HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   OT: a must read hockey article on the role of a tough guy by a tough guy (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=979777)

Dagoon44 09-06-2011 12:01 AM

a must read hockey article on the role of a tough guy by a tough guy
 
http://news.menshealth.com/the-nhl%E...er/2011/09/02/

ecemleafs 09-06-2011 12:07 AM

link doesnt work for me

Dagoon44 09-06-2011 12:17 AM

fixed

StaalWars 09-06-2011 12:39 AM

I never understand this idea of fighting providing "instant accountability." The guys dishing out the cheap shots don't get held accountable by goons. People that keep putting that idea out there haven't been watching the sport in the past 10 years and are living in a fantasy land.

Khelvan 09-06-2011 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StaalWars (Post 36464565)
I never understand this idea of fighting providing "instant accountability." The guys dishing out the cheap shots don't get held accountable by goons. People that keep putting that idea out there haven't been watching the sport in the past 10 years and are living in a fantasy land.

I am not sure that I agree with everything you say, but I am curious where the idea that an enforcer is necessary in hockey comes from. Aren't there plenty of other violent, professional sports that are policed through the rules rather than through players on the team? What makes hockey so unique that the rules can't be adjusted to make the consequences for cheap shots/players great enough that they rarely, if ever, happen?

StaalWars 09-06-2011 12:50 AM

My point is that when Matt Cooke sets out to do whatever evil thing he wants to do the fact that you have Colton Orr or DJ King sitting on your bench isn't going to sway him in the least.

Goons are a placebo. They may make players feel protected but in reality they do nothing. Ironic how goons are looked at as the toughest guys in the world yet they can be completely neutralized by simply saying "no." Players who can skate and throw hard hits are much more difficult to avoid.

Barbara Underhill 09-06-2011 01:07 AM

I'm not opposed to fighting I don't think it will ever disappear completely but the heavyweights will. Middleweight guys that can play a little hockey are already starting to take over look at Prust. With that said I think the mental toll will decrease as well Prust is capable of doing more than fighting he does it to stick up for his teammates and protect his honor not to keep his job.

RGY 09-06-2011 01:09 AM

the idea of "needing" a true enforcer is STUPID. Guys like Prust are all you need especially with the way the game is played today. It's faster and the skill level required to be successful is higher. No need to get a guy who can barely skate just so he can drop the gloves and fight.

n8 09-06-2011 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StaalWars (Post 36464719)
My point is that when Matt Cooke sets out to do whatever evil thing he wants to do the fact that you have Colton Orr or DJ King sitting on your bench isn't going to sway him in the least.

Goons are a placebo. They may make players feel protected but in reality they do nothing. Ironic how goons are looked at as the toughest guys in the world yet they can be completely neutralized by simply saying "no." Players who can skate and throw hard hits are much more difficult to avoid.

I think it's because of the instigator rule. really want to get rid of that.

nyranger61494 09-06-2011 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n8 (Post 36465093)
I think it's because of the instigator rule. really want to get rid of that.

Have to change the instigator rule. Absolutely have to.

JeffMangum 09-06-2011 02:08 AM

I'm not against fighting overall, in hockey, but the idea I've started to disagree with is the perceived need for a "designated fighter" -- what service do these players provide? How is a 45-60 second "fight" going to help their team win every night? I understand the concept of "momentum" in this situation, but I fail to see how these staged fights between two players who barely play are going to directly affect their teams. What do they accomplish in doing so? From what I've read, a lot of these "enforcers" are not too fond of having to go out onto the ice and fight every night; it seems to be taking a rather major toll on their mental state. It causes recurring injuries, anxiety, and even depression in some cases -- I don't think keeping the "enforcer" role is worth risking the mental and physical health of numerous people.

I enjoy tough hockey, but there's a limit, IMO. "Heat of the moment" fighting has it's place; fights like Lecavalier vs. Iginla are very exciting to watch, and they serve a purpose. Emotion is rampant in these situations, unlike a fight between two designated fighters -- that's where these fights should derive from. Emotion. They shouldn't be set up and premeditated before the game.

Screw You Rick Nash 09-06-2011 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Boyle (Post 36465399)
I'm not against fighting overall, in hockey, but the idea I've started to disagree with is the perceived need for a "designated fighter" -- what service do these players provide? How is a 45-60 second "fight" going to help their team win every night? I understand the concept of "momentum" in this situation, but I fail to see how these staged fights between two players who barely play are going to directly affect their teams. What do they accomplish in doing so? From what I've read, a lot of these "enforcers" are not too fond of having to go out onto the ice and fight every night; it seems to be taking a rather major toll on their mental state. It causes recurring injuries, anxiety, and even depression in some cases -- I don't think keeping the "enforcer" role is worth risking the mental and physical health of numerous people.

I enjoy tough hockey, but there's a limit, IMO. "Heat of the moment" fighting has it's place; fights like Lecavalier vs. Iginla are very exciting to watch, and they serve a purpose. Emotion is rampant in these situations, unlike a fight between two designated fighters -- that's where these fights should derive from. Emotion. They shouldn't be set up and premeditated before the game.

QFT! I literally can't agree with you 0.0000000000001% more.

eco's bones 09-06-2011 03:35 AM

I like having some tough guys on our team but I've also come to the conclusion that these players have got to be able to play. In that respect Prust fits the criteria pretty well and I don't have a problem with us signing Rupp as a free agent. Both have proven that they can earn ice time on merits other than their fists. Rupp as well could more legitimately be listed as a heavyweight and even if he's not going to win all his fights he will bounce back up and he takes a lot of heat off of the smaller Prust. I'm happy with that.

Guys like Boogaard and Orr were not good players. Their fighting outstripped everything about them as players. Orr's skating is somewhat better after his time with us but neither of them have ever been legit players. Brashear was a legit player at one time but by the time he signed with us he was all but done.

Got to be able to play these days.

Khelvan 09-06-2011 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StaalWars (Post 36464719)
My point is that when Matt Cooke sets out to do whatever evil thing he wants to do the fact that you have Colton Orr or DJ King sitting on your bench isn't going to sway him in the least.

Goons are a placebo. They may make players feel protected but in reality they do nothing. Ironic how goons are looked at as the toughest guys in the world yet they can be completely neutralized by simply saying "no." Players who can skate and throw hard hits are much more difficult to avoid.

I wasn't asking you that particular question because I disagreed. The question itself was geared towards people who believe that fighting is a requirement to somehow prevent cheap shots/cheap players in the game. I don't think you're someone who believes that, are you?

So for those who DO believe that, I am still curious; what makes hockey so different from other sports that rules/officials cannot protect players from cheap shots? Why can other violent sports be policed through the rules and not through the fists of players, but hockey somehow requires that?

BBKers 09-06-2011 04:42 AM

Good article but he flounders a bit about adding Avery by name as he never has been suspended due to on ice incractions.

Punxrocknyc19* 09-06-2011 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eco's bones (Post 36465783)
I like having some tough guys on our team but I've also come to the conclusion that these players have got to be able to play. In that respect Prust fits the criteria pretty well and I don't have a problem with us signing Rupp as a free agent. Both have proven that they can earn ice time on merits other than their fists. Rupp as well could more legitimately be listed as a heavyweight and even if he's not going to win all his fights he will bounce back up and he takes a lot of heat off of the smaller Prust. I'm happy with that.

Guys like Boogaard and Orr were not good players. Their fighting outstripped everything about them as players. Orr's skating is somewhat better after his time with us but neither of them have ever been legit players. Brashear was a legit player at one time but by the time he signed with us he was all but done.

Got to be able to play these days.

brashear was always a dirtbag. never liked him. never thought of him as a legit player..how the heck did he wear the A for the capitals :laugh:??

Propane Nightmares 09-06-2011 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punxrocknyc19 (Post 36466211)
brashear was always a dirtbag. never liked him. never thought of him as a legit player..how the heck did he wear the A for the capitals :laugh:??

Because they had a REALLY crappy team back then :laugh:

surf 09-06-2011 07:37 AM

Some of you younger fans have no idea how we were beaten down in Philly..It was horrific..Or having no answer to Clark Gillies or Nystrom..Dave Brown cross checking any Ranger in the head he wanted with no fear of retaliation..It has scarred me for life..I dont expect any of you new Ranger Fans to understand..Is it living in the past?? Maybe..Its something I will never get over..Im glad our GM remembers there still is a need for tough guys..I do agree get rid of the instigator..Then the big boys could really send a message.

HockeyBasedNYC 09-06-2011 07:43 AM

This is one person (Riley Cotes) opinion. I dont think its speaks on the subject well enough.

As far as it taking a mental toll on your mind - sure, i can understand that - but its their decision to accept that role. They are IN THE NHL gimme a break. They make a damn good salary even as an enforcer. Some of these guys make millions. Talk about a mental toll... there are millions out there without a job right now, trying to find out how to provide for their family, or without a house because of a flood, or just living life day to day in environments 10 times as stressful, and its REAL. I dont buy it.

Sure its hard, youre a fighter. No one asked you to be. I can sympathize with their position but its their choice. In an economy like this, for people in the real world who are dealing with problems much worse, that dont have a choice - this article seems very trivial to me. Besides, there have been enforcers for years and years. Never heard of this until we had an isolated and rare event of 3 deaths in one offseason.

Avery suspended over and over for cheapshots? When did this happen? Cooke, yes... Avery? uhh i think hes confused.

Giacomin 09-06-2011 07:49 AM

The role of the enforcer will always be a part of the NHL. The Flyers of the 70,s were a circus sideshow but every team usually had at least 1 Goon the several tough guys who could actually play ie. Nystrom, Clarke,Messier. What always bothered me was the player whose only job was to fight. Steve Durbano comes to mine as a player who only knew how to fight and he also died in his late 30,s-early 40,s. Way too young.

Levitate 09-06-2011 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surf (Post 36466695)
Some of you younger fans have no idea how we were beaten down in Philly..It was horrific..Or having no answer to Clark Gillies or Nystrom..Dave Brown cross checking any Ranger in the head he wanted with no fear of retaliation..It has scarred me for life..I dont expect any of you new Ranger Fans to understand..Is it living in the past?? Maybe..Its something I will never get over..Im glad our GM remembers there still is a need for tough guys..I do agree get rid of the instigator..Then the big boys could really send a message.

Well yeah it's living in the past. The game isn't the same and the players aren't the same anymore.

There's also enough talent in the league that it is pretty dumb to take up a roster spot with a guy who can't do anything but fight. Those days SHOULD be over.

The instigator is also never being removed. Really the last thing this league needs is goons jumping other players right and left with no major repercussions...what the league NEEDS to do is develop a better disciplinary system to severely punish the players who do go out and try to injure other players.

silverfish 09-06-2011 08:56 AM

The instigator is killing the role of the true enforcer, but that doesn't mean that they are becoming obsolete.

I remember reading quotes from Rangers players after Boogaard passed saying that he really did settle games down just from being on the bench. Remember that Calgary game? That was all Boogaard, and he didn't even have to fight.

And even though a guy like Brashear was in the twilight of his career when he got sent down to play in Hartford, he made a difference. Didiomete and Soryal talked about it on twitter how they felt like they could do anything on the ice with Donald there.

Trxjw 09-06-2011 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate (Post 36466819)
Well yeah it's living in the past. The game isn't the same and the players aren't the same anymore.

There's also enough talent in the league that it is pretty dumb to take up a roster spot with a guy who can't do anything but fight. Those days SHOULD be over.

The instigator is also never being removed. Really the last thing this league needs is goons jumping other players right and left with no major repercussions...what the league NEEDS to do is develop a better disciplinary system to severely punish the players who do go out and try to injure other players.

Exactly. It's a different game. Though whether or not people are willing to accept that is another story. Fighting is fun to watch, and it will likely always have a place on the ice, but the idea of an "enforcer" is quickly dying off. You can't get by on your fists alone anymore.

BrooklynRangersFan 09-06-2011 09:16 AM

It's a good point - what makes hockey so special that it "requires" enforcing? Football is as violent if not more so and it doesn't require an enforcer. Rugby, for god's sake, which is a violent sport that involves NO equipment doesn't require enforcers. The rules, refs and coaches take care of it. Are there fights? Of course. Occassionally the situation gets out of hand and the rules break down and mayhem ensues. But no sport OTHER than hockey has institutionalized fighting as a sideshow to the action of the sport itself and certainly no other has introduced a role for a player that can't actually PLAY THE GAME simply because he can fight.

A certain segment of hockey fans (and players) like it and that's the only reason fighting - and enforcers - are in the game.

Don't get me wrong, when Dubi and Richards spontaneously break into a fight due to the action of a game, I enjoy it. Because it IS part of the game. But goons? Stupid. They were stupid in the 70s and they're stupid now.

chosen 09-06-2011 09:32 AM

Wow!

A goon thinks goons make a difference in the game. I am truly shocked.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 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.