HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Hockey Fights (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=237)
-   -   Mayo Clinic calls for end of fighting in the name of safety (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1516399)

cam042686 10-14-2013 10:07 AM

Mayo Clinic calls for end of fighting in the name of safety
 
The evidence is clear. Fighting causes brain damage. That being said can anyone in this day and age still justify this?

Craig Wallace

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...key_safer.html

Ozz 10-14-2013 10:08 AM

What's their stance on MMA and boxing?

cam042686 10-14-2013 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozz (Post 72578761)
What's their stance on MMA and boxing?

I would assume the same. They do mention boxing in the article.

I guess the difference is MMA and Boxing are all about violence. That is the point of the sport. The majority of the hockey world punishes fighting with expulsions and suspensions. We know hockey can be played at the most elite level without fighting.

Craig Wallace

blamebettman* 10-14-2013 11:49 AM

What about the entire business of the NFL and CFL? Shut those down too?

There have been more concussions in the NHL due to clean and dirty hits...hockey should become non contact now?

So basically we need to ban the entire sport of football. College, NFL, CFL, all high school and pop warner, all contact in north american hockey, and completely shut down MMA and Boxing

billybudd 10-14-2013 12:04 PM

What's their stance on bodychecking? Legal and illegal, it's responsible for 69% of concussions compared to fighting's 8% (the remaining 23% or so is a result of accidents and the puck hitting people).

Nobody seems to address this question: why are these concern-troll groups worried about something that causes 8% of concussions instead of something that causes 69% of them? It's a classic case of obsessing about a fly instead of the rampaging elephant right next to it.

My guess is these people just don't like the optics or symbolism of fighting. Symbolism is a terrible reason to ban something.

Gene Parmesan 10-14-2013 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cam042686 (Post 72580309)
I would assume the same. They do mention boxing in the article.

I guess the difference is MMA and Boxing are all about violence. That is the point of the sport. The majority of the hockey world punishes fighting with expulsions and suspensions. We know hockey can be played at the most elite level without fighting.

Craig Wallace

Boxing and MMA are strategic chess matches not just "violence". The point is to best your opponent. Body checking causes more concussions than a sloppy bare knuckled haymaker to your helmet. The anti-fighting crowd makes it seem that every game is a fight filled mess. Which is hardly the case.

Drop The Mits 10-14-2013 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gene Parmesan (Post 72588599)
Boxing and MMA are strategic chess matches not just "violence". The point is to best your opponent. Body checking causes more concussions than a sloppy bare knuckled haymaker to your helmet. The anti-fighting crowd makes it seem that every game is a fight filled mess. Which is hardly the case.

Their argument is "but hitting is an essential part of hockey whereas fighting is not". They fail to see that there is hockey leagues around the world where hitting is not allowed. It is still hockey isn't it?

Bizz06 10-14-2013 04:28 PM


Taro Tsujimoto 10-14-2013 04:55 PM

Was it this guy who made the recommendation?:


Big Phil 10-15-2013 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybudd (Post 72583377)
What's their stance on bodychecking? Legal and illegal, it's responsible for ~80% of concussions compared to fighting's ~5% (the remaining ~15% or so is a result of accidents and the puck hitting people).

Nobody seems to address this question: why are these concern-troll groups worried about something that causes 5% of concussions instead of something that causes 80% of them? It's a classic case of obsessing about a fly instead of the rampaging elephant right next to it.

My guess is these people just don't like the optics or symbolism of fighting. Symbolism is a terrible reason to ban something.

Pretty much. But that's how it goes, and you can bet a newspaper like the Toronto Star is the first one to jump on the "anti-fighting" bandwagon. Bottom line is this, fighting causes far less injuries, and head injuries, than other actions in hockey. But our society is so paranoid about the boogeyman being around every corner that we want to not only wrap our kids in bubble, but everyone else in bubble. Strange world we live in.

mygameworn 10-15-2013 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybudd (Post 72583377)
What's their stance on bodychecking? Legal and illegal, it's responsible for ~80% of concussions compared to fighting's ~5% (the remaining ~15% or so is a result of accidents and the puck hitting people).

Nobody seems to address this question: why are these concern-troll groups worried about something that causes 5% of concussions instead of something that causes 80% of them? It's a classic case of obsessing about a fly instead of the rampaging elephant right next to it.

My guess is these people just don't like the optics or symbolism of fighting. Symbolism is a terrible reason to ban something.



The anti-fighting trolls use the excuse that fighting isn't really needed and it does nothing to help win games therefore remove it. They intentionally leave out the other aspects of the sport because their ok with it. We could easily fix the game to make it 100% safe. ban fighting, all body checks, and all players are required to wear full cages to protect their faces.

I mean, EVERYONE is so worried about player safety, why not start where a players most venerable?

Doshell Propivo 10-15-2013 10:34 AM

Regardless of one’s stance on fighting in hockey, it’s clear that it is slowly going the way of the dodo bird. It just isn’t relevant anymore. The instigator rule in the 90’s, helmets and visors have made fighting pretty insignificant now. Fights in crucial games are rare. In the playoffs even rarer. Sure a relatively meaningless game in January will see a few goons fight but I’d argue that it is no longer “part” of the game.

It’s just a matter of time before it is completely banned. And in my opinion, the game won’t suffer from it.

I May Be Wrong 10-15-2013 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil (Post 72626753)
Pretty much. But that's how it goes, and you can bet a newspaper like the Toronto Star is the first one to jump on the "anti-fighting" bandwagon. Bottom line is this, fighting causes far less injuries, and head injuries, than other actions in hockey. But our society is so paranoid about the boogeyman being around every corner that we want to not only wrap our kids in bubble, but everyone else in bubble. Strange world we live in.

This couldn't be more true. Everybody should just sit in doors, and only handle blunt objects. Sharp objects are too dangerous. At least we will all be "safe" though, right?

intangible 10-15-2013 11:00 AM

The Mayo Clinic should be releasing an article condemning arena food. Arena food, high in calories and salt, alcohol, et al lead to more problems in more people than fighting in the NHL.

Doshell Propivo 10-15-2013 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I May Be Wrong (Post 72630283)
This couldn't be more true. Everybody should just sit in doors, and only handle blunt objects. Sharp objects are too dangerous. At least we will all be "safe" though, right?

I agree with this sentiment to a degree, but let me play devil's advocate. Should we ignore the new science and knowledge out there? Is it not our duty as human beings to try to create healthier and safer communities? Should we ignore the harmful effects of tobacco, DDT, asbestos, etc.?

Obviously there's a balance to it all but one certainly has to take concussions in a contact sport seriously.

I May Be Wrong 10-15-2013 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doshell Propivo (Post 72630797)
I agree with this sentiment to a degree, but let me play devil's advocate. Should we ignore the new science and knowledge out there? Is it not our duty as human beings to try to create healthier and safer communities? Should we ignore the harmful effects of tobacco, DDT, asbestos, etc.?

Obviously there's a balance to it all but one certainly has to take concussions in a contact sport seriously.

I agree with you. As you mentioned technology, and science are dynamic. Perhaps we can create equipment, to protect the body better? We've already have heard about the helmets that potentially reduce the chances of receiving concussions. I am all for this kind of stuff, but I absolutely don't want to see physicality taken out of the sport. Sure, it's fighting, but then concussions will still occur, and then these same groups will start to bicker about checking, and how that is causing problems, etc. It's the slippery slope thing that I fear - it may not happen, but yeah.

Doshell Propivo 10-15-2013 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intangible (Post 72630739)
The Mayo Clinic should be releasing an article condemning arena food. Arena food, high in calories and salt, alcohol, et al lead to more problems in more people than fighting in the NHL.

I personally can't enjoy a good hockey game without water, brown rice cakes and organic hummus. Crudite if it's the playoffs.

FireBergevin 10-15-2013 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybudd (Post 72583377)
What's their stance on bodychecking? Legal and illegal, it's responsible for ~80% of concussions compared to fighting's ~5% (the remaining ~15% or so is a result of accidents and the puck hitting people).

Nobody seems to address this question: why are these concern-troll groups worried about something that causes 5% of concussions instead of something that causes 80% of them? It's a classic case of obsessing about a fly instead of the rampaging elephant right next to it.

My guess is these people just don't like the optics or symbolism of fighting. Symbolism is a terrible reason to ban something.

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/...uh_wtf_gif.gif

ThirdManIn 10-15-2013 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybudd (Post 72583377)
What's their stance on bodychecking? Legal and illegal, it's responsible for ~80% of concussions compared to fighting's ~5% (the remaining ~15% or so is a result of accidents and the puck hitting people).

Nobody seems to address this question: why are these concern-troll groups worried about something that causes 5% of concussions instead of something that causes 80% of them? It's a classic case of obsessing about a fly instead of the rampaging elephant right next to it.

My guess is these people just don't like the optics or symbolism of fighting. Symbolism is a terrible reason to ban something.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a source for these numbers?

MonsterSurge 10-15-2013 01:26 PM

I've probably been to about 100 hockey games and I haven't seen one major injury due to fighting. I have seen countless injuries due to hits, sticks, and pucks though.

billybudd 10-15-2013 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThirdManIn (Post 72636777)
Just out of curiosity, do you have a source for these numbers?

I was ballparking from memory. Underestimated hit by puck by roughly the amount I overestimated bodychecking. But the order of causes in my first post was correct: bodycheck>>>>>>accident>>>fight

Here are the actuals

Bodycheck: 69%
Fight: 8%
Accident (stick, puck, collision, unknown): 23%

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetch...entation=PNG_M

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0069122

Big Phil 10-15-2013 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybudd (Post 72637747)
I was ballparking from memory. Underestimated hit by puck by roughly the amount I overestimated bodychecking. But the order of causes in my first post was correct: bodycheck>>>>>>accident>>>fight

Here are the actuals

Bodycheck: 69%
Fight: 8%
Accident (stick, puck, collision, unknown): 23%

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetch...entation=PNG_M

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0069122

Let's put all our eggs in one basket and go after the 8%. Just because............well fighting is mean, and hockey is a sport for the faint of heart. :sarcasm:

In all seriousness, the fights per game, although early were higher at the beginning of this year than they were last year as of the weekend. This all despite the fact that people thought fighting went up last year solely because of the crammed schedule and teams facing each other more frequently in that time. Wrong. Fighting exists in the NHL and fluctuation of sorts should never be alarming. It has been the same for about 60 years give or take the spike in the 1980s.

Sonny Lamateena 10-15-2013 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybudd (Post 72637747)
I was ballparking from memory. Underestimated hit by puck by roughly the amount I overestimated bodychecking. But the order of causes in my first post was correct: bodycheck>>>>>>accident>>>fight

Here are the actuals

Bodycheck: 69%
Fight: 8%
Accident (stick, puck, collision, unknown): 23%

These are excellent statistics. Any idea what percentage of fights end in concussion vs what percentage of bodychecks result in a concussion?

billybudd 10-16-2013 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonny Lamateena (Post 72690143)
These are excellent statistics. Any idea what percentage of fights end in concussion vs what percentage of bodychecks result in a concussion?

11 / X where X is the number of fighting majors assessed between 2009-2012. As to what X is, I don't know and don't know where to find that information (had this study bookmarked). Someone probably keeps that record, but I don't know who it would be.

Morris Wanchuk 10-16-2013 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybudd (Post 72698735)
11 / X where X is the number of fighting majors assessed between 2009-2012. As to what X is, I don't know and don't know where to find that information (had this study bookmarked). Someone probably keeps that record, but I don't know who it would be.

http://www.hockeyfights.com/stats/

There were 1,905 fights in those 3 seasons.

As they mention some "fights" only 1 person got a major, but I would say the overwhelming majority had 2 fighting majors given out.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.