Fighting in the NHL

[wildone]

I thought I would start a topic here about fighting in the NHL.

 

Let me give my opinion (yes, just my personal opinion) first.

 

I grew up playing hockey and played until my accident. I have always enjoyed hockey and all the dynamics about it. From a little kid to an adult, I have always accepted that hockey is a physical sport and part of that is the fighting aspect.

 

From about the age of 16 to maybe 20, I may have been in the odd scrap on the ice (a) .

 

Also, from the age of 15 to 40 I worked a part time job at the Saddledome in Calgary as a rink rat which involved working between periods and after the game, but during the period I was a spectator. Imagine how many professional and amateur hockey games I've watched over 25 years.

 

I get frustrated when people talk about taking all violence out of hockey. It is bad for our kids to watch, their is no worth in physical play, it makes finesse players not continue on due to the violence in hockey....etc.

 

I'm not going to bore you with why these things frustrate(d) me.

 

What I'm going to say is that my opinion has been changing over the last few years. Now I can't seem to understand why I now think that maybe hockey would be better without fighting. Maybe it is the lack of 'rules' to fighting now. Maybe it is the injuries that are becoming more serious from fighting. Maybe it is just not getting the same thrill of seeing two grown men beating the crap out of each others.

 

I still think that my adrenalin and heart rate rises when I see a fight, but I do feel a sense of emptiness and a bit ashamed when it is over.

 

Don't get me wrong, I still think body checking and the intensity of the game should stay. Just maybe that can still function without the fighting.

 

So what do you think? Do you still believe that fighting is an important part of the game? Do you say to remove fighting is taking a huge element out of the game? Has your opinion changed over the years and why do you think it has?

 

So lets have a civil conversation and lets not fight over this

[MikeL]

"I went to a fight the other night, and a hockey game broke out." ~ Rodney Dangerfield

 

I'm not making light of your subject, Steve.  All sports can be dangerous.  A bright young NFL quarterback can be taken out for half a season by a questionable hit.  A baseball to the side of the head can end a career for a batter or pitcher.  Those are risks of the game; not fights.  Certainly, football has its scuffles after the whistle.  Baseball has its rare rhubarb.

 

Only hockey has out and out fist fights with any regularity.  It's a rough game, unnecessarily so.  I like hockey.  I would like it more without the fights.

 

New rules and good enforcement are all it would take.  Ejections work.

[Slytherin]

I love hockey but I hate violence, any kind of violence (I know I'm a big wimp) so when there is a fight in a game I check GA or email or something

 

Have never seen a NHL game live, but someday I hope I will

[TetRefine]

Hockey has its roots as a blue collar sport. I know the PC crowd will throw a fit, but fighting is a perfectly acceptable means of solving a dispute in blue collar/lower class culture. That blue collar culture has simply followed into the multi-million dollar NHL, and its because of money. NHL fans love fights and they don't want it banned, so NHL executives are smart because they'd lose money if they did. 

 

Go to any NHL or AHL game and see how the crowd reacts when a fight breaks out and their guy wins. The crowd goes absolutely nuts and it energizes the team and the fans. My first Bruins game was back in 2008, and they had been on losing streak for like 5 games straight. They were playing the Caps, who at the time was one of the best teams in the league and we were just barely on the playoff cusp. Milan Lucic dropped the gloves right as the puck dropped against Matt Bradley and demolished him, and it got the fans and the team really into it. They ended up winning 2-1. My point is, there is a strategic purpose behind a lot of the fighting that goes in the NHL.

 

Here's the video of the Lucic vs Bradley fight.

 

Edited October 3, 2013 by TetRefine

[Zombie]

New rules and good enforcement are all it would take.  Ejections work.

 

 

Mike's right.

 

Tet's vid was cage-fighting-on-ice and the TV blow by blow commentary made it seem this was the sport!

 

And TV is the problem. As Tet says it's brought the billion dollar incomes to all the world team sports. And the money has corrupted these sports:  the sports authorities [who do nothing that might threaten the money]; the players [who know they are too valuable to be properly punished]; and US TV companies like in this video clip who make it into a ratings-winning Roman Gladiator Bloodfest Event.

 

But TV is also the solution. High definition pictures, multi camera angles and instant playback provide solid evidence to allow refs to stamp on stuff like this. But they won't unless they get clear top down direction that this will not be tolerated. And the cabal of old/incompetent/corrupt/ men who sit on the governing bodies do nothing that threatens the money or upsets the clubs who've sold themselves to the TV money and would go belly up if that money was pulled or their player assets were terminated.

 

It's the same in football - what you call soccer - where there's been a spate of "biting" by top players. This is disgusting. If players knew they could be banned for life and lose their £10m pa income no player would ever bite again. But clubs would be very upset to loose a £60m asset at a stroke.

 

The clubs are central to this problem. If the governing bodies do what they're supposed to do - regulate and enforce decent standards - then the clubs will realise they have 100% responsibility to protect their player assets by enforcing rigorous discipline at club level - making it clear to all their players that behavious like this will not be tolerated [and they can insure against the risk of rogue players].

 

It's not rocket science

 

 

 

 

.

 

Edited October 3, 2013 by Zombie

[Daddydavek]

I started going to hockey games in the early 1960's to see the St. Louis Flyers, a minor league. When the Blues came to town I went many times to the old St. Louis Arena (the barn) and watched them play from up in the rafters.  I haven't gone at all in the past 20 years and rarely watch on TV anymore.  The NHL has allowed fighting to go on too long and too often to keep my respect.  

[Mark Arbour]

I've kind of evolved in my thought like Steve has.  I used to be a big proponent of fighting in hockey, but I'm less so now.  The main reason for me was being involved with hockey players who play in the younger leagues.  Basically from the minors on, most fights are staged.  The idea that it's some spontaneous outburst of emotion isn't usually true, and if that's gone, the geniuneness (new word) is gone, and that makes fighting kind of lame, IMHO.

[TetRefine]

I think a lot of people here are missing the point. Fighting wasn't invented in hockey to get more people to watch it on TV. It has been a part of the game since the beginning when it was just a bunch of amateurs playing on a frozen pond in Canada. Taking fighting out of hockey would be sissifying the game, similar to whats being done now in the NFL. The players don't want it, the fans don't want it, the club execs don't want it, and TV doesn't want it. So why would they change it? Just to appease the non-violence pacifist crowd? Please.  

[Zombie]

Well why stop there. Why not go the whole hog and bring back Gladiators.

[Slytherin]

 Gladiators on ice - cool    

Edited October 3, 2013 by slytherin

[FrenchCanadian]

Just watch the replay of Parros fight against Orr.....

 

Personally, fighting in the NHL doesn't have it's place, it simply shouldn't happen. The game can still be physical with big hits without fight braking out.

 

Most of the "fans" the NHL is trying to appeal to aren't drawn by the fights but rather by the physical plays.

[wildone]

Just finished watching my predicted last place Flames get one point playing the Caps.

 

There was only one fight in the game, I missed and all the other TV viewers missed it due to an injury at the other end of the ice. It wasn't much. I still was interested in the game and I wasn't yearning a fight.

 

Like I said, my opinion has changed over the last few years. I just don't think that you need fighting to make the game exciting. I'm sure there will be some that will whine and say that the game was better in the past but they will still support the game. Actually, if fighting was banned, just think of the amount of people that would support and watch that have dismissed it for being a goon sport.

 

Tet, you mentioned that the fans and players want the fighting, or was it the hitting in the NFL? If it was in reference to the NFL, the NHL doesn't have a billion dollars to give out to the people permanently injured from the dangerous violence. I don't think their is enough fans to support the lawsuits that are coming.

[Rndmrunner]

I think a lot of people here are missing the point. Fighting wasn't invented in hockey to get more people to watch it on TV. It has been a part of the game since the beginning when it was just a bunch of amateurs playing on a frozen pond in Canada. Taking fighting out of hockey would be sissifying the game, similar to whats being done now in the NFL. The players don't want it, the fans don't want it, the club execs don't want it, and TV doesn't want it. So why would they change it? Just to appease the non-violence pacifist crowd? Please.  

 

I disagree, until the 70's fights were relatively rare and not a focal point of the game, playing was. Fighting came with league expansion and a dilution of talent. I disagree that fighting is essential to hockey. The game can be intense without it: a fight never scores a goal or makes the great save. Personnally  I think it just entertains the folks who really don't like hockey in the first place. However kids today are learning fighting as an essential part of the game and that's a shame.

[TetRefine]

I disagree, until the 70's fights were relatively rare and not a focal point of the game, playing was. Fighting came with league expansion and a dilution of talent. I disagree that fighting is essential to hockey. The game can be intense without it: a fight never scores a goal or makes the great save. Personnally  I think it just entertains the folks who really don't like hockey in the first place. However kids today are learning fighting as an essential part of the game and that's a shame.

 

Actually that is not true. Fighting has been a constant part of the game since its inception, and was often far more brutal then it is today. The NHL implemented rules that actually decreased fighting and made it more safe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_in_hockey

 

Again, the "ban fighting" crowd is nothing more then a vocal minority. The players, executives, and fans all want to keep it so they will. Its a tradition, plain and simple. Its one of the things that makes hockey players some of the toughest athletes out there. 

[Rndmrunner]

Tetrefine: one of the benefits of being older is that you can speak from experience, I came to hockey in the 1960s.  Wikipedia is a great source of information but only really represents the views of the articles authors especially when the content is subjective. Fighting was less frequent and yes more brutal due largely to less protective equipment. Until the 70's hockey did not make you rich and there wasn't dedicated medical teams around to keep you playing. Injuries killed careers. Rugby is often considered more brutal than football. It is more that any violence produces greater injury again due to less equipment and rugby players show more restraint knowing that they are not armoured. That said we can agree to disagree.

[Zombie]

Actually that is not true. Fighting has been a constant part of the game since its inception, and was often far more brutal then it is today. The NHL implemented rules that actually decreased fighting and made it more safe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_in_hockey

 

Thank you for that link. Clearly there's a big difference between attitudes to violence in hockey in North America and the rest of the world. Of course, in Europe we used to have bear baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting, bare knuckle fighting. And rugby was a pretty brutal sport too.  But rule and attitude changes mean rugby is now a sport everyone can enjoy - the whole family. Can you say the same about NHL if fighting is still so prevalent? Families want their children to see "grown ups" fighting like that? Because the fact is rugby is still an exciting fast-moving sport with far fewer serioius injuries than used to happen - and it now has more supporters and earns a lot more money. Who would deny this is a good thing? So, yes, some may have an appetite for blood and violence but appetites can be changed to a more healthy diet Oh, and we used to send children up chimneys but things move on

 

[Mark Arbour]

I think a lot of people here are missing the point. Fighting wasn't invented in hockey to get more people to watch it on TV. It has been a part of the game since the beginning when it was just a bunch of amateurs playing on a frozen pond in Canada. Taking fighting out of hockey would be sissifying the game, similar to whats being done now in the NFL. The players don't want it, the fans don't want it, the club execs don't want it, and TV doesn't want it. So why would they change it? Just to appease the non-violence pacifist crowd? Please.  

 

Just to clarify, I'm not against fighting because it's violent.  I live in a very violent society (the US) and I periodically yearn to inflict violence on others.  Sometimes even people at GA. 

 

If fighting were a genuine, emotion-based response to action on the ice, I'd be fine with it.  I don't think that's the case.  I think it's stage/crowd-managed showmanship, so I find it relatively annoying.

[TetRefine]

Tetrefine: one of the benefits of being older is that you can speak from experience, I came to hockey in the 1960s.  Wikipedia is a great source of information but only really represents the views of the articles authors especially when the content is subjective. Fighting was less frequent and yes more brutal due largely to less protective equipment. Until the 70's hockey did not make you rich and there wasn't dedicated medical teams around to keep you playing. Injuries killed careers. Rugby is often considered more brutal than football. It is more that any violence produces greater injury again due to less equipment and rugby players show more restraint knowing that they are not armoured. That said we can agree to disagree.

 

Agree to disagree. Although I disagree that rugby is more brutal than football. In football the hits are far harder and from much bigger guys. Yeah, they may wear protective equipment, but that only keeps things from breaking (most of the time), it doesn't soften the force of the blow. I've played both and I can tell you I always walked away far more sore from football then rugby.

 

Thank you for that link. Clearly there's a big difference between attitudes to violence in hockey in North America and the rest of the world. Of course, in Europe we used to have bear baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting, bare knuckle fighting. And rugby was a pretty brutal sport too.  But rule and attitude changes mean rugby is now a sport everyone can enjoy - the whole family. Can you say the same about NHL if fighting is still so prevalent? Families want their children to see "grown ups" fighting like that? Because the fact is rugby is still an exciting fast-moving sport with far fewer serioius injuries than used to happen - and it now has more supporters and earns a lot more money. Who would deny this is a good thing? So, yes, some may have an appetite for blood and violence but appetites can be changed to a more healthy diet Oh, and we used to send children up chimneys but things move on

 

 

In response to the kids/families thing, my dad took me to UNH (college) and AHL (minors) games from the time I was 7. I saw fights a lot as a kid going to the game (and sometimes fights between fans). I cheered and yelled for my guy to win the fight just like everyone else. It was just an acceptable part of the game, and whenever I go to especially NHL games I see more younger kids with their dads then I do at MLB or NFL games. So no, I highly doubt the fighting in the game is keeping parents away from the game. 

 

Just to clarify, I'm not against fighting because it's violent.  I live in a very violent society (the US) and I periodically yearn to inflict violence on others.  Sometimes even people at GA. 

 

If fighting were a genuine, emotion-based response to action on the ice, I'd be fine with it.  I don't think that's the case.  I think it's stage/crowd-managed showmanship, so I find it relatively annoying.

 

I agree its not always emotional outburst (although sometimes it is). But it still serves a purpose, especially when your team is down and you need to pump some energy into the fans and the players. Theres nothing like a good ass whopping on the ice to send shockwaves of energy through the entire arena.

[Zombie]

In response to the kids/families thing, my dad took me to UNH (college) and AHL (minors) games from the time I was 7. I saw fights a lot as a kid going to the game (and sometimes fights between fans). I cheered and yelled for my guy to win the fight just like everyone else. It was just an acceptable part of the game, and whenever I go to especially NHL games I see more younger kids with their dads then I do at MLB or NFL games. So no, I highly doubt the fighting in the game is keeping parents away from the game. 

 

Well consider this from yesterday ...

 

Georges Laraque, the enforcer for the Canadiens when he retired in 2010, spoke about the mental pressure of the enforcer role in a 2011 CBC interview. “A lot of people can't deal with the pressure in their minds and they use drugs and alcohol to deal with that. The three players that passed away, there are another 50 of them that used to be heavyweights and have problems with alcohol and drugs because of that role.”

 

Neurosurgeon Robert Cantu and his team at Boston University were going public about their findings from studying the brains of deceased athletes, including NHL enforcers, and they often discovered degenerative brain disease caused by blunt impact to the head, chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

 

"Any time I hear of an athlete who has had a lot of head trauma who commits suicide, I am immediately concerned that chronic traumatic encephalopathy may have played a role," Cantu told CBC News that summer.

 

Then in December, neurologist Rajendra Kale wrote an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal calling for "a ban on all forms of intentional head trauma, including fighting, along with severe deterrent penalties such as lengthy suspensions for breaches."

 

Kale, then the journal's editor, didn't mince words about fighting in hockey: "This brutal tradition should be given up now that research has shown that repeated head trauma can cause severe progressive brain damage."

 

Essentially this boils down to one simple question - do you want this violence and these serious brain injuries to continue as entertainment for the crowd?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/george-parros-injury-renews-debate-about-fighting-in-hockey-1.1876908

 

*worth reading the whole article about children and parents who are in fact being put off the game - and also the comments section*

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Zombie

[TetRefine]

Well consider this from yesterday ...

 

Georges Laraque, the enforcer for the Canadiens when he retired in 2010, spoke about the mental pressure of the enforcer role in a 2011 CBC interview. “A lot of people can't deal with the pressure in their minds and they use drugs and alcohol to deal with that. The three players that passed away, there are another 50 of them that used to be heavyweights and have problems with alcohol and drugs because of that role.”

 

Neurosurgeon Robert Cantu and his team at Boston University were going public about their findings from studying the brains of deceased athletes, including NHL enforcers, and they often discovered degenerative brain disease caused by blunt impact to the head, chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

 

"Any time I hear of an athlete who has had a lot of head trauma who commits suicide, I am immediately concerned that chronic traumatic encephalopathy may have played a role," Cantu told CBC News that summer.

 

Then in December, neurologist Rajendra Kale wrote an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal calling for "a ban on all forms of intentional head trauma, including fighting, along with severe deterrent penalties such as lengthy suspensions for breaches."

 

Kale, then the journal's editor, didn't mince words about fighting in hockey: "This brutal tradition should be given up now that research has shown that repeated head trauma can cause severe progressive brain damage."

 

Essentially this boils down to one simple question - do you want this violence and these serious brain injuries to continue as entertainment for the crowd?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/george-parros-injury-renews-debate-about-fighting-in-hockey-1.1876908

 

*worth reading the whole article about children and parents who are in fact being put off the game - and also the comments section*

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

George Laraque was a thug with no talent who chose to be an enforcer. Key word: CHOSE. You don't have to fight in hockey. The only time you'll get jumped and involuntarily forced to fight is if you made a cheap hit and you deserve to get punched. Otherwise, the vast majority of fights are square off fights where both players agree by dropping the gloves. If you don't want to fight, you don't drop the gloves and keep playing. Its that simple. Therefor I have no sympathy for Laraque, nor do I take him seriously, because he defined himself as the Mike Tyson of the NHL. If you do not want to risk head trauma, then don't play contact sports, especially one where you know fighting is part of the game. 

 

And to answer your question, yes, I do want fighting to continue because every segment of the hockey community is for it, including the guys who have to suffer the physical punishment of it. 

[Zombie]

George Laraque was a thug with no talent who chose to be an enforcer

 

OK so George Laraque was a no-talent thug - now a retired thug - but that only means the concerns he is now expressing about the consequences of what he used to do actually carry more weight than some namby pamby wet wimp He's seen and experienced what happens from within the game.

 

And to answer your question, yes, I do want fighting to continue because every segment of the hockey community is for it, including the guys who have to suffer the physical punishment of it. 

 

That's not actually a reason. Speaking for myself, if I want something it's because I want something - it's of no interest to me who else wants it or doesn't want it. I make up my own mind based on the merits. I guess you are the same?

 

The example previously given about rugby is relevant. Rugby is now a much safer sport than it was because of the changes in rules and attitudes. Players now suffer much fewer and far less serious head injuries. But the game is just as enjoyable, just as fast. And the game now gets more money and bigger crowds. All this could happen with hockey.

 

And then there's the young players not wanting to come into the game, and children being turned off, and parents staying away from the game as reported in the article because this isn't about hockey being a "contact sport" - it still would be, just like rugby - it's about violence.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Zombie

[wildone]

Just to clarify, I'm not against fighting because it's violent.  I live in a very violent society (the US) and I periodically yearn to inflict violence on others.  Sometimes even people at GA. 

 

 

Mark I asked no fighting in this forum and GA.

 

Please take it out on a fellow driver on your way home after work

 

[A.J.]

I enjoy the fighting and roughhousing in hockey.  I just pretend that they are fighting over me and imagine the celebration after they have won me.

 

In all seriousness, we have a sport called boxing.  Seems to me that if we are wishing to reduce head injuries in sports we should start there.

[Kiltie69]

There is a saying in this my district.  Football (soccer) is a game for hooligans, rugby is a sport for gentleman both on the pitch and off it, ice hockey is a sport for animals on the ice gents off it.   There are variations.

 

We have had a few good teams in my home town and I loved nothing more than going to watch the game those regular supporters of the teams that I sat with would always enjoy a scrap, as did I.  

 

More so if it was for good reason.  Eg a stick trip that broke a players leg.  That led to our then bruiser, a monster called Rob Dobson, import from across the pond being put on the ice waiting for the offending player to return to the ice.  This was one time I'll admit that violence  may have been to much.  But it was either the player getting himself beaten on the ice or his team bus failing to make it out of the car park.   The offending teams players were not popular in my home town this added to the rivalry.   

 

I think ink given the physical nature of the sport aggression can spill over.  As long as it's contained on the ice I'm Happy.   Rememberi live on the west coast of Scotland.  An area dominated by football, where violence is seen on and off the pitch these days.  To often.

[wildone]

Maybe this is a sign of what is to come in the NHL

 

Player taps out with Referee