stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted November 23, 2009 Now don't get me wrong, I don't want to ever see the NHL switch to international sized rinks, but for an international competition, I don't like the fact that they are using the smaller rinks... I think it changes the Olympic style game and the way it's played and I like seeing them play on the larger rinks for a change (separate of the NHL) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hooon 1,089 Report post Posted November 23, 2009 I agree completely. I didn't realize they were using NHL sized rinks for the Olympics this year... that really kinda frustrates me... my favorite part about olympic hockey is how open the ice is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormJH1 231 Report post Posted November 23, 2009 Hate it. And I raised that point in the other thread about Olympics. The way I look at it is this: the players nowadays are so much bigger, stronger, and faster than in the days of Howe, Lindsay, and Delvecchio, that the rink should've increased in size many years ago to keep up the integrity of the game. By the 90's, you had these super-skilled athletes playing in the equivalent of a fish bowl. Now, we're stuck in some weird limbo phase where we want the game to be more "European" and high scoring (no two-line passes, obstruction), yet we apply those rules to the same dinky rink. Also, the biggest lie is that there's no hitting on the Olympic rinks. B.S. I'm pretty sure anyone who rips on Olympic hockey never actually watched the Torino Olympics. The commentators were even noting how guys like Teemu Selanne who were labled as finesse pansies by NHL fans played like physical power forwards on the big ice when it was a pride matchup like Sweden v. Finland on the line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormJH1 231 Report post Posted November 23, 2009 I agree completely. I didn't realize they were using NHL sized rinks for the Olympics this year... that really kinda frustrates me... my favorite part about olympic hockey is how open the ice is. Exactly. Good luck with the boring Lemaire neutral zone jam-job on Olympic ice. See ya! Haha. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redwingfan19 293 Report post Posted November 23, 2009 love it, any advantage we can get. That includes US team as well Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 Hate it. And I raised that point in the other thread about Olympics. The way I look at it is this: the players nowadays are so much bigger, stronger, and faster than in the days of Howe, Lindsay, and Delvecchio, that the rink should've increased in size many years ago to keep up the integrity of the game. By the 90's, you had these super-skilled athletes playing in the equivalent of a fish bowl. Now, we're stuck in some weird limbo phase where we want the game to be more "European" and high scoring (no two-line passes, obstruction), yet we apply those rules to the same dinky rink. Also, the biggest lie is that there's no hitting on the Olympic rinks. B.S. I'm pretty sure anyone who rips on Olympic hockey never actually watched the Torino Olympics. The commentators were even noting how guys like Teemu Selanne who were labled as finesse pansies by NHL fans played like physical power forwards on the big ice when it was a pride matchup like Sweden v. Finland on the line. although I agree on some aspects, I don't want to see the NHL itself to go to the larger rinks... I think it would be too drastic of a change to the game... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 I forgot they had decided to do this. Bad idea. And while I wouldn't want the NHL playing on international size rinks, the league would be improved by adding a couple feet in width to the rink. Guys have gotten so much bigger and faster, there's less room out there than there used to be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MacK_Attack 108 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 It didn't really make sense to build a rink with international sized ice for the Vancouver Games because they really wouldn't have any use for it afterwards. And with GM Place already there with 18,000 seats, it just made sense to play there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 It didn't really make sense to build a rink with international sized ice for the Vancouver Games because they really wouldn't have any use for it afterwards. And with GM Place already there with 18,000 seats, it just made sense to play there. no, but there is the Pacific Coliseum which holds over 16000 which used to house the Canucks, which they could have pulled out a couple rows of seats to expand the ice... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BeeRYCE 2 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 Did they use Olympic sized rinks in Salt Lake 2002? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 Did they use Olympic sized rinks in Salt Lake 2002? yes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MacK_Attack 108 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 yes I don't think it was fully international sized. I know it was bigger than NHL size, but I was under the impression that it was not quite international sized ice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 I don't think it was fully international sized. I know it was bigger than NHL size, but I was under the impression that it was not quite international sized ice. no, it was international size - 30 m (98 ft) x 60 m (200 ft) - it was setup specifically for that in the E center where the Jazz play in the NBA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uk_redwing 495 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 As someone who lives somewhere where they play in international sized rinks...Im glad. I hate the huge rinks. They slow the game down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CaliWingsNut Report post Posted November 24, 2009 This conversation is rather moot in my opinion. I said in the previous thread on this subject that it makes no sense for Canada to build a stadium just for the Olympics. Lets build a 20k person stadium so we can have an olympic sized rink..... or... we could use GM Place and save a hundred million and not have to deal with an extra unneeded rink in town for 20 years. Same thing goes for the NHL... I'm sure all thirty owners (and corporate sponsors, etc) wanna pay to change their stadiums in the middle of this economy. We'll just take out 2 rows of possible customer sales for a bigger rink. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormJH1 231 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 This conversation is rather moot in my opinion. I said in the previous thread on this subject that it makes no sense for Canada to build a stadium just for the Olympics. Lets build a 20k person stadium so we can have an olympic sized rink..... or... we could use GM Place and save a hundred million and not have to deal with an extra unneeded rink in town for 20 years. Same thing goes for the NHL... I'm sure all thirty owners (and corporate sponsors, etc) wanna pay to change their stadiums in the middle of this economy. We'll just take out 2 rows of possible customer sales for a bigger rink. I don't know if people were saying they should've BUILT a rink, just that it sucks we're not getting real "Olympic" hockey. There's irony in the fact that they had to compromise the whole identity of Olympic hockey because the host country happened to already HAVE hockey facilities in place (albeit a smaller size). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CaliWingsNut Report post Posted November 24, 2009 I don't know if people were saying they should've BUILT a rink, just that it sucks we're not getting real "Olympic" hockey. There's irony in the fact that they had to compromise the whole identity of Olympic hockey because the host country happened to already HAVE hockey facilities in place (albeit a smaller size). I can see changing GM place to hold a larger rink, but my guess is that they would have done that if possible. They are already temporarily renaming the place (no small task) to remove the corporate name on an Olympic venue (I think they got more publicity saying they would remove it than they would have gotten for leaving it). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 I don't know if people were saying they should've BUILT a rink, just that it sucks we're not getting real "Olympic" hockey. There's irony in the fact that they had to compromise the whole identity of Olympic hockey because the host country happened to already HAVE hockey facilities in place (albeit a smaller size). well, no... building a new one would be ridiculous and to some extent even messing with GM place... that's not the point - as I said previously: no, but there is the Pacific Coliseum which holds over 16000 which used to house the Canucks, which they could have pulled out a couple rows of seats to expand the ice... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CaliWingsNut Report post Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) well, no... building a new one would be ridiculous and to some extent even messing with GM place... that's not the point - as I said previously: Missed it... sorry... So they are choosing 2000+ seats/tickets per game (not counting losses in seats to modification) vs. using an international size rink. Edit: Which is an entirely different animal. Not sure where I stand on that. Edited November 24, 2009 by CaliWingsNut Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 Missed it... sorry... So they are choosing 2000+ seats/tickets per game (not counting losses in seats to modification) vs. using an international size rink. I think that's basically the extent of it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
puckbags 863 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 As someone who lives somewhere where they play in international sized rinks...Im glad. I hate the huge rinks. They slow the game down. Exactly, The mediocre teams will find a way to trap and slow the game down regardless of the size of the rink. The Germans are masters at it. The rink could be 500 feet long and 200 wide and it wouldn't matter. The bigger the ice the more room it gives the bad teams to clear pucks without icing. Put those same teams on the small ice with the Canadian or Americans and they have no where to hide. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jake Ryan 1 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 I wish the NHL played on olympic sized rinks. The game would get faster and more skillful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldredbarnman 13 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 I'd rather play on an NHL sized rink, but if the city that hosts the games has International size ice, then use that. Just like the downhill events, every Olympics has it's own challenges and uniqueness, ice hockey included. Most of the players that will be in the Olympics are playing on NHL sized rinks now, plus I agree with the other posters about the speed of the game being slower on the bigger ice. 1980, 1988, and 2002 Olympics were all NHL size rinks anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted November 24, 2009 I'd rather play on an NHL sized rink, but if the city that hosts the games has International size ice, then use that. Just like the downhill events, every Olympics has it's own challenges and uniqueness, ice hockey included. Most of the players that will be in the Olympics are playing on NHL sized rinks now, plus I agree with the other posters about the speed of the game being slower on the bigger ice. 1980, 1988, and 2002 Olympics were all NHL size rinks anyway. no they weren't - First time ever For the first time, Olympic games will be played on a narrower, NHL-sized ice rink, measuring 61x26 metres (200x85 feet), instead of the international size of 61x30 metres (200x98.5 feet) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites