The Haka is no different to what football fans do, showing passion and courage and hoping to intimidate the other side. The difference is it is more organised and they know it is a ritual, unlike the footy fans who are too dim to understand the real battle is supposed to take place on the pitch, they just provide atmosphere and moral support to the real participants. And they don't make tits of themselves by throwing bottles and seats around that frightens no one except little kids and old ladies.
The Haka is no different to what football fans do, showing passion and courage and hoping to intimidate the other side. The difference is it is more organised and they know it is a ritual, unlike the footy fans who are too dim to understand the real battle is supposed to take place on the pitch, they just provide atmosphere and moral support to the real participants. And they don't make tits of themselves by throwing bottles and seats around that frightens no one except little kids and old ladies.
Not more "rugby is shining example to football fans" rubbish.
The new Haka is rubbish, the old Ka-Mate one was more intimidating - best ever response was Richard Cockeril's at Old Trafford in '97.
Do you think he was brave or stupid? The All Blacks battered him for it either way!
Ha! Well it was a better response than usual, the best bit was the referee trying to break them apart and then giving up.
Can't stand the All Blacks usually, support any team playing them bar Australia, have revelled in the fact it took them so long between WC victories but I've always thought the Haka gives them a bit of an unfair edge. It's hard enough that they've had (and continue to have) some of the best players ever to grace the game but the imitated throat slitting of recent Haka displays have gone too far IMO. I think the IRB asked for clarification from the NZ team IIRC but it was fobbed off as meaning something different.
I guess the Haka is like another form of national anthem, representing what is a large ethnic base of not only the team but also the nation. There's no harm to it really but answering the original question of this thread, then it probably doesn't really matter who performs it. The Springboks used to sing two anthems.
Thanks for the comments Gents. My take on it is that the Haka performed by Maoris is a fantastic warrior ritual. Throw in a few white bankers, lawyers or whatever just makes it look a bit daft.
No. It was a comment about tribalism and dim wits who can't tell the difference between ritual and reality. Dim wits who talk about doing the equivalent of the Haka as if they've gone 10 rounds with MIke Tyson.
The new Haka is rubbish, the old Ka-Mate one was more intimidating - best ever response was Richard Cockeril's at Old Trafford in '97.
Do you think he was brave or stupid? The All Blacks battered him for it either way!
Ha! Well it was a better response than usual, the best bit was the referee trying to break them apart and then giving up.
Can't stand the All Blacks usually, support any team playing them bar Australia, have revelled in the fact it took them so long between WC victories but I've always thought the Haka gives them a bit of an unfair edge. It's hard enough that they've had (and continue to have) some of the best players ever to grace the game but the imitated throat slitting of recent Haka displays have gone too far IMO. I think the IRB asked for clarification from the NZ team IIRC but it was fobbed off as meaning something different.
I guess the Haka is like another form of national anthem, representing what is a large ethnic base of not only the team but also the nation. There's no harm to it really but answering the original question of this thread, then it probably doesn't really matter who performs it. The Springboks used to sing two anthems.
I agree on the throat-slitting gesture, its a genuine part of the Haka but its not really relevant or appropriate for a sporting contest, I am pretty sure they have taken it out now.
Interesting to remember that the Maori in NZ got a far, far better deal for themselves from the British than the Australian Aboriginies were able to - mainly because of their incredible fighting prowess in battling the better resourced British.
I have been down to Waitangi where the peace treaty was signed between the Maori and the British and the Maori made it pretty clear that they signed a peace deal on honourable terms and have secured a much better deal than their Australian counterparts.
The Brits threw the kitchen sink at the Maori but in the end had to settle for a well earned point away from home rather than all three.
I think that unless you're a New Zealander you don't have the right to an opinion who performs it or where. It's for them to debate and decide.
of course i have a right to an opinion.
On this issue I don't agree with your opinion, but its an opinion and agree you have every right to make it and get others to debate it. Thanks for making it as if you had not I would not have seen the military clip, which is amazing.
Interesting to remember that the Maori in NZ got a far, far better deal for themselves from the British than the Australian Aboriginies were able to - mainly because of their incredible fighting prowess in battling the better resourced British.
I have been down to Waitangi where the peace treaty was signed between the Maori and the British and the Maori made it pretty clear that they signed a peace deal on honourable terms and have secured a much better deal than their Australian counterparts.
The Brits threw the kitchen sink at the Maori but in the end had to settle for a well earned point away from home rather than all three.
I don't think the Waitangi treaty was a peace treaty - there hadn't been any significant fighting between Brits and Maoris before then. The fighting started after the treaty because there were different interpretation of it and as settlers began to arrive.
It's true that the British saw the need to negotiate with the Maoris because the latter were so warlike (and sometimes genocidal) rather than just walk in and do what they wanted as they had in Australia. But there was also the threat that France would get in there first and strong pressure from missionaries who were horrified by the decline in Maori civilisation following the inter-Maori musket wars.
The treaty of waitangi was written in English and Maori... And each version said different things! Guess which version was enforced? The Maori were shat on. But yeah, did slightly better than the Aussie aborigines
I think it has turned in to a cynical attempt to get an upper hand.The old footage of the haka in the 60s looked more like the Two Ronnies sketch at the German beer festival! I dont think they should always be able to it last before the KO. Personally I am not a fan of it,National Anthems then get stuck in.
the singing of that bloody awful song, sweet chariot....
What would you prefer ?
No haka (there is a time & place for everything and Twickenham aint the place, save it for proper, 'serious' occasions) and Jerusalem .. or 'Any Old Iron', anything but that boring so out of place old 'spiritual'
Yes the whole team should do it, it is laying down the challenge to the opposition. Hate it when the other team ignores it or goes into a huddle.
What should the other team do then MOL? Maybe the Irish should do a bit of Riverdance, the scots a reel, bit of Morris dancing from the English, a tango by the Pumas, the Saffers could re-create that bit in Zulu... No. They want to intimidate the opposition, it is well within the rights of the other team to ignore them and show their disdain. I love to see the Haka myself.
I would just like the opposition to stand there, front it out and accept the challenge. I dont think anyone is 'intimidated' by it, but it is nice tradition. No need for every country to have a 'thing' to do before each game.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but we will have to agree to disagree, just because one country decides to start a tradition to mark them out as different does not mean the others have to accept it.
The Haka is well cool. I think our English boys should sing 'All things bright and beautiful' like we all did in the old days at assemblies...and then stuff the All Blacks.
I remember a fews years ago tuning in to watch France Vs The All Blacks in Paris and seeing Tana Umaga lead The Haka. Half way through it you knew that those boys were going smash the Frogs and they did!!! Mind you the French got there own back in the 2007 World Cup when they faced up to The Haka and went through to the next round. Awesome stuff IMO
To say "non indiginous" kiwis should not be taking part in the haka is a kin to saying black and asian players shouldn't be singing our National Anthem imo!
Comments
Can't stand the All Blacks usually, support any team playing them bar Australia, have revelled in the fact it took them so long between WC victories but I've always thought the Haka gives them a bit of an unfair edge. It's hard enough that they've had (and continue to have) some of the best players ever to grace the game but the imitated throat slitting of recent Haka displays have gone too far IMO. I think the IRB asked for clarification from the NZ team IIRC but it was fobbed off as meaning something different.
I guess the Haka is like another form of national anthem, representing what is a large ethnic base of not only the team but also the nation. There's no harm to it really but answering the original question of this thread, then it probably doesn't really matter who performs it. The Springboks used to sing two anthems.
My take on it is that the Haka performed by Maoris is a fantastic warrior ritual. Throw in a few white bankers, lawyers or whatever just makes it look a bit daft.
Interesting to remember that the Maori in NZ got a far, far better deal for themselves from the British than the Australian Aboriginies were able to - mainly because of their incredible fighting prowess in battling the better resourced British.
I have been down to Waitangi where the peace treaty was signed between the Maori and the British and the Maori made it pretty clear that they signed a peace deal on honourable terms and have secured a much better deal than their Australian counterparts.
The Brits threw the kitchen sink at the Maori but in the end had to settle for a well earned point away from home rather than all three.
You are still wrong though ;-)
It's true that the British saw the need to negotiate with the Maoris because the latter were so warlike (and sometimes genocidal) rather than just walk in and do what they wanted as they had in Australia. But there was also the threat that France would get in there first and strong pressure from missionaries who were horrified by the decline in Maori civilisation following the inter-Maori musket wars.
I think our English boys should sing 'All things bright and beautiful' like we all did in the old days at assemblies...and then stuff the All Blacks.
One suggestion for an English response to the Haka
NOT SAFE FOR WORK
reminds me a bit of zulu?