Running vs. Hockey

I've always wanted to post an edgy reply to a sophomoric question. Hockey is popular in Canada (population 30 million) and in 10 US Cities, Sweden, Finland, and a few of the old CCCP countries.

Track is popular in half the world.

If the person who thinks Hockey is more popular than track worldwide is from Canada, he represents the average IQ of a Canuck.

What's you next question?

popular is such a vague term. Do you mean they play? or Which do more people watch? If track was so popular, why is hockey on tv instead of track?

i played both hockey and ran track competitively all through high school, and continued with track in college. i like hockey much better. most of the world likes track better and much of the world has no idea what hockey consists of, other than the fact it is played on ice.

tru dat

and by popular, I meant total viewers or fans.

how this whole argument got started was by us talking about how he thinks track is less of a sport than hockey or more specifically baseball... i don't even want to get started on o

on a side note, would you guys say running is more popular than baseball on a worldwide level?

aBubba wrote:

He thinks that hockey is more popular worldwide than track is.

what do you guys think?

THere are entire continents that don't know what hockey is; of course track is more popular world wide. I've had this same arguement with hockey fans here in canada. I tried to explain how the olympic 1500m final would be similar to there being a hockey tournament where only 3 canadians were good enough to make it and a majority of the world played hockey. Running is litteral hundreds of time more competitive and more popular than hockey, worldwide. Downtown montreal or toronto, hockey is bigger.

i am a runner and hockey player and i would say that hockey is the more popular sport. If you notice, the NHL does exist and does make some money. There is nothing that compares at that type of level with track in the US. The golden league does exist in Europe but I dont feel that the visa championship here is really that much. Look at how the millrose games turned out, msg wasnt even a packed house. Most of Eastern Europe loves hockey as about half the nhl these days might be made up of people from those countries. I'm sorry but I just dont feel running has the same popularity as hockey does.

i just want to clarify, people who are joggers dont make the sport popular. Many people just do it for fitness so they dont get fat. I dont think half the poeple you saw jogging around a track in the summer would know who alan webb is.

Uhhhhhhhh, the Golden League is dead. Attendence is wayyyyy down. You say that one Track meet every four years makes up for year-round hockey? You are nuts. There are 30 NHL teams and all 81 of the games are televised. Maybe 10 track meets televised all year. Eruopean hockey leagues attract more fans than the US.

Yes, more countries can participate in track (obviously), but the same can be said for wrestling. More countries have Olympic wrestlers than hockey players, but that means nothing. Hell, cycling is MUCH MUCH bigger in Europe than track. There is a reason why track events will be shown tape delayed when the need arrives, but the hockey Tourney is ALWAYS live.

Artard.

What a stupid thread, but you, sir, bring down the level even further. This is not about insulting nations, moron.

Track is only really popular in Europe and worldwide when the olympics roll around. However, hockey is not played in 2/3 of the world because of climate. Popularity, therefore, is relative.

In some quarters, hockey is clearly more popular, Canada, certain pockets of the U.S., all the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Switzerland, the former Soviet countries, Czech Republic and Slovakia attest to that. Even Spain and Italy have professional leagues, but that is not determinative.

But likely it is not so in Kenya, Ethiopia, Brazil, Morocco, Algeria, Japan, Australia, India etc.

You say track is popular in half the world, which half?

Turn off Star Trek, put down the cheese whiz and crawl out of your parents' basement, and you will see that this is far too complex a subject for your tiny mind to comprehend.

I played hockey from when I was age 6 up until senior year in high school (when I chose to run indoor track, with interest of a scholarship)...Hockey is clearly a more popular sport than track and field. Even as a track guy (800 and mile) I can see where hockey is head and shoulders above professional track....not even a contest....I love track and yearn for the day when it is a big professional sport...but hockey is clearly the winner here...

NO CONTEST...your redic for thinking so

the most simple way to solve this is just to get attendance and viewing figures worldwide.

i'd say hockey will be more popular in certain countries than track and field, but overall, it's going to be track and field.

reason being that you generally don't need much specialist equipment. so many countries are going to be ruled out of hockey because of lack of facilities.

popularity = numbers

just because hockey isn't played in Africa, doesn't mean they don't have worldwide #'s...

climate doesn't matter at all..we are talking about an indoor sport (hockey)

in europe for most of the Bungladesia type leagues and super leagues..its akin to TX football..the whole town turns out..

neither of the 2 sports is popular here in the states in huge #'s...based on the amount of hockey played elsewhere..(and there are pro leagues in Asia, Australia that extends the reach)......and the greater # of games played..hockey has more #'s...

I too left the ice for the track in favor of cash-money-education. The fact is this: hockey generates more money than track and field in the NHL alone in the realm of 10 dollars to 1; and that is being generous in favor of track. Besides the NHL, there are a litany of sub leagues that all generate dough. You may get 5000 or more attending a pee-wee game in certain areas of the US (Minnesota) and definitely in Canada. Every NYS Championship I ran was in front of, max, 300-500 non-paying spectators. Sure, there is Europe for track and field, but by sheer volume of games and ticket revenue, running stands no chance. I would compare a jump like J. Edwards world record triple jump and M. Johnsons 19.32 as about exciting as a late season, playoff run hockey game resulting in a shootout. Trust, once the wet dreams of the Olympic Gold and World Records (an impossibility for most, even the most talented of the US, i.e., Webb, Hall, etc) subsides, you will find the excitement of a sixer and The Center Ice Package far more stimulating. Daily.

"your redic for thinking so"

What language do you speak?

Look, if you read what I said, I did not take a side, I merely pointed out that there are different ways of thinking this out.

If popularity means worldwide participation, likely track wins. If it means fan support here in North America and Europe, likely hockey wins. If it means television audiences, which is a very poor criteria, hockey wins here also/

However, if you want to consider worldwide intetrest, given that China, India and southeast Asia, and Africa have no interst in the sport, and given they that alone represent well over half of the world's population...well, I think even you can figure that one out.

Just so there is no confusion, I have played hockey and run track and the roads all my life and contiue to do so as a master/oldtimer. I do not choose to debate which is superior as an activity. It would be like choosing between your children as to who is the favourite.

The NHL is still made up over 50% by Canadians. There are about 10 other key hockey countries.

The most populous countries, China and India do not play, watch or understand hockey.

If there was a caveat it should be in the western world or G8 nations or something. Then you can say hockey 1st.

I think the Indians and the Chinese don't give a rats ass about a 110 pound Ethiopian who can run 3:45 or 2:06:XX....

All of SOuth America and all of Africa are totally out of the hockey picture. It's track 1st then I guess....

the great one held the OTFA under 14 800m record for sometime and he is the most popular canadian, so track is much more popular than hockey

Go to youtube and type in '1967 stanley cup finals'

they have a video of 80% of the final game of the '67 'Cup finals when the NHL only had six teams. every third guy that touches the puck is a Hall of Famer, and you see only one guy with a helmet, NORMAL-Sized goalie pads, mostly flat sticks and skating, skating, Skating...exciting finish too.

watch that then watch the molasses farm that the NHL is today.

Obscene: 30 teams, the forwards wear padding that are almost as big as what Gump Worsely and Terry Sawchuck wore, no hitting, that stupid trap and all the motion of a falling leaf (no pun intended).

College hockey is superior: passion, movement, checking.

???nm wrote:all 81 of the games are televised.

82 games

Track is WAY more popular around the world.....maybe not in the US, but everywhere else it is. Especially Europe, no contest.