HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Hockey Fights
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Hockey Fights Discuss and rate hockey fights and fighters of today and from the past. Videos welcome!

The Eventual Ban on Fighting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-08-2011, 05:01 PM
  #26
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 40,471
vCash: 500
i think the first step to a reasonable conversation about these things is to step back from the hyperbole. the nfl has made headshots illegal. they still hit like amtrak in that league. so, taking the headshot out of hockey will require players to learn new technique to minimize any contact with the head. they will adjust like they do to anything and will hit as hard as ever.

eliminating head shots and fighting: its hard to look logical if the nhl claims to want to eliminate head shots and cut down on concussion while 1 or 2 players a week are knocked out in fights. you cant address one issue without addressing the other issue.

visors: the number of players in the nhl without visors shrinks every season as they go by. that in and of itself will reduce fighting. add that to a league wide desire to cut down on concussions may create conditions where there is less fighting.

is less fighting a ban on fighting? i doubt it. i think its possible the league will do something to eliminate some kinds of fighting. meaning they may tell teams and players that fighting to stick up for a teammate in many circumstances will not be punished any more than the current 5 minute penalty. they may however rule that fights to intimidate and fights for momentum are no longer acceptable and players starting those fights may earn suspensions.

that would reduce but not ban fighting. that should satisfy anyone that thinks cheap shots will run rampant. a fight created by a cheap shot will be as acceptable as it is now.

txpd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2011, 10:14 AM
  #27
bleeney
Registered User
 
bleeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrwarden View Post
Who, exactly, is pushing an anti-fighting agenda? I haven't seen anything of the sort. I think there remains much more concern about headshots than fighting per se.
It's the media that is driving the anti-fighting agenda.

Look at The Hockey News (hockey's self-professed "bible"): Editor in Chief Jason Kay wants it banned, and so do almost all of its writers. Previous Editor in Chief Steve Dryden was a rabid anti-fighting zealot, as was his former senior writer Mike Ulmer. It's almost like a closed group, where writers don't get a place on the magazine unless they agree with them.

Here in Toronto, The Star's hockey writer Damien Cox wants fighting removed, same with Steve Simmons at the SUN. Simmons now has a spot on the hockey panel at TSN's Toronto radio station, while Cox has joined another obsessed anti-fighting crusader Bob McCown on his Primetime Sports show on Sportsnet Radio. Sportsnet's morning show has Jeff Blair who wants fighting out of the game, and their HockeyCentral at noon is hosted by Darren Millard, who feels that anybody who fights should be tossed from the game.

All you have to do is watch the crowd reaction whenever there's a fight to realize that these guys do not represent the views of most hockey fans. But they have a disproportionate amount of influence.

Most (more like all) of them don't have a history in the game as a player or coach; instead their credential is a degree in journalism.

Bob McKenzie said something like this last year on the Bill Watters Show:

"The overwhelming majority of players want to keep it in the game, same with the coaches and general managers. The fans for the most part like it... it's just us, the media, who want to get rid of it."

bleeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2011, 10:44 AM
  #28
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papaspud View Post
Adam Proteau, an Editor at The Hockey News website, and magazine, has been on an anti-fighting crusade for the past 4 years. Not a "junior" hockey analyst in any sense of the word.
Yes, and you don't have to look very far to see the reputation Adam Proteau has around here. He isn't very well respected for numerous reasons. The Hockey News in itself is a once proud magazine that has gone down the tubes. Proteau, Ken Campbell, Ryan Dixon and Ryan Kennedy are all anti-fighters. By the way, Ryan Kennedy once proclaimed the 2007 Ducks would beat the 1977 Canadiens. Enough said. So yeah, the Hockey News is not a respected magazine on these boards anymore. Proteau is a wimp plain and simple, which is why he is on Off the Record once a week with another pansy, Michael Lansberg. These guys will exploit fighters till their dead. Most of us pay little attention to them.

Now this is something people don't know about Jim Thomson. He was on Off the Record not a year or two ago and he used to always do his "top 5 fighters in the game" segment. No kidding. So yeah he's a bandwagon jumper and Cherry is correct to criticize him as he usually is.

Lastly, this has been a bad summer for hockey. Three players died and they were all fighters. No one mentions the countless other fighters in NHL history who are alive and well and actually have had/have good jobs in hockey.

Rob Ray - analyst
Terry O'Reilly - former NHL coach
Wayne Cashman - former NHL coach
Dave Schultz - AHL coach
Dale Hunter - OHL owner and coach
Tie Domi - former analyst
Nick Kypreos - Sportsnet analyst since 1998
Brendan Shanahan - career 97 fights, yes THAT Shanahan now practically in charge of the NHL


Anyways, you get the point. There will always be people on the extreme left that make an issue of this. It happened with Don Sanderson (RIP) and it is happening with these three untimely deaths. You can bet Michael Lansberg is ecstatic that it wasn't Pavel Datsyuk that died, but a fighter. It's really pathetic. So look, this will pass.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2011, 11:08 AM
  #29
mrwarden
Nothing Witty
 
mrwarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 8,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleeney View Post
It's the media that is driving the anti-fighting agenda.

Look at The Hockey News (hockey's self-professed "bible"): Editor in Chief Jason Kay wants it banned, and so do almost all of its writers. Previous Editor in Chief Steve Dryden was a rabid anti-fighting zealot, as was his former senior writer Mike Ulmer. It's almost like a closed group, where writers don't get a place on the magazine unless they agree with them.

Here in Toronto, The Star's hockey writer Damien Cox wants fighting removed, same with Steve Simmons at the SUN. Simmons now has a spot on the hockey panel at TSN's Toronto radio station, while Cox has joined another obsessed anti-fighting crusader Bob McCown on his Primetime Sports show on Sportsnet Radio. Sportsnet's morning show has Jeff Blair who wants fighting out of the game, and their HockeyCentral at noon is hosted by Darren Millard, who feels that anybody who fights should be tossed from the game.

All you have to do is watch the crowd reaction whenever there's a fight to realize that these guys do not represent the views of most hockey fans. But they have a disproportionate amount of influence.

Most (more like all) of them don't have a history in the game as a player or coach; instead their credential is a degree in journalism.

Bob McKenzie said something like this last year on the Bill Watters Show:

"The overwhelming majority of players want to keep it in the game, same with the coaches and general managers. The fans for the most part like it... it's just us, the media, who want to get rid of it."
My point, was in relation to the deaths.

__________________
mrwarden is in ur threads, deleting ur posts
mrwarden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2011, 12:06 PM
  #30
bleeney
Registered User
 
bleeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrwarden View Post
My point, was in relation to the deaths.
The title of the thread is " The Eventual Ban on Fighting"

You posted: "Who, exactly, is pushing an anti-fighting agenda? I haven't seen anything of the sort. I think there remains much more concern about headshots than fighting per se."

I was merely answering your question. But since you were speaking about the deaths, look at how the media reacted.

Many, many members of the media were quick to link their deaths to fighting, and have shamelessly used these awful tragedies to pursue their anti-fighting agenda. Story after story about how "the deaths of three enforcers" should force the league to examine the role of fighting in hockey. They jumped the gun and they were wrong:

*Boogaard's death was caused by a combination of percodans and alcohol. His brother told police that he wanted the percs, not for pain, but to get ready for a night of clubbing.

*Rypien had been suffering from depression for over a decade, a condition that was triggered back when he was in Junior by the death of his girlfriend in a car accident that happened while she was driving to see him play.

*Belak (like many athletes in all sports) had been battling depression for years, but his death was termed "accidental" by his family. Out of respect for him I won't go any more detail.

There is no way that fighting should be considered the cause of any of those deaths, but the media has, and continues to, link the two.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

bleeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2011, 02:47 PM
  #31
mrwarden
Nothing Witty
 
mrwarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 8,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleeney View Post
The title of the thread is " The Eventual Ban on Fighting"

You posted: "Who, exactly, is pushing an anti-fighting agenda? I haven't seen anything of the sort. I think there remains much more concern about headshots than fighting per se."

I was merely answering your question. But since you were speaking about the deaths, look at how the media reacted.

Many, many members of the media were quick to link their deaths to fighting, and have shamelessly used these awful tragedies to pursue their anti-fighting agenda. Story after story about how "the deaths of three enforcers" should force the league to examine the role of fighting in hockey. They jumped the gun and they were wrong:

*Boogaard's death was caused by a combination of percodans and alcohol. His brother told police that he wanted the percs, not for pain, but to get ready for a night of clubbing.

*Rypien had been suffering from depression for over a decade, a condition that was triggered back when he was in Junior by the death of his girlfriend in a car accident that happened while she was driving to see him play.

*Belak (like many athletes in all sports) had been battling depression for years, but his death was termed "accidental" by his family. Out of respect for him I won't go any more detail.

There is no way that fighting should be considered the cause of any of those deaths, but the media has, and continues to, link the two.

They should be ashamed of themselves.
That was point, who in the media, linked their deaths to fighting? Yes, the thread title is "The Eventual Ban on Fighting" but the content of the OP was how it would come about as a result of the anti-fighting agenda related to the deaths this summer.

mrwarden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2011, 07:09 PM
  #32
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleeney View Post
Previous Editor in Chief Steve Dryden was a rabid anti-fighting zealot, as was his former senior writer Mike Ulmer. It's almost like a closed group, where writers don't get a place on the magazine unless they agree with them.

Here in Toronto, The Star's hockey writer Damien Cox wants fighting removed, same with Steve Simmons at the SUN. Simmons now has a spot on the hockey panel at TSN's Toronto radio station, while Cox has joined another obsessed anti-fighting crusader Bob McCown on his Primetime Sports show on Sportsnet Radio. Sportsnet's morning show has Jeff Blair who wants fighting out of the game, and their HockeyCentral at noon is hosted by Darren Millard, who feels that anybody who fights should be tossed from the game.

All you have to do is watch the crowd reaction whenever there's a fight to realize that these guys do not represent the views of most hockey fans. But they have a disproportionate amount of influence.
I find the use of "rabid" and "zealot" to describe anti-fighting advocated ironic while bringing in fans' reactions to fighting when it happens...which is certainly rabid itself much of the time. Calling another anti-fighting advocate "obsessed" is also very ironic when it's done on a message board devoted entirely to fighting.

As someone said above, no real discussion of the subject can be had before the hyberbole is put aside. I'd add name-calling to that as well.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2011, 08:16 PM
  #33
bleeney
Registered User
 
bleeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I find the use of "rabid" and "zealot" to describe anti-fighting advocated ironic while bringing in fans' reactions to fighting when it happens...which is certainly rabid itself much of the time. Calling another anti-fighting advocate "obsessed" is also very ironic when it's done on a message board devoted entirely to fighting.

As someone said above, no real discussion of the subject can be had before the hyberbole is put aside. I'd add name-calling to that as well.
zeal: fervor for a person, cause, or object;

I'd say that anyone who, without any factual basis, exploits three horrific tragedies to advance their cause would qualify as a zealot.

None of the three deaths were a result of fighting, but somehow their role as "enforcers" and the place of fighting in hockey (instead of depression or substance abuse) became the heart of the story.

Disgusting!

bleeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2011, 08:41 PM
  #34
straka91*
 
straka91*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post

Rob Ray - analyst
Terry O'Reilly - former NHL coach
Wayne Cashman - former NHL coach
Dave Schultz - AHL coach
Dale Hunter - OHL owner and coach
Tie Domi - former analyst
Nick Kypreos - Sportsnet analyst since 1998
Brendan Shanahan - career 97 fights, yes THAT Shanahan now practically in charge of the NHL


Anyways, you get the point. There will always be people on the extreme left that make an issue of this. It happened with Don Sanderson (RIP) and it is happening with these three untimely deaths. You can bet Michael Lansberg is ecstatic that it wasn't Pavel Datsyuk that died, but a fighter. It's really pathetic. So look, this will pass.

I think Kocur or Grimson is a lawer, cant remember. Scott Parker is in the resturaunt business. Just to add a few. Also want to point out that Shanny has been a sale out when it comes to fighting. He was on the board who harshed in the instigator rule more. Sadly he is just another puppet for Buttman.

straka91* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2011, 11:00 PM
  #35
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleeney View Post
zeal: fervor for a person, cause, or object;
Ah, but you said zealot rather than zeal, and zealot often means someone with excessive zeal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bleeney View Post
None of the three deaths were a result of fighting, but somehow their role as "enforcers" and the place of fighting in hockey (instead of depression or substance abuse) became the heart of the story.
The problem being, there appears to be a link between fighting and depression: fighting often causes concussions (see here for example), and concussions often cause depression (see here for example). Just because the players didn't die in a fight doesn't mean it's not related.

I'm not necessarily supporting anything specific here, just pointing out that there is a plausible link so the discussion is worthwhile.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2011, 05:56 PM
  #36
ARCTICCAT24
Registered User
 
ARCTICCAT24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,094
vCash: 500
They won't and can't ban fighting. The NHL would loose so much revenue that it would be crazy. The NHL is smart enough to know that if they want to stay one of the "big 4" they will keep fighting alive.

ARCTICCAT24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 01:50 AM
  #37
Eytinge
Registered User
 
Eytinge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 10,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
You can bet Michael Lansberg is ecstatic that it wasn't Pavel Datsyuk that died, but a fighter. It's really pathetic. So look, this will pass.
Agreed. Lansberg is pathetic with his anti-fighting agenda. He uses their deaths to push his opinion on us tenfold.

Eytinge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:21 AM
  #38
TheNextOneX
Registered User
 
TheNextOneX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Lausanne
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 652
vCash: 500
Why fighting is good for the sport:

-It’s like a street gang, but it’s organized into teams and on skates.

-It’s okay to punch a guy, hit him, and slash him with your stick. It’s called “part of the game”.

-Fans actually pay to see players fight and play a little hockey.

-Hockey violence is better than boxing, and they do it 82 games a year.

-When you get punished for fighting, you get to sit down for five minutes, and then you get to play and fight again.

-Mommies are not allowed on the ice to comfort their battered sons.

-Hockey coaches actually hire players who do not score, but instead beat up people.

-Players are exempt from dental insurance. In fact a player with a complete set of teeth is unheard of.

-You won’t get in trouble with your boss when you slug opposing players, in fact there may be a bounty.

-Because of stitches, there are no pretty hockey players. They all look like Boris Karloff.

Bring it on!



Last edited by TheNextOneX: 10-12-2011 at 09:20 AM.
TheNextOneX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 07:28 AM
  #39
thehumanpanda
Registered User
 
thehumanpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mega City, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 402
vCash: 500
Fighting in hockey might seem natural for people who grew up with the game. But I can tell you it is absolutely bizarre for people who don't follow hockey. Peaceful people think it is violent, regular fans of other sports think it is immature, kids who don't watch hockey find it hilarious. I will bet that most of the spectators cheering when there is a fight in a US arena are cheering because of the hilarity of two grown men who can't play a game without resorting to getting into a wrestling match with each other. When I was overseas, I showed people hockey.. when the fights came on, they laughed and pointed and called the fighters and hockey players "idiots" "stupid" "bunch of bozos" + an array of swear words meaning cowards (exact quotes). People who don't believe me, just google anti-hockey fighting topics and see what cyberspace thinks about it.

Example:

http://juicedsportsblog.com/2010/10/...r-grow-up.html

Hockey people are convinced the world believes hockey players are the most "classy" people that can do no wrong. Come out of your sheltered lives and see how it really is.

We are all hockey fans here and if you're in Canada, we spent our entire early childhoods slapping hockey pucks around on the rink and on the street. This cherished sport is considered a freak show by most people in the world, and after getting around I can understand why they think this.

I'm changing the channel when fighting comes on in hockey. I'll change it to the NBA when it returns.

Ban this embarrassment of fighting in hockey.


Last edited by thehumanpanda: 10-12-2011 at 07:43 AM.
thehumanpanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 08:33 AM
  #40
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 40,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARCTICCAT24 View Post
They won't and can't ban fighting. The NHL would loose so much revenue that it would be crazy. The NHL is smart enough to know that if they want to stay one of the "big 4" they will keep fighting alive.
if fighting is high enough on the priority list that it would keep you from watching, then i dont think you are as big a hockey fan as you think.

i love hockey. nhl, ahl, ncaa, international, olympic. the stanley cup playoffs and olympics are the best hockey ever. fighting is minimul at best there. you dont like the playoffs/olympics?

txpd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:04 AM
  #41
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 1400
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by jughead42 View Post
They should get rid of body checking too. Its not really safe for the players to be flying into each other at 40 miles an hour. Oh yeah, get rid of skates while we're at it. Its not safe to have sharp metal blades on your feet in a contact sport. Hell, ice is pretty slippery so we might as well just get rid of that. Its not really safe to play on a surface that has so little grip. Maybe we should make the puck out of foam rubber too, its not really safe that such a hard object gets propelled at those speeds. Somebody could seriously be hurt. Fighting cheapens the sport? I think pandering to sissies who don't understand the game cheapens the sport. Its a tough game and people get hurt playing it with or without fighting. Just my 2 cents.
Name another team sport that tolerates fighting? (No need to wiki, the answer is none)



Now look at the sports that don't tolerate it (Again no need to wiki, the answer is every sport does not tolerate fighting)

My views have been clear on this issue for a very long time, I have no issue with 2 players in the heat of battle dropping the gloves. I do have issues for the fake planned show fights which not only takes away from the sport but also causes unnecessary dangers. The fighters are not even enforcers anymore, because the game has passed them by so far that it hurts your team to have one of the fighters playing a regular shift.

I don't care about the argument that fighting caused these players depression or whatever, don't care at all. I'm not a doctor, I have seen no studies pertaining to concussions and fighting and don't care too. I do care that my time gets wasted for 5 minutes at a time because Colton Orr has promised his drinking buddy a fight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd View Post
if fighting is high enough on the priority list that it would keep you from watching, then i dont think you are as big a hockey fan as you think.

i love hockey. nhl, ahl, ncaa, international, olympic. the stanley cup playoffs and olympics are the best hockey ever. fighting is minimul at best there. you dont like the playoffs/olympics?
What has it been, 5 years that we have been making the same arguments?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARCTICCAT24 View Post
They won't and can't ban fighting. The NHL would loose so much revenue that it would be crazy. The NHL is smart enough to know that if they want to stay one of the "big 4" they will keep fighting alive.
Do you have a link to this or is this your opinion? I'd be interested to see anyone actually state this in public and not be laughed at. The thing keeping hockey a fringe sport is the senseless violence. "oh look at the people cheering the fighting, can you believe some people want to take it out of the game?" screams Don Cherry.

Well with comments like "I went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out" do you really think that's a compliment? Do you really think comments from a bigot (who has been on national TV insulting other nationalities for years) is really helping the cause?

The fact is the senseless violence and senseless fighting has kept this a fringe sport. At least they are trying to do away with cheap shots now.

Poignant Discussion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:50 AM
  #42
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARCTICCAT24 View Post
They won't and can't ban fighting. The NHL would loose so much revenue that it would be crazy. The NHL is smart enough to know that if they want to stay one of the "big 4" they will keep fighting alive.

anyone who would stop watching hockey because there is no fighting is not really a hockey fan

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 10:02 AM
  #43
Ziggy66
Registered User
 
Ziggy66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Killarney, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,984
vCash: 50
Meh had this discussion with txpd in another forum. I believe fighting will stay in and their will be no ban. As for someone saying outsiders look at hockey as a freakshow due to fighting I highly disagree. I have watched NHL games in Japan, china, Philippines and south America. The only things that peaked their amusement were goal scoring, nice saves, fights and big hits. They actually enjoyed the "freakshow". Mind you some of them had watched before but most had not.
Getting off track here but I believe only a minority are interested in seeing fighting banned and the media is pushing this agenda. Its a physical sport and fighting has been part of hockey history for a very long time. It is not going anywhere.

Ziggy66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 10:53 AM
  #44
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poignant Discussion View Post
Do you have a link to this or is this your opinion? I'd be interested to see anyone actually state this in public and not be laughed at. The thing keeping hockey a fringe sport is the senseless violence. "oh look at the people cheering the fighting, can you believe some people want to take it out of the game?" screams Don Cherry.
This is valid I think. People point to the fans, who came to the game knowing that there may very well be a fight, cheering the fight. Well, duh. Since the likelihood of a fight happening is known, then the people who enjoy fights are more likley to come to the games. Fans who love hockey but hate fighting are more likely to stay away, because they know there may be a fight. Which is to say, the fans at the game are a self-selected group, and therefore do not necessarily represent hockey fans in general.

If fighting were removed, any claim that there would be a net loss in fans in unsupported. We don't know how many fans would stay away because there would be no fighting, and we don't know how many fans would come to the game because there would be no fighting. Assuming the former is greater than the latter is just that, an assumption.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:07 PM
  #45
straka91*
 
straka91*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARCTICCAT24 View Post
They won't and can't ban fighting. The NHL would loose so much revenue that it would be crazy. The NHL is smart enough to know that if they want to stay one of the "big 4" they will keep fighting alive.
I agree with the fighting bit. But the NHL hasnt been a big 4 sport in America since Gretzky retired. Unless your city has a winning team, no one really follows it except for the hardcore, true hockey fans. (Candian teams exempt)

NFL>MLB>NBA>UFC>Nascar>NHL>MLS>Golf
NHL goes further down once NCAA is put into the eaquation.

straka91* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:27 PM
  #46
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This is valid I think. People point to the fans, who came to the game knowing that there may very well be a fight, cheering the fight. Well, duh. Since the likelihood of a fight happening is known, then the people who enjoy fights are more likley to come to the games. Fans who love hockey but hate fighting are more likely to stay away, because they know there may be a fight. Which is to say, the fans at the game are a self-selected group, and therefore do not necessarily represent hockey fans in general.

If fighting were removed, any claim that there would be a net loss in fans in unsupported. We don't know how many fans would stay away because there would be no fighting, and we don't know how many fans would come to the game because there would be no fighting. Assuming the former is greater than the latter is just that, an assumption.
Do you honestly believe fans of hockey are staying away from the arena fr fear that a fight might break out? Tell me you were joking, any fan of hockey knows fighting is part of the sport, in fact, it may be part of what attracted them to the sport in the first place.

The idea that there are hockey fans who don't watch hockey because they are scared a fight may break is completely absurd, borderline delusional.

I don't think it would hurt the bottom line all that much if it were removed, but I do think it would hurt the product on the ice. Just this year during the TSN preview show, they interviewed, Hall, Spezza and Gionta, when it was Gionta's time he said they adopted the fighting ban rules in college and the stick work was much more prevalent. I'd take his opinion over everyone here 8days a week. He's a 5"8 midget by NHL standards and never fights himself, but realizes the place it has in the game. He has experienced both sides, he's more than qualified to speak.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:57 PM
  #47
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Do you honestly believe fans of hockey are staying away from the arena fr fear that a fight might break out? Tell me you were joking, any fan of hockey knows fighting is part of the sport, in fact, it may be part of what attracted them to the sport in the first place.
I believe that there might be a significant number of them, yes. Notice how I said might be. I haven't claimed anything about there being a huge number of them. But I don't pretend to know for sure, unlike what you're doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
The idea that there are hockey fans who don't watch hockey because they are scared a fight may break is completely absurd, borderline delusional.
So you think there are no fans who change the channel when a fight comes on TV? Are you sure about that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I don't think it would hurt the bottom line all that much if it were removed, but I do think it would hurt the product on the ice. Just this year during the TSN preview show, they interviewed, Hall, Spezza and Gionta, when it was Gionta's time he said they adopted the fighting ban rules in college and the stick work was much more prevalent. I'd take his opinion over everyone here 8days a week.
So the league could effectively ban fighting, but not be able to anything about stickwork? I mean, if they're helpless to prevent stickwork, how would they get rid of fighting in the first place?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:07 PM
  #48
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,403
vCash: 500
I think people need to take responsibility for their actions including people like Mr.Thomson and not blame something that happened in their lives as to why they have problems.

My Dad worked at a max security pen for 35 years and all he heard from every inmate was how their daddy beat them or their mommy didn't love them and that is why they did what they did. Sorry but what about all the people that have those problems and don't do bad things? Take some responsibility for your life you will be better off for it

Joe Hallenback is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:08 PM
  #49
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I'd take his (Gionta) opinion over everyone here 8days a week
so it is safe to say that any opinion Gionta (or any hockey player?) has on hockey you would take? Or is it just opinions that align with yours?

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:09 PM
  #50
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poignant Discussion View Post
Name another team sport that tolerates fighting? (No need to wiki, the answer is none)



Now look at the sports that don't tolerate it (Again no need to wiki, the answer is every sport does not tolerate fighting)

My views have been clear on this issue for a very long time, I have no issue with 2 players in the heat of battle dropping the gloves. I do have issues for the fake planned show fights which not only takes away from the sport but also causes unnecessary dangers. The fighters are not even enforcers anymore, because the game has passed them by so far that it hurts your team to have one of the fighters playing a regular shift.

I don't care about the argument that fighting caused these players depression or whatever, don't care at all. I'm not a doctor, I have seen no studies pertaining to concussions and fighting and don't care too. I do care that my time gets wasted for 5 minutes at a time because Colton Orr has promised his drinking buddy a fight.



What has it been, 5 years that we have been making the same arguments?
Name another sport that uses a puck? This is hockey, not some other sport.

habsjunkie2* 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 02:03 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.