in most soccer games I have watched. | |
|
elzo
|
Joined: 7/23/2006
Msg: 4 | |
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/25/2007 6:36:03 PM | I don't believe I said that there were more hits in soccer. Hockey players definitely move quicker than soccer players and there are more collisions, but in the vast majority of hits the player on the receiving end is braced and ready for the hit.
As for the comment about concussions, I don't know the statistics. If you know what they are, I would be interested in seeing them.
I have played soccer for most of life, and I am in my early forties, and I have sufferered a concussion when a guy elbowed me as I jumped to head the ball. I have also sufferred from strained knee ligament in both knees, a torn meniscus that was removed, a tib fib lower leg break where my foot was spinning around like a propeller, and a shoulder separation years ago that will be operated upon in a few months. And there was game today, the English Carling Cup final, where one player was knocked out cold from receiving boot to the face. The starting goalie on his team was wearing a rugby helmet because of skull fracture he received earlier in the season. In the same game, the backup goalie was stretchered off with a head injury and he hasn't played for four months.
In an English study, soccer players in their fifties and sixties were found to have sufferred a incidence of brain damage much higher than the regular population just from heading the ball.
I'm not trying to say that hocky players don't suffer injuries because they certainly do. But I think that that soccer is tougher on the old bod than hockey. | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/25/2007 6:40:35 PM | Both are physically demanding in their own ways. The build of a player is so different.. you have a hockey player who is out there for say 30-50 seconds per shift, skating like hell, taking hits pretty much every shift, and are more geared for short bursts of energy. Where as soccer players jog, if not stand still for a good portion of the game, while in an outfit they could wear to bed, and are more trained for prolonged activity. When it really comes down to it, in soccer, there's very little physical contact.. maybe some shirt pulling, the odd hard tackle.. most energy is probably exerted when diving.
Take for example someone like Ryan Smyth, stands in front of the net more times often often than not, and takes a beating while doing so.. you can't even so much as lay a hand on an opponent when they're in your 16 yard box.
And quite frankly, I'd rather have a soccer ball come flying towards my face instead of a piece of vulcanized rubber coming 90+ mph at me.
Like you said, hockey players in the playoffs usually play every 2nd-3rd night (even during an 82 game regular season, the most they usually get off is 4 days between games, at times with 2 in 3 nights).. which leads my to my next example... Dominik Hasek. Back when he was still in his first stint with Detroit, I remember hearing in a playoff game that he loses an average of about 10 lbs/game due to the amount of work in which he was putting in to it, and that's just the goalie. So say you play a full 7 game series, with each game being every 2nd day, and you've got a matter of a two week span. That's 70 lbs that he's lost and gained back in that two week period.. you can't tell me that won't wear on a person.. especially someone in their mid-30's.
Like I mentioned before, both sports will wear a lot on the body, but when it comes down to it, there's absolutely no comparison between hockey and soccer. | |
|
| |
| |
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/25/2007 9:32:32 PM | I have to admit that I don't know much about soccer. And I'm not about to dismiss it as a difficult sport to play. It is rough!
But hockey HAS to be harder on the body! For one thing, hockey players are going what, 3 or 4 times faster when they collide. They are constantly being hit / slashed / poked at with sticks. Blocking a frozen piece of rubber with their bodies. Slamming into the boards behind the net while trying to leg out an icing call.
I would suggest taking injuries into account, as well. Hockey players are constantly getting stitched up and marching back on the ice, and they have to do it 84 times a year, not including the playoffs. How many games are in a typical soccer season?
A good portion of a soccer match is spent standing around. Watch any game, and you can see it. Hockey players are going all out all the time, for the most part. | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/26/2007 12:43:19 AM | | A regular hockey season is 82 games, not including playoffs, and I believe in the English Premier League, it's 38 games per season (that's going off there being 20 teams and each team playing each other one home, and one away match), and that's not including championships/internationals. | |
|
elzo
|
Joined: 7/23/2006
Msg: 10 | |
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/26/2007 7:23:27 AM | I am glad that the point was made that hockey players will play an 82 game season. When one adds pre-season and playoffs, a good number of players will appear in over ninety or one hundred games. And how in the regular season there are often times when a team will play back to back games, occasionally three times in four nights.
The fact is that it would be impossible for a professional soccer player to do this because just the running is too tough on the body. There are also knocks that come from bad tackles, twisting of joints, dirty play, etc.
Brendan Morrison of the Canucks recently became the team's Iron Man for playing close to five hundred consecutive games. It is physically impossible for someone to play that many consecutive games at the highest level of soccer. Just playing three soccer games in four nights, at the highest level, is impossible.
Look at someone like Chris Chelios, who is in his early forties. He obviously is a phenomenal athlete to be playing pro hockey at his age, but I don't know of any player in the English Premiership who is forty years old. And someone like Trevor Linden, who's age I don't know but I am sure he is in his mid to late thirties. And like Linden I am sure that there are another fifty to sixty players his age or older in the NHL. Someone will say that it proves that hockey players are tougher, or something like that, but I think the main reason is that it is more difficult for the body to recover from running than it is to recover from skating. | |
|
| |
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/26/2007 6:29:34 PM | a game like soccer has more aerobic demands on a player than hockey...and it takes tremedous stamina for a soccer player to play well all 90 minutes....one guy that comes to mind is Zinedine zidane, the french player now known for head-butting, who has great stamina.
hockey is harder on the body, but there is less aerobic demands because of the many breaks involved......however, a sound hockey player needs to be physical stronger. | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/26/2007 6:41:41 PM | "unless groggy27 is in your league. then, that has to be the toughest of all sports"
EEeewwww!!! Looks like someone has a creepy "man-crush" on me!! Haven't even posted in this thread yet and ALREADY he's coming on to me!! (Guess that explains the screen name.)
Back on topic: Good points about the longer season and the travel for hockey players. Hell, just being on a 2-week vacation is tiring enough, so if you extend that to 6 months PLUS all the physical toll of actually playing the games, one would think that hockey takes a much bigger toll on the body.
Besides, hardly anybody loses teeth or gets a 60-stitch cut by getting hit with a soccer ball. | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/27/2007 10:34:16 AM | funny to hear some comments making no sense!
the title says "which sport is tougher on the body"
well hockey players wear that high amount of padding and those helmets so the body do not really suffer,i have watched some scenes of hockey and players only charge at others and no more!
on the other hand,in football you have players wearing no padding,much less helmets! players are tackled,elbowed,they are hit whilst heading the ball,etc.footballers also suffer one of the worst,if not the worst "damage" that a sportsman can ever suffer and it is to break knee ligaments.any player breaking the knee ligaments will never be the same.
it seems that some of you have never "tasted" a football boot on your "naked" body,it hurts a lot more than any other sport as footballers do not wear padding and helmets.
also the european football leagues have so many matches (including regular,international and european matches) that players end nearly dead in June.no need to mention that a football pitch is a lot longer and bigger than a hockey's. | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/27/2007 10:51:39 AM | | If you have someone swinging a stick at you, surging at you at full speed on skates and putting 220lbs+ of weight at you into a solidly fixed wall/boards...no amount of padding or equipment will help you not feel effect. Both sports have 'sprint' factors that give wear and tear to the body, no doubt. In soccer (football) there are lots of 'theatrics' that go on the field to get calls..and unfortunately Eurpean players of hockey have aped these and brought them over to hockey as well. But the refs are getting wise. The answer is a no-brainer...hockey, being a far more physical game in nature..is far more physically abusive on the body as well...(Am I gunna get my ankles 'tapped' for this?) | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 2/27/2007 11:18:19 AM | why doesnt anyone use google? easy to check out peoples research that way.
University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and the Director of the Coaching and Sport Sciences Division at the United States Olympic Committee who oversees one of the world's premier sport science departments. They found ice hockey to be the second most demanding sport, just short of boxing.
so there you go in a heart beat and a few senconds to check other info you have the just of it. the most demanding team sport is hockey. espn also did a one and it says the same thing,.
"it seems that some of you have never "tasted" a football boot on your "naked" body,it hurts a lot more than any other sport as footballers do not wear padding and helmets."
haha ^^^^ your kidding right? ever take a slap shot to the face? no pads there alot worse then a soccor ball lol.
on the other hand,in football you have players wearing no padding,much less helmets! players are tackled,elbowed,they are hit whilst heading the ball,etc.footballers also suffer one of the worst,if not the worst "damage" that a sportsman can ever suffer and it is to break knee ligaments.any player breaking the knee ligaments will never be the same.
ok if we are taking freak injuries that can happen. players get cut by the blades of the skates. thats why kids wear all kinds of protection neck and should wear arm. id rather break my knee then cut my throat or wrist. or cloe broke his neck last season and still played the last 2 playoff games. players in any sport can damage the knee.
a nhl team will lose over 100 man games due to injury ever year and thats good if only 100. flames are over 180 man games lost already.
in fact soccor wouldnt evenbe on a top 10 of Which sport is tougher on the body.
soccor more demanding then hockey....psst please | |
|
mam69
|
Joined: 1/16/2007
Msg: 17 | |
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 3/1/2007 6:43:03 AM | I really do believe they are each demanding in there own way. Soccer as yu stated is more demanding in stamina and yes running is more high impact but the physicalness of hockey seems to be higher, hence the need for all the padding, and try skating around with all that extra weight on you, that adds to the whole thing too. Yu can't really compare these 2 sports fairly i don't think.
As for a previous posts question about concussions, I've seen many players carried off with head injuries, broken legs, ankles and what not from football matches so yes the physicality of the sport is equal to hockey although I have to admit, footballers can be quite the drama queens.
If you ever get the chance watch an indoor soccer match,(I'll call it soccer instead of football here since indoor is more north american) now there is a tough sport. All the same as regular soccer but there are boards like hockey but no padding. My daughter plays both indoor and outdoor, and I hate watching indoor, those girls slam each other into those boards like nobody's business, and that astro turff burns like heck. But if you like action it is great to watch. (as long as it's not your kid getting slammed against the boards) | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 3/1/2007 4:22:01 PM |
University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and the Director of the Coaching and Sport Sciences Division at the United States Olympic Committee who oversees one of the world's premier sport science departments. They found ice hockey to be the second most demanding sport, just short of boxing.
Too bad they didn't include Motocross in there because it is at least as demanding as soccer and far, far more dangerous.
Besides, if that's the study I'm thinking of it was very unscientific. | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 3/1/2007 4:26:07 PM | Also, your justification for some of your arguments is silly. You can't say that a sport is dangerous for the fact that a player chooses NOT to wear a peice of equipment that he SHOULD be wearing. A slapshot to the face is inconsequential if you are wearing a cage.
I wouldn't argue about the dangers of racing motocross if you chose NOT to wear a helmet. That's pure stupidity.
Hey I know a demanding sport, it's called jumping WITHOUT a parachute. get my drift? | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 3/1/2007 9:57:36 PM | only kids wear cages dude, were not euros ethier. the eye sheild isnt even required.
full cages get in the way. limits vision. still leaves the throat and other parts of the body unprotected for the puck to hit. even if a puck hits you in the side of your helmet its going to do some damage. plus helmets get knocked off with hits, your not going to stop playing (enless in international play) just case your helmet gets knocked off.
and auto racing came in at 31. includes all race sports. highist of all when it comes to the nerve factor, just ahead of bullriding, then ski jumping.
NERVE: The ability to overcome fear. according to the study.
interesting enough all rate the same on ANALYTIC APTITUDE: The ability to evaluate and react appropriately to strategic situations.
see your point about motocross isnt really a good one.....a crash is a mess up. in those grounds were going to worse mess up.......sports like base jumping, ski diving, would be way ahead.
were talking the norm, not the extream.
single season
hockey. 82 games reg season. playoffs your playing pretty much every other night. the reg season lots of back to back games and 3 games in 4 nights. you will get checked, slashed, hacked, punched, elbows in the face, 100mph slapshost to the ankles legs and anywhere.
soccor your going to get kicked, hit by the ball, elbowed, and tackled.
motocross. maybe you crash maybe you dont.
moto cross doesnt belong in this topic.
football, boxing, basketball, lacross, even tennis would be up on the list. | |
|
elzo
|
Joined: 7/23/2006
Msg: 21 | |
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 3/2/2007 8:56:57 AM | Thanks for the comments about NHL playoffs and the amount of consecutive game nights, or playing 3 games in 4 days. The fact is that this is possible in hockey, and has been so for many years. It is impossible to play 3 full games in 4 days at the professional level without the players breaking down. Hockey is undeniably more physical than soccer, and I don't think that anyone is saying that it isn't. But the mere act of jogging, sprinting, jumping, and the sudden changes in direction, which is the main thing that soccer players do, during ninety minutes, is much tougher on the body than skating for 15 to 25 minutes. The big European soccer teams have prepared for this by instituting what is called the "rotation system", where players are forced to sit for games for preventative measures. Othewise with all the commitments of their own league, their 2 or 3 different cup (read, playoff) competitions, the starters would be injured.
How many big hits does one see in a hockey game? And for most hits, the player on the receiving end is braced for it because he can see it coming. And I will guess that there are more injuries due to blocking pucks because opposition forwards can park themselves in front of the net without get cross checked anymore, so more defencemen will go downt to prevent the puck from reaching the net.
I think what is happening is that some people are confusing the toughness of the game with the point I am trying to make, which is that the grind of soccer is tougher on the body than the grind of hockey. My main reasons are the following...
- in hockey a player gets to sit down and rest every minute or two, whereas a soccer player must rest on the fly
- a top level hockey player is on the ice for a maximum of 25 minutes, maybe a bit more, while every soccer player is out there for 90 minutes, barring injury or substitution
- skating is low impact, while running is high impact
- when a player in hockey is tired, he jumps off the ice. You can't do this in soccer.
- the fact that NHL'ers frequently play 3 games in 4 nights proves the point that the game is easier on the body, rather than disproves it. It is not possible for someone to play top level soccer on consectutive nights. If professional soccer players were to play an NHL type schedule, the only players still on the field after 2 or 3 weeks would be the goalies. Everyone else would be out of commission due to muscle pulls or strains, or twisted joints. There would also be injuries due to elbows, or high tackles, or getting booted in the head, or whatever, but the main point is that the act of running over 90 minutes is much tougher on the body than skating. | |
|
| Which sport is tougher on the body: hockey or soccer?
Posted: 3/2/2007 3:29:42 PM | | Personally I think this is a tough argument because football and hockey are two of the most demanding sports for different reasons. I think you need to be better conditioned over the long haul for football as matches last longer and you are more involved in the action. However, hockey requires the ability to operate in short explosive intervals with minimal rest in between. I have played both (more hockey than football admittedly) but found both equally tiring on the body but I did find hockey to be more demanding overall due to the different types of stress placed on the body. With that being said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for footballers. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| Page 1 of 18
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 |
|
Home
login 
