HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

All purpose 'Does fighting belong in the NHL?' thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-05-2011, 08:04 PM
  #76
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Scott Stevens 1982-2004
Denis Potvin 1973-1988
Cam Neely 1983-1996
Darius Kasparaitis 1983-1996
Eric Lindros 1992-2007
Larry Robinson 1972-1992

Just off the top of my head............
Agreed, Claude Lemieux ect ect ect. The rules have made it easier, but the game is quicker now and not all hits or injuries resulting from these hits are intentional, a lot of quick reactions and last second decisions, but all in all not much difference than 30 years ago.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:08 PM
  #77
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Agreed, Claude Lemieux ect ect ect. The rules have made it easier, but the game is quicker now and not all hits or injuries resulting from these hits are intentional, a lot of quick reactions and last second decisions, but all in all not much difference than 30 years ago.
The ONLY difference is that YouTube was not around back then.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:09 PM
  #78
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Scott Stevens 1982-2004
Denis Potvin 1973-1988
Cam Neely 1983-1996
Darius Kasparaitis 1983-1996
Eric Lindros 1992-2007
Larry Robinson 1972-1992

Just off the top of my head............
Potvin was a heavy hitter but he didn't charge opponents. Not like Tootoo and Clutterbuck. In fact, Neely was a heavy and mean hitter, but didn't charge either. And listing Lindros and Robinson is laughable. Kasparaitis did charge, but uh, he didn't play in 1983. He played in the era that I'm talking about as being problematic--so did Stevens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Agreed, Claude Lemieux ect ect ect. The rules have made it easier, but the game is quicker now and not all hits or injuries resulting from these hits are intentional, a lot of quick reactions and last second decisions, but all in all not much difference than 30 years ago.
Claude played in the era of charging (the beginning of it, anyway). But he didn't charge so much as play dirty, mostly with his stick. He didn't have the quickness to actually charge. That's what I'm talking about: yesteryear's Claude's and Tikkanen's didn't have the explosiveness to launch themselves into the opposition on the forecheck. Lapierre, Clutterbuck, Tootoo, et al. are all about explosiveness and decimating the opposition on the forecheck.

Every team has those players. At least one. I'd wager you couldn't name a dozen in the '70s who played like Clutterbuck does now.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:11 PM
  #79
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Potvin was a heavy hitter but he didn't charge opponents. Not like Tootoo and Clutterbuck. In fact, Neely was a heavy and mean hitter, but didn't charge either. And listing Lindros and Robinson is laughable. Kasparaitis did charge, but uh, he didn't play in 1983. He played in the era that I'm talking about as being problematic--so did Stevens.
How about Ulf Samuelson?

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:13 PM
  #80
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
How about Ulf Samuelson?
When I talk modern era, he, and Claude, and Kasparaitis, are included.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:20 PM
  #81
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
When I talk modern era, he, and Claude, and Kasparaitis, are included.
So this era is about 30 years old, lol, nearly a 3rd of the league's existence, Bobby Clarke, tiger williams, this isn't limited to a specific era, it has gone on forever.

Matt Cooke is in the minority of dirty players, for every matt cooke of today there was a player of the same ilk from years past.

Marty Mcsorely, but he was only between 20-30 years ago, so he probably doesn't count either

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:25 PM
  #82
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
So this era is about 30 years old, lol, nearly a 3rd of the league's existence, Bobby Clarke, tiger williams, this isn't limited to a specific era, it has gone on forever.

Matt Cooke is in the minority of dirty players, for every matt cooke of today there was a player of the same ilk from years past.

Marty Mcsorely, but he was only between 20-30 years ago, so he probably doesn't count either
I guess I'm done with this discussion. Why discuss things when people are just being sarcastic? It's not exactly pleasant or conducive to anything interesting.

The game changed in the late 80s, early 90s to include more hit-to-hurt players. It also changed in the mid-90s to become more defensive. I clearly stated that I was speaking of the past, and figured people were aware of these dramatic changes that occurred in roughly the same time period.

As for Tiger Williams charging people ... well, okay, I don't think so. McSorley charging is laughable--guy couldn't skate. It's pretty clear that Clutterbucks and Tootoos didn't exist back then with any real frequency, whereas they're commonplace today. This isn't a real unknown here.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:25 PM
  #83
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
In the 70's the league had the broad street bullies, the bruins were loaded with tough, dirty guys, the habs had some as well. I'm not sure the 70's is good place to take your argument tbh.

The 70's was one of the roughest, dirtiest times in NHL history, not sure you wanna go there to try and make your point.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:30 PM
  #84
Pax Macioretty
Registered User
 
Pax Macioretty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hockey city
Posts: 15,597
vCash: 500
What a dumb, dumb article by a terrible journalist. It's an embarrassment threw and threw to associate hockey fighting and suicidal deaths together. Belak had a family and was about to take his retirement for god's sake! If I was Jack Todd's boss that would be the end of
him period.

Pax Macioretty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:32 PM
  #85
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
In the 70's the league had the broad street bullies, the bruins were loaded with tough, dirty guys, the habs had some as well. I'm not sure the 70's is good place to take your argument tbh.
I think we're talking about different things. I'm talking about hit-to-hurt players. That's different than dirty. Claude was notoriously dirty for his stickwork and catching players in vulnerable positions; not for charging opponents. The Flyers and Bruins were bullies, but they weren't exactly fleet of foot skaters who exploded into their opponents. They bodychecked, sure, but were feared more for their willingness to goon it up than for laying out opponents. The latter happened, but that's not what made the clubs infamous.

If the '70s were so chalk full of these players, you wouldn't struggle to name the Tootoos of that generation.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:34 PM
  #86
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Potvin was a heavy hitter but he didn't charge opponents. Not like Tootoo and Clutterbuck. In fact, Neely was a heavy and mean hitter, but didn't charge either. And listing Lindros and Robinson is laughable. Kasparaitis did charge, but uh, he didn't play in 1983. He played in the era that I'm talking about as being problematic--so did Stevens.



Claude played in the era of charging (the beginning of it, anyway). But he didn't charge so much as play dirty, mostly with his stick. He didn't have the quickness to actually charge. That's what I'm talking about: yesteryear's Claude's and Tikkanen's didn't have the explosiveness to launch themselves into the opposition on the forecheck. Lapierre, Clutterbuck, Tootoo, et al. are all about explosiveness and decimating the opposition on the forecheck.

Every team has those players. At least one. I'd wager you couldn't name a dozen in the '70s who played like Clutterbuck does now.
"Larry Robinson ... never heard of him," the voice at the other end of the phone said with a loud chuckle.

Gary Dornhoefer could be forgiven if he actually did forget who Larry Robinson is, since his memory might still be a little foggy after the crunching bodycheck the Hall of Fame defenceman hit him with at the Montreal Forum 31 years ago.

I watched the game on TV, and I still remember it like it happened yesterday. I'll never forget the sight of a Forum maintenance worker walking on to the ice with a hammer in hand to repair the broken boards.

Dornhoefer was racing down the right-wing boards with the puck and had just crossed the Canadiens' blue-line when Robinson caught him with a hip check, sending the Philadelphia Flyer crashing into the unforgiving Forum boards.

"I finished the game, but I was spitting blood for about two or three days afterwards," he recalled.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...86e71e&k=44594


Larry Robinson hit Dornhoefer for one reason and one reason only. To inflict maximum pain on him. And it worked. Very well.

The Habs won the Cup against the Flyers 4 games to 0 in 1976. That Game 2 hit resonated very loudly.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:48 PM
  #87
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I think we're talking about different things. I'm talking about hit-to-hurt players. That's different than dirty. Claude was notoriously dirty for his stickwork and catching players in vulnerable positions; not for charging opponents. The Flyers and Bruins were bullies, but they weren't exactly fleet of foot skaters who exploded into their opponents. They bodychecked, sure, but were feared more for their willingness to goon it up than for laying out opponents. The latter happened, but that's not what made the clubs infamous.

If the '70s were so chalk full of these players, you wouldn't struggle to name the Tootoos of that generation.
Listen mike, I think you're a great poster, I just think your view on this is incorrect. The 70's was worse, much worse, the Red Army team wouldn't even return to the ice, how they were hurting players is debating semantics, hockey is a violent sport, injuries have gone up in the post lockout years largely because of the rule changes, not players explosive speed or intent to hurt someone anymore than they aimed to hurt someone in the past. Claude Lemieux's hit on Draper was one of the dirtiest plays ever, it was a charge, it was from beihind, it was blindside, you name it. Hunters hit on Turgeon was one of most the obvious attempts to injure, ever.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:50 PM
  #88
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I think we're talking about different things. I'm talking about hit-to-hurt players. That's different than dirty. Claude was notoriously dirty for his stickwork and catching players in vulnerable positions; not for charging opponents. The Flyers and Bruins were bullies, but they weren't exactly fleet of foot skaters who exploded into their opponents. They bodychecked, sure, but were feared more for their willingness to goon it up than for laying out opponents. The latter happened, but that's not what made the clubs infamous.

If the '70s were so chalk full of these players, you wouldn't struggle to name the Tootoos of that generation.
Wayne Cashman
Bobby Clarke
Steve Durbano
John Ferguson
Bill Flett
Nick Fotiu
Bob Gassoff
Clark Gillies
Dale Hunter
Andre Dupont
Stan Jonathan
Gilles Lupien
Keith Magnuson
Dan Maloney
Terry O'Reilly
Willi Plett
Al Secord
Harold Snepsts


Need more???

ETA.....Not too many of the guys above show up on YouTube though.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:54 PM
  #89
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Listen mike, I think you're a great poster, I just think your view on this is incorrect. The 70's was worse, much worse, the Red Army team wouldn't even return to the ice, how they were hurting players is debating semantics, hockey is a violent sport, injuries have gone up in the post lockout years largely because of the rule changes, not players explosive speed or intent to hurt someone anymore than they aimed to hurt someone in the past. Claude Lemieux's hit on Draper was one of the dirtiest plays ever, it was a charge, it was from beihind, it was blindside, you name it. Hunters hit on Turgeon was one of most the obvious attempts to injure, ever.
This discussion began by my discussing charging. Claude's hit on Draper was not a charge. It was a hit from behind. Hunter's hit on Turgeon wasn't a charge either. The Flyers' hits on the Red Army weren't charges--even those 3 minutes or so prior to the Red Army leaving the ice where the Flyers were hitting them left and right.

I was discussing charges exclusively and how there is a role for players who charge to hit-to-hurt. There's always been stickwork and so on, but there's a real difference in modern hockey in the style of bodychecking that exists. There's a real difference in the bodytypes of today's NHLers and their capacity to explode. I'm not exaggerating or making this stuff up--it's well-known and easy to discover on your own.

If your point is that there's been mean players all along, then sure, that's fine. But that's not the discussion here. I'm not talking about respect factors or anything. As you've stated, previous generations were as nasty and ill-willed as any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Wayne Cashman
Bobby Clarke
Steve Durbano
John Ferguson
Bill Flett
Nick Fotiu
Bob Gassoff
Clark Gillies
Dale Hunter
Andre Dupont
Stan Jonathan
Gilles Lupien
Keith Magnuson
Dan Maloney
Terry O'Reilly
Willi Plett
Al Secord
Harold Snepsts


Need more???

ETA.....Not too many of the guys above show up on YouTube though.
Honestly, I think you're confused as to what we're discussing here. Either that, or you've just listed a bunch of players with higher PIMs and decided they likely charged here or there--even if they didn't have the speed to ever charge anyone.

Listing Cashman, O'Reilly and Jonathan and drawing comparisons between them and Tootoo and Clutterbuck is... special.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 09:04 PM
  #90
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
This discussion began by my discussing charging. Claude's hit on Draper was not a charge. It was a hit from behind. Hunter's hit on Turgeon wasn't a charge either. The Flyers' hits on the Red Army weren't charges--even those 3 minutes or so prior to the Red Army leaving the ice where the Flyers were hitting them left and right.

I was discussing charges exclusively and how there is a role for players who charge to hit-to-hurt. There's always been stickwork and so on, but there's a real difference in modern hockey in the style of bodychecking that exists. There's a real difference in the bodytypes of today's NHLers and their capacity to explode. I'm not exaggerating or making this stuff up--it's well-known and easy to discover on your own.

If your point is that there's been mean players all along, then sure, that's fine. But that's not the discussion here. I'm not talking about respect factors or anything. As you've stated, previous generations were as nasty and ill-willed as any.



Honestly, I think you're confused as to what we're discussing here. Either that, or you've just listed a bunch of players with higher PIMs and decided they likely charged here or there--even if they didn't have the speed to ever charge anyone.

Listing Cashman, O'Reilly and Jonathan and drawing comparisons between them and Tootoo and Clutterbuck is... special.
Post # 68 on this thread.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Players have hit to hurt for a long time, I don't know where the idea that this is some kind of recent phenomenom comes from.
Above is the post you responded to.

Now, you are splitting hairs down the middle. You are now limiting the discussion to "only charging" and I am showing you players who hit to hurt.

Call it what you want but the end result was the players I mentioned above did not skate around on the ice giving a few gentle checks. They were mean and tough and did not mind knocking a player out of the game. And no, they are not all Bruins or Flyers.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 09:10 PM
  #91
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Above is the post you responded to.

Now, you are splitting hairs down the middle. You are now limiting the discussion to "only charging" and I am showing you players who hit to hurt.

Call it what you want but the end result was the players I mentioned above did not skate around on the ice giving a few gentle checks. They were mean and tough and did not mind knocking a player out of the game. And no, they are not all Bruins or Flyers.
I don't know why you're highlighting a post that I responded to, considering this discussion began between my exchange with Crimson about charging. It's not splitting hairs: that's the foundation of this discussion (why are we discussing how this discussion started? It's all right there). That's specifically what I was talking about--the Clutterbucks and Tootoos of today, and the NHL regulations on charging.

I don't think I can explain my position on this any more clearly, nor do I feel the need to discuss what exactly we're discussing any more. If you disagree, you're more than free to disagree.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 09:11 PM
  #92
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
This discussion began by my discussing charging. Claude's hit on Draper was not a charge. It was a hit from behind. Hunter's hit on Turgeon wasn't a charge either. The Flyers' hits on the Red Army weren't charges--even those 3 minutes or so prior to the Red Army leaving the ice where the Flyers were hitting them left and right.

I was discussing charges exclusively and how there is a role for players who charge to hit-to-hurt. There's always been stickwork and so on, but there's a real difference in modern hockey in the style of bodychecking that exists. There's a real difference in the bodytypes of today's NHLers and their capacity to explode. I'm not exaggerating or making this stuff up--it's well-known and easy to discover on your own.

If your point is that there's been mean players all along, then sure, that's fine. But that's not the discussion here. I'm not talking about respect factors or anything. As you've stated, previous generations were as nasty and ill-willed as any.
I still disagree, finishing your checks has gone on since hockey began. Players always have been told to finish their checks, ie hitting players when they no longer have the puck. So the idea that hits use to be just to separate guys from the puck isn't necessarily true.

I don't believe the incidence of charging have gone up much at all. Maybe due to refs not calling them consistently, I think the faster pace leads to some inevitable and somewhat questionable hits that may not of been as prevalent in the past, but mostly because of the rule changes that sped the game up.

BTW Van Impe's hit almost took Kharlamov's head off. There should of been 5 penalties in those 3 minutes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I don't know why you're highlighting a post that I responded to, considering this discussion began between my exchange with Crimson about charging. It's not splitting hairs: that's the foundation of this discussion (why are we discussing how this discussion started? It's all right there). That's specifically what I was talking about--the Clutterbucks and Tootoos of today, and the NHL regulations on charging.

I don't think I can explain my position on this any more clearly, nor do I feel the need to discuss what exactly we're discussing any more. If you disagree, you're more than free to disagree.
Anyways mike, i'm done, but your original post barely mentions charging. You said it in your second paragraph after talking about hitting to hurt in your first paragraph, which made no reference to charging at all. I do think you kinda moved the goal post midstream, and if not, I'm sorry for arguing against something you weren't discussing, I might have misunderstood your stance from the beginning.


Last edited by Shawn Wilken: 09-05-2011 at 09:18 PM. Reason: Merged
habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 09:30 PM
  #93
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I don't know why you're highlighting a post that I responded to, considering this discussion began between my exchange with Crimson about charging. It's not splitting hairs: that's the foundation of this discussion (why are we discussing how this discussion started? It's all right there). That's specifically what I was talking about--the Clutterbucks and Tootoos of today, and the NHL regulations on charging.

I don't think I can explain my position on this any more clearly, nor do I feel the need to discuss what exactly we're discussing any more. If you disagree, you're more than free to disagree.
Mike. As you know better than anyone, a thread on any message board ebbs and flows with the discussion.

habsjunkie2 made a post about players hitting to hurt. You countered with the statement that this was a more recent phenomenon and asking habsjunkie2 to name players from the 70's.

Now that part of the discussion is not relevant since you meant charging and not hitting to hurt.

OK, works for me.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 09:38 PM
  #94
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Mike. As you know better than anyone, a thread on any message board ebbs and flows with the discussion.

habsjunkie2 made a post about players hitting to hurt. You countered with the statement that this was a more recent phenomenon and asking habsjunkie2 to name players from the 70's.

Now that part of the discussion is not relevant since you meant charging and not hitting to hurt.

OK, works for me.
I was discussing hitting to hurt, which seemed to me, to be the focus of his first post, not necessarily charging. Since when has charging been the only means of hitting to hurt. Most checks are meant to hurt, with the hopes of wearing your opponents down. Canada does it every year at the WJC, most times it works, sometimes it doesn't, but if mike claims he was only discussing charging. I'll take him at his word.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 09:42 PM
  #95
SouthernHab
Not a Fanboy
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I was discussing hitting to hurt, which seemed to me, to be the focus of his first post, not necessarily charging. Since when has charging been the only means of hitting to hurt. Most checks are meant to hurt, with the hopes of wearing your opponents down. Canada does it every year at the WJC, most times it works, sometimes it doesn't, but if mike claims he was only discussing charging. I'll take him at his word.

Yeah, me too. No biggie.

It was fun going back in time and seeing those names of the tough hard hitting guys from the past though.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 09:58 PM
  #96
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Yeah, me too. No biggie.

It was fun going back in time and seeing those names of the tough hard hitting guys from the past though.
There was a neat video with Esposito talking about the 72 summit series and how the russians would continuously spear and use stick work and they wanted to retaliate because they were subtle jabs that the refs missed, but they still really hurt, and he goes on to say he wanted to fight the guy so bad to make him stop, and states himself that fighting is not where players get hurt as often, but through the stick work. Him wanting to fight was to deter the guy from sticking him again, not to hurt him.

Leaving everything up to the refs decide is fine in theory, but what if this continuously goes unnoticed by the refs? Are you suppose to take it all game long, I disagree, you drop the gloves and send the message, he'll think twice about swinging his stick again. The refs do their best, but miss many of the subtle jabs that happen every single game.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 09:59 PM
  #97
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Mike. As you know better than anyone, a thread on any message board ebbs and flows with the discussion.

habsjunkie2 made a post about players hitting to hurt. You countered with the statement that this was a more recent phenomenon and asking habsjunkie2 to name players from the 70's.

Now that part of the discussion is not relevant since you meant charging and not hitting to hurt.

OK, works for me.
You're good at baiting, as well as misconstruing facts. Unfortunately for you, my post is earlier on this page. I directly stated players like Clutterbuck and Tootoo and asked for players like them in the '70s. Those two are known for charging.

I'm not moving any goalposts by the way, habsjunkie2. Read back to my first post in this thread: I posted about fighting and charging.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 10:12 PM
  #98
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
You're good at baiting, as well as misconstruing facts. Unfortunately for you, my post is earlier on this page. I directly stated players like Clutterbuck and Tootoo and asked for players like them in the '70s. Those two are known for charging.

I'm not moving any goalposts by the way, habsjunkie2. Read back to my first post in this thread: I posted about fighting and charging.
It's all good mike, your first post that I quoted vaguely referenced charging. You were discussing with crimson i think about the added seconds allowed to finish checks and went onto say it went from a little leeway to allow for the speed and quickness of the game to hitting to hurt.

I was disagreeing with this portion only. TBH, I didn't really read much of the rest of the post, no offense, I'm a bit of lazy guy and it was a pretty long post by you, so I just read the first paragraph and thought hitting to hurt was your point of contention. I have gone back and read it since and see mentioning of charging, but didn't think it was the gist of your post.

It's probably my fault for concluding something from your post after reading one paragraph, I'm sorry this has gone way off course. I like respectful debate though and find you one of the easier people to discuss things with.

It was a simple misunderstanding. No biggie mike. I apologize for misrepresenting your arguments.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 10:17 PM
  #99
SnipeShow91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by centrehice View Post
So an accidental death, and 2 guys with depression means hockey fighting is killing people?
just like i was going to say....what if it was 3 goalies who died...play 6 on 6. Its just the fact they were all tough guys is making fighting look bad. But how many fighters have died in the past. Bob Probert had a well known addictions problem. Theo Fleury was a tough little bugger and he had MAJOR personal issues.

SnipeShow91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 10:20 PM
  #100
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
It's all good mike, your first post that I quoted vaguely referenced charging. You were discussing with crimson i think about the added seconds allowed to finish checks and went onto say it went from a little leeway to allow for the speed and quickness of the game to hitting to hurt.

I was disagreeing with this portion only. TBH, I didn't really read much of the rest of the post, no offense, I'm a bit of lazy guy and it was a pretty long post by you, so I just read the first paragraph and thought hitting to hurt was your point of contention. I have gone back and read it since and see mentioning of charging, but didn't think it was the gist of your post.

It's probably my fault for concluding something from your post after reading one paragraph, I'm sorry this has gone way off course. I like respectful debate though and find you one of the easier people to discuss things with.

It was a simple misunderstanding. No biggie mike. I apologize for misrepresenting your arguments.
No need to apologise at all. I normally enjoy discussions with you as well.

...

Anyway, back on topic with this thread: I've seen a few posters, yourself included I believe, state that they don't think fighting will ever be 'banned' from the game. I'm wondering if this is true. The sport has tried to distance itself from the 'bloodsport' label for awhile now and several rule changes have led, directly or indirectly, to making enforcers obsolete. Enforcers have (ironically, given their livelihoods) come out discussing how difficult and anxiety-ridden their jobs are. I'm wondering if this could all culminate in the banning of fighting sometime in the future.

I really question how the NHL views fighting purely from a viewership standpoint. If it were as entertaining as we think, why would the NHL want to limit it and render goons obsolete?

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.