# Should Fighting Be Banned In Hockey?



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

This debate has come up again with the recent death of player Donald Sanderson. Do you feel the game would be severely diminished if fighting were banned?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The sport is hockey, not watch 2 drunks dance. You can catch that stoopidity at any bar. Gretzky became an icon, Tiger Williams became a footnote.............


----------



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

It wouldn't bother me if they found a way to marginalize the one-dimensional "goon" even further...but fighting as an organic part of the game has its place in my opinion.

Get rid of the instigator rule but find a way to get rid of the planned and staged fight that happens at a faceoff. 

Two guys that are grinding along the boards and tempers flare, gloves go flying? I like it. :sport-smiley-002:


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

The only reason fighting is "part of the game" is because it is tolerated. That's pretty much the entire story.

TG


----------



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

traynor_garnet said:


> The only reason fighting is "part of the game" is because it is tolerated. That's pretty much the entire story.
> 
> TG


And in the league that Sanderson played in it is not "tolerated"...the rule in place is a game misconduct, minimum. It still happens.

And physical altercations happen in other sports where it is "not tolerated".

If you have a sport with physical contact -- especially a sustained level of contact, at speed like hockey -- then tempers are going to flare and guys are going to fight.

Hitting from behind has killed a lot more people than fighting...it is not tolerated and game misconducts and suspensions occur. So does hitting from behind.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

The Kicker Of Elves said:


> If you have a sport with physical contact -- especially a sustained level of contact, at speed like hockey -- then tempers are going to flare and guys are going to fight.



You often see a bit of pushing and shoving after a play, and maybe even a punch thrown on a very rare occasion, but I'm not sure I've ever seen what would be termed a toe-to-toe "fight" in football.


----------



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

nkjanssen said:


> You often see a bit of pushing and shoving after a play, and maybe even a punch thrown on a very rare occasion, but I'm not sure I've ever seen what would be termed a toe-to-toe "fight" in football.


The equipment and the pace of play does sort of limit fighting in football...

I thought Harrison's little confrontation in the second half in the game on Sunday was as bad or worse than a hockey fight.

I didn't think it was as bad as Madden made it out to be, but then again JM should have been put out to pasture a decade ago.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

The Kicker Of Elves said:


> And in the league that Sanderson played in it is not "tolerated"...the rule in place is a game misconduct, minimum. It still happens.


A one game suspension is in and of itself proof that fighting is tolerated. _This_ is why it still happens.

TG


----------



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

traynor_garnet said:


> A one game suspension is in and of itself proof that fighting is tolerated. _This_ is why it still happens.
> 
> TG


So a multi-game suspension in hockey would be a suitable penalty?

We'll definitely have to agree to disagree here. I don't think I'd like the sport much if the penalty for a consensual fight is worse than most hits from behind, hits to the head, or some of the slashing/high sticking that goes on.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Banned? It should be an assault charge.

My favourite hockey is women's Olympic hockey. Second is Men's Olympic hockey.

The NHL is one step away from Roller Derby in the eyes of much of the world.

It's a great example to set for kids when fights break out at a hockey game and the parents scream anbd cheer with delight.

I for one believe hockey would be MUCH better without the stupidity.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I have to admit that whenever I am at a game and a fight breaks out I am on my feet to make sure I can see it over the dude standing in front of me. But I can also say that to me it's like having pop in the house. if it's in the fridge I will drink it like water, but if there is none in the house I don't crave it. So I think the game would continue on without the fighting as well


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

I'm conflicted. The basest part of me likes fighting in hockey. My more civilized side doesn't. Most of the best, most memorable, games I've ever seen had nothing at all to do with fighting. So, I guess it's a bit of a guilty pleasure, but I still think it should probably go. Cheap shots, hitting from behind, illegal stickwork, etc. Should also definitely be eliminated. i don't think it's necessarily an either/or thing, though I've heard arguments that it is.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm going to have to jump on the instigator rule affecting the self-policing aspect of the game. I know by now it's a broken record, but it is true to an extent that player take liberties when they know the repercussion is a 2 minute penalty, not some angry team-mate of the player you just ran into the boards headfirst coming to settle your hash.

Fighters in today's hockey are not players, they are degenerate goons who can barely skate, but feel the need to stage a fight once in a while to earn their pay. The sport and it's rules have 'allowed' this to happen. I'm much more interested to see a guy like Iginla, or Shanahan drop the gloves than Boogaard. When a skill player decides it's time to defend one of his team-mates, fighting in hockey becomes much easier to accept, and it means more because there is a legitimate issue to be resolved. They also tend not to fight as much, because they don't do it as a matter of course, they only do it when the need arises, even though some of them are really good at it. I heard once that Owen Nolan was one of the most feared fighters in the league, even though he didn't fight much. Same goes for Shanahan.

Get rid of the instigator, weed out the 'fighter' players who can't play the game, and things will even out.


----------



## Luke98 (Mar 4, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I have to admit that whenever I am at a game and a fight breaks out I am on my feet to make sure I can see it over the dude standing in front of me. But I can also say that to me it's like having pop in the house. if it's in the fridge I will drink it like water, but if there is none in the house I don't crave it. So I think the game would continue on without the fighting as well


Ditto. I'm indifferent. It gives players with much less talent (goons) a job. God forbid we have to watch a team play with 100% talent and skilled athletes.


----------



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

Milkman said:


> Banned? It should be an assault charge.


This is a great little saying, and I think I've heard you say it before? :wave:
It is also not really true...3/4 of what occurs on the ice would result in charges off. Body checking, slashing, tripping, spitting...all of these have legal ramifications off the ice. 

Paul also said something like this:



Paul said:


> I'm against fighting in hockey. If two fans started fighting like that, charges would be laid. Assault is assault on either side of the glass.


If you get in a consensual fight in a bar, or in the street...most of the time you'll be charged/convicted of something like disturbing the peace. The law isn't going to try and convict on assault without one of the participants pressing charges.

Now if someone gets double- or triple-teamed or gets kicked when on the ground etc, you're going to see charges.



Milkman said:


> My favourite hockey is women's Olympic hockey. Second is Men's Olympic hockey.
> 
> The NHL is one step away from Roller Derby in the eyes of much of the world.
> 
> ...


I love international hockey too...I bleed red and white (and I guess now black as it's part of Hockey Canada's colours) every time the Olympics or the World Jrs come around. It's pretty intense tho, I'm glad we've kept winning World Jrs the past half dozen years.


All in all I think the whole controversy is overblown. I think Sanderson's death is very sad, and I have tonnes of sympathy for his family and friends.

I don't really think it means hockey needs to ban fighting...it's a knee-jerk reaction much like you see everytime something tragic happens. First death attributable to a hockey fight. 

I know someone (or more than one) will say "one is too many" but hell, I don't think it is as bad as the stories you hear about every year, more than once...like "Two young children killed when pickup truck runs a red light and T-bones a car." No one's calling to ban pickup trucks, or having kids in a car.

It's sad, he should still be alive but it's one person, it's one death. It's statistically insignificant.


----------



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

Paul said:


> Charges are laid as appropriate, and based on what is convictable. That doesn't mean the uncharged offenses aren't offences. It just means that the legal system is lazy.


If the worst thing you can say about the legal system is that it is lazy then you are lucky enough to avoid exposure to it in any fashion.

If the number of parolees, guys on bail or released due to time-served or good behavior who re-offend (and sometimes kill) wasn't so large it would almost laughable.

Don't just blame the judges either, it's as much the crown attorneys (if not more) who are responsible. Sorry kkjwpw

The courts don't enforce most physical altercations outside the sports arena because it is a waste of time and taxpayers dollars. If two dumbasses wanna go outside the back of the bar and throw bad punches at each other let 'em go. Don't waste everyone's time running it through the overburdened court system.



Paul said:


> Since Sanderson is technically a professional, (they get 50$ for a win, $25 for a loss, or some such silly system), why is his death not investigated as a workplace incident by the Ministry of Labour? I'm not being a smartass here....Is this a workplace incident? If yes, then what are the consequences of that?


That's an excellent question. Can you look it up and let us know? 




Paul said:


> It may be insignificant, but it is also hugely preventable. We can't eliminate all risk, but we can enact regulations to limit them. We assume risk when we drive, but traffic laws are in place to create a disincentive for risky or unsafe decisions. Perhaps the disincentive for hockey fighting isn't enough.


Maybe hockey fighting doesn't need disincentive at all? Let em fight, no one is forcing them to. Lots of people enjoy it, it does very little harm in almost all cases and the guys fighting would rather do it for NHL money than work for a living. Are we not entertained?

I'm not concerned it's going to warp little minds...here in the west we don't worry too much about exposing kids to other forms of violence after all. How many guys has Jack Bauer tortured this season anyways? Sure there are TV rating systems in place...maybe hockey needs one?



Paul said:


> What nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction is how fighting makes hockey better. There are all the self-policing arguments which I don't accept. Rugby is as fast and tough as it gets, yet I have never seen a rugby fight.


Search YouTube for Rugby fights. In Europe they happen frequently enough. Lots of proper English announcers "Oh dear, there's a wee bit of a dustup..."


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Not only do I think fighting is stoopid, these fights are an embarrassment. If thats their fighting skill, all hockey players would be embarrased if push came to shove. Why not ban fighting and save these guys from embarassing themselves further. You pay to see a skill, there are no fighting skills here. The fights are a joke only serving to entertain us when we were 12 years old and didnt know any better..............


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> Not only do I think fighting is stoopid, these fights are an embarrassment. If thats their fighting skill, all hockey players would be embarrased if push came to shove. Why not ban fighting and save these guys from embarassing themselves further. You pay to see a skill, there are no fighting skills here. The fights are a joke only serving to entertain us when we were 12 years old and didnt know any better..............


ever try fighting on skates and wearing a load of equipment? i have- its impossible to do with any grace or precision.
you do understand that most of the fights you see on the ice would still happen even if there was no audience, dont you?


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

Paul said:


> No audience = no NHL = no NHL fights.


aye paul- but there would still be hockey- and hockey fights.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

Paul said:


> I'm against fighting in hockey. If two fans started fighting like that, charges would be laid. Assault is assault on either side of the glass.


I'm not in favour of fighting either, but by that argument you'd have to charge hockey players with assault for nearly every penalty handed out (tripping, cross checking, roughing, etc.), not to mention boxers, wrestlers, any participants in martial arts competitions, etc., etc.

The standard to apply isn't that of two people who don't know each other engaging in that activity on a public street. The question is what has been consented to by the participants in the activity.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

fraser said:


> ever try fighting on skates and wearing a load of equipment?


I'm proud to say I have not. I have however been involved with tournament level Judo. Seems more appropriate to me.



fraser said:


> you do understand that most of the fights you see on the ice would still happen even if there was no audience, dont you?




I'm not so sure this is true. I suspect there would be FAR fewer fights if there were no audience. The same can be said for school yard bullies.


It's not about people getting hurt or dying as in the case of Don Sanderson. He could have stepped on a skate lace and fallen with the same result.

It's about the message that violence is the solution to disagreements or conflict. How do you rationalize this to your son? Don't fight. It takes a bigger man to walk away, oh, but this is different. This is hockey....Why are those people cheering? Did someone make a great play? Nope. Two thugs are trying to fight while the game is delayed.

But then, some folks deny evolution and would have us living like we did in our granddad's time.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I think if they dont ban it, it will be only seen on ESPN 12, and watched by hillbillys eating squirrel on a stick and cheering on all the fights..........


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

Paul said:


> Consent has nothing to do with it. No matter how much I might consent to have you shoot me, you are still culpable.


Sorry, but you're wrong on that. Consent has everything to do with it except in very extreme cases (like shooting someone). If you tell your buddy to punch you in the face and he does, there has been no assault. The law is extrememly clear on that. There are many cases directly on point in a sporting context that back up my statements. Otherwise, how could boxing or wrestling even exist as sports?




> I will ask for the 3rd time in this thread: How does fighting make hockey a better game?


I don't think it does, but your assault argument is wrong.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

Paul said:


> I think it was Dino Cicarrelli (sp?) that was charged in court for a stick swinging incident, as was Bertuzzi, so athletes are NOT immune from prosecution, but they seem to have a buffer.


An assault is only committed where physical force is applied without the victim's consent. If you don't believe that, you simply don't understand basic principles of criminal law. There have definitely been criminal charges laid against players for activities during a game. Bertuzzi and Cicerelli are two examples. Marty McSorley is another. In all of those cases, though, the reasoning in laying the charges was that the victim had not consented to the particular actions. They were beyond the scope of normal play and beyond the scope of what the victims impliedly consented to by engaging in the sport. You would never, ever, ever get a convision for a consentual fight in a hockey game unless one side did something beyond the pale that was an intent to cause serious, lasting injury (like kicking with a skate, etc., etc.). A regular toe-to-toe fight? Never. It's not an assault. If it was, every body check would be an assault. If you body check someone on the street, it's an assault. But if you do it in a hockey game, it's not. Context is everything.

As for bar fights, a consentual bar fight is not, in and of itself, an assault. It may be a disturbing of the peace. It might also become a non-consentual fight, if for example, one of the participants begins kicking the other when he's down. In such cases, courts have ruled that consent can be interpreted as having been withdrawn. Canadian courts have held that combantants may validly agree to inflict bodily harm on each other.

I can give you dozens of case cites, if you'd like.

Again, I'm not arguing in favour of fighting. I would rather see it gone. But I don't want anyone to be mislead as to what the law is on this point, thinking that the police and courts are somehow in cahoots with the NHL to turn a blind eye to blatantly criminal conduct.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...too bad we can't ban hypocrisy: do as i say, not as i do.

we condone, celebrate and advocate violence and then wonder why everyone is so violent.

kqoct

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I have to admit that whenever I am at a game and a fight breaks out I am on my feet to make sure I can see it over the dude standing in front of me. But I can also say that to me it's like having pop in the house. if it's in the fridge I will drink it like water, but if there is none in the house I don't crave it. So I think the game would continue on without the fighting as well



...i agree 100%.

in fact, i'm willing to bet that not one ticket sale would be lost, *not one*, were fighting to be banned.

-dh


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

The Kicker Of Elves said:


> If you have a sport with physical contact -- especially a sustained level of contact, at speed like hockey -- then tempers are going to flare and guys are going to fight.


I think this has already been addressed, but again, since fighting is tolerate in Hockey culture it happens. If there were serious penalties for fighting it wouldn't happen.



> Hitting from behind has killed a lot more people than fighting...it is not tolerated and game misconducts and suspensions occur. So does hitting from behind.


Has anyone actually died from a hit from behind?

Comparing fighting to other infractions is simply a red herring that ignores the main issue/question. Other infractions may be serious and need attention, but that doesn't make fighting ok.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

The legal ramifications are mostly irrelevant to this discussion. While some hockey players have been tried for certain incidents (McSorley, Bertuzzi, etc.), these were blatant acts of gratuitous violence as defined by the NHL - which is important. The NHL condones, be it tacitly or outright, the practice of fighting, but it condemns two-handers to the head. In the culture of hockey, players understand that there is a threat of fighting, but the threat of stick swinging is not accepted as part of the game, which is why those people get tried and the fighters don't. 

Don't forget for one second that if a player tries to press charges against another player for getting hurt in a fight, they will likely never play in the NHL again. The opinion of other players and hockey personnel in general is hugely important, and there are several examples of a person being blacklisted by the NHL in the past (Ted Nolan, Theo Fleury, Ray Emery, Sean Avery, etc.). No one wants to be persona non grata in the NHL, because playing elsewhere just doesn't have the same cachet, plus you're stuck in some Russian farming town or playing in front of 7 people in England.

Now, regarding fighting specifically, no, it doesn't make the game better. It _may_ make it more entertaining, but in a game where a fight breaks out for legitimate reasons (tension, emotion, etc.), that game is probably pretty exciting to begin with.

I'd be ok with no fighting in hockey, or at least a very stiff penalty for it (5 mins, game misconduct, automatically suspended for one game with no pay for example).


----------



## sgiven (Jul 31, 2007)

What about boxing? They fight all the time in that sport. Much more than hockey. Those guys just don't seem to get along at all.

:sport-smiley-002:


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

> In the culture of hockey, players understand that there is a threat of fighting, but the threat of stick swinging is not accepted as part of the game, which is why those people get tried and the fighters don't.


thats the thing- its a form of self- policing. you ban fighting, then goalies will get crashed constantly. skill players and small guys will get body checked into oblivion. because there will not only be no fear of reprisal, there will be the chance that you can piss off an opposing player enough that he will try to fight and get himself in shit.
so what then, you have to ban body checking and going straight to the net. and what kind of hockey is that?
just an example, im sure a ban on fighting will cause many other strange changes. the nhl game has evolved for a century into what it is. to suddenly change an aspect of it can throw off the whole balance and ruin it forever.

certainly someone will come along and tell me im wrong, and i often am.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

My first point is that I find fighting silly.
These are two allegedly grown men fighting.

There is more to whether fighting should be banned, than just deciding whether or not it should be.

More important is HOW it should be banned, if that's the decision they make. And that may be one reason some owners would vote against it.

I've heard of people that advocate that players who fight should be kicked out of the league. Or at least suspended for a season. These reactions are extreme, and would lead to a some sticky situations if a big star player got in a fight. The league wouldn't suspend that player for life, or a season or any long period of time. Fortunately that view is a huge minority, and it's one I've only heard from non hockey people.

I mention it, because it gets to the question of how do you draw a line for players to cross, and what happens?

Depending on the repercussions for fighting, does every team employ a player/fighter or two that they can afford to lose? Would that dilute talent? Would some coaches be averse to sending that player after the other team's star to get him to fight & out of the game? That could see a return to the mid 70's goonery. Maybe not. But it would be worse at the minor levels, as marginal players see being a goon as their ticket to the NHL--and that did happen in the 70's.

Technically fighting is banned in the NHL, as it is a major penalty & can lead to a 10 minute or game suspension. Game misconducts can lead to suspensions. But I get the point.

Not to ignore fighting, but there are other "activities" that need more attention. Stickwork against other players, hitting from behind, and sucker punches are bigger issues. When two players willingly go at it in a fight--that's not as big a deal in the vast majority of cases. Yes there are exceptions, but overall, the other stuff is worse.

The Bertuzzi/Moore, McSorley/Brashear, Maki/Green, Shore/Bailey incidents in the NHL--which are among the worst--were not fights, but stickwork and/or cheap shots.

They are also proof that condoning fighting in some form does not always ward off worse things from going on.

Fighting is silly--goonery is worse. I can live without either, but fighting is an easy target. The NHL is inconsistent in how it handles these incidents, and suspensions/fines are often a joke. That is another thing would need to be dealt with.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

fraser said:


> thats the thing- its a form of self- policing. you ban fighting, then goalies will get crashed constantly. skill players and small guys will get body checked into oblivion. because there will not only be no fear of reprisal, there will be the chance that you can piss off an opposing player enough that he will try to fight and get himself in shit.
> so what then, you have to ban body checking and going straight to the net. and what kind of hockey is that?
> just an example, im sure a ban on fighting will cause many other strange changes. the nhl game has evolved for a century into what it is. to suddenly change an aspect of it can throw off the whole balance and ruin it forever.
> 
> certainly someone will come along and tell me im wrong, and i often am.


No, that's how it's been "sold" to me. There have been some skilled (overall players, goalscorers, great defensemen) fighters, but not many role playing fighters are very skilled - that's about my only beef with it. Otherwise, mostly nobody gets very hurt other than a black eye or maybe a broken nose. The odd concussion, broken hand (lol), and, very rarely, other more serious injury. At the NHL level, I have almost no problem with fighting. They're pros, it's part of the job, it's entertaining and (relatively) benign. 

Whether the kids will want to emulate the behaviour, I personally very strongly believe that's more a matter of parenting skills and ability to explain context. I have 3 teenagers, none of whom has ever been in a fistfight, other than my son who was jumped by a gang 3 months ago, but that was an entirely different scenario. And we are big sports and hockey fans.

I was at a Jets game in Winnipeg vs the Flames on New Year's Day in either '83 or '84 where a buddy and I snuck down to front row unoccupied seats. Jim Kyte pounded the crap out of Tim Hunter, giving him one of his innumerable broken noses, right in front of us. FUN! and you can bet Hunter was skating the next day and probably laughing about the whole deal.

Once again I stand up for teh minority on gc LOL :wave:

**edit** I did vote for stronger penalties.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Voting is pretty tight on this one


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i would LOVE to know how banning fighting would ruin the "game".

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Voting is pretty tight on this one


That depends on how you interpret the third choice in the poll.

"I support stronger penalties and suspensions for fighting"



I think these folks are fundamentally opposed to fighting in hockey but do not support an outright ban.

So if you were to add 6 out of 10 (conservative IMO) to the 1st choice (ban it), the numbers start to look like most people don't like fighting in hockey.
At least that's the way I see it.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Milkman said:


> That depends on how you interpret the third choice in the poll.
> 
> "I support stronger penalties and suspensions for fighting"
> 
> ...


I think you can't have it both ways...you said "don't support an outright ban" but then added 6 out of 10 of them to "ban it". I hope you know I'm just poking at you gently, but illogical post is illogical. 9kkhhd

I voted for stronger penalties but certainly do not support endorse or otherwise condone an outright ban of fighting in hockey.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...i would LOVE to know how banning fighting would ruin the "game".
> 
> -dh


i know i used the "ruin" word in my last post-
perhaps thats a bit strong, and not really the right choice of words.
what i meant is that the game would be altered in a huge way- the dynamics would be different, to a vast degree. 
for me, it would be maybe unwatchable. not because there would be no fights, but because of how the game would have to be played in order to support a fighting ban.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

keto said:


> I think you can't have it both ways...you said "don't support an outright ban" but then added 6 out of 10 of them to "ban it". I hope you know I'm just poking at you gently, but illogical post is illogical. 9kkhhd
> 
> I voted for stronger penalties but certainly do not support endorse or otherwise condone an outright ban of fighting in hockey.


Illogical?

I myself would prefer an outright ban. I recognize that there are people who lean strongly in favour or strongly opposed to such a ban. I further recognize or at least propose, that a mojority of people in the middle category at least could be said to be AGAINST fighting in hockey. That's based on the semantics of the third choice.


Seems logical to me.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

:smile:


Paul said:


> In an earlier thread you were LaPointus of Borg, and now with the logic????
> 
> You must be a chick magnet, with those three little words every young nubile is just dying to hear:
> 
> ...


paul,
ive been yelling "Star Trek Convention!!" out my window for a couple hours. lots of people out there, i can see em. but still there is a dearth of young nubiles knocking at my door. what gives?
thanks
fraser


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

what? im lost. shall i yell " you there- startrek newfangled but not so new, in fact older than you"?

claude lemeiux? sounds french. probbly deserved it


----------



## Bullitt (Feb 5, 2009)

Fighting in Hockey has been going on forever. Unfortunately it is out of control. Every time there is a hard hit, clean or not, it usually draws a crowd or a fight starts. Penalties will not decrease the amount of fighting, or fines, it will have to come from the people playing the game themselves.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Paul said:


> In an earlier thread you were LaPointus of Borg, and now with the logic????
> 
> You must be a chick magnet, with those three little words every young nubile is just dying to hear:
> 
> ...


I'm no Trekkie, but I do enjoy watching an episode once in awhile.

Sadly I've never been much of a chick magnet to ANY age group.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

what i find funny is, everyone takes the high and mighty road...NO FIGHT..NO FIGHT...BUT, i dare you to go watch a game ANYWHERE and check the reaction when there is a fight..EVERYONE CHEERS...you don't see people start to be depress because they have a few fights!...those who thing the fights should be removed, get real..will NEVER happen. NEVER, it's part of the game, and will live on in ANY league. Might be sad for some of you, but it's the way it is.

Hockey without fights would be like Basball without steroids, or Football without brain damage..


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

.......And thats the NHLs problem. I simply DONT watch anymore. Couldnt be bothered. Like I said it will end up on ESPN12, watched by hillbillies eating squirrel on a stick. Its not the only problem, but we are seeing the decline of the NHL. Maybe they should have fighting so they can catch some of the UFC hillbilly audience............


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> .......And thats the NHLs problem. I simply DONT watch anymore. Couldnt be bothered. Like I said it will end up on ESPN12, watched by hillbillies eating squirrel on a stick. Its not the only problem, but we are seeing the decline of the NHL. Maybe they should have fighting so they can catch some of the UFC hillbilly audience............


you stop watching Hockey because of the occasional fights?...seriously?...


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> .......And thats the NHLs problem. I simply DONT watch anymore. Couldnt be bothered. Like I said it will end up on ESPN12, watched by hillbillies eating squirrel on a stick. Its not the only problem, but we are seeing the decline of the NHL. Maybe they should have fighting so they can catch some of the UFC hillbilly audience............


i dunno- im a couple months shy of 40, and hockey and its fights have been on tv all my life, and long before that even. whats up with the hillbilly thing? 
the ufc, pro wrestling, monster trucks, all that is american crap. never even saw that shit until i was in my mid twenties and got cable tv. but i know folks that are into that stuff. i know folks that insist on cranking the radio everytime a skynyrd tune comes on. but are they hillbillies? and why squirrels? rabbits are just as plentiful, tastier, and easier to catch. as are chickens.
i think your sense of reality is warped from watching crappy prime time american tv. lots of stupid people out there, not all are hillbillys eating squirrels. you need to spend a week in a canoe with a mandolin and a bible. get some poetry in your head.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

al3d said:


> you stop watching Hockey because of the occasional fights?...seriously?...


yeah- thats messed up lol! the word "wanker" springs to mind.........:smile:


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Accept, i do think it's a bit over the top to call people hillbillies anyone who watches wrestling, the UFC and such. those are sports and shows in their own rights, and everyone as the right to watch wath the wont realy. 

I'm from a divorced family and as a very you boy i could only see my dad once every 3 weeks, and he would take me to see Wrestling..man..good memories, and trust me, my dad ain't not squirel eating hillbilly.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The UFC is bizarre. I can`t believe the amount of teens that are into that, including my daughter and her BF. They never miss it. Marnie and I went to a Boston Pizza one night (during the week I think) and walked into a packed room with tons of kids watching UFC. It was amazing how many young girls were there. back when that stuff started it was two fat, half drunk bar brawlers that would climb into the ring and beat the living snot out of each other. There was no martial arts, no grappling and holding and rolling around on the floor. They beat the shit out of each other until someone dropped. it repulsed me then and bores me now. But back then nobody watched and now it`s huge !!!

Violence is king these days friends. The more the better for this generation.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

UFC is just the evolution of Boxing realy.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> The UFC is bizarre. I can`t believe the amount of teens that are into that, including my daughter and her BF. They never miss it. Marnie and I went to a Boston Pizza one night (during the week I think) and walked into a packed room with tons of kids watching UFC. It was amazing how many young girls were there. back when that stuff started it was two fat, half drunk bar brawlers that would climb into the ring and beat the living snot out of each other. There was no martial arts, no grappling and holding and rolling around on the floor. They beat the shit out of each other until someone dropped. it repulsed me then and bores me now. But back then nobody watched and now it`s huge !!!
> 
> Violence is king these days friends. The more the better for this generation.


yup i have several friends that never miss the ufc shows- guess what, all have teenage kids. who knows, i was really a huge bruce lee fan as a kid, still have all the movies. pro wrestling seemed so staged and fake that it was a joke back then, but kids loved it.
i dont really understand how all this relates to hockey- i mean its hockey- its not staged, its a bunch of healthy guys pushing each other around for 60 minutes, theres going to be scraps lol- 
but the players are hockey players, not entertainers, shit, ever watch a hockey player get interviewed? its all "well you know we battle hard, go to the net, blah blah blah"- these arent actors 
ive said it before, its the way it is, and i dont think anybodys opinion on wether its wrong or right even counts. i do know that kids, if they arent hockey fans, would rather watch a ufc show, or wrestling, given the choice. hockey kids watch hockey for what it is- if its fighting they want, then hockey is boring. 
we will never see a day when nhl players are all dressed up in costumes performing roles for entertainment- cuz thats not hockey. nor will we see a day when hockey players dont fight. simple as that.
in all honesty, how many of you no- fighting in hockey guys are even fans of the game? i dont mean "lite" hockey fans, olympics and all star games and all that crap, but nhl fans? do you watch it every saturday night? if not then i dont even figure your opinion counts enough to be voiced. ive watched it all my life, and im not what would be considered really a fan- just a canadian kid.
some stuff just needs to be left as it is-
are you guys aware that there is a hole in the ozone layer? pontificate on that instead- unless youre in favour of it.
lol- i remember accept2 was the guy who said global warming was all bullshit- now he sees a problem with hockey- lol thats funny

star trek convention.
(still trying paul)


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

fraser said:


> star trek convention.
> (still trying paul)


YO..what's wrong with Star Trek..was my bread and Buther for a year..


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

fraser said:


> i think your sense of reality is warped from watching crappy prime time american tv.


Funny, thats what all the 9/11 conspiracy whackjobs claim too. Coincidence?.....



fraser said:


> yeah- thats messed up lol! the word "wanker" springs to mind.........:smile:


Name calling. Of course, if you cant put forth an intelligent argument, you need to resort to it. Sad...........



al3d said:


> UFC is just the evolution of Boxing realy.


Um, no. Definately not. I would believe de-evolution. Kind of the next step below Don King...........



fraser said:


> i remember accept2 was the guy who said global warming was all bullshit- now he sees a problem with hockey- lol thats funny


Youre memory and logic seem to flawed, or maybe you simply do not comprehend any arguments that dont agree with yours. And yes there is a few problems with hockey. Parity for one will kill the league. Just remember as the prices of tickets go up and up, who do they think is going to go to the games? Will you and the other fight fans be shelling out the big bucks to see the fighting?............

I follow hockey very closely, but I dont bother watching the games anymore. I think the league is headed in the same direction as the CFL. Maybe they can get Nelson Skalbania to help run it into the ground.........


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

al3d said:


> YO..what's wrong with Star Trek..was my bread and Buther for a year..


nothing at all- i grew up with star trek- i dig it for what it is.
sometimes i get all sociable and kid around with folks. guess it comes out looking funny lol. ill try it sober sometime:smile:


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

fraser said:


> nothing at all- i grew up with star trek- i dig it for what it is.
> sometimes i get all sociable and kid around with folks. guess it comes out looking funny lol. ill try it sober sometime:smile:


hehe..i know man..was jusst kidding.... i freak people out with trekkie stuff because i used to work on the show..LOL


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

> Funny, thats what all the 9/11 conspiracy whackjobs claim too. Coincidence?.....


i dunno. dont really understand the question



> Name calling. Of course, if you cant put forth an intelligent argument, you need to resort to it. Sad...........


sorry. that was kinda weak, i apologize



> Youre memory and logic seem to flawed, or maybe you simply do not comprehend any arguments that dont agree with yours. And yes there is a few problems with hockey. Parity for one will kill the league. Just remember as the prices of tickets go up and up, who do they think is going to go to the games? Will you and the other fight fans be shelling out the big bucks to see the fighting?............
> 
> I follow hockey very closely, but I dont bother watching the games anymore. I think the league is headed in the same direction as the CFL. Maybe they can get Nelson Skalbania to help run it into the ground.........


my memory isnt stellar, but i do recall an earlier thread- 
i agree there are problems with hockey. lots of them, big ones lol. but as long as the game works, it works.
i dont go to hockey games. cant afford them- but theres loads of folks who will always pay for it. i like to call those kinda people "rich with lots of free time on there hands people ".
i pay $3 a month for the leafs tv. i dont watch sportsdesk or anything like that. i follow no other sports. i watch maybe 3-6 games a week, on tv. and usually im working on something while im watching.
im no diehard-
but im a fan.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> I think the league is headed in the same direction as the CFL. Maybe they can get Nelson Skalbania to help run it into the ground.........


Uh, the CFL is still around, and doing well.
And while ol' Nelson has many faults, I still have one thing to be thankful to him for--his role in getting the Flames to Calgary--fortunately he sold very early on to Calgary based businessmen.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

NHL in trouble!..compared to what?...right now all Canadien clubs made a minimum of 15% in revenue increase in 2008!..so can't be that bad, to get season tickets in Montreal, the waiting list is 11 years right now, and that's for the nose bleed seats HIGH up in the gurders.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm a fan of hockey.

I'm not a fan of brawling. I can see that in a bar and I don't find it entertaining. That's just my opinion of course.


The notion that the two are inextricably linked is so backwards it boggles the mind.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

i've never made any relation between bar browling and Hockey..if you wanna see fans beating the crap outa of each other, go watch Soccker in a pub. now THOSE guys are nuts.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

al3d said:


> i've never made any relation between bar browling and Hockey..if you wanna see fans beating the crap outa of each other, go watch Soccker in a pub. now THOSE guys are nuts.


I was referring to the players.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Milkman said:


> I was referring to the players.


Ah, my bad..


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I'd agree with that...........


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

that Bert Sugar guys is then an idiot. ask him to go in the ring for 1 minute only if these guys have NO SKILL..see what happens.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

al3d said:


> that Bert Sugar guys is then an idiot. ask him to go in the ring for 1 minute only if these guys have NO SKILL..see what happens.


Im not sure what skill beating up a 70 something year old would prove. Psychosis? Bert Sugar is right on the money. It only took Google a second to find this:
http://promma.info/?p=8341

If anybody with $150 in their pocket can be a judge or ref, then there cant be much of a skill or sport here. Should we compare with the requirements of a WBO/WBA/WBC/IBF sanctioned ref or judge? A good boxing match goes the distance, how do MMA viewers feel about these types of endings?..........


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> Im not sure what skill beating up a 70 something year old would prove. Psychosis? Bert Sugar is right on the money. It only took Google a second to find this:
> http://promma.info/?p=8341
> 
> If anybody with $150 in their pocket can be a judge or ref, then there cant be much of a skill or sport here. Should we compare with the requirements of a WBO/WBA/WBC/IBF sanctioned ref or judge? A good boxing match goes the distance, how do MMA viewers feel about these types of endings?..........


i'm sorry..did'nt know yuo were a Sport Expert. These kills are athelets in every send of the work, they workout like crazy, they learn multi discipline fighthing styles. read on it a bit before passing judjment. 

Because you are not into it does'nt mean it sucks by the way. I respect your lack of love of any violence in sport. So might be better to watch synchronised swiming or curling...no, wait, sometimes they fall in curling, might be to violent... Ping Pong maybe!..


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Meh. If you want to watch 2 sweaty half naked guys grope and hump each other, thats a freedom I would never interfere with. I'll watch something else though............


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> Meh. If you want to watch 2 sweaty half naked guys grope and hump each other, thats a freedom I would never interfere with. I'll watch something else though............


well..i'm secure enough with my manhood to watch it without any problems at all..


----------



## Gene Machine (Sep 22, 2007)

*my $.02*



david henman said:


> ...i would LOVE to know how banning fighting would ruin the "game".
> 
> -dh



first off, I don't look forward to fighting in hockey. I enjoy olympic hockey, especially the women's.

However, one aspect here is that cheap shots, slashes, etc. are only mildly penalized, either a 2min or 5min penalty. I can't remember the last i saw a slash get a 5 min Major. But, lots of guys get hurt because as a good player, they get targetted by the other team. Guys like McSorley protected Gretzky. "You target Gretzky, I'm gonna pop you in the mouth. " kind of thing.

I would agree in getting rid of fighting, if an illegal hit/slash etc. caused as many games suspension as the injury causes to the hurt player. e.g i slash a guy and break his wrist so he's out the rest of the season, I'm out the rest of the season. I check a guy from behind and cripple him, minimum 1 yr suspension, possibly lifetime.

I don't like fighting, but I don't like the other cheap stuff either. The only difference is the fighting is easier to see.


----------



## FrankyFarGone (Dec 8, 2008)

I think hockey teams should all have Cheerleaders...
And band that plays 2or3 song between periods.

Frank:smile:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i would LOVE to know how banning fighting would ruin the "game".
> 
> -dh


...22 respondents here have voted that banning fighting would ruin the game, yet not one has attempted to explain how or why.

interesting...

-dh


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...22 respondents here have voted that banning fighting would ruin the game, yet not one has attempted to explain how or why.
> 
> interesting...
> 
> -dh



To tell you the truth I'd like to see fights banned from the game. I must admit that my interest peeks up, during a boring game or when one team is being slaughtered, When a fight breaks out. It can give a little life to an other wise boring game. I'd much rather see players exhibiting skill rather than goons picking fights. Unfortunately fighting goons is a necessary part of the game. 
Without them you have a bunch of little weasel players skating around taking cheap shots. Not only does this make the game more dangerous it drives me crazy to see little pip squeaks on the ice that couldn't hold their own in a fight skating around taking cheap shots on the more talented players. You need enforcers out there that will make these weasels pay if it starts to get out of hand with the cheap shots. Back before they came down on fighting so hard there were a lot less of that sort of thing going on. Back when teams had the big tough guys keeping order you'd never have a sniveling little weasel like Sean Avery going around getting away with what he does. Hopefully he never gets back in to the NHL. And if they banned all the cheap shot artists from the league then I'd be all for getting rid of fighting once and for all.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> The sport is hockey, not watch 2 drunks dance. You can catch that stoopidity at any bar. Gretzky became an icon, Tiger Williams became a footnote.............


And Wayne Gretzky and other oiler greats got respect and breathing room on the ice largely because of Dave Semenko. Dave Semenko was one of the most feared and respected tough guys to ever play in the NHL. He is regarded as a key role in their Stanley cups. 
As far as Tiger Williams. He was a very popular Leaf. There are non fighters that have played in the NHL that aren't even a footnote. What does that have to do with fighting.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...22 respondents here have voted that banning fighting would ruin the game, yet not one has attempted to explain how or why.
> 
> interesting...
> 
> -dh


im not sure i even voted on it david, if i did i dont recall, but i did try to explain how it would ruin the game, some posts back. except i didnt say that there has to be fighting in hockey, i just tried to say that a ban on fighting would result in numerous problems, then further penalties and bannings , and all that. im pretty sure what you want is somebody to say they love fighting and so does everyone else and its what the game is all about and all that, but nobody who is into hockey is going to say that. its the way the poll is set up is all. 
again, my opinion is there is way too many factors involved, most of which involve the safety of players, to be considered before a ban on fighting can happen. you ban fighting, then i go out and check your skill player until he has to retire from the game because his body or skull cant take it.
this happens a few times- so then skill players arent getting played, just big guys who can take hits. or you ban body checking. and then its not hockey.
fighting exists as a deterrent- a guy who could totally destroy an opponent with a body check will ease up a bit, so as not to cause injury- its a form of respect, sometimes its ignored, but its the game.
ban fighting, and suddenly the idea will be to ignore all forms of respect in effort to goad the opponents into fighting. effectively, its a ban on sticking up for oneself and his teamates.
my apologies if i cant state my thoughts on this properly, i just dont have the time or energy to type out something that explains it all.

do you have time and energy to explain why you think fighting should be banned? beyond the obvious 'its primitive and childish behaviour' or 'i dont like to watch people fighting on my tv', or something?
do you also believe that fighting should be banned in movies? or in canada itself?
im glad youre back m8 :food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...you make some good points, fraser.

i don't think the comparison to movies is legit, however. movies are make believe and everyone, save the very, very young, can comprehend and appreciate that.

the fighting in hockey is real, and even hockey afficiandos tend to agree that its only a matter of time before someone dies as a result, if it hasn't happened already.

what about looking at soccer as a model for a non-violent contact sport?

-dh




fraser said:


> im not sure i even voted on it david, if i did i dont recall, but i did try to explain how it would ruin the game, some posts back. except i didnt say that there has to be fighting in hockey, i just tried to say that a ban on fighting would result in numerous problems, then further penalties and bannings , and all that. im pretty sure what you want is somebody to say they love fighting and so does everyone else and its what the game is all about and all that, but nobody who is into hockey is going to say that. its the way the poll is set up is all.
> again, my opinion is there is way too many factors involved, most of which involve the safety of players, to be considered before a ban on fighting can happen. you ban fighting, then i go out and check your skill player until he has to retire from the game because his body or skull cant take it.
> this happens a few times- so then skill players arent getting played, just big guys who can take hits. or you ban body checking. and then its not hockey.
> fighting exists as a deterrent- a guy who could totally destroy an opponent with a body check will ease up a bit, so as not to cause injury- its a form of respect, sometimes its ignored, but its the game.
> ...


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...you make some good points, fraser.
> 
> the fighting in hockey is real, and even hockey afficiandos tend to agree that its only a matter of time before someone dies as a result, if it hasn't happened already.
> 
> -dh



Don Sanderson died as a result of fighting just last month in a game in my hometown of Brantford

http://www.torontomike.com/2009/01/don_sanderson_dies.html 

There have also been some mishaps in the NHL where players fall to the ice and crack their heads after the helmets have fallen off.
The OHL's solution has been to eject anyone who's helmet falls off during a fight. 
With shields and sometimes full cages on helmets being worn more often to protect eye injury and with stricter rules regarding helmets coming off it will be harder and harder to fight. Whats the point of hitting a face mask.
I just worry that other injuries will go up due to cheap shots being perpetrated with out fear of reprisal.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> .
> what about looking at soccer as a model for a non-violent contact sport?
> 
> -dh


Yeah the violence in the stands at those games more than makes up for any lack of violence on the field. I don't know about you but I'd rather the violence was in the game.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

david henman;176286what about looking at soccer as a model for a non-violent contact sport?-dh[/QUOTE said:


> kkjwpw
> Well it may not be as obvious as an all out brawl, but the violence in soccer is just as abhorent and prevalent. They do things like bite each others ears and try to rip off each others privates. And then like guitarman said, the folk in the stands just go crazy. What is up with that?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Paul said:


> They need to make the penalty worthwhile. For "cheap shot" type penalties, (high sticking, slashing, charging), make the penalty a full two minutes with no relief from a scored goal, and the offender has to pay the salary of the victim for the game in which the penalty happens. 2 penalties = 2 salaries paid. Hit the cheap shot pests in their wallets and they won't find an advantage to cheap shot tactics.
> 
> Just throwing an undeveloped idea out there to stimulate discussion.


Although the "thinking outside the box" type ideas you present might make sense its really hard to convincingly present those types of changes to the traditionalists that run the game.
As I've said I do enjoy the fighting aspect when it occurs but if people are going to start getting killed or badly injured I could easily do without it and still enjoy the game. If you look back at the statistics I'll guarantee that deaths and injuries account for a fraction of a percent, due to fighting. 
Boardings, pucks in the neck (this happenned a few years ago) high sticks to the eye's. This is such a fast game that probably one of the safest activities happening on the ice is the fighting. I think it just puts off the pacifist type so much because its 2 guys going at each other in anger. It is probably hard for those that didn't grow up in a hockey centric family to understand the concept of hockey fighting. At one time back in the late 60's early 70's it got completely ridiculous with bench clearings and out and out full team brawls. There were times when hardly any hockey was being played because of all the fighting. 
Most of these tough guy goons wouldn't even be in the NHL if it weren't for their fighting skills. So if it keeps them out of the bars and off the streets beating up the rest of us in public, I'm all for it.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Yeah the violence in the stands at those games more than makes up for any lack of violence on the field. I don't know about you but I'd rather the violence was in the game.



...seriously?

kksjur

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> kkjwpw
> Well it may not be as obvious as an all out brawl, but the violence in soccer is just as abhorent and prevalent. They do things like bite each others ears and try to rip off each others privates.


...i've watched a fair amount of world cup soccer, and have never witnessed anything even remotely like this.

there is a substantial amount of "diving", of course, but that's an entirely different matter.

-dh


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...you make some good points, fraser.
> 
> i don't think the comparison to movies is legit, however. movies are make believe and everyone, save the very, very young, can comprehend and appreciate that.
> 
> ...


hi david- the latter part of my post, where i said-


> do you also believe that fighting should be banned in movies? or in canada itself?


 was meant in jest-
sublety, exhaustion, alcohol, you get the picture lol
my take on soccer is that the players dont have enough free energy to expend on fighting- the players run everywhere. i played as a kid a bit, and found it the most exhausting sport i tried. a good, simple sport, that doesnt leave much beyond chasing the ball. i liked playing it more than i like watching it however- im first generation canadian, folks are from the uk and europe- soccer people, but im a hockey guy. even have the teeth to prove it-


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

kkjwpw

...watched a bit of the leafs game last night.

now, my perspective is probably tainted by both the age factor and the nostalgia factor, but it really seems to me that the game was a thousand times more exciting back in the day.

to me, it looks like the players never get much chance to skate, pass and shoot anymore.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

..okay, here's a question for all you don cherrys:

if fighting is an integral, indispensable, indisputable, essential and absolutely necessary part of the game of hockey, why are players penalized for it?

anyone?

largetongue


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ..okay, here's a question for all you don cherrys:
> 
> if fighting is an integral, indispensable, essential and absolutely neccessary part of the game of hockey, why are players penalized for it?
> 
> ...


There is several purposes to hockey fighting. Trying to motivate the team. Defending your self or a team mate against the other teams aggressions. Of course there is penalties. 
Players will also trip players that look like they might score. If your team has a really good penalty killing team it might be better to face a 2 minute penalty then a quality scoring chance. There are good reasons to take penalties and there are bad reasons. Its the way the game works.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The game will change, like it or not. Some people will always long for the good olde days when men were men et cetera.


Others will accept evolution and scratch their heads in disbelief at what USED to pass for normal.

Remember when it was considered normal to drive around with no seatbelt on and a beer between your legs?

Hockey and fighting are two different things and until the old guard realize that it will be one step away from roller derby in the eyes of much of the world.


I'll take women's olympic hockey over a bunch of knuckle draggers playing a little in between brawls any day.

But hey, that's just my opinion.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> There is several purposes to hockey fighting. Trying to motivate the team. Defending your self or a team mate against the other teams aggressions. Of course there is penalties.
> Players will also trip players that look like they might score. If your team has a really good penalty killing team it might be better to face a 2 minute penalty then a quality scoring chance. There are good reasons to take penalties and there are bad reasons. Its the way the game works.


...yep. all of that is plain and simple. but none of it explains the obvious paradox: we penalize players for fighting while simultaneously claiming that it is essential to the game. i realize this is probably one of those questions that simply cannot be answered, but that doesn't make it any less intriguing.

-dh


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...yep. all of that is plain and simple. but none of it explains the obvious paradox: we penalize players for fighting while simultaneously claiming that it is essential to the game. i realize this is probably one of those questions that simply cannot be answered, but that doesn't make it any less intriguing.
> 
> -dh


probably impossible to answer but a very good point.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

How can you not be motivated to play when you make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to play? I remember when I was younger, the fighting was cool. Guys like Plett, Williams, Schultz were cool. Then I turned 8. Then they were just some drunks taking the place of real players. I think the Mr. Burns song "Look at all those Idiots" would translate well to that era........


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Accept2 said:


> How can you not be motivated to play when you make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to play? I remember when I was younger, the fighting was cool. Guys like Plett, Williams, Schultz were cool. Then I turned 8. Then they were just some drunks taking the place of real players. I think the Mr. Burns song "Look at all those Idiots" would translate well to that era........


Not to mention all the pretty toothless smiles.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> How can you not be motivated to play when you make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to play?....



Yeah, you'd think but here we are watching alot of unmotivated millionare players playing unmotivated hockey. I'm pretty sure Kovalev is a millionare yet Bob gainey sends him home due to his lack of motivation. Its a little more interesting to watch a couple of goons fight than a millionare to skate unmotivated.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/23546-Top-Shelf-Time-to-cut-ties-with-Kovalev.html


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Not to mention all the pretty toothless smiles.



That is an awesome photo. I'm talking mostly about the photo resolution.


----------



## Luke98 (Mar 4, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...22 respondents here have voted that banning fighting would ruin the game, yet not one has attempted to explain how or why.
> 
> interesting...
> 
> -dh


I think It's because there is no clear cut "No, fighting should not be banned" option, so they have to say it would ruin the game kqoct.

Hey, if 2 players want to fight, they both agree to it and whatever happens, happens. They know the risks. It's great entertainment to a pumped up crowd, which is ultimately what leagues like the NHL are about. Entertainment! Many people here may say that they hate it, yet the majority of fans must like it, other wise it wouldn't be around.

Now, hits from behind, sucker punches & hits, and what not, THAT should result in MUCH stricter punishment.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

W5 aired a show the other night called "The Code", about hockey fighting. I haven't yet seen it but I have a link where you can watch it on line. As soon as I get a chance I'm going to watch it. 
What Nick Kypreos says about hockey sums it up for me. "Do I enjoy a good Hockey fight? Absolutely. Would I miss it if fighting was taken out of the game? Probably not".

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/the_code/


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> What Nick Kypreos says about hockey sums it up for me. "Do I enjoy a good Hockey fight? Absolutely. Would I miss it if fighting was taken out of the game? Probably not".



......sums it up perfectly for me, as well.

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I must be one of the few who doesn't enjoy a "good hockey fight". In fact, I find it kind of sickening.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I must be one of the few who doesn't enjoy a "good hockey fight". In fact, I find it kind of sickening.



Then until such times as they see fit to rid hockey of fighting maybe you should tune in to something else. Golf perhaps? There is a whole lot of stuff televised these days that I find much more sickening than a hockey fight. Not allowing it on my TV's has always worked for me.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Then until such times as they see fit to rid hockey of fighting maybe you should tune in to something else. Golf perhaps? There is a whole lot of stuff televised these days that I find much more sickening than a hockey fight. Not allowing it on my TV's has always worked for me.


No, how about until they grow up I'll watch Olympic hockey and women's hockey. I don't find golf interesing at all.

If I want violence I can watch UFC or similar. It's actually a better quality of violence.

And I assure you, if I'm watching a game on TV and they start the stupidity, I find something on Discovery or the Learning Channel.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I must be one of the few who doesn't enjoy a "good hockey fight". In fact, I find it kind of sickening.



...yep. in retrospect, i was agreeing with the part about not missing the fighting if it wasn't part of the game. the fighting is sickening, absolutely, although i understand why it appeals to macho types, ie "real men". i predict people are going to look back, at some point in the future, shake their heads and wonder: "what were we thinking?"

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Then until such times as they see fit to rid hockey of fighting maybe you should tune in to something else.



...progress and evolution are not fueled by apathy.

-dh


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> No, how about until they grow up I'll watch Olympic hockey and women's hockey. I don't find golf interesing at all.
> 
> If I want violence I can watch UFC or similar. It's actually a better quality of violence.
> 
> And I assure you, if I'm watching a game on TV and they start the stupidity, I find something on Discovery or the Learning Channel.



At least I find sense in David Henman's point of view even if I don't necessarily agree with it. But opposing hockey fighting and advocating UFC is completely hypocritical. I'm glad UFC is illegal here. A little bit of tussle and pulling on each other with the odd landed punch may hardly stand up to the better quality of violence you desire but I'm glad the athletes in hockey aren't taking the chances with their health that the UFC fighters are. Yes fighting in hockey can be dangerous but not near as dangerous as skating at high speed from end to end while being body checked. There are concussions and career ending injuries as a result of playing within the rules of hockey. And there have been deaths. If you compare stats of injuries due to hockey fighting as opposed to injuries during normal play you'll find the players are safer while fighting. Thats not to say that fighting is an integral part of hockey. I'm not blaming Steve Moore for what Todd Bertuzi did to him but I will say its too bad Steve didn't turn around and face Todd in a one on one fight. He's probably wishing he did to.
Fighting in hockey is sometimes a result in a climax of emotion that can be exciting but is not the main reason why any hockey fan watches hockey. However your penchant for the blood thirsty sport UFC is a result of a love for violence. Yet you hypocritically criticize hockey fighting.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...progress and evolution are not fueled by apathy.
> 
> -dh


...and not all progress and evolution are good things. We trade one on one fighting for rink rats that skate around the ice practicing career ending cheap shots or other ridiculous antics. How's that for progress and evolution. Tell me one hockey fan that wouldn't love to see Sean Avery flattened in a one on one fight with the league tough guy.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> At least I find sense in David Henman's point of view even if I don't necessarily agree with it. But opposing hockey fighting and advocating UFC is completely hypocritical. I'm glad UFC is illegal here. A little bit of tussle and pulling on each other with the odd landed punch may hardly stand up to the better quality of violence you desire but I'm glad the athletes in hockey aren't taking the chances with their health that the UFC fighters are. Yes fighting in hockey can be dangerous but not near as dangerous as skating at high speed from end to end while being body checked. There are concussions and career ending injuries as a result of playing within the rules of hockey. And there have been deaths. If you compare stats of injuries due to hockey fighting as opposed to injuries during normal play you'll find the players are safer while fighting. Thats not to say that fighting is an integral part of hockey. I'm not blaming Steve Moore for what Todd Bertuzi did to him but I will say its too bad Steve didn't turn around and face Todd in a one on one fight. He's probably wishing he did to.
> Fighting in hockey is sometimes a result in a climax of emotion that can be exciting but is not the main reason why any hockey fan watches hockey. However your penchant for the blood thirsty sport UFC is a result of a love for violence. Yet you hypocritically criticize hockey fighting.



For gawd's sake it's called sarcasm. I don't watch UFC. At least however, those who tune in to watch it are getting what the want.

When I try to watch hockey and the goons start up, I'm not getting what I want.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...yep. in retrospect, i was agreeing with the part about not missing the fighting if it wasn't part of the game. the fighting is sickening, absolutely, although i understand why it appeals to macho types, ie "real men". i predict people are going to look back, at some point in the future, shake their heads and wonder: "what were we thinking?"
> 
> -dh


Exactly.

Well said.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> ...and not all progress and evolution are good things. We trade one on one fighting for rink rats that skate around the ice practicing career ending cheap shots or other ridiculous antics. How's that for progress and evolution. Tell me one hockey fan that wouldn't love to see Sean Avery flattened in a one on one fight with the league tough guy.


Oh I see, so fighting prevents cheap shots?

Curing cheap shots with another form of assault. That's like curing heartburn with the $hits.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> For gawd's sake it's called sarcasm. I don't watch UFC. At least however, those who tune in to watch it are getting what the want.
> 
> When I try to watch hockey and the goons start up, I'm not getting what I want.


Getting away from fighting has come along way from the days of bench clearings and all out brawls. It is evident with the penalties for helmets coming off, being assessed in the OHA and other minor leagues that the trend is going away from fighting. But I doubt you'll ever get totally away from the odd tussle and punch being thrown. It is the emotional part of the game. The game with out emotion and heart would be pretty boring. If you don't like my suggestion to watching golf where there is absolutely no chance for violence (I love watching golf my self) and you're turning the hockey game off at the mere sight of a 20 second fight then I just have to assume your one of those complainers that can never be satisfied.
Of course I expect this attitude from someone who has probably never played the game.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Oh I see, so fighting prevents cheap shots?
> 
> Curing cheap shots with another form of assault. That's like curing heartburn with the $hits.



As I mentioned earlier. I'm sure Steve Moore thought in retrospect he'd have had a better chance of not being crippled if he'd turned and faced his attacker. If Steve Moore had got up from that sucker punch, un injured then most likely Todd Bertuzzi would have at most been penalized a 5 minute major. 
And we are not curing cheap shots with another form of assault. It would just be nice if the cheap shot artists knew that their antics could bring a price. 
I have no issues with treating a drunk to the back end of my Tele if he in some way cheap shots me in a bar. I see no reason why hockey players can't be allowed to live by the same code.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Getting away from fighting has come along way from the days of bench clearings and all out brawls. It is evident with the penalties for helmets coming off, being assessed in the OHA and other minor leagues that the trend is going away from fighting. But I doubt you'll ever get totally away from the odd tussle and punch being thrown. It is the emotional part of the game. The game with out emotion and heart would be pretty boring. If you don't like my suggestion to watching golf where there is absolutely no chance for violence (I love watching golf my self) and you're turning the hockey game off at the mere sight of a 20 second fight then I just have to assume your one of those complainers that can never be satisfied.



No, I'm one of those who don't accept that thiongs are the ay they have always been abd that there's no hope to make things better.

I don't recall EVER having to change the channel during Olympic hockey.

As for the rest of the above, stating that their can be no emotion without violence is a sad commentary on the sport.

I like hockey. I don't like golf. I see no connection. Why not just suggest knitting or some other unmanly activity, LOL?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> And we are not curing cheap shots with another form of assault. It would just be nice if the cheap shot artists knew that their antics could bring a price.


I agree. The price should not be a punch in the face (double standard n'est pas?). It should be a severe suspension.




guitarman2 said:


> I have no issues with treating a drunk to the back end of my Tele if he in some way cheap shots me in a bar. I see no reason why hockey players can't be allowed to live by the same code.


Really? Are a lot of NHL players playing drunk now?

This is just silly IMO.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I agree. The price should not be a punch in the face (double standard n'est pas?). It should be a severe suspension.
> 
> This is just silly IMO.


Yeah well that doesn't work. That system will encourage less talented players to go out and cheap shot the highly skilled players. So you have a teams high skilled player being taken out of the play and possibly longer in trade for one of your low skilled players to sit in out for 2 minutes, possibly longer. Thats a good trade for the offending players team. Some of these guys only understand a good thumping.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Really? Are a lot of NHL players playing drunk now?
> 
> This is just silly IMO.


Don't know but if I'm attacked in a bar, whether the person is drunk or sober I'm gonna do my best to rip his face off rather than to try running limp wristed the other way.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Don't know but if I'm attacked in a bar, whether the person is drunk or sober I'm gonna do my best to rip his face off rather than to try running limp wristed the other way.




Sure, me too. I've played in bars for thirty years or more. I've had to defend myself twice in all that time, and on reflection both of those occasions occurred when I was young and full of pi$$ and vinegar. I'm sure i could avoid it if it happend now.

But we're not talking about some drunk in a bar are we. We're talking about "professional" athletes who like it or not, are role models for our kids.

Limp wristed? Now we're getting down to the real nuts and bolts aren't we.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Paul said:


> Steve Moore was assaulted by Todd Bertuzzi in retribution for an alleged act commited in a prior game. This had nothing to do with "emotion". It was vengeance. Even though you seem to defend Todd Bertuzzi as acting within the limits of some unwritten hockey player code, I'm pretty sure a sucker punch could be considered a "cheap shot". This was not an "eye for an eye" situation, it was a "bruise for a career". Bertuzzi should never have been allowed to play professional hockey anywhere again.


No no. You completely misinterpret my position on this. Todd Bertuzzi and his actions are exactly what we need to rid this game of.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Paul said:


> I'm sorry. I got the impression you were suggesting that Steve Moore choosing to fight would prevent the Bertuzzi cheap shot. I sensed a bit of "blame the victim" in that one post.
> 
> I really should re-read this whole thread. My apologies.
> 
> ...


I don't for one instance blame the victim but it would have been better if Steve Moore had turned around and dropped the gloves with Bertuzzi. I'm sure Steve Moore feels this way.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Paul said:


> That we'll never know. If Bertuzzi had not attacked, (provoked, unprovoked, in retribution or otherwise), we do know that Steve Moore would not have had his career ended that night.


Regardless of that, justifying fighting with some convoluted sense of "street justice" is something you can hear from the witness stand in criminal courts. 


Hearing it in the context of Canada's beloved game is sad.

This is just one of those issues that people will simply not agree on.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Hearing it in the context of Canada's beloved game is sad.


Fighting Content in our beloved game is a lot less today than it was in the beginning. How on earth did you ever become a hockey fan? Tell me your not one of those guys that sits 2 feet from the speaker and tells the band to turn down.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Fighting Content in our beloved game is a lot less today than it was in the beginning. How on earth did you ever become a hockey fan? Tell me your not one of those guys that sits 2 feet from the speaker and tells the band to turn down.


Once again you seem to be confusing hockey with fighting. The two are not inextricably linked whether you want them to be or not.

My dad was a hockey player. So was I. He taught me to admire the clean players and to look at the thugs with contempt.

I see myself as part of the solution and you as part of the problem.

As for your derogetory insinuation about loud music, might I remind you that I'm a soundman and (if I may be so presumptuous) a musician?

If it's too loud I use protection or leave.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> My dad was a hockey player. So was I. He taught me to admire the clean players and to look at the thugs with contempt.
> 
> I see myself as part of the solution and you as part of the problem.
> 
> If it's too loud I use protection or leave.


There are thugs, which I agree "look at with contempt". Bertuzzi would be in this class as would any player known for cheap shots. Then there are the enforcers who used to keep the thugs in line for protection of the more skilled players. The enforcers is who I respect. As I said it has been this way since hockey began. I'm sorry that hockey has been such a bad experience for you but that is why I felt your life would have been better served in some sort of non physical (there are many non blood sports) activity. Why put your self through the agony unless you are just one of those people that need something to complain about.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> There are thugs, which I agree "look at with contempt". Bertuzzi would be in this class as would any player known for cheap shots. Then there are the enforcers who used to keep the thugs in line for protection of the more skilled players. The enforcers is who I respect. As I said it has been this way since hockey began. I'm sorry that hockey has been such a bad experience for you but that is why I felt your life would have been better served in some sort of non physical (there are many non blood sports) activity. Why put your self through the agony unless you are just one of those people that need something to complain about.


You just have blinders on. Hockey has NOT been a bad experience. We simply have different opinions on what "hockey" is. I love great playing including some physical play. Checking is fine. Punching your oponent in the teeth is not. If I have to explain why, then we're REALLY wasting our time

Enforcers? A convenient rationalization for sending your thugs to combat their thugs. Seems like a pretty blatant double standard.

I'm not complaining anymore than you are. I just want hockey to be what it really should be in my opinion.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Wow...5 pages worth of posts to read.. time to put in my 2 cents. First, remove "fights" in hockey..and in 2 years it's dead, that's a fact. it's part of Hockey, always as, always will, it's like asking to take away "dunking" in basketball wich by the way was illegal a LONG time. 

Olympic style Hockey?..I never personnaly was to into it..looks a bit more like figure skating with a stick at times. 

If you look at the stats, even with SO MUCH violence in Hockey, it as far less intentional injuries then football..i'm not talkinb about the normal accident..but have you SEEN a football player when he decides that THIS dude as to be taken out?...jesus, now THAT is insane.

In the end..it's simple...if you DONT like figthing in Hockey...just don't watch it, and stop trying to justify it. As guitarman2 sais..watche something else. There are SO many different sports now on TV, surely people that don't like Violence can watch something else and stop bitching about things they don't like.

I watched Baskketball for a LONG LONG Time..and then stop watching at the end of the 90's, why?..the sport was changing to much for me toward a new generation of fans..and it was addapting. what was the poing of bitching!..none, you either watch it..or you don't. it's pretty black and white choice realy.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

al3d said:


> Wow...5 pages worth of posts to read.. time to put in my 2 cents. First, remove "fights" in hockey..and in 2 years it's dead, that's a fact. it's part of Hockey, always as, always will, it's like asking to take away "dunking" in basketball wich by the way was illegal a LONG time.
> 
> Olympic style Hockey?..I never personnaly was to into it..looks a bit more like figure skating with a stick at times.
> 
> ...



LOL

Sorry, I stopped reading after you advised us all that your opinions were fact.

No sense talking to anyone who takes that posture.

You're wrong though and that's a fact.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Milkman said:


> LOL
> 
> Sorry, I stopped reading after you advised us all that your opinions were fact.
> 
> ...


i don't mention that my opinion is a fact..i'm saying that if you remove fighting in hocker all togheter, the sport will die of a slow death basicaly. just read any interview with the players, analyst, and they all say the same thing basicaly.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Paul said:


> That doesn't make it right in either football or hockey. The lesser of two evils is still evil.


All evils aren't equal.




Paul said:


> Question: In the hockey based video games for Nintendo/X-Box/Playstation.....is fighting part of _that_ game?


Yes


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

al3d said:


> i don't mention that my opinion is a fact..i'm saying that if you remove fighting in hocker all togheter, the sport will die of a slow death basicaly. just read any interview with the players, analyst, and they all say the same thing basicaly.


I'll grant that English is not your first language, but these are your words, not mine.

"time to put in my 2 cents. First, remove "fights" in hockey..and in 2 years it's dead, that's a fact."


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Paul, i do agree on the market share. to many teams and it,s been a problem for a LONG time. they started talking about that issue when they reached 20 teams or close to that. 

as for Olympic Hockey, it's more of a preference realy, but you don't see me bitch about it so that they include fighting right..

As for the comparaison between Hockey and Football, you are right again, a less evil is still evil..but it was more to point that Hockey was not alone in this situation.

THe us is not winning market share in the US but it as NOTHING to do with fighting, The Americans LOVE violence, so i personnaly doubt they are'nt watching Hockey because there is an occasional fight in a game. Might have more to do with their 50 sport channel showing everything from Baseball to Midjet Tossing.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> All evils aren't equal.


Here's my problem with comparing American football and the inherent violence it contains with fighting in hockey.

The absolute abandonment of rules and resorting to irrational and deliberate violence completely unrelated to offensive or defensive elements of the actual game make fighting in hockey simple assault.

The analogy would hold more water if you compared normal body checking to tackling.

How physically damaging elements of either game may be is not the issue.

It's what the act of fighting symbolizes that is offensive and for some of us, embarrassing.

But hey, I know people who also enjoy watching a "good" bar fight. Nothing better than seeing somebody get his teeth kicked out on a Saturday night eh?


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Here's my problem with comparing American football and the inherent violence it contains with fighting in hockey.
> 
> The absolute abandonment of rules and resorting to irrational and deliberate violence completely unrelated to offensive or defensive elements of the actual game make fighting in hockey simple assault.
> 
> ...


If you watch football you see a LOT worst, to me that is, fighting and shitty acts of violence. when a defencman decids it's time to, not simply tackle a guy, but to TAKE HIM OUT...now that is insane. you rarely see someone in hockey try to actually take out a player in order to get him to leave the game. There was a thing on TV last week about College football in the states showing how insane it was becoming and how violent the sport had become even at the College football. these guys are getting biger and biger by the minute. Some guys are hired as goons..in hockey, a goon still plays the game, in Football, they showed some players who could barely could hold a football, but were built like WWF monsters.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

al3d said:


> If you watch football you see a LOT worst, to me that is, fighting and shitty acts of violence. when a defencman decids it's time to, not simply tackle a guy, but to TAKE HIM OUT...now that is insane. you rarely see someone in hockey try to actually take out a player in order to get him to leave the game.


Looked like they were doing a good job on Sean Avery last night. Every once in a while a player comes along where you don't mind so much.kkjuw


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

al3d said:


> ....remove "fights" in hockey..and in 2 years it's dead, that's a fact. it's part of Hockey, always as, always will...


...you couldn't be more wrong and you will, in time, be proven so.

the vast majority of hockey fans love the game. sure, we'll watch a fight, the same way we'll slow down at the scene of an accident. that's human nature.

i would be willing to bet you a very large amount of money that if fighting was removed from the game altogether, not one ticket sale would be lost, not one channel would be changed, as a result.

in fact, i would go so far as to say that you are insulting the intelligence of the vast majority of hockey fans.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> I have no issues with treating a drunk to the back end of my Tele if he in some way cheap shots me in a bar.



...and yet you probably see yourself as better than the drunk. that's called hypocrisy.

hwopv

-dh

ps kkjwpw


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...you couldn't be more wrong and you will, in time, be proven so.
> 
> the vast majority of hockey fans love the game. sure, we'll watch a fight, the same way we'll slow down at the scene of an accident. that's human nature.
> 
> ...



I firmly beleive this to be true. if it's there we will rubber neck, if it's not we just keep on truckin'. Is there anyone here that will admit that when they have ever gone to a hockey game they thought "gee I hope there is a fight tonight".


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...you couldn't be more wrong and you will, in time, be proven so.
> 
> the vast majority of hockey fans love the game. sure, we'll watch a fight, the same way we'll slow down at the scene of an accident. that's human nature.
> 
> ...


hey..you're entitled to your opinion like ANY of us.... if i'm insulting someone intelligence with simple comments like that, wow..hehe. not much self estime hey..


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Don't know but if I'm attacked in a bar, whether the person is drunk or sober I'm gonna do my best to rip his face off rather than to try running limp wristed the other way.


...limp wristed? really?

what a manly man you are!

kksjur

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

al3d said:


> i don't mention that my opinion is a fact..i'm saying that if you remove fighting in hocker all togheter, the sport will die of a slow death basicaly. just read any interview with the players, analyst, and they all say the same thing basicaly.




...care to give us an example?

you know, aside from don cherry...

-dh


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

As Tuvok would say, the logic is flawed............


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

al3d said:


> If you watch football you see a LOT worst, to me that is, fighting and shitty acts of violence. when a defencman decids it's time to, not simply tackle a guy, but to TAKE HIM OUT...now that is insane. you rarely see someone in hockey try to actually take out a player in order to get him to leave the game. There was a thing on TV last week about College football in the states showing how insane it was becoming and how violent the sport had become even at the College football. these guys are getting biger and biger by the minute. Some guys are hired as goons..in hockey, a goon still plays the game, in Football, they showed some players who could barely could hold a football, but were built like WWF monsters.


Football is not a good comparison to hockey. For many reasons. The first being they only play 16 games a year and the intensity level for each game is much higher than hockey. I have fallen asleep during some hockey games. When you have to win 8 games out of 16 to be even close to making the play-offs there is major intensity going on. Secondly, players have gotten bigger and faster over the years. I have watched football every Sunday for many a year and I can recall maybe 3-4 plays where it appeared someone intentiionally tried to end someone elses career. If you play in that league you are at the highest level of your sport and spots are extremely hard to get and hold on to. Careers are very short compared to most sports so every down you are being watched and graded. For a defensive player that means marquee plays. Your job as a DB or CB is to separate the ball from the ball carrier. Most times that means hitting the dude as hard as you can. Stay away from his head and don't lead with your helmet and that's a clean hit. It's the game and it's rough. 

Here is something for you to ponder. In hockey we have what we call a "dirty player". There is no such term in football. You have "feared" players. You even have "mean" players but you will never have someone labled a "dirty" player.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

al3d said:


> hey..you're entitled to your opinion like ANY of us.... if i'm insulting someone intelligence with simple comments like that, wow..hehe. not much self estime hey..





david henman said:


> ...limp wristed? really?
> 
> what a manly man you are!
> 
> ...


 
The subject is fighting in hockey, get back on topic and quit making it personal!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i'm curious: how many people do you know, personally, that habitually walks out of a game, or changes the tv channel, when there is no fighting.

i'm going to go WAY out on a limb here and state, unequivocally, that if fighting were removed altogether, not only would not one fan be lost - NOT ONE - but that, as a result, hockey would actually gain thousands, maybe even millions, of new fans.

some, of course, would call those new fans "limp wristed", and declare this the "feminization of hockey".

-dh

...pansification..?





guitarman2 said:


> There are thugs, which I agree "look at with contempt". Bertuzzi would be in this class as would any player known for cheap shots. Then there are the enforcers who used to keep the thugs in line for protection of the more skilled players. The enforcers is who I respect. As I said it has been this way since hockey began. I'm sorry that hockey has been such a bad experience for you but that is why I felt your life would have been better served in some sort of non physical (there are many non blood sports) activity. Why put your self through the agony unless you are just one of those people that need something to complain about.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> The subject is fighting in hockey, get back on topic and quit making it personal!


Perhaps you should have advised the person who made the original comment in the same manner.

Just an observation, but Dave isn't the one who made the quasi-homophobic statement.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Perhaps you should have advised the person who made the original comment in the same manner.
> 
> Just an observation, but Dave isn't the one who made the quasi-homophobic statement.


I missed where he called DH limp wristed?

But in usual fashion, I get accused of taking sides...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> I missed where he called DH limp wristed?
> 
> But in usual fashion, I get accused of taking sides...


Nope. Earlier in the thread he statd that he would rather club somebody with a guitar than to run away "limp wristed"(I'm paraphrasing but you can go back and find it).

I'm not acusing you of anything, but I took offence to the same comment. Implying that somebody is effeminate or to take it one step further, gay, because they don't care for violence should be cause for concern don't you think?

I didn't make a big deal of it, but...


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

If he said he wouldn't run away like a girl _I _wouldn't get offended... kkjuw


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I think this one has run it's course folks. Once again we find ourselves unable to debate a subject without getting personal. When will we learn?


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Nope. Earlier in the thread he statd that he would rather club somebody with a guitar than to run away "limp wristed"(I'm paraphrasing but you can go back and find it).
> 
> I'm not acusing you of anything, but I took offence to the same comment. Implying that somebody is effeminate or to take it one step further, gay, because they don't care for violence should be cause for concern don't you think?
> 
> I didn't make a big deal of it, but...


Well I understand where you are coming from, but it's impossible for me to moderate a statement because someone might or might not take offense to it. I can try to enforce the rule of not taking it to a personal level that's all.


----------

