# Violence In Hockey



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...is it necessary?


----------



## The Kicker Of Elves (Jul 20, 2006)

David you should define "violence" as it is a term that means different things to different people.

Some would consider it to be fighting, others would think a stiff bodycheck is pretty violent.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Jumping on someone and ramming his face into the ice no. Swinging your stick at someones head no. Purposely taking out someones knees no. Purposely hitting from behind no.

Body checking yes. Fighting yes.


----------



## The Kicker Of Elves (Jul 20, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Jumping on someone and ramming his face into the ice no. Swinging your stick at someones head no. Purposely taking out someones knees no. Purposely hitting from behind no.
> 
> Body checking yes. Fighting yes.


So far I'd vote for Jeff to replace Bettman / Campbell...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Fighting yes.


...why?

-dh


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

Hockey isn't necessary... why would hockey violence be necessary?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Hockey isn't necessary... why would hockey violence be necessary?



...because its dark outside, and it looks like rain.

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Personally I've always disliked fighting in Hockey. Until I abandoned television altogether last year I pretty much always changed the channel when a fight broke out and changed back after a few minutes.

Just my opinion, but it makes the players look like complete and utter idiots and puts a decidedly negative spin on an otherwise exciting sport.


----------



## hush (Sep 8, 2006)

Although it is part of the reason I like hockey I cannot come up with any defensible argument for why violence is necessary for the sport so I had to vote "No". 

Had the question been "Do you enjoy the hitting and fighting in hockey you brainless Neanderthal?" I would have voted a resounding "Yes". :sport-smiley-002: :smile:


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

"it makes the players look like complete and utter idiots"
O.k... it HELPS the players look like.....

,-)


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...why?
> 
> -dh


Knowing that someone will grab you and kick the crap out of you if you swing your stick at someone's wrist or take out someones knees is a pretty good deterent.

It's not that fighting makes it enjoyable or actually has to happen, it doesn't. It just has to be allowed.

Take away fighting definately won't reduce the violence it will increase it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

"Knowing that someone will grab you and kick the crap out of you if you swing your stick at someone's wrist or take out someones knees is a pretty good deterent."
Obviously not.... 


"It just has to be allowed."
That makes NO sense at all.... Do we HAVE to allow bar-room brawls? Do we allow people to riot in the streets?

Why should adults playing a GAME for the entertainment of the masses be allowed to fight like infants?


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Knowing that someone will grab you and kick the crap out of you if you swing your stick at someone's wrist or take out someones knees is a pretty good deterent."
> Obviously not....
> 
> 
> ...


Do you even read the posts before you reply? I gave you the reason. If you don't understand the game why get involved in the topic?


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Knowing that someone will grab you and kick the crap out of you if you swing your stick at someone's wrist or take out someones knees is a pretty good deterent."
> Obviously not....


Now you've moved onto the the instigator rule...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Knowing that someone will grab you and kick the crap out of you if you swing your stick at someone's wrist or take out someones knees is a pretty good deterent.
> 
> It's not that fighting makes it enjoyable or actually has to happen, it doesn't. It just has to be allowed.
> 
> Take away fighting definately won't reduce the violence it will increase it.


I don't agree at all. That's pretty convoluted logic in my opinion.

How about instead of using fighting to deter stick swinging we suspend the A-holes for a good long stretch without pay?

Using one abhorent activity as a deterent to another equally disgusting act is a double negative in my eyes.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

"I gave you the reason."
I dismissed your reason.... You said it's a deterrent. It's obviously NOT a deterrent, or there'd be no such infractions.... With, as you claim, fighting as a deterrent, hockey players are still getting hit with sticks.... So where's your deterrent? Nowhere.... 

So would you care to try a different lame excuse to perpetuate senseless violence?

"That's pretty convoluted logic in my opinion."
On, it's not opinion.... nor was it any sort of logic.... but it sure is convoluted!


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> I dismissed your reason.... You said it's a deterrent. It's obviously NOT a deterrent, or there'd be no such infractions.... With, as you claim, fighting as a deterrent, hockey players are still getting hit with sticks.... So where's your deterrent? Nowhere....
> 
> So would you care to try a different lame excuse to perpetuate senseless violence?


The instigator rule has to be removed.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

It doesn't need to be removed. It needs to be expanded to encompass all such infantile behaviour.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I don't agree at all. That's pretty convoluted logic in my opinion.
> 
> How about instead of using fighting to deter stick swinging we suspend the A-holes for a good long stretch without pay?
> 
> Using one abhorent activity as a deterent to another equally disgusting act is a double negative in my eyes.


 
It's been part of the game since the very beginning, they changed the rules because of people whining about violence. The game got even more violent with cheap shots. Put the game back the way it was and if it's too violent for you don't watch it.

That's my solution to the problem!


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

"t's been part of the game since the very beginning"
Funny. History says the exact opposite.

"Put the game back the way it was"
So, outside on a frozen pond.... deal!


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Put the game back the way it was"
> So, outside on a frozen pond.... deal!


 
Did you watch the game in Buffalo, New Years Day? It was a classic.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> It's been part of the game since the very beginning, they changed the rules because of people whining about violence. The game got even more violent with cheap shots. Put the game back the way it was and if it's too violent for you don't watch it.
> 
> That's my solution to the problem!




They used half measures and as could be expected they were ineffective.

Suspend someone for twenty or thirty games for a high stick drawing blood and watch the sticks return to the ice.

Saying it's been a part of the game since the very beginning is simply not a good excuse to keep doing it the same way.

Domestic violence has been a part of many marriages since the very beginning as well.


You can have your solution. If I want to watch UFC I know how to find it. If I want to watch hockey with my son, neither of us want to see idiots dropping their gloves for the delight of those who were unable to get seats at the wrastling match.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Milkman said:


> They used half measures and as could be expected they were ineffective.
> 
> Suspend someone for twenty or thirty games for a high stick drawing blood and watch the sticks return to the ice.
> 
> ...


I understand where you are coming from. I still suggest not watching it, you have that choice. Changing it for your personal preferences doesn't make sense to me.

Comparing my history reference to domestic violence wasn't really called for nor practical.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Take away fighting definately won't reduce the violence it will increase it.


...that is both a prediction and an opinion, jeff. on what do you base it?

conversely, i have a theory, strictly a theory, that if you removed all violence and fighting from the game, NOT ONE TICKET WOULD BE UNSOLD, AND NOT ONE SEAT LEFT EMPTY, AS A RESULT.

-dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...that is both a prediction and an opinion, jeff. on what do you base it?
> 
> -dh


Actually no, it's based purelly on history. Cheap shots have increased since the league has tried to reduce fighting by invoking the instigator rule.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

Comparing turning a blind-eye to one form of violence to another we no longer accept is precisely practical.

History dismisses your claim that it's been 'part of the game since the beginning' as does the comparison to any other form of once-accepted violence that is no longer tolerated. Do we also turn a blind eye to cock-fighting.... to child abuse... to gladiator pits?

Hardly.

What makes hockey so 'special' (Besides the helmets) that it aught not conform to the same standards set by the rest of society?

"still suggest not watching it, you have that choice"
I have the choice to NOT watch kiddie porn too.... But that doesn't mean that others have the right to produce it. If I walked up behind a guy on the street and hit him over the head with a hardwood 1X2, I'd go to jail. If someone passing by (Other than law enforcement) saw me do it and subsequently beat the living crap outa me for it, we'd BOTH go to jail.

Why does entertainment deserve to be exempt?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> It's been part of the game since the very beginning, they changed the rules because of people whining about violence. The game got even more violent with cheap shots. Put the game back the way it was and if it's too violent for you don't watch it.
> 
> That's my solution to the problem!



...it is a very insular and exclusive solution, don't you think?

it also leads to a bigger question: how can we celebrate violence then ask: gee, why is everyone so violent?

like those eight-year-olds who erupted in a brawl in december: why are we so surprised that they were simply emulating so-called adult behavior, as normal children are naturally inclined to do?

-dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> conversely, i have a theory, strictly a theory, that if you removed all violence and fighting from the game, NOT ONE TICKET WOULD BE UNSOLD, AND NOT ONE SEAT LEFT EMPTY, AS A RESULT.
> 
> -dh


Have you tried to get a Leafs ticket? I can't get Flames tickets.

Lack of attendence in certain cities isn't based on violence it's based on non hockey oriented communities or bad teams.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Actually no, it's based purelly on history. Cheap shots have increased since the league has tried to reduce fighting by invoking the instigator rule.



...are you saying that we have no choice but to condone fighting because, otherwise, players would resort to cheap shots?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Have you tried to get a Leafs ticket? I can't get Flames tickets.
> Lack of attendence in certain cities isn't based on violence it's based on non hockey oriented communities or bad teams.



...two minutes for missing the point!

:smile:

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...as abrasive as he is, clinton hammond always hits the nail squarely on the head.

-dh



ClintonHammond said:


> Comparing turning a blind-eye to one form of violence to another we no longer accept is precisely practical.
> 
> History dismisses your claim that it's been 'part of the game since the beginning' as does the comparison to any other form of once-accepted violence that is no longer tolerated. Do we also turn a blind eye to cock-fighting.... to child abuse... to gladiator pits?
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...it is a very insular and exclusive solution, don't you think?
> 
> it also leads to a bigger question: how can we celebrate violence then ask: gee, why is everyone so violent?
> 
> ...


I didn't say celebrate violence nor do I look forward to a fight. I view it as a consequence similar to incarseration for criminal activity. It has to be left on the ice though.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> I didn't say celebrate violence nor do I look forward to a fight. I view it as a consequence similar to incarseration for criminal activity. It has to be left on the ice though.



...but you have to admit that we do, indeed, celebrate it, yes?

two words: don cherry:smilie_flagge17:

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...two minutes for missing the point!
> :smile: -dh


or, perhaps i deserve two minutes for not making my point clearly:

my theory is that, IF we removed all traces of violence and fighting from the game, not one hockey fan would, as a direct result, decide to not attend or watch even one game.

-dh


----------



## The Kicker Of Elves (Jul 20, 2006)

david henman said:


> or, perhaps i deserve two minutes for not making my point clearly:
> 
> my theory is that, IF we removed all traces of violence and fighting from the game, not one hockey fan would, as a *direct* result, decide to not attend or watch even one game.
> 
> -dh


[emphasis added]

I agree.

The indirect result of removing fighting from hockey(the ripple effect to the game), however might change it in ways that could cost it fans.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...are you saying that we have no choice but to condone fighting because, otherwise, players would resort to cheap shots?
> 
> -dh


Well, as much as I would like suspension and fines to work as Milkman suggested I see no other choice. Within on year most players have enough money to retire so suspension and fines don't deter them unless you take it to the millions of dollars.

I truelly believe that on the ice surface there should be consequences for you actions. Don't play the game if you don't want to be responsible for you actions. Don't watch the game if you don't like it.

I know you baited this thread so you could talk violence, but you haven't once came back with a solution to the problem.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> or, perhaps i deserve two minutes for not making my point clearly:
> 
> my theory is that, IF we removed all traces of violence and fighting from the game, not one hockey fan would, as a direct result, decide to not attend or watch even one game.
> 
> -dh


If it was possible sure but hitting is part of the game, unfortunately sometime someone has their head down. You can't take hitting out the the game. I don't think you can remove all traces of violence.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> I know you baited this thread so you could talk violence, but you haven't once came back with a solution to the problem.



...i don't fault you for thinking that - i make it loudly and abundantly clear that i oppose violence.

but my real motive was to express the aforementioned "theory", and to see if others feel the way i do. i'm quite pleasantly shocked by the poll results and the sentiments expressed here.

my solution should be obvious, given the source :

take the appropriate measures to remove all violence and fighting from the game.

i look forward one day to being the target of a don cherry rant.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> If it was possible sure but hitting is part of the game, unfortunately sometime someone has their head down. You can't take hitting out the the game. I don't think you can remove all traces of violence.



...yep, i get that.

-dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i don't fault you for thinking that - i make it loudly and abundantly clear that i oppose violence.
> 
> but my real motive was to express the aforementioned "theory", and to see if others feel the way i do. i'm quite pleasantly shocked by the poll results and the sentiments expressed here.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately the only way to remove all violence is to make it touch hockey. I know I don't want that and there won't be enough non violence supporters to fill the arenas at that point.

Not trying to repeat myself or anything...
:smile:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> I understand where you are coming from. I still suggest not watching it, you have that choice. Changing it for your personal preferences doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Comparing my history reference to domestic violence wasn't really called for nor practical.


Why should I stop watching hockey because some don't want to see it evolve along with society? It's a great sport that is diminished by the nonsense of fighting IMO.

As for the domestic violence analogy, it seems quite apropriate. You were the one who said it's always been a part of the game. A husband and wife pounding on each other is no more primitive or distasteful than seeing your son or husband punched out while playing a sport. 

Why not just let them swing their sticks too? That's way more fun to watch than just fists.

I love a good clean hockey game. In fact, I love watching the women's Olympic hockey. Skating, passing, scoring. THAT's hockey!:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Personally I've always disliked fighting in Hockey. Until I abandoned television altogether last year I pretty much always changed the channel when a fight broke out and changed back after a few minutes.
> 
> Just my opinion, but it makes the players look like complete and utter idiots and puts a decidedly negative spin on an otherwise exciting sport.


Yes I totally agree. And furthermore these hockey players could do to have a little manners and stop all this bumping around and just let the talented players carry the puck. And we should stop keeping score. I feel so bad for the losers as this can't be good for their self esteem. And they should let women play in the NHL, that will calm it down somewhat. And I would like to see a team be mature enough to sport a bright pink uniform, maybe with a tutu.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Unfortunately the only way to remove all violence is to make it touch hockey. I know I don't want that and there won't be enough non violence supporters to fill the arenas at that point.


...i'm not convinced we'd need to go that far.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Yes I totally agree. And furthermore these hockey players could do to have a little manners and stop all this bumping around and just let the talented players carry the puck. And we should stop keeping score. I feel so bad for the losers as this can't be good for their self esteem. And they should let women play in the NHL, that will calm it down somewhat. And I would like to see a team be mature enough to sport a bright pink uniform, maybe with a tutu.



...exactly!!! its high time we feminized the game! have those big defensemen even heard of deoderant?

a soft, sponge puck, in a bright hue of magenta, perhaps, would also make the game a little gentler, doncha think?

-dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...exactly!!! its high time we feminized the game! have those big defensemen even heard of deoderant?
> 
> a soft, sponge puck, in a bright hue of magenta, perhaps, would also make the game a little gentler, doncha think?
> 
> -dh


Don't stop at hockey, football should be next. :smile:


----------



## The Kicker Of Elves (Jul 20, 2006)

I wonder how long the soft, spongy puck would remain soft or spongy when subjected to sub-zero temperatures...


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

"Skating, passing, scoring. THAT's hockey!"
Hear FKN Hear!! 

"football should be next"
I've never seen anybody get clubbed over the head with a stick in football.... Nor do I ever recall seeing HALF as many 'bench clearing brawls' between rival football teams. (half?!?! HA!)

Mind you, football is about as boring as baseball, golf, or watching paint dry to me... so I don't pay it much mind.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Don't stop at hockey, football should be next. :smile:


...i am beginning to wonder if there is exists a grass roots fear that the "manliness" of the game will be threatened.

what say ye, mister...er...flowerday...?

-david chickenman

(ooops...sorry...chickenPERSON!)


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i am beginning to wonder if there is exists a grass roots fear that the "manliness" of the game will be threatened.
> 
> what say ye, mister...er...flowerday...?
> 
> ...


 
I'm not a violent man as per my last name suggests, but I enjoy a good body check and tackle every now and then and would hate to see it leave the games.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "football should be next"
> I've never seen anybody get clubbed over the head with a stick in football.... Nor do I ever recall seeing HALF as many 'bench clearing brawls' between rival football teams. (half?!?! HA!)
> 
> Mind you, football is about as boring as baseball, golf, or watching paint dry to me... so I don't pay it much mind.


Football has penalties that hurt you team instantly as in lost yardage. The consequence of stupidity is your whole team being pissed at you.

Plus the lack of sticks...


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Hockey should be pure hockey. Fighting is a waste of time. Besides, no one can fight in the NHL anyway. They make the boxing Blubberweight division look good, and that is saying something..............


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Yes I totally agree. And furthermore these hockey players could do to have a little manners and stop all this bumping around and just let the talented players carry the puck. And we should stop keeping score. I feel so bad for the losers as this can't be good for their self esteem. And they should let women play in the NHL, that will calm it down somewhat. And I would like to see a team be mature enough to sport a bright pink uniform, maybe with a tutu.


Your sarcasm is duly noted, as is your thinly veiled homophobia.

I don't recall saying clean checking should be outlawed.

It's always good to note WHO exactly equates violence with good old fashioned manliness, LOL.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Paul said:


> If fighting is such an important part of hockey, why were there no fights when Canada won gold at the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002? Where there fights on NYE 1975 when The Canadiens play the USSR in aruguably the best game ever played?
> 
> Maybe the question should read should there be fighting in the NHL. That's a different question from should there be fighting in hockey.


True.

Might have to do with repetiveness of the NHL. World tournaments are so short in comparison plus National pride is on the line and no money is involved.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Football has penalties that hurt you team instantly as in lost yardage. The consequence of stupidity is your whole team being pissed at you.
> 
> Plus the lack of sticks...


Hey now you're thinking.

Award a goal to the opposing team whenever one of your players uses a stick for anything other than what is allowed in the RULES as WELL as suspending the moron.

Thanks for the suggestion. You're coming along, LOL.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

"and no money is involved"
I think that's the key right there!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> I'm not a violent man as per my last name suggests, but I enjoy a good body check and tackle every now and then and would hate to see it leave the games.


...no argument there.

i probably should have been much clearer in my original post.

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...no argument there.
> 
> i probably should have been much clearer in my original post.
> 
> -dh


Yup. I have no problems with a good clean check. There's a difference between this and a fistfight.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

To me hockey should be about skill and ability. There is absolutely no need for the excessive violence and cheap shots. Even body checking is pushing it. I don't watch hockey because of the unnecessary violence and the lack of consequences when there are fights. Players should be charged criminally for fights and have their contracts annulled. 

To me fighting in hockey is childish and demonstrates the maturity level of the player.

How often did Gretzky pick a fight?? oh that's right...he didn't really have to...he had skill.

When I want to see fighting I watch the UFC, K-1, Pride or TKO. I love mixed martial arts and rarely miss a PPV and have the cable bills to prove it. So it's not like I'm afraid of a little blood.

2 pennys


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

well- its hockey-
some of the fights are stupid, but some of it is part of the game.
hockey is a violent game, its just the way it is.
i dont agree with the touch icing- thats a surefire way to get players hurt,
and some players take it all too far, but hey, its hockey, its violent, its the way the game is played. sometimes you gotta hurt your opponent to win the game. all the players know it. 
sure kids will emulate it- but thats life, maybe if they werent emulating theyre favourite hockey players, theyd be roaming the streets emulating some rapper they saw waving a pistol around in a video.
you start changing the rules, and its a different game.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Jumping on someone and ramming his face into the ice no. Swinging your stick at someones head no. Purposely taking out someones knees no. Purposely hitting from behind no.
> 
> Body checking yes. Fighting yes.



Could this be a choice in the poll?
Cheap shots, hitting from behind, head shots, knees shots, swinging a stick at the head, no.

Good clean checks? Yes. 
Less violent than football.


----------



## danbo (Nov 27, 2006)

All contact sports are played by true warriors. They have their own "unwritten" rules & will enforce it. 
Many who watch sports have not ever played them, especially at Professional levels. 
It's impossible to take the emotion out of the game, so it will forever be a bloodsport to some degree.

"Who hones da team?"


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

True Warriors? Sorry getting paid millions to play a game doesnt make one a warrior. The guys in service making nothing putting their life on the line are true warriors..............


----------



## danbo (Nov 27, 2006)

.......... :rockon:

My youngest brother is in the RCAF..


----------



## danbo (Nov 27, 2006)

http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakeinafight.com/


----------



## danbo (Nov 27, 2006)

26 one away from my IQ.. :food-smiley-004:


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

says i can take 31- 31 5 year olds, i dunno, maybe if they all had pointed sticks- weird mental picture..........
danbo, whats your brother do in the rcaf?


----------



## danbo (Nov 27, 2006)

I'll bet the Leaf's couldn't beat any!! :wave:


----------



## danbo (Nov 27, 2006)

Luckily, he's back at Greenwood now, Helicopter Electronic tech/teacher


----------



## bickertfan (Feb 23, 2006)

I think the game can do without the violence. I remember watching the World Junior game between Canada and Russia, which was played here in Halifax a few years back - what a fantastic game, exciting, without fighting etc.. The fighting has become so connected with the game that you kind of have to step back and take a sober look at it. I have a 7 year old which keeps it in perspective for me. How would I tell her it's ok for hockey players to smash each other in the face with fists but it's against the law everywhere else?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

fraser said:


> well- its hockey-
> some of the fights are stupid, but some of it is part of the game.
> hockey is a violent game, its just the way it is.
> i dont agree with the touch icing- thats a surefire way to get players hurt,
> ...


...your post is a cop out. 

hockey is as violent as it is simply because we accept it and, much of the time, actively encourage it.

:wave:don cherry!

we don't have to do that. 

emotional? hey, so is golf.

-dh


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

lol- ok, you guys are entitled to your opinions. im wrong, im bad
i wasnt referring solely to fighting, i was referring to pucks flying at 100 mph, a guy cruising at 60mph and crushing another guy against the boards, hoping to take him out of the play, sticks in faces, pucks in faces, that sort of thing.
but guys have been fighting in hockey since it started. its never going to go away. if you dont like it, watch european hockey if thats how the game is meant to be played. dunno how those guys would know how its supposed to be played, they didnt start the game. but whatever.
i dont care about the fights myself, im not attracted to the fighting, but its always been there, and so it shall remain, for the sake of the game. also i think we should go back to 6 teams. the southern states can play theyre football and basketball and baseball- leave us our game intact, and let it be played as it was meant.
and if im copping out(still have not figured out what a "cop out" is supposed to mean) then yeah, thats what im doing, and i dont care.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

You're also entitled to your opinion and you're not alone in your point of view.


I would say that fights have also always been a part of playing in bars so if you don't like it don't go int a bar....sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Hey I'm sorry your bass player got kicked in the teeth, but he knew it was a possibility.

I think it can be eliminated and without harming the game. In fact, I think it would be a much more widely accepted sport if the fighting was all but eliminated. Physical contact is one thing, but when two players lose control (seemingly) and engage in a fist fight, however ineffective that may be while in skates, it's no longer hockey.





fraser said:


> lol- ok, you guys are entitled to your opinions. im wrong, im bad
> i wasnt referring solely to fighting, i was referring to pucks flying at 100 mph, a guy cruising at 60mph and crushing another guy against the boards, hoping to take him out of the play, sticks in faces, pucks in faces, that sort of thing.
> but guys have been fighting in hockey since it started. its never going to go away. if you dont like it, watch european hockey if thats how the game is meant to be played. dunno how those guys would know how its supposed to be played, they didnt start the game. but whatever.
> i dont care about the fights myself, im not attracted to the fighting, but its always been there, and so it shall remain, for the sake of the game. also i think we should go back to 6 teams. the southern states can play theyre football and basketball and baseball- leave us our game intact, and let it be played as it was meant.
> and if im copping out(still have not figured out what a "cop out" is supposed to mean) then yeah, thats what im doing, and i dont care.


----------



## WarrenG (Feb 3, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> How often did Gretzky pick a fight?? oh that's right...he didn't really have to...he had skill.


Gretzky didn't get into fights because enforcers such as Dave Semenko (Oilers) and Marty McSorley (Kings) were there to protect him. Checking Gretzky had serious consequences and retribution from the aforementioned players. So, intimidation played a part in allowing Gretzky to have the space to perform at the level he did. 

Fighting has its role by discouraging overly rough play (elbows, stick-work, cross-checking) from marring a game where high-speed, full-body contact (checking) is allowed. Unfortunately the instigator rule has quelled its effectiveness and we see the rise in cheap shots. 

Keep in mind that the pace of the game allows for multiple hits to occur between two players for, say, a minute. Continuously. Emotions are bound to run hot. This doesn't happen as much in football due to the brevity of the play.

However, I do take exception with a premeditated fight between two enforcers. i.e. the best example that strikes a chord with me was the whole Probert/Domi storyline. Their altercations didn't seem to swing game momentum as much as others did.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

fraser said:


> well- its hockey-
> some of the fights are stupid, but some of it is part of the game.
> hockey is a violent game, its just the way it is.
> i dont agree with the touch icing- thats a surefire way to get players hurt,
> ...


I agree with you. Bring back the enforcers and the fighting to the way it used to be and you will see the cheapshots disappear. Its the cowardly cheapshot artist like that of Sean Avery that should become obsolete to the game. Bring back the tough guys and guys like Avery will think long and hard of the consequences. Now I don't agree with bench clearings and when those used to happen frequently in the 60s early 70s it got quite annoying. But there is nothing like 2 tough guys going toe to toe to spark some life in to a slow game. Hockey is a challenge on many levels such as skill, speed and yes sometimes who can throw the weight around the best. Sometimes its a one on one race for the puck and sometimes its a one on one donny brook. If tht is too much for the weak stomached then maybe tennis or golf is your game. And I'm not criticising golf as I am a golf addict.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...for the record, i do not believe that people who are opposed to violence are "weak-stomached", any more than i believe that people who have an appetite for violence are "manly".

-dh





guitarman2 said:


> If tht is too much for the weak stomached then maybe tennis or golf is your game.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...for the record, i do not believe that people who are opposed to violence are "weak-stomached", any more than i believe that people who have an appetite for violence are "manly".
> 
> -dh


Beat me to it.


Sickened by mouth breathers pounding each other with their fists does not make you "weak stomached".


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...for the record, i do not believe that people who are opposed to violence are "weak-stomached", any more than i believe that people who have an appetite for violence are "manly".
> 
> -dh


Where do I state that people who are opposed to violence are weak stomached. Eveyone will have there threshold of tolerance for violence that they can watch. I never once equated ones ability to tolerate violence to thier manhood. Although statistically its woman like creatures that complain about it. Not labeling here just stating statistically. Quite annoying when people read more in to a statement then is there. I simply stated that if you're too weak stomached to handle it watch something else. Someone who watches a violent sport and then complains about the violence is as annoying as those people that used to sit directly 3 feet infront of the PA speakers and complain that our band was to loud.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Beat me to it.
> 
> 
> Sickened by mouth breathers pounding each other with their fists does not make you "weak stomached".



"Sickened" by it is just another way of saying you can't stomach it. Jeesh.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> "Sickened" by it is just another way of saying you can't stomach it. Jeesh.


LOL, ok sure man.

I'll just hang out with the other "woman like creatures" and make doilies whiile you manly men watch the fights.


lofu


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

The only thing that makes hockey exciting today is fighting. 
If you could turn every game into playoff style hockey, well, then fighting wouldn't be necessary. 

40 game season! Make every game worth something!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> The only thing that makes hockey exciting today is fighting.
> If you could turn every game into playoff style hockey, well, then fighting wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> 40 game season! Make every game worth something!


I agree that the season is too long and most of the games are inconsequential, but if the ONLY thing that makes hockey exciting for you is the fighting, why bother with the hockey? UFC or boxing might be more your cup of tea.


I mean, Tennis and golf are HUGELY boring. Maybe if they allowed fighting it would be more interesting?


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I agree that the season is too long and most of the games are inconsequential, but if the ONLY thing that makes hockey exciting for you is the fighting, why bother with the hockey? UFC or boxing might be more your cup of tea.
> 
> 
> I mean, Tennis and golf are HUGELY boring. Maybe if they allowed fighting it would be more interesting?


Ever see Adam Sandler and Bob Barker in Happy Gilmore? It doesn't get any better.

John Mackenroe losing it! Come on, that was fun to watch.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I agree that the season is too long and most of the games are inconsequential, but if the ONLY thing that makes hockey exciting for you is the fighting, why bother with the hockey? UFC or boxing might be more your cup of tea.
> 
> 
> I mean, Tennis and golf are HUGELY boring. Maybe if they allowed fighting it would be more interesting?


I love boxing. Good fighting in hockey is the marriage of 2 of my favourite sports.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Good fighting in hockey is the marriage of 2 of my favourite sports.




...that is my point: we celebrate violence and then complain when people are violent.

can i get a big "DUH!"

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> I love boxing. Good fighting in hockey is the marriage of 2 of my favourite sports.


We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Personally I love hockey when played by teams focussing on skills as opposed to violence.

Boxing is not particularly interesting to me.

I maintain that NHL hockey would be much better if it was closer to Olympic hockey.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

*Although statistically its woman like creatures that complain about it.* 

...what would they know, eh?

*Someone who watches a violent sport and then complains about the violence is as annoying as those people that used to sit directly 3 feet infront of the PA speakers and complain that our band was to loud.*

...and then there are those of us who are simply opposed to violence, and NOT because we can't "stomach" it.

-dh


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...that is my point: we celebrate violence and then complain when people are violent.
> 
> can i get a big "DUH!"
> 
> -dh


DUH


Nascar car crashes are cool too, as long as no one gets hurt.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...that is my point: we celebrate violence and then complain when people are violent.
> 
> can i get a big "DUH!"
> 
> -dh


Violence in sports such as hockey or boxing is much different than the sensless violence that plaques our urban streets. Violence in sports still has its disciplines and rules. There are still things you don't do. In hockey, 2 tough guys going toe to toe; yes. Chris Simon cracking someone in the teeth with his stick; no. There is a skill to fighting in hockey and when you're good at it you are valuable to your team. Those skilled players that don't fight do appreciate the good fighters on thier team. Now that the NHL has seriously limited the fighting in the NHL a new breed of player with less skill and more of a cowardly character emerges. The "hit and run" cheap shot artist is by far more dangerous than the fighters. Hockey is a blood sport plain and simple. Take fighting out of the game will not lessen injuries it is more likely to increase them. Players like Sydney Crosby should never be fighting but now that these stars are left more exposed you will find players like that will be pushed in to unavoidable confrontations. After all it is the "cheap shot artists job to antagonize as much as possible to throw the top players off their game by getting them frustrated and by even possibly injuring them enough to take them out of the play. I would much rather see the tough guys perpetrating violence on each other rather than the "cheap shot artists" perpetrating it on the skilled players.
And yes there is a twisted side of me that likes to see some good old fashioned violence. I was raised on Road Runner cartoon violence and played hockey as the one of those tough guys with faster fists then puck handling abilities. Would I have rather been the guy with finnese puck handling abilities and fast skating skills? Of course, but I learned to accept my role and contribution to the team.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
> 
> Personally I love hockey when played by teams focussing on skills as opposed to violence.
> 
> ...


You must love the all star break. Thats about the most boring game all year to watch.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

> Players like Sydney Crosby should never be fighting but now that these stars are left more exposed you will find players like that will be pushed in to unavoidable confrontations


im not a fan of gretzky style players, all goals and fancy footwork, no grittiness or working for the puck-
crosby is great because he plays the game, all of it- he does what he has to do, digging for the puck, pushing and shoving, hitting, a full physical presence- he stands up for hisself and his team, and he WILL fight. the league needs to keep promoting that style of play-
i cant be bothered with olympic hockey, not a fan of the all star thing either. watching the juniors right now tho- thats pretty good hockey.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> I love boxing. Good fighting in hockey is the marriage of 2 of my favourite sports.


Woah! Comparing boxing to fights in hockey? Maybe you'd be a fan of Bum Fights. Only in the Blubberweight division do you get fights as bad as the ones in the NHL. Besides, real boxing isnt about violence. Its only when you get promoters like Don King into the mix trying to promote his god-aweful fighters instead of getting people to watch the technician boxers like Winky......


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

fraser said:


> im not a fan of gretzky style players, all goals and fancy footwork, no grittiness or working for the puck-
> crosby is great because he plays the game, all of it- he does what he has to do, digging for the puck, pushing and shoving, hitting, a full physical presence- he stands up for hisself and his team, and he WILL fight. the league needs to keep promoting that style of play-
> i cant be bothered with olympic hockey, not a fan of the all star thing either. watching the juniors right now tho- thats pretty good hockey.


?!?! Gretzky was the great one because he was the total package. Crosby is NHL marketing at its best. He is a good player but he aint no Great one and while he is exceptional at parts of the game, he isnt a total package. The Wayner knew this thing called "skating." Weird I know.........


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Some folks believe that fighting is a part of hockey. 

I don't.

I love hockey. If I want to see two idiots beat each other up I can hang out in front of a rap club.

Might even get to see a shooting if I'm lucky.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> ?!?! Gretzky was the great one because he was the total package. Crosby is NHL marketing at its best. He is a good player but he aint no Great one and while he is exceptional at parts of the game, he isnt a total package. The Wayner knew this thing called "skating." Weird I know.........


Don't forget that Wayne had Semenko and McSorley on the ice which magically opened up more ice for him. There's too much clutching, grabbing and stuff going on now days for anyone to have a shot at being as good as Wayne. IMO


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Don't forget that Wayne had Semenko and McSorley on the ice which magically opened up more ice for him. There's too much clutching, grabbing and stuff going on now days for anyone to have a shot at being as good as Wayne. IMO


But remember that means he played with some really crappy players, who couldnt cut the mustard on other teams. He made some of his linemates look like geniuses. Especially in the first few years, some of his linemates were really bad players, but they looked really good. Until they got traded..........


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

> ?!?! Gretzky was the great one because he was the total package. Crosby is NHL marketing at its best. He is a good player but he aint no Great one and while he is exceptional at parts of the game, he isnt a total package. The Wayner knew this thing called "skating." Weird I know.........


yes gretzky was a great skater, stick handler, shooter, goal scorer, and leader. i was never a fan, so maybe im wrong, but in my opinion, he was not a great checker, he was not great at fighting for the puck, he was unable to throw his weight around(little guys can do it- look at tucker), he was unable to take a good hit and get up and play, and he seemed to me to be lacking grit and determination- his teammates did all that stuff for him. without them, he wouldve had his career cut short by a couple of good hits- so its my view that he is not so great a HOCKEY player as many people think.
im not a crosby fan boy or anything- but he can do, and does, all the things gretzky did, as well as all the things gretzky didnt. sure he wont be the goal scorer that gretzky was, but he will survive at least- i doubt gretzky would in the modern league.
all the marketing and media hype does not affect my opinion- look at the marketing and hype with gretzky, youd think he singlehandedly brought the nhl to america. i dont need the medias opinion to tell me what i can see watching him play.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

fraser said:


> he was unable to take a good hit and get up and play, and he seemed to me to be lacking grit and determination- his teammates did all that stuff for him. without them, he wouldve had his career cut short by a couple of good hits- so its my view that he is not so great a HOCKEY player as many people think.
> im not a crosby fan boy or anything- but he can do, and does, all the things gretzky did, as well as all the things gretzky didnt. sure he wont be the goal scorer that gretzky was, but he will survive at least- i doubt gretzky would in the modern league.
> all the marketing and media hype does not affect my opinion- look at the marketing and hype with gretzky, youd think he singlehandedly brought the nhl to america. i dont need the medias opinion to tell me what i can see watching him play.


Wow. It amazes me how people forget how special some players really were. He did get hit. He was a marked man for 20 years and look how many games he missed over that twenty years. Its the same with Sawchuck and his 103 shutouts. Yes, he really was that good, and both would still be great in todays game and still dominate the game like they did in their eras. When will you tell me McCabe is better than Orr? Wow............


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> But remember that means he played with some really crappy players, who couldnt cut the mustard on other teams. He made some of his linemates look like geniuses. Especially in the first few years, some of his linemates were really bad players, but they looked really good. Until they got traded..........


Huh?...WTF! Are you talking abut Gretzkys linemates in Edmonton? That was one of the most talented teams ever. They won the cup without him the year after he was traded. Many of them went on to win cups on other teams where as Gretzky did not. A couple of teams traded to organize many of the ex oiler players together and made very good runs. The rangers won a cup using this strategy.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

fraser said:


> im not a fan of gretzky style players, all goals and fancy footwork, no grittiness or working for the puck-
> crosby is great because he plays the game, all of it- he does what he has to do, digging for the puck, pushing and shoving, hitting, a full physical presence- he stands up for hisself and his team, and he WILL fight. the league needs to keep promoting that style of play-
> i cant be bothered with olympic hockey, not a fan of the all star thing either. watching the juniors right now tho- thats pretty good hockey.


I'm with you. I love the gritty greats. Bobby Orr was my favourite. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that I don't like watching the fancy skilled players. I appreciate any player that plays their role succesfully.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Woah! Comparing boxing to fights in hockey? Maybe you'd be a fan of Bum Fights. Only in the Blubberweight division do you get fights as bad as the ones in the NHL. Besides, real boxing isnt about violence. Its only when you get promoters like Don King into the mix trying to promote his god-aweful fighters instead of getting people to watch the technician boxers like Winky......


I agree that nowadays fights in the NHL are horrible. Gone are the days of those fighters that knew how to fight. The NHL has pretty much made them obsolete.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> When will you tell me McCabe is better than Orr? Wow............


Now there is a sentence I can't stomach. Mcabe is so slow I think his image is burned in to my plasma


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

> When will you tell me McCabe is better than Orr? Wow............


i wont, orr was one of the true greats- please dont put words in my mouth. orr was one of those who could do it all, i dont really see gretzky in the same class. mcabe is just another in the long list of mediocre players. in fact he doesnt even belong in a discussion of hockey players, let alone great ones.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Huh?...WTF! Are you talking abut Gretzkys linemates in Edmonton? That was one of the most talented teams ever. They won the cup without him the year after he was traded. Many of them went on to win cups on other teams where as Gretzky did not. A couple of teams traded to organize many of the ex oiler players together and made very good runs. The rangers won a cup using this strategy.


Blair MacDonald, Esa Tikkannen, Glenn Anderson, Jari Kurri, Dave Cementhead, Marty McSorehead. All great commodities that lead other teams to the cup. These were his linemates..........


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

fraser said:


> i wont, orr was one of the true greats- please dont put words in my mouth. orr was one of those who could do it all, i dont really see gretzky in the same class. mcabe is just another in the long list of mediocre players. in fact he doesnt even belong in a discussion of hockey players, let alone great ones.


"sure he wont be the goal scorer that gretzky was, but he will survive at least- i doubt gretzky would in the modern league." 

If Gretzky couldnt make it in the current league why would Orr? I must ask because I dont understand the logic. 21 teams could fit in 30 teams, so Gretzky must really, really stink compared to todays players. and if he was the best of all time at that time, anyone before him must have been even worse..............


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Gretzky was the greatest player to ever lace up a pair of skates.

Past, present and almost certainly future.

:bow::bow::bow::smilie_flagge17:


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> "sure he wont be the goal scorer that gretzky was, but he will survive at least- i doubt gretzky would in the modern league."
> 
> If Gretzky couldnt make it in the current league why would Orr? I must ask because I dont understand the logic. 21 teams could fit in 30 teams, so Gretzky must really, really stink compared to todays players. and if he was the best of all time at that time, anyone before him must have been even worse..............


no gretzky doesnt stink compared to todays players, even today at his age he could outskate and out puck handle most of them- i just think hed take an awful pounding these days. orr could take the pounding, and dish it out too, and still score goals.
and really, thats the same point ive been poking at all along. gretzky excelled head and shoulders above all others, but only at half the game- 
i prefer a player who plays a more complete game.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

And yet Wayner retired after 20 years of pounding and Orr only lasted 10..........


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

sure but i betcha bobby could beat wayne in a fistfight............:smile:
i lack the patience, or the words to continue:wave:


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

fraser said:


> no gretzky doesnt stink compared to todays players, i just think hed take an awful pounding these days.


No he wouldn't. Thats why we have fighters................God bless them!



Ahh.........so that why the atheist's don't like fighting in hockey!


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> And yet Wayner retired after 20 years of pounding and Orr only lasted 10..........


Orr played a very aggressive game from the start of his career to the end. His legs and knees met many and end board. Gretzky did not take near the pounding that Orr did. Both Gretzky and Orr would excel above any player in the league in todays game. With the end of clutching and grabbing who could stop them. That goes for Lemiuex as well.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Gretzky wasn't the total package--he was very good at what he DID do, and I'm not taking that away from him, but he couldn't (or wouldn't) play defense, and as mentioned he had tough guys to stick up for him, so he didn't play gritty.

You want complete package look at Gordie Howe. He could score, stick up for himself, dish it out, and play defense. 
As for current players that can do these things? Jarome Iginla.

I wouldn't have turned down having Gretzky on my team, especially at his peak. But he wasn't "the total package."


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> No he wouldn't. Thats why we have fighters................God bless them!
> Ahh.........so that why the atheist's don't like fighting in hockey!



...good point, actually.

one of the reasons folks like me reject both god and organized religion is due to the fact that they both embrace, condone, advocate and celebrate violence.

-dh


----------



## sambonee (Dec 20, 2007)

*fighting has to stop*

it's crappy that's all.


----------



## Ophidian (May 22, 2006)

Violence will always be in hockey the Bailey/Shore incident in 33 is by far the worst thing ever happen in the NHL. If I remember right if Ace died Boston police would charge Shore with manslaughter.

The main reason Howe played so long is that no one would go into the corners with him. The nickname elbows suits him well. Thats when everyone stood up for themselves. Thats when hockey was at it best.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Gretzky and defense. Maybe you should review how many shorthanded goals he had, and his +/- rating every year. If he sucked at defense, he would not have played shorthanded, and his +/- would look like Phil Housley's...........


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> Gretzky and defense. Maybe you should review how many shorthanded goals he had, and his +/- rating every year. If he sucked at defense, he would not have played shorthanded, and his +/- would look like Phil Housley's...........



+/- is meaningless without context. Since the Oilers scored so many goals their +/-'s should be high. It was more a result of 2 things--puck control and he scored or set up so many goals. Shorthanded goals are still offense, not defense. Although they do say the best defense is a good offense--well in the 80's NHL, that may have been true. He played shorthanded so he could score goals. It's all about context.

Again, I'm not taking anything away from Gretzky--just saying it how I saw it--and I did see him play live.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Wow, jroberts. you're missing my whole point.

I first commented on Gretzky because of the comment that he was a complete player. I disagree with that. But in the big picture, so what? As I posted he was very good at what he did, he didn't have to do other stuff. So, no, I do not believe he would have been a better player had he blocked more shots and scored fewer goals. And I never said so. Again context is important.

Also I am not complaining about Gretzky not playing defense. It was a comment about how he was not a complete player--and that's okay.

It was also a response to the assertion that Gretzky was good at defense because he had a high +/-. I disagree with that as a criteria for being good at defense, and stated why. Context--When a team scores as often as the 80's Oilers did, (and Gretzky contributed more than his share of those goals--as well as setting up many of them), most of the players on that team will have high +/-. His +/- was a result of his goal scoring and playmaking, not his defensive abilities. And to make it clear--I am not complaining, nor would I expect him to play defense. I'm just making observations, and expressing an opinion. I was not even implying what you seem to think I did. Again--context.

The end.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2008)

The best post in this thread bears repeating

Paul said

"Start enforcing the rules and it'll be the game it it supposed to be.

Fighting has no place in hockey. Well played hockey is a beautiful and graceful game. Fighting cheapens the game and demeans the integrity of the athletes."


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

zontar said:


> Also I am not complaining about Gretzky not playing defense. It was a comment about how he was not a complete player--and that's okay.
> 
> It was also a response to the assertion that Gretzky was good at defense because he had a high +/-. I disagree with that as a criteria for being good at defense, and stated why. Context--When a team scores as often as the 80's Oilers did, (and Gretzky contributed more than his share of those goals--as well as setting up many of them), most of the players on that team will have high +/-. His +/- was a result of his goal scoring and playmaking, not his defensive abilities. And to make it clear--I am not complaining, nor would I expect him to play defense. I'm just making observations, and expressing an opinion. I was not even implying what you seem to think I did. Again--context.
> 
> The end.


The end? You have the smokin gun? Sorry, but bad defensive players never play in a shorthanded situation. How did he get all those shorthanded goals?..........


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> The end? You have the smokin gun? Sorry, but bad defensive players never play in a shorthanded situation. How did he get all those shorthanded goals?..........


I meant the end of my comments on the subject. I think I've explained and re-explained myself enough. Go back and read what I posted--paying attention to context--I did answer your question in that last post.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

hehe- these kind of discussion s lend themselves to statements bieng taken out of context, for the sake of further argument.
the whole gretzky aspect here began i think, when i said-



> im not a fan of gretzky style players, all goals and fancy footwork, no grittiness or working for the puck-
> crosby is great because he plays the game, all of it- he does what he has to do, digging for the puck, pushing and shoving, hitting, a full physical presence- he stands up for hisself and his team, and he WILL fight. the league needs to keep promoting that style of play-
> i cant be bothered with olympic hockey, not a fan of the all star thing either. watching the juniors right now tho- thats pretty good hockey.


whereupon accept2 countered with this



> ?!?! Gretzky was the great one because he was the total package. Crosby is NHL marketing at its best. He is a good player but he aint no Great one and while he is exceptional at parts of the game, he isnt a total package. The Wayner knew this thing called "skating." Weird I know.........


wayne could skate- he is godlike. i think its funny because i simply said i wasnt a fan, not that he wasnt great. all further argument just became the same merry-go-round of differing ideas of what constitutes greatness.
kinda boring after a while.

i was watching leafs tv tonite, and they had a special on bill barilko. it showed him scoring the winning goal back in 1951. just behind the net at the moment of the goal, howie meeker was smacking the montreal player in the face with his stick, in retaliation for a shot in the face he just took.
thats good hockey.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

double post lol


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

fraser said:


> i was watching leafs tv tonite, and they had a special on bill barilko. it showed him scoring the winning goal back in 1951. just behind the net at the moment of the goal, howie meeker was smacking the montreal player in the face with his stick, in retaliation for a shot in the face he just took. thats good hockey.


...no, that is grown men acting like neanderthals. it has nothing whatsover to do with skill, training, discipline and the other things that make sports a worthwhile endeavour.

-dh


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...no, that is grown men acting like neanderthals. it has nothing whatsover to do with skill, training, discipline and the other things that make sports a worthwhile endeavour.
> 
> -dh


Although I enjoy the rougher side of hockey, watching and having played it, smacking a guy in the face with his stick has no place in hockey. Clean checks or face to face confrontations by 2 tough guys. Guys like Chris Simon that smack a guy in the face with a stick are cowardly and bring shame to themselves.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

you guys miss my point-
this took place almost 60 years ago.
my point was, thats how the game works, and thats how the game has always worked. it isnt going to change.


----------



## acdc54_caddy62 (Mar 12, 2007)

I dont think that headshots should be allowed which they arnt but some people still choose to use them. Like Brian Burke said, you are not gonna get rid of it all together. Or something like that. 

But yeah, I'm not opposed to it nor do I support it. It just the way it is.

Go! Nucks' Go!
:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

fraser said:


> my point was, thats how the game works, and thats how the game has always worked. it isnt going to change.




...not all by itself, it isn't. which kind of goes without saying, don't it.

-dh


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

It is changing all the time. Back when Pat Lafontaine took a head shot and had to retire, it was all part of the game. Now its something being cracked down on.............


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

lots of guys retired from hockey due to injury. i myself did at 14- thats hockey. you cant survive, you cant play.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Jumping on someone and ramming his face into the ice no. Swinging your stick at someones head no. Purposely taking out someones knees no. Purposely hitting from behind no.
> 
> Body checking yes. Fighting yes.


I see it the same.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...but do you ever take a moment to actually think about it?

adult males?

fighting?

in seedy bars after too many drinks, sure. THAT'S expected.

but, adult males, the vast majority of whom are fairly well educated, don't face the kind of financial stress that the majority of us do, etc.

adult males.

adult males, idolized by your own children, many of whom want to grow up to be _just like them_.

there's definitely something wrong with that picture.

-dh


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...but do you ever take a moment to actually think about it?
> 
> adult males?
> 
> ...


There is a big difference between a hockey fight and a bar fight. In hockey the fighting is structured and agreed on by both participants (who are both of sound mind). The entire process is observed and controlled by trained referees who will stop it immediately if things get out of hand. Also many hockey fights have nothing to do with anger and deal more with sparking up the crowd and/or the teams. 

As for influence on children, they don't need to witness their idols fighting to spur themselves to fight when conflict comes. What they need are parents to explain to them why some people fight, why it is misguided, and how they should better solve their problems. 

I really don't see any risk involved with a child witnessing an NHL fight. My entire generation grew up on tonnes of them and most of the kids I knew never fought when we played hockey. The violent kids usually had bigger issues causing it than what they saw on TV.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

LowWatt said:


> As for influence on children, they don't need to witness their idols fighting to spur themselves to fight when conflict comes. What they need are parents to explain to them why some people fight, _*why it is misguided*_, and how they should better solve their problems.
> 
> I really don't see any risk involved with _*a child witnessing an NHL fight*_.



...i wonder how you, as a parent, would explain the inherent irony here to your children.

-dh
(bold italics mine)


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i wonder how you, as a parent, would explain the inherent irony here to your children.
> 
> -dh
> (bold italics mine)


I think you explain it similar to a boxing match. That said, I imagine most parents don't let their kids watch boxing but do let them watch hockey...


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...but do you ever take a moment to actually think about it?
> 
> adult males?
> 
> ...


You just can't seem to get over fighting in the NHL. Its always been apart of the sport and as long as there are cheap shot artists who truly hurt other players, I hope it always will be. I guarantee, that if I'm walking down the street and someone does something dirty to injure me I'm going to smack him around. 
I'd be more worried about children idolizing sports stars that do drugs and engage in criminal activity in their personal lives. Nothing wrong with a hockey player standing up for themselves on the ice when a two bit little cheap shot artist tries to get away with a dirty play.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...i wonder how you, as a parent, would explain the inherent irony here to your children.
> 
> -dh
> (bold italics mine)


I don't see the irony because I believe there are a world of differences between a hockey fight (paid, regulated, rarely about anger) and a street fight. Having said that, I still see watching an NHL fight with your kid as a great opportunity to start talking to your child about what is really going on in a hockey fight, anger, controlling your emotions, fighting, and ways to avoid violence.

That's actually how my dad and I had our first conversation about fights when I was growing up. He said some version of "There is a time and a place for everything..."

To open up a whole new can, I believe most junk food commericals on TV are far more harmful to children than anything they will see in a hockey game.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

When I was a kid and saw the bench clearing brawls, I would laugh. It was funny to see a bunch of tools making fools of themselves on national TV. Of course when I was a kid I was also a big boxing fan, but I knew the difference between boxing and unnessesary violence. Sports stars are spoiled brats. If they start a fight in a game, I gotta wonder what they would do if their kid ever spilt their milk............


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> I gotta wonder what they would do if their kid ever spilt their milk............


I fought lots when I played hockey. When my kid spilt milk I cleaned it up. Anymore questions?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> You just can't seem to get over fighting in the NHL. Its always been apart of the sport and as long as there are cheap shot artists who truly hurt other players, I hope it always will be. I guarantee, that if I'm walking down the street and someone does something dirty to injure me I'm going to smack him around.
> I'd be more worried about children idolizing sports stars that do drugs and engage in criminal activity in their personal lives. Nothing wrong with a hockey player standing up for themselves on the ice when a two bit little cheap shot artist tries to get away with a dirty play.



...to each his own, i guess. there are those who embrace violence, even celebrate it. there are those who live by a code of violence. there are those who simply tolerate it as inherently human. there are those who are indifferent to it. 

and there are those of us who are repulsed by it.

not to get too philosophical, but i find that we are living in an era when those of us who are repulsed by violence are the target of public ridicule.

we are labelled as leftie/commie/socialist/bleeding-heart/granola-eating/birkenstock-wearing/pinko/****/queer/girlyman/dogooders.

they call jack layton "taliban jack" for daring to suggest that human slaughter is not the ideal way to solve our problems

just about any post i make on _the gear page _is met with instant ridicule by american testosterone tonys.

my non-violent sentiments earned me a lifetime ban from the _FDP forum_.

please forgive the somewhat off-topic rant, but i feel its necessary to illustrate my feelings on the subject.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

LowWatt said:


> To open up a whole new can, I believe most junk food commericals on TV are far more harmful to children than anything they will see in a hockey game.



...apples to oranges, but you won't get any argument from me when it comes to the phenomenon of pushing poisonous junk (mislabelled "food") on our population.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

LowWatt said:


> I don't see the irony because I believe there are a world of differences between a hockey fight (paid, regulated, rarely about anger) and a street fight.


...granted, but both still involve...adult...males...fighting.

the difference, from where i sit, is that we are willing to turn a blind eye to hockey fights.

there is an underlying reason for that, i suspect, and i am left to wonder what it says about us.

-dh


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...to each his own, i guess. there are those who embrace violence, even celebrate it. there are those who live by a code of violence. there are those who simply tolerate it as inherently human. there are those who are indifferent to it.
> 
> and there are those of us who are repulsed by it.
> 
> ...


If you like to name call "american testosterone tonys", then you might expect to get smacked around and maybe this is more the reason for your lifetime ban rather than your opinions on violence. 
As for me I actually agree with you when it comes to unnecessary violence. I don't consider fighting in hockey unnecessary violence in much the same way I don't consider boxing unnecessary violence. Its all a part of the sports. With fighting in hockey there are penalties to deal with it in much the same way there are penalties for tripping. That is how it is dealt with.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

i guess a lot of the reason for differing points of view are our own perceptions of violence-
to me, a hockey fight is not really much of a battle- its two guys, who fight, but there are referees and teammates and stands full of fans- if one guy goes down the fight is broken up, rarely does anyone get hurt.
and chances are the two opponents will be friends at some point afterwards.
now, i see fights regularly in my neighbourhood, sometimes daily, grown men, grown women, kids whatever- if one opponent goes down, he probably going to get hurt. my window faces into an alleyway, and i see something happen every couple nights. people die out there. ive been attacked out there going to the store lol. theres nobody there to protect the weak, or innocent. thats real violence- hockey fighting is just a part of a GAME, and therefore is not what i could truly call violence.
maybe we need a thread on violence in actual society, why a guy like me, a music loving, elderly folk helping, nice guy who works for a living and likes houseplants and puppies, classical music and springtime, needs to carry a sidearm to run across the street to the corner store at night.:smile:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> If you like to name call "american testosterone tonys", then you might expect to get smacked around and maybe this is more the reason for your lifetime ban rather than your opinions on violence.


...not only did i not use the phrase, i did not resort to calling anyone names.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> It's not necessarily as savage as many people think it is. These guys are, by and large, friends off the ice. Check out this clip...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxFS2JAyleo
> "Do you want to? OK. Square up? OK."



...so the rationale for giving a free pass to adult males fighting in hockey is that they are drinking buddies off ice?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

*hockey fighting is just a part of a GAME, and therefore is not what i could truly call violence.*

...i think that is called "spin". we human beings can rationalize just about anything if we put our minds to it.

*maybe we need a thread on violence in actual society, why a guy like me, a music loving, elderly folk helping, nice guy who works for a living and likes houseplants and puppies, classical music and springtime, needs to carry a sidearm to run across the street to the corner store at night.*[/QUOTE]

...that is completely bizarre. where do you live? how often do you get attacked? have you considered moving?


-dh


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...not only did i not use the phrase, i did not resort to calling anyone names.
> 
> -dh



Hmm. I guess I imagined it quoted up there in your post then. I guess I didn't accuse you of using it then. I guess we're just talking about nothing. I'm not even here.:sport-smiley-002:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> Is that what I said? I was just posting an amusing clip. Sometimes you really have your head planted firmly in your ass, David.




...actually, two people suggested that.

posting personal attacks, however, takes any credibility you thought you might have completely out of the equation.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Hmm. I guess I imagined it quoted up there in your post then. I guess I didn't accuse you of using it then. I guess we're just talking about nothing. I'm not even here.:sport-smiley-002:



...it _was_ in my post here. what you _imagined_ was that it somehow made it into the posts on the fdp forum that earned me a lifetime ban.

-dh


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...it _was_ in my post here. what you _imagined_ was that it somehow made it into the posts on the fdp forum that earned me a lifetime ban.
> 
> -dh



I could take it that you were referring to me or others that oppose your view. Which would constitute a personal attack. Not that I care if someone personally attacks me on a forum. I've got thicker skin than that.
I never once came out and said that you used it on the fdp forum. I just pointed out that I highly doubt you were banned for life simply because you oppose violence. I'm willing to bet much more to that story.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Mr. G will ban people from the FDP if they have different views than himself, if they post those views even in a different forum. I know one guy who was banned because he posted something on a forum that Mr. G wasnt even a member and he banned him for that post. It doesnt take much to be banned from there. Im sure I would be banned if I posted more there, or if he read this. Either way, its no big deal.............


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Mr. G will ban people from the FDP if they have different views than himself, if they post those views even in a different forum. I know one guy who was banned because he posted something on a forum that Mr. G wasnt even a member and he banned him for that post. It doesnt take much to be banned from there. Im sure I would be banned if I posted more there, or if he read this. Either way, its no big deal.............



If thats all it takes to be banned from the forum you're better off without it. It just displays childish behavior from the site owner.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I've never posted there, but I took a look, and it doesn't look that interesting. I like the broader base this forum has.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> I could take it that you were referring to me or others that oppose your view. Which would constitute a personal attack. Not that I care if someone personally attacks me on a forum. I've got thicker skin than that.
> I never once came out and said that you used it on the fdp forum. I just pointed out that I highly doubt you were banned for life simply because you oppose violence. I'm willing to bet much more to that story.



...there is. chris greene is an nra-style gun advocate. not knowing he was a mod (and a particularly nasty one, at that*), i made a cheeky comment about america's obsession with guns. admittedly, it was naive, at the time. i have since learned that americans are _deadly_ serious about their obsession with guns. there wasn't any name calling involved, aside from his private email to me calling me a "moron". what is MOST interesting is that my comments, while directed at chrise greene, were not made on his fdp forum, but on harmony central, AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE FORUM! supposedly, one of his colleagues "reported" me to him.

-dh

ps *fyi, i am a proud member of a very, very large group of people who have received a lifetime ban for the offense of having an opinion contrary to that of mister greene. all of us are welcome to be reinstated in exchange for a small cash donation, incidentally.

"If you like to name call 'american testosterone tonys', then you might expect to get smacked around and maybe this is more the reason for your lifetime ban rather than your opinions on violence." -guitarman2


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Short tolerance lately.

This thread is going nowhere, and is starting to get personal. Repetition won't change someone's view point on a subject.


----------

