Jump to content

Decorating NHL Helmets?


Dedalvs

Recommended Posts

So, NHL (and other hockey leagues) don't seem to want to take advantage of the real estate offered by a hockey helmet. Typically they're one color and have the team's name or logo somewhere on there, but it's small and nondescript. They're nothing like football helmets which have a lot going on, and which vary wildly. Is there a reason for this? Have there ever been any very interesting hockey helmets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Your use of the English language is so poor that there really should not be any replies. That was very painful to read.

In terms of "decorating", the NHL may be like the NFL in that even the choice of helmet maker (and design) is in the hands of the team trainer. The puck will still move faster than the camers to tell who is whom and logos are not that a big issue as people buy sweaters, not helmets. For other sports,

From an xenith lawsuit:

Riddell is deemed the ?Official Helmet of the NFL.? NFL players are overwhelmingly

steered towards Riddell helmets based on quotas that provide teams free goods, and no logos

other than Riddell can be shown on helmets. If a player wears a non-Riddell helmet, the logos for that company need to be pried off, or covered up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your use of the English language is so poor that there really should not be any replies. That was very painful to read.

Wow. Really?

I'll give you 1,337 Internet Tough Guy Bucks (ITGB) if you can accurately describe any error that I made in my original post. (Oh, and matters of style [such as my using "very interesting" out of sheer laziness] don't count--that's why they're called, at worst, "stylistic errors".)

I'll even throw in an extra 69 ITGB if you can explain why what you wrote ("...to tell who is whom...") is actually not an error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing yet, eh dfwabel? Here, I'll help you out.

  1. There should be a "the" before "NHL" (though that likely was a typo [i.e. my brain was moving faster than my fingers]). Errors like this one crop up while typing quite commonly, though, and there's a difference between a typo (or omit-o, if you prefer) like that and the errors a non-native speaker will make (such as how Russian learners will frequently omit articles). After all, every native English speaker on the planet knows how "the" is spelled, but we all still occasionally spell it "teh" on accident.

That brings us to an interesting issue. Let's insert the "the" where it ought to be and see what the result is:

So, the NHL (and other hockey leagues) don't seem to...

Now which sounds better: that, or the following?

So, the NHL (and other hockey leagues) doesn't seem to...

The latter is "correct", in one sense (the subject of the sentence is, indeed, "the NHL", which is singular), but it feels wrong because the closest NP is plural. To fix it, the sentence should simply be reworded. Though, oddly enough, if you add more words in between "hockey leagues" and "doesn't", the sentence sounds better, e.g.:

So, the NHL (and other hockey leagues too, apparently [or so it seems to me]) doesn't seem to...

But the main thing I think your brain is probably reacting to is the use of pronouns, for which this Wikipedia article may prove instructive (it should be at your reading level). Pronoun resolution can be difficult--even in context--so it behooves one to focus while reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what you wrote:

So, "THE". Plus, its a poor choice to start off a first paragraph with "So" NHL (and other hockey leagues) don't seem to want to take advantage of the real estate offered by a hockey helmet. Typically MISSING COMMA they're one color and have the team's name or logo somewhere on there, but it's small and nondescript. They're nothing like football helmets which have a lot going on, and which vary wildly. SHEESH. When switching subjects as often as you did, using multiple indirect pronouns creates confusion as to which subject you are referring to. All the commas are not helping either. Is there a reason for this? Have there ever been any very interesting hockey helmets? [

This is how it should have looked:

It appears that hockey teams refuse to incorporate the hockey helmet as design element. Normally, hockey helmets are one color with only a small logo or the team's name on the side. Why can't hockey helmets be designed similar to football helmets which have more unique design elements? Why is this? Has any hockey team used design elements on their helmets?

The only two hockey helmets I am aware of would be:

Michigan:

medium_103108palushaj.jpg

Ohio State:

Ohio-State-University-Mens-Sports-Hockey-A-Buckeye-Hockey-Helmet-O-M-HKY-00002sm.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what you wrote:

So, "THE". Plus, its a poor choice to start off a first paragraph with "So" NHL (and other hockey leagues) don't seem to want to take advantage of the real estate offered by a hockey helmet. Typically MISSING COMMA they're one color and have the team's name or logo somewhere on there, but it's small and nondescript. They're nothing like football helmets which have a lot going on, and which vary wildly. SHEESH. When switching subjects as often as you did, using multiple indirect pronouns creates confusion as to which subject you are referring to. All the commas are not helping either. Is there a reason for this? Have there ever been any very interesting hockey helmets? [

All the commas cause confusion, yet you want to add an additional (and, I might add, optional) comma after "typically"? Also, what's an "indirect" pronoun? If you meant "indirect object pronoun", there aren't any there.

It's interesting (though not surprising) to note that you missed the verb agreement issue. This is what's called a garden path effect.

As for starting a paragraph with "so", that's just silly. It may have been a poor choice to start that paragraph with "so" (in your opinion), but doing so is by no means poor style.

Regarding your rewrite...

It appears that hockey teams refuse to incorporate the hockey helmet as design element. Normally, hockey helmets are one color with only a small logo or the team's name on the side. Why can't hockey helmets be designed similar to football helmets which have more unique design elements? Why is this? Has any hockey team used design elements on their helmets?

That actually says something different (I certainly didn't mean to imply that the NHL refused to put more on their helmets; I just wanted to note that they didn't do it [or, at least, that they didn't seem to. I don't really follow hockey all that much, so I don't want to claim authority]), but here's the corrected version of what you just wrote:

It appears that hockey teams refuse to incorporate the hockey helmet as a design element. Normally, hockey helmets are one color with only a small logo or the team's name on the side. Why can't hockey helmets be designed similarly (or "in a similar fashion") to football helmets which have more unique design elements? Why is this? Has any hockey team ever (suggestion) used design elements on their helmets? Doesn't this contradict what you just said? After all, doesn't a logo count as a "design element", even if it's small?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the commas cause confusion, yet you want to add an additional (and, I might add, optional) comma after "typically"? Also, what's an "indirect" pronoun? If you meant "indirect object pronoun", there aren't any there.

It's interesting (though not surprising) to note that you missed the verb agreement issue. This is what's called a garden path effect.

As for starting a paragraph with "so", that's just silly. It may have been a poor choice to start that paragraph with "so" (in your opinion), but doing so is by no means poor style.

Regarding your rewrite...

It appears that hockey teams refuse to incorporate the hockey helmet as design element. Normally, hockey helmets are one color with only a small logo or the team's name on the side. Why can't hockey helmets be designed similar to football helmets which have more unique design elements? Why is this? Has any hockey team used design elements on their helmets?

That actually says something different (I certainly didn't mean to imply that the NHL refused to put more on their helmets; I just wanted to note that they didn't do it [or, at least, that they didn't seem to. I don't really follow hockey all that much, so I don't want to claim authority]), but here's the corrected version of what you just wrote:

It appears that hockey teams refuse to incorporate the hockey helmet as a design element. Normally, hockey helmets are one color with only a small logo or the team's name on the side. Why can't hockey helmets be designed similarly (or "in a similar fashion") to football helmets which have more unique design elements? Why is this? Has any hockey team ever (suggestion) used design elements on their helmets? Doesn't this contradict what you just said? After all, doesn't a logo count as a "design element", even if it's small?

I added the comma after "Typically" because I was using it as a transitional phrase and there was a pause in thought.

Trust me, I caught the subject-verb agreement, but just because your sentences may have followed that rule doesn't excuse the fact that they weren't as comprehensible as they should have been.

When beginning a paragraph with the word "So", you a referring to a previous thought or topic. Therefore, by using "So" as the first word in the first sentence, I would deem that usage as poor.

As for the indirect object pronoun, that's my Spanish exam in 7 hours talking. I couldn't remember the proper English term, so my brain inserted it instead.

As for my paragraph, it conveys your thought perfectly. You want to substitute a word here and there, fine. But anyone on this board would agree that my paragraph is much easier to read and comprehend than yours.

Oh, and for mentioning the "Garden Path Effect", I hereby dub thee:

GaVXuimV0qmlm3haY0AiA5Vho1_400.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha. In the course of one thread I went from incompetent to grammar nazi. (Though I have to wonder about where you invoked it. A garden path effect, after all, has nothing to do with grammar, per se; it's merely an observable phenomenon.)

I added the comma after "Typically" because I was using it as a transitional phrase and there was a pause in thought.

I didn't intend for there to be a pause there. That's why I didn't put a comma.

Trust me, I caught the subject-verb agreement, but just because your sentences may have followed that rule doesn't excuse the fact that they weren't as comprehensible as they should have been.

No, the issue was that the sentence didn't agree as it ought, and that, oddly enough, that made it more comprehensible rather than less so.

When beginning a paragraph with the word "So", you are referring to a previous thought or topic. Therefore, by using "So" as the first word in the first sentence, I would deem that usage as (you don't deem things as anything else) poor.

So says you... ;) (Just kidding; couldn't resist.)

First, that's not how "so" works. Second, even if it were, I actually may have been referring to a previous thought--specifically, the title or subject of the thread.

As for the indirect object pronoun, that's my Spanish exam in 7 hours talking. I couldn't remember the proper English term, so my brain inserted it instead.

Buena suerte (sinceramente). No olvide los acentos sobre los vocales que los necesitan.

As for my paragraph, it conveys your thought perfectly. You want to substitute a word here and there, fine. But anyone on this board would agree that my paragraph is much easier to read and comprehend than yours.

This is obviously not true (the first part; the second is a matter of opinion [though, technically, I am on this board...]). Specifically, there's one key difference that might seem trivial but turns out not to be. In my initial post, I referred to the NHL (or other leagues) having control over helmet design. In your rephrase, you suggested its the individual teams that have control over the design of their helmets. I'm not sure which of those is true (or if there's another alternative), and I'd actually be interested to know. It seemed to me that the league (or maybe Reebok?) must be in charge since all NHL helmets are so similar...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha. In the course of one thread I went from incompetent to grammar nazi.

When did I suggest incompetence? Incompetence is "lol... i luv football helmets... hokey helmets need to be all kewl like football ones"

And dude, chill out. You didn't write the most comprehensible paragraph. I fixed it for you. There's no need to get all 7th-grade English teacher on me... Grammar Nazi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear god this turned into a dick-swinging contest in a hurry. I blame dfwabel for it getting so awful so quickly, but GFB and the OP have kept it going with mighty swings of their internet dicks. Let's all step back and maybe get back on topic, because the arguments over where to place commas have become a lot worse than the first post in this thread ever was.

Om topic, I think the reason we don't see a lot of designs on hockey helmets is because of the way they are shaped. Compare the silhouette of a football helmet to that of a hockey helmet:

1181534706sBPr86.jpg2f826_hockey_helmet.jpg

While football helmets are essentially a flat round shell, hockey helmets are covered in ridges. It's easy to put down a stripe on a football helmet because each one is going to be the same- each one will be a flat round shell. But hockey helmets, in addition to being "bumpy" (for lack of a better word), are also unique in their bumpiness. Different models have the air vents in different places, and helmets that are adjustable in size will be shaped differently than those that aren't. All of these combine to make it really difficult to decorate a hockey helmet with anything but small logos on the side.

While it's difficult to do it right, I applaud those teams that do. I love Michigan and OSU's hockey helmets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohio State only wore that helmet for one game and it looked fantastic, but people in Columbus threw a fit about them "borrowing" the football team's stripe. People in Columbus are crazy. Also, I've heard that the players weren't big on the idea of looking like the football team. They wanted their own image or something like that. I know that Penn State's club hockey team wears white helmets with a single blue stripe down the middle and when I played in high school a few of the teams we played decorated their helmets with stripes as well.

My theory as to why hockey teams generally haven't decorated their helmets goes back to the origins of the helmet. In the early days of the helmet, guys would only wear them for a few games if they had experienced a head injury. They weren't an every game thing so there was no need for the teams to slap some stripes and designs on them. As helmets became more commonplace they just tried to match every helmet and still not everybody on the team was wearing one so it would look goofy with some elaborately decorated helmets on a few guys and then some other guys were helmetless. Plus, like Shmee said, there's just not that much room to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another problem I thought of... check out these photos.

paul-martin-040808.jpgalg_avery.jpg

While NFL teams wear the same helmet for every game (remember the league nixing the Texans' plan, I think it was, to have two helmets), NHL teams have home helmets and away helmets. They're not really "iconic" parts of the uniform, and the point behind having two helmets is to help distinguish between teams on the ice. Stripes might ruin the effect.

Edit: My apologies to any Devils fans reading this thread. It was merely by coincidence that the two photos I picked were of Rangers punching Devils in the face. I didn't even realize it until I posted the reply for the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: My apologies to any Devils fans reading this thread. It was merely by coincidence that the two photos I picked were of Rangers punching Devils in the face. I didn't even realize it until I posted the reply for the first time.

If anything, you should apologize for posting a picture of Sean Avery. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please get this thread back on topic? That is, arguing about annoying and miniscule grammer points? We haven't decided who (whom?) is the biggest jackass yet.

It's "grammar"!!!!!! G-R-A-M-M-A-R. There is no "e" in the word!!!!!11111

Is this better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.