Hurling Snobbery

CyberDave

Was reminded of Hurling Snobbery this morning when a mate of mine from a more successful club slagged me about having so much bogland in our area. Not naming any clubs, but his club have been successful in our County championship, winning it a good few times, going right back to the start of the last century. My club is an amalgamation, now Senior, but before joining, having a history going right back to 1880s, albeit without much top level success. Football only becoming part of the club in the late 80's. What are people's thoughts/anecdotes on this? Can coming from an area with better land actually make any difference? For example has Kilkenny got any 'bad land'?

mikeunt

i would hazard a guess that , yes, Kilkenny has some bad land

ontheditch2

I remember a lad said to me, that there is only good hurling where the land is good. Now, i can get many parts of agree with the point, while others could give points to prove me wrong.
Examples include:
Burt in Donegal, based in a flat area.
Galway, little or no Hurling in the west where the land is worse.
Cork, west cork is bad land and the hurling is weaker there.
Clare, same as, poor land in the west, poor hurling.
North Kerry would be the flattest of land, where the hurling is strong.
The midlands would be relatively flat.
Antrim, not exactly sure of the geography outside of belfast, but you hear of the hurling being strong in the glens, which would suggest good land up there.

Thats my tuppence worth, agree or disagree as you so choose.

Dangerous Man

It's not difficult to make a pitch perfectly level, you know... and naturally occuring 'flat areas' are never actually flat and always difficult to hurl on.

CyberDave

mikeunt wrote: »

i would hazard a guess that , yes, Kilkenny has some bad land

What was meant by the 'bad land' comment, is are there any areas in Kilkenny which are considered non-hurling areas. I doubt it, regardless of whether the land is good or bad!

Sound of Silence

This could certainly be an interesting topic to see how certain sports develop in regards to the local terrain.

Having only picked up a Sliothar for the very first time last week, I'll make sure to blame any bad performances on the less than adequate land in South Armagh. :P

CyberDave

Sound of Silence wrote: »

This could certainly be an interesting topic to see how certain sports develop in regards to the local terrain.

Having only picked up a Sliothar for the very first time last week, I'll make sure to blame any bad performances on the less than adequate land in South Armagh. :P

From my very limited knowledge of Armagh hurling, I would've thought traditionally that the south would have more hurling than the north. I know that Hurling was somehow originally connected to the landlords, who would've been patrons of it before the formation of the GAA. Seamus King wrote a very interesting book On the 'History of Hurling'. He devotes a section to this. Surely though, this cannot be the sole reason for the tradional strongholds having gotten so strong?

little swift

from wiki.

The Eighteenth Century is frequently referred to as "The Golden Age of Hurling." This was when members of the Anglo-Irish landed gentry kept teams of players on their estates and challenged each other's teams to matches for the amusement of their tenants.

Sound of Silence

CyberDave wrote: »

From my very limited knowledge of Armagh hurling, I would've thought traditionally that the south would have more hurling than the north. I know that Hurling was somehow originally connected to the landlords, who would've been patrons of it before the formation of the GAA. Seamus King wrote a very interesting book On the 'History of Hurling'. He devotes a section to this. Surely though, this cannot be the sole reason for the tradional strongholds having gotten so strong?

Hurling has been effectively dwarfed by Gaelic in South Armagh for reasons that I've yet to discover. Camogie on the other hand enjoys a relative level of popularity among some of the younger members of the GAA.

Whilst the root cause for this is difficult to determine, it's clear that Hurling lacks any sort of effective promotion in the County. I truly wish this wasn't the case, as I imagine that I would've enjoyed Hurling much more than I do Gaelic. Well, it's always better late than never!

J Cheever Loophole

CyberDave wrote: »

From my very limited knowledge of Armagh hurling, I would've thought traditionally that the south would have more hurling than the north. I know that Hurling was somehow originally connected to the landlords, who would've been patrons of it before the formation of the GAA. Seamus King wrote a very interesting book On the 'History of Hurling'. He devotes a section to this. Surely though, this cannot be the sole reason for the tradional strongholds having gotten so strong?

Not sure how far you are going back there when you talk "traditionally" as I'd have no idea about origins of the game connected to landlords. However in the second half of the twentieth century, the strongholds of Armagh hurling would be mid Armagh - Derrynoose, Keady, Armagh City (Cuchulainns) and Middletown. Beyond that, Sean Treaceys in Lurgan and Portadown hurlers kept the hurling flag flying in the North - the rise of Killeavey in the South is (I think) a relatively new phenomenon.

The land argument is daft and without any proof or substance. For example Aidan Walsh is from Kanturk down in Cork which is more of a football stronghold but there is certainly nothing wrong with his hurling. My own club in Tipperary were a strong football club with little or no hurling until the late 80s when one terrific player came through and changed the whole landscape of the area. We've had an abundance of county stars from this club since and nowadays you continuously see kids up and down the street to the GAA pitch here every day with the hurley and ball in hand.

murf313

[QUOTE=J the strongholds of Armagh hurling would be mid Armagh - Derrynoose, Keady, Armagh City (Cuchulainns) and Middletown.[/QUOTE]

I wouldnt call any of those places "mid-armagh" except the Armagh city, seeing as they are all only a couple of miles from the border....

Stinicker

My retort to that and to Kilkenny would be that Hurling is dying and it is not a sport that encompasses the whole country. Soccer, Rugby and Gaelic Football have more universal appeal than Hurling and quite alot of young lads interest is in Gaelic Football or Soccer, the interest isn't in Hurling as much anymore as Kilkenny have it destroyed as a spectacle and as a game.

Stinicker

Stinicker wrote: »

My retort to that and to Kilkenny would be that Hurling is dying and it is not a sport that encompasses the whole country. Soccer, Rugby and Gaelic Football have more universal appeal than Hurling and quite alot of young lads interest is in Gaelic Football or Soccer, the interest isn't in Hurling as much anymore as Kilkenny have it destroyed as a spectacle and as a game.

Bit harsh Kilkenny have raised the standard to the extent that in order to surpass them we got 2 incredible finals in 2009 and 2010 where we played some unbelievable stuff and yet the game was always in the balance. Hurling is dying because of those who dont play it and not because of those who do.

Stinicker

Who wants to play a sport where one team is winning it every year for the last decade. That is not a sport.

Stinicker

Stinicker wrote: »

Who wants to play a sport where one team is winning it every year for the last decade. That is not a sport.

That's the idea. You play the best and if you lose then you go and learn and then hopefully you improve to a point where you can beat the best and then your the best....its simple really. its not Kilkenny's fault that most coaches haven't been intelligent enough to devise a way of beating them. Cork beat them in 04 and Tipp beat them in 2010 but then both changed management and couldn't bring the same intensity to the table. KK have had the same man in charge since 1999 and have brought a whole new intensity to the game and that continuity of Cody's knowledge has been a huge help.

Another example is that we in Tipp could have been happy to accept that Cork and Kerry produce better footballers then us but we didn't. We developed a plan to improve football in the county at grass roots which is starting to bear fruit and hopefully we can bring it on to the next level. Thats the challenge and the excitement is in trying to make it a reality

ShamoBuc

Stinicker wrote: »

Who wants to play a sport where one team is winning it every year for the last decade. That is not a sport.

Really? There's me thinking Cork won it a couple of times and Tip won aswell.
But I'll bow to your undoubted superior hurling knowledge:rolleyes:

jordainius

Stinicker wrote: »

Who wants to play a sport where one team is winning it every year for the last decade. That is not a sport.

What an incredibly stupid comment....

I suppose Gaelic football wasn't a sport when Kerry won 8 titles from 1975 to 1986...

And golf wasn't a sport when Tiger Woods was at the peak of his powers.

And snooker wasn't a sport in the 1980's thanks to Steve Davis and it wasn't a sport in the 1990's thanks to Stephen Hendry.

And soccer wasn't a sport in England from 1993 to 2003 when Man Utd won 8 titles. It also wasn't a sport when Liverpool were dominating in the 70's/80's.

I suppose Katie Taylor is ruining women's boxing? I can't imagine how disappointed you'll be if she wins the gold medal at the Olympics.

Formula One wasn't a sport during Michael Schumacher's reign in 2000-2004.

And Leinster are ruining European rugby at the moment....


Your idea of what defines a sport is ridiculous. Sport produces great teams and great individuals; at which point you bizzarely think it no longer can call itself a sport.

By the way, look up the 2001, 2004, 2005 and 2010 All-Ireland finals; you might be surprised.

robbiezero

Deleted User wrote: »

The land argument is daft and without any proof or substance. For example Aidan Walsh is from Kanturk down in Cork which is more of a football stronghold but there is certainly nothing wrong with his hurling. My own club in Tipperary were a strong football club with little or no hurling until the late 80s when one terrific player came through and changed the whole landscape of the area. We've had an abundance of county stars from this club since and nowadays you continuously see kids up and down the street to the GAA pitch here every day with the hurley and ball in hand.

Mullinahone ya?

ShamoBuc

robbiezero wrote: »

Mullinahone ya

No need for name calling:D

Morte

I can't find any links online but there's no need for anecdotes. Some guy did his thesis on this topic and found a strong correlation between soil quality and the popularity of hurling. There was a summary posted on AFR ages ago but I can't find it now. Someone who's a student might be able to search for it on the databases.

There was a great set of maps showing the main hurling regions and the soil quality. They matched almost pefectly. The heartland is the golden vale region of Cork, Tip, KK and the surrounding areas. This would include North East Kerry and South East Galway but not South West Cork. The explanation is largely economic he reckoned. Hurling is expensive as it requires equipment for all players on the pitch. Bogball just requires 1 ball between everyone .

This was done on a countrywide basis over centuries now. I don't know if it holds up if you're drilling down into individual clubs over a few decades.

DublinGAA96

There is only one explanation. The ONLY reason rugby and Gaelic Football and soccer are played in more area's is because the sport itself is a lot easier. Lets face it, any ould mucah can play rugby. And if you can catch and kick a ball in gaelic football your golden. Hurling is a game of many skills, it is a game that takes a lot of practice and training, whereas rugby, not so much. Soccer is widely liked by pretty much every sports fan. It does take a lot of skill to play soccer but nowhere near as much as hurling. That's the main reason, why Gaelic football is played nationwide, because it's a lot easier for people, hurling is pretty much nationwide but only three or four counties really are successful, because its their main sport.

rpurfield

DublinGAA96 wrote: »

There is only one explanation. The ONLY reason rugby and Gaelic Football and soccer are played in more area's is because the sport itself is a lot easier. Lets face it, any ould mucah can play rugby. And if you can catch and kick a ball in gaelic football your golden. Hurling is a game of many skills, it is a game that takes a lot of practice and training, whereas rugby, not so much. Soccer is widely liked by pretty much every sports fan. It does take a lot of skill to play soccer but nowhere near as much as hurling. That's the main reason, why Gaelic football is played nationwide, because it's a lot easier for people, hurling is pretty much nationwide but only three or four counties really are successful, because its their main sport.

nail on the head there i think

yomtea98

You can stop playing football for a week or two and start again and you would be grand but in hurling you lose the sharpness you need quickly if you stop playing

Clareman

I was speakingg to my father last night and mentioned the whole hurling snobbery thing and some places being stronger than others, his opinion was that the better the land the more chance you had of growing trees which meant hurleys could be more readily available