View Single Post
09-04-2011, 11:55 PM
Andy's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,185
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
OK. I'll play.

Helmets ---> Instigator rule ---> No fighting ---> No contact

Seems like a pretty natural progression.

Maybe we can get thick styrofoam placed on the boards. Oh, and we can replace that frozen rock hard piece of rubber with a tennis ball.

But to be serious. The wearing of helmets did not make a team more or less competitive. However, physicality (including having players who are good at fighting) can improve the competitiveness of a team as it allows the forwards to play with more of an edge.

See the play of Marchand, Krejci, Ryder et al in the playoffs when they knew Thornton/Chara/McQuaid had their backs. They were not afraid to mix it up with anyone.
I don't think his analogy was calling into question what fighting provides in the game, rather what the meaning of the poll is and whether the information that it provides is a good argument to keep fighting in the game...namely that players approve of it. He's saying had you polled nhlers in the 60s whether they wanted to force helmets, he would expect that a similar answer would happen.

It has nothing to do with the relevance of fighting in hockey, but his question was regarding the relevance of the information of that poll. I really don't understand why you can't see this and choose to talk about irrelavent points..

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote