The Instigator
TheLastLightEver
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ReptiDeath
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Hockey is a "better" spectator sport and requires more athleticism than baseball.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2010 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,325 times Debate No: 13344
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

TheLastLightEver

Pro

Here is a fun debate for you guys. I am just trying to offset some of the more serious debates I have seen on this page. I know I am fighting a seemingly uphill battle here but I figured I would give it a shot for my first debate until I get settled here.

I am for the idea that hockey is a "better" sport than baseball with respect to athleticism and available spectator enjoyment.

For the first round I would just like to define what I mean by "better" and set the parameters of the debate. I know "better" is a subjective term and is based on opinions, so I would like to make the arguments as objective as possible. I plan to do this by talking about the following topics: average game length, average in game action, the percent of action per game, the amount of games per season, the importance of each game as it pertains to the season, the in-game skills required by all athletes, the difficulty scoring, and the type of team play (team vs. individual aspects).

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and in the spirit of good competition, good luck. If there are questions/concerns or any other parameters my opponent would like to discuss, please mention them in the first round before we proceed. Thank you.
ReptiDeath

Con

If at all possible, I would like to keep this debate, or at least my side of it, focused on the "spectator" portion of the topic as I very much so agree that Hockey requires more athleticism.
Thanks

Let me first outline what makes a good spectator sport.
A. Crowd Interaction
B. Summertime, Outdoor activity
C. Slow Pace to allow for conversation/discussion with friends
D. Family oriented
E. Value
Would you agree?

I would also like to point out a few flaws in my opponent's contentions
1) Regarding my opponent's contention, "the amount of games per season" I believe this is a contradiction to my opponent's side of the debate because a greater amount of games gives the spectator greater opportunity to attend these games and obviously baseball, with 162 games or more in a season, takes that category. If the spectator hasn't any spare time to attend the sparse and limited hockey games then he couldn't even begin to enjoy it.

I also noticed that my opponent attempted to enforce this contention by implying that with less games there is greater importance in the outcome of the game as it pertains to the season, thus creating more dramatic game play. However, this can easily be countered by saying that, in baseball, teams play teams in series' of two to four and the results of those series' are equally significant to a win/loss in hockey.

The Fans speak for themselves. According to ESPN, The 2010 MLB season (still in progress) has fielded about 30,338 attendees per game to the 2009 NHL's 17,460.

And this concludes Round 1
Also I am new to this website so if there is any specific formalities that i may not be aware of or a specific format that should be used, just let me know

http://espn.go.com... baseball attendance
http://espn.go.com... hockey attendance
Debate Round No. 1
TheLastLightEver

Pro

I agree to go along with my opponents wish to skip the athleticism portion of the debate.

I also agree with some of the proposed points on what makes a good spectator sport. The points I would like to address are: A. Crowd Interaction and E. Value.
I do not wish to include B, C, or D because they are subjective to the spectator. (People who like slow, quiet and family orientated events would prefer baseball and vice versa for hockey.) Instead, I would like to concern the amount of available action for every spectator. That means, we should suppose that any hockey fan will appreciate the same time he invests watching hockey as does a baseball fan watching baseball. Each is viewing their preferred sport, but the question is: "What kind of return are they receiving on their investment per game?" I will address this value later. First I would like to address my opponents claimed flaws in my argument.

1) Amount of games per season: It is important to include the amount of games per season because it shows the amount of significance each game holds on the season as a whole. In a series of 4 games, each game has great significance toward the total, because each loss would ruin 25% of their series. For example, the NFL has 16 games per season, and losing one of those games is more detrimental to the outcome of the season as opposed to if they had a longer season. Based on percentages, if an NFL team loses a single regular season game, they have lost 6.25% of that season in one game, which doesn't seem like a lot, but lets compare it to baseball and hockey. An NHL regular season contains 82 games in it. If a team like the Detroit Red Wings were to lose a single game, they would forfeit 1.12% of their seasons total chances to win. That means each game is important to win, although it's not as important as an NFL game. A regular season of baseball contains 162 games. It a team like the Detroit Tigers were to lose a game, it would only effect .61% of the season's outcome. That means just one baseball game holds only half of the importance and significance that a hockey game holds for each respective season. Therefore, with less games in a season, hockey games are more significant to the season total. If one were to say that losing a single game isn't that big of a deal, then you could say that baseball games are less of a big deal than hockey games.

Another point that my opponent brings up is dramatic game play. Now I agree that because there are less games in a season of the NHL, the game would be inherently more dramatic, because the stakes are higher. I don't agree, however, that you can easily divide the season in to series' against certain opponents, and come out with the same significance per game. Even if we divided the baseball season by two (thus averaging the mount of games per series), we would get 81 games per season, which is comparable to the season of hockey.
Now suppose we looked at the necessary time that these totals require by the spectator, because this is what value you will receive from your investment. The value for each game varies. As it stands right now, a baseball fan must invest 2 games worth for the same dramatic feeling of one game of hockey. We will keep that ratio at 2:1 for baseball and hockey respectively. Please keep that in mind when I am finished with my next point.

Value is determined by the amount of entertainment received by the spectator. To avoid subjective outlooks, lets pretend Pro and Con are fans who receive an equal appreciation for their respective sports. Pro watches a hockey game and receives 60 minutes (3 periods of 20 minutes) of available on ice action for the 2.5 hours it takes to watch the entire televised game. That works out to be 40% of the game which is on ice action. Since baseball has no structured time limits, I will use the time recorded by Wall Street Journal journalist David Biderman to figure what Con will experience. David timed a typical ESPN baseball rote these results:"The stopwatch would start when a pitcher lifted his leg to begin his pitching motion. The timing would stop when the ball hit the catcher's mitt or, if it was put in play, when the presiding umpire made a call or the players all stopped moving (pickoff attempts and steals were also counted as action). The result is that during these games, there was a nearly identical amount of action: about 14 minutes. To put that in context, that's about 10.9% of the total broadcast time (excluding commercials). It's a fraction of the roughly 88 minutes the players were shown standing around between plays, nearly 45% more than the 10 minutes of replays that are shown and almost four times as much as the cameras show players lounging in the dugout."(1)
To sum this all up. Hockey games last 2.5 hours, and contain 60 minutes of action, resulting in 40% action per game. Each game in hockey is 1.12% of the seasons significance. (60 minutes x 82 games = 4,920 minutes of action per season). Baseball games last 3 hours, and contain 14 minutes of action, resulting in 10% action per game. Each game in baseball is only .61% of the seasons significance. (14 minutes x 162 games = 2,268 minutes of action per season). This means hockey spectators receive 4,920 available minutes of action per season and only invest 12,300 minutes, whereas baseball spectators receive only 2,268 available minutes of action per season and invest 29,160 minutes. Basically, hockey spectators get double the action and drama out their sport for only half of the time invested in watching the games, compared to baseball.

This is just a subjective argument that I added to nail the point home. I have no references, so I will NOT use these points for my argument. It merely serves as an addendum to my argument, mainly because there is no adequate sources for these points.
Although there are more fans that watch the MLB season, it doesn't mean that the sport is better. It just means more baseball fans are wasting their invested time by receiving less satisfaction than what hockey fans receive for the same investment. We can blame the the popularity of the sport on 3 things: The phrase "America's Pastime," the ignorance of Canadian born sports by the United States, and the amount of coverage that ESPN shows each sport during each regular season. Now the phrase "America's Pastime" is misleading. First, pastime means " An activity that someone does regularly for enjoyment rather than work; a hobby."(2) There are far more things that Americans do more frequently outside of work for enjoyment, like defecating. Also, baseball is called a sport, but sounds more like a hobby anyway. I agree with that use of the term.
Americans have ignored Canadian sports like hockey for a long time because of the lack of show time on American networks and the lack of air time on ESPN. There is just not enough exposure for hockey in this country for it to be adopt and appreciated like it deserves.

(1) http://online.wsj.com...
(2) Oxford American Dictionary - also found in google definitions-http://www.google.com...
ReptiDeath

Con

ReptiDeath forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheLastLightEver

Pro

Oh man, I have had that happen before too. I've had to re-do this debate twice because either I forgot to post, or the other person did. I'll let ya throw together your final arguments in the last round but I won't have much of a response. Either that, or we can retry another debate and just invite each other.
ReptiDeath

Con

On your question "What kind of return are they receiving on their investment per game?"
I believe this is enforcing my point or at the very least, not enforcing any of our points because he or she (the spectator) has different opinions as to the value of the game compared to the price to pay. I do acknowledge your will to keep this objective.

Back to my point on the Crowd interaction, the spectator will get much more foul balls and broken bats in baseball then they would in hockey (with pucks or sticks). Wouldn't you agree? and then ask anyone if they would enjoy getting a foul ball in a baseball and I personally have 3 MLB baseballs. that is the coolest feeling to be up on the JumboTron waving a foul ball around. I believe this is a large part of what makes baseball such a good spectator sport.

You feel that baseball lacks seriousness because it has so many games that in the sense of the season the games mean almost nothing whether you win or lose. But this also means for a much more relaxed viewing intensity as no one likes to see there team lose and that feeling is intensified with more serious games as in hockey and which you proved.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ReptiDeath 3 years ago
ReptiDeath
i have no friends :(... ha ha jk but seriously i dont know who that was
Posted by TheLastLightEver 3 years ago
TheLastLightEver
Seriously, no one is voting on this debate...
Posted by TheLastLightEver 3 years ago
TheLastLightEver
My next debate will be how the voting system on debate.org is flawed lol I mean, friends voting straight ticket for their friends, without any real good reason... that's just not right.
Posted by ReptiDeath 3 years ago
ReptiDeath
ha ha idk...esoecially for the person who really shouldnt win... i mean come on i missed a round even
Posted by TheLastLightEver 3 years ago
TheLastLightEver
Who votes straight-ticket anymore...?
Posted by ReptiDeath 3 years ago
ReptiDeath
ya me neither.... but i could find a few subjects to vote for you
Posted by TheLastLightEver 3 years ago
TheLastLightEver
yea, me too lol

I wont vote though, based on principle. haha
Posted by ReptiDeath 3 years ago
ReptiDeath
Ha Ha it will let me vote...
Posted by ReptiDeath 3 years ago
ReptiDeath
ha well ille put up what i have left... and let the votes begin... i guess
Posted by ReptiDeath 3 years ago
ReptiDeath
nuts forgot about this
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ethopia619 3 years ago
ethopia619
TheLastLightEverReptiDeathTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by something-witty 3 years ago
something-witty
TheLastLightEverReptiDeathTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Thaele 3 years ago
Thaele
TheLastLightEverReptiDeathTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07