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
10-12-2011, 04:12 PM
  #51
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
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?
No, but when he can testify to why with nothing to gain from lying, I'd value his opinion over everyone here, yes.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 04:16 PM
  #52
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
No, but when he can testify to why with nothing to gain from lying, I'd value his opinion over everyone here, yes.
so, just when it aligns with yours.....gotcha

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 04:26 PM
  #53
Karl Pilkington
Registered User
 
Karl Pilkington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,991
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?
It's not the fighting that caused the depression.. its the painkillers. I had shoulder surgery and was on heavy meds for two weeks straight and this other med for 6 weeks.. it was intense.. coming off those was one of the most emotional times in my life.

Anyone using those deaths as justification for their point of view on fighting needs to get real. Really.. someone's death as justification of your point of view? Wow (not directing that at you Poignant Discussion, moreso the "media".. those guys sitting around the TSN/CBC tables discussing these "issues".. the ones who like to make themselves bigger than the event itself).

Karl Pilkington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:12 PM
  #54
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Name another sport that uses a puck? This is hockey, not some other sport.
I think the point about this is that "Ban fighting" tends to elicit responses of "May as well ban body checking too!". That is, the slippery slope is quickly invoked. But other full-contact sports do not tolerate fighting, so removing fighting does not mean you have to remove physical play.

Here's another one: name another sport when some players are used for the sole purpose of breaking the rules. Fighting is against hockey's rules, and some players are employed solely to fight.

As a related point to that, why is slashing not said to be "part of the game"? Slashing has been around since the early days of hockey and, like fighting, is against the rules. False nobility has been attached to punching people in the face, though, so stickwork is considered cowardly while punching is somehow manly.

This is probably the wrong sub forum for this. Presumably most people here like fighting, so this will probably fall on deaf ears.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
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
Ah, the world in black and white. Real life tends to be pretty grey, though. You can take responsibility for your own actions while still trying to do something about an external cause as well.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:59 PM
  #55
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
so, just when it aligns with yours.....gotcha
Nice argument, but it's not what I said, when players overwhelmingly state they feel fighting no longer serves a purpose, I will support their wishes as they are the ones involved, until then, they trump the opinions on here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I think the point about this is that "Ban fighting" tends to elicit responses of "May as well ban body checking too!". That is, the slippery slope is quickly invoked. But other full-contact sports do not tolerate fighting, so removing fighting does not mean you have to remove physical play.

Here's another one: name another sport when some players are used for the sole purpose of breaking the rules. Fighting is against hockey's rules, and some players are employed solely to fight.

As a related point to that, why is slashing not said to be "part of the game"? Slashing has been around since the early days of hockey and, like fighting, is against the rules. False nobility has been attached to punching people in the face, though, so stickwork is considered cowardly while punching is somehow manly.

This is probably the wrong sub forum for this. Presumably most people here like fighting, so this will probably fall on deaf ears.
I usually like your arguments Iain, but your going off here a bit. The main difference between slashing and fighting are obvious, the recipient of a slash is unlikely to be prepared for it, while two willing combatants know what is about to happen. A stick is potentially much more dangerous than a prepared fighter receiving a punch.

Having said that, slashing is still punished the same way fighting is, where are the slashing ban threads? There aren't any, wanna know why, it's impossible to eliminate. Fighting is a bit easier to handle, but is already punished harsher.

Cheap shots and blindside hits need to be the focus, this anti fighting crusade is getting old and boring, the league isn't gonna do it, time to move on to something else.

To remove fighting you need to compile a list of pros as to why it would benefit the game, I haven't really seen any yet. The idea that a marginally better player on the 4th line would make the game a better overall product is simply not true. They are fringe players themselves and aren't significantly better than your typical tough guy.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 06:37 PM
  #56
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Nice argument, but it's not what I said, when players overwhelmingly state they feel fighting no longer serves a purpose, I will support their wishes as they are the ones involved, until then, they trump the opinions on here.
so again I ask....do you agree with all hockey opinions that players have? or just the opinions that are the same as yours?

Its a simple question

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 07:23 PM
  #57
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
so again I ask....do you agree with all hockey opinions that players have? or just the opinions that are the same as yours?

Its a simple question
The question is absurd. I was only pointing out that another player who doesn't fight has attested to the importance of it, there are a few like Joe Thornton who are against it, he's, however, in the minority. Gio also pointed out that sitck work was higher in the games where fighting isn't prevalent, this isn't gio's opinion, it's a fact, he's played in both leagues and qualified to talk, anything else?

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 07:49 PM
  #58
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
The question is absurd. I was only pointing out that another player who doesn't fight has attested to the importance of it, there are a few like Joe Thornton who are against it, he's, however, in the minority. Gio also pointed out that sitck work was higher in the games where fighting isn't prevalent, this isn't gio's opinion, it's a fact, he's played in both leagues and qualified to talk, anything else?
no, you said...

"I'd take his (Gionta) opinion over everyone here 8 days a week"

I am asking, why? Because he is a player and he knows better than all non-players? Or is it because you have the same opinion on this one topic as a player, so thats proof you are correct. We see this lame arguement all the time on HF...."player X thinks the way I do....he is a player, you are not, I am right" and it doesnt work. Unless, for some strange reason you share every opinion they have

also...just because Gionta may have said stickwork goes up does not make it fact...sorry, that doesnt work either

If you want to stop stickwork, make calls.....if they are majors, suspend heavily. Tieing stickwork to fighting is nonsense or the product of a league that doesnt think stickwork is actually a problem.

The way to stop cheapshots and the like is not having the players police themselves....its suspend.

answer me this, Matt Cooke....what hurts him more? Having to take a few punches (while wearing a helmet) or having to sit in the pressbox for the playoffs and losing thousands of dollars in fines/pay....and eventually his career in the NHL if he keeps it up

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 09:58 PM
  #59
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
Why doesn't society ban boxing and other violent sports

LAX attack* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 01:32 PM
  #60
Ziggy66
Registered User
 
Ziggy66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Killarney, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 1291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
no, you said...

"I'd take his (Gionta) opinion over everyone here 8 days a week"

I am asking, why? Because he is a player and he knows better than all non-players? Or is it because you have the same opinion on this one topic as a player, so thats proof you are correct. We see this lame arguement all the time on HF...."player X thinks the way I do....he is a player, you are not, I am right" and it doesnt work. Unless, for some strange reason you share every opinion they have
I would say because the player he is quoting is part of the NHL, NHLPA and has a better insight into the current workings and attitudes in the NHL then anyone on the forums here.

He actually makes a good point.

Ziggy66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 04:14 PM
  #61
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy66 View Post
I would say because the player he is quoting is part of the NHL, NHLPA and has a better insight into the current workings and attitudes in the NHL then anyone on the forums here.

He actually makes a good point.
and I think you are missing the point.....so anything a player in the NHL says about the sport is correct then, right? You agree, across the board, with all things hockey that any player in the NHL says.

or just when it aligns with your opinion

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 04:26 PM
  #62
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I usually like your arguments Iain, but your going off here a bit. The main difference between slashing and fighting are obvious, the recipient of a slash is unlikely to be prepared for it, while two willing combatants know what is about to happen. A stick is potentially much more dangerous than a prepared fighter receiving a punch.

Having said that, slashing is still punished the same way fighting is, where are the slashing ban threads? There aren't any, wanna know why, it's impossible to eliminate. Fighting is a bit easier to handle, but is already punished harsher.
There are at least two other differences between slashing and fighting:

1. Slashing is more heavily penalized. Even though it's typically only a minor penalty, it also typically results in a man-advantage situation. You cost your team goals by slashing. Fighting penalties, on the other hand, are offsetting. To say fighting is punished is really ridiculous, because most of the time the only cost to a team is that the player is not available to play for five minutes, which itself is usually nothing because most fights are done by players who only play a few minutes per game anyway. Fighting is not punished in any meaningful way, despite it being illegal.

2. There are no designated slashers on a team. No team goes out and signs a player because they "needed a slasher" to keep the other team honest. Fighting is the only premeditated breaking of the rules that's tolerated (that I can think of). It's implicitly encouraged, even, despite it being illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Cheap shots and blindside hits need to be the focus, this anti fighting crusade is getting old and boring, the league isn't gonna do it, time to move on to something else.
The focus lately seems to be the reduction of head injuries. That's where fighting enters the conversation.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 04:50 PM
  #63
Ziggy66
Registered User
 
Ziggy66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Killarney, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 1291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
and I think you are missing the point.....so anything a player in the NHL says about the sport is correct then, right? You agree, across the board, with all things hockey that any player in the NHL says.

or just when it aligns with your opinion
I take in both side . But yes I would take an NHL players opinion more seriously then a fans. I dont know if thats what you want to hear.....

Ziggy66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:17 PM
  #64
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy66 View Post
I take in both side . But yes I would take an NHL players opinion more seriously then a fans.
Even when you're discussion what a fan likes to see in the game?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:27 PM
  #65
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Even when you're discussion what a fan likes to see in the game?
I think this is the the core of it.....the "more fighting" crowd wants more fighting. Its really that simple. Whether its after a clean hit, cheap shot, staged...doesnt matter.

I get it...I was young once too and liked it. I loved it when 66 started a fight with the much smaller Bobby Gould and got his jaw broke (likely costing the Pens a playoff birth).

People here long for a period they never even saw. Even guys like Nilan say that fighting isnt what it used to be....but what does he know.

They say because players arent openly speaking out against it that "all players want it' not considering that anyone that does speak out is labeled a coward, sissy, etc....they blame the instigating rule for players not being able to police the game but ignore the fact the players attack others for clean hits. Somehow the rule only prevents players from responding to dirty hits

I dont care really one way or the other. Staged fights are silly....fighting after clean hits is pansie-like....but I totally get some fights.

the "more fighting" crowd should just say "i just like fights" and leave it at that.

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:49 PM
  #66
Ziggy66
Registered User
 
Ziggy66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Killarney, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 1291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
I think this is the the core of it.....the "more fighting" crowd wants more fighting. Its really that simple. Whether its after a clean hit, cheap shot, staged...doesnt matter.

I get it...I was young once too and liked it. I loved it when 66 started a fight with the much smaller Bobby Gould and got his jaw broke (likely costing the Pens a playoff birth).

People here long for a period they never even saw. Even guys like Nilan say that fighting isnt what it used to be....but what does he know.

They say because players arent openly speaking out against it that "all players want it' not considering that anyone that does speak out is labeled a coward, sissy, etc....they blame the instigating rule for players not being able to police the game but ignore the fact the players attack others for clean hits. Somehow the rule only prevents players from responding to dirty hits

I dont care really one way or the other. Staged fights are silly....fighting after clean hits is pansie-like....but I totally get some fights.

the "more fighting" crowd should just say "i just like fights" and leave it at that.

I don't believe I read anyone saying there should be "more fighting"...........

as for this thread discussion, of course I would take into account the NHL players perspective which would be a more reasonable view of how the players feel about the matter then a random fan on HFB lol.

Ziggy66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 09:05 PM
  #67
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,504
vCash: 500
Counterpoint

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
I think this is the the core of it.....the "more fighting" crowd wants more fighting. Its really that simple. Whether its after a clean hit, cheap shot, staged...doesnt matter.

I get it...I was young once too and liked it. I loved it when 66 started a fight with the much smaller Bobby Gould and got his jaw broke (likely costing the Pens a playoff birth).

People here long for a period they never even saw. Even guys like Nilan say that fighting isnt what it used to be....but what does he know.

They say because players arent openly speaking out against it that "all players want it' not considering that anyone that does speak out is labeled a coward, sissy, etc....they blame the instigating rule for players not being able to police the game but ignore the fact the players attack others for clean hits. Somehow the rule only prevents players from responding to dirty hits

I dont care really one way or the other. Staged fights are silly....fighting after clean hits is pansie-like....but I totally get some fights.

the "more fighting" crowd should just say "i just like fights" and leave it at that.
I strongly doubt that there is a sustainable "more fighting" or "fighting" element amongst hockey fans.

Look at the following examples. QSMHL/LNAH, semi pro league trying to hang on in Quebec for the last 10-15 years. Each team has a stickpile of fighters. The league attendance spiked during 2004-04 when there was no NHL - TV, a few Bell Center games but then dropped. Franchises in the greater Montreal area could never sustain interest. The league has moved east to communities with poor economies, little competition for the hockey dollar. The future is not good.

MMJHL/QMJHL. Since 1960 the franchises that relied on fighting have inevitably folded or moved due to a lack of fan support - Sorel, Trois Rivieres, Laval(Morisette era).

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 12:09 AM
  #68
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
I strongly doubt that there is a sustainable "more fighting" or "fighting" element amongst hockey fans.
I meant on HF mainly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post

Look at the following examples. QSMHL/LNAH, semi pro league trying to hang on in Quebec for the last 10-15 years. Each team has a stickpile of fighters. The league attendance spiked during 2004-04 when there was no NHL - TV, a few Bell Center games but then dropped. Franchises in the greater Montreal area could never sustain interest. The league has moved east to communities with poor economies, little competition for the hockey dollar. The future is not good.

MMJHL/QMJHL. Since 1960 the franchises that relied on fighting have inevitably folded or moved due to a lack of fan support - Sorel, Trois Rivieres, Laval(Morisette era).
I expect a change in the rules in regards to fighting at some point. Not sure how I would feel about it, guess it depends on how it reads and what exactly they are trying to address.

Its a business....if they feel strongly they can make more money without fighting, its gone. Mind you (and im sure you know this), it will never be gone. All this talk about other sports that dont allow fighting never add, there are still fights

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 12:32 AM
  #69
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,504
vCash: 500
Business

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
I meant on HF mainly



I expect a change in the rules in regards to fighting at some point. Not sure how I would feel about it, guess it depends on how it reads and what exactly they are trying to address.

Its a business....if they feel strongly they can make more money without fighting, its gone. Mind you (and im sure you know this), it will never be gone. All this talk about other sports that dont allow fighting never add, there are still fights
Agree with you that HF has a congregation of voices that skews what is happening in arenas throughout NA. Certain irony in that the fight followers prefer to stay at home watching replays of fights on TV or YouTube. So their impact at the gate dollar wise may be very marginal.

You do not need on ice rule changes just reduce the game rosters by
three players and the fighters who cannot play leave. Hence the NHLPA's and player's opinions could be viewed as protecting jobs.

Also fighters get paid well above minimum driving average salaries higher and are advantageous player comparables in arbitration in a salary to stats context.

There will be the odd spontaneous fight like Iginla / Lecavalier, etc but not at the sideshow level.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 10-14-2011 at 12:34 AM. Reason: spacing
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 09:48 AM
  #70
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Agree with you that HF has a congregation of voices that skews what is happening in arenas throughout NA. Certain irony in that the fight followers prefer to stay at home watching replays of fights on TV or YouTube. So their impact at the gate dollar wise may be very marginal.
Interesting point. Not sure if it's true, but it might well be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
You do not need on ice rule changes just reduce the game rosters by
three players and the fighters who cannot play leave. Hence the NHLPA's and player's opinions could be viewed as protecting jobs.
Agreed. Specialized fighters only appeared in the days of expanded rosters. The early habitual brawlers (such as Newsy Lalonde, Joe Hall, Sprague Cleghorn) were often excellent players who also had a violent streak. A player whose only skill was violence would not have been able to stay in the lineup - the limited spots were too valuable to waste on a player like that.

Of course, the NHLPA will never approve a reduction in jobs. But your point about viewing them as protecting jobs by supporting fighting is a good one.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 10:18 AM
  #71
Ziggy66
Registered User
 
Ziggy66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Killarney, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 1291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Agree with you that HF has a congregation of voices that skews what is happening in arenas throughout NA. Certain irony in that the fight followers prefer to stay at home watching replays of fights on TV or YouTube. So their impact at the gate dollar wise may be very marginal.
ya.........I would like to see some actual stats that would make this post relevent but I am pretty sure that is just an unproven suggestion on your part. its like the other person above who said people that do not like fights do not go to the game. I realize this is an arguement but back up wild assumptions with fact if it is proven.

I do not think fighting will ever be removed from the game. The so called "freakshow" or as some other fans call entertainment is a draw to our sport.

There was a good debate on a local site here regarding the instigator rule and gretzky's reign vs. crosby's time. As to whether the added protection provided for Gretzky allowed him to play his game better as to Crosby not being protected and receiving "accidental" blows to the head.

I have not had my coffee yet and I am a bit scatter brained for thoughts so please dechypher my rabble lol.

Ziggy66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 10:30 AM
  #72
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,826
vCash: 500
To get a resonable discussion on this subject, wouldn't it be wise to start talking about how a potential ban would look like?

Because fighting is like banned in Sweden, and you still see fights, or degrees of fights, every third game or so.

I mean a game misconduct and 5 game suspension wouldn't make people keep their gloves on. 25 games? 40 games? 82 games? What should it be?

Then, what would the result be? Fights with gloves on? Wrestling? Sticks?

Look, I definitely think that NHL could cut down on the fights and try to get the heavies out of the game. Thats certainly worth to discuss and explore it.

But so often in the NA the talk is about "banning fighting" which probably 1) just isn't doable and 2) any try would probably just result in some kind of version of fighting diffrent from the ones we see today -- so these discussions are just contraproductive.

Discuss the real problems instead.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 12:03 PM
  #73
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,504
vCash: 500
Observe

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy66 View Post
ya.........I would like to see some actual stats that would make this post relevent but I am pretty sure that is just an unproven suggestion on your part. its like the other person above who said people that do not like fights do not go to the game. I realize this is an arguement but back up wild assumptions with fact if it is proven.

I do not think fighting will ever be removed from the game. The so called "freakshow" or as some other fans call entertainment is a draw to our sport.

There was a good debate on a local site here regarding the instigator rule and gretzky's reign vs. crosby's time. As to whether the added protection provided for Gretzky allowed him to play his game better as to Crosby not being protected and receiving "accidental" blows to the head.

I have not had my coffee yet and I am a bit scatter brained for thoughts so please dechypher my rabble lol.
Observe the Hockey Fights section of this board and see how quickly videos and comments about fights that just happened appear starting new threads. Easy to do from home but not from the arena.

Gretzky's time featured carryover players without helmets. Checking was basically the hip check parallel to the ground. The major issue was Bryan Marchment and others getting a player at the knees not targeting the head.

The stand-up check with force applied upwards targeting the head started appearing late 1980's, examples Craig Ludwig on Trent Yawney, Chris Chelios on Brian Propp then peaked with the Scott Stevens in NJ era until the lock-out. Post lock-out the hits from behind have been added to the mix.

The Gretzky / Crosby comparison has little in common. Going back in time players like Beliveau, Mikita, H. Richard, Keon, Perreault, Denis Savard, amongst many established their own right to play their game.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 12:44 PM
  #74
Ziggy66
Registered User
 
Ziggy66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Killarney, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 1291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Observe the Hockey Fights section of this board and see how quickly videos and comments about fights that just happened appear starting new threads. Easy to do from home but not from the arena.

Gretzky's time featured carryover players without helmets. Checking was basically the hip check parallel to the ground. The major issue was Bryan Marchment and others getting a player at the knees not targeting the head.

The stand-up check with force applied upwards targeting the head started appearing late 1980's, examples Craig Ludwig on Trent Yawney, Chris Chelios on Brian Propp then peaked with the Scott Stevens in NJ era until the lock-out. Post lock-out the hits from behind have been added to the mix.

The Gretzky / Crosby comparison has little in common. Going back in time players like Beliveau, Mikita, H. Richard, Keon, Perreault, Denis Savard, amongst many established their own right to play their game.
The arguement that hockey fans that enjoy fights do not go to games based upon the posts in the fight section on the HF fight board is not a valid arguement.

The Gretzky/Crosby comparrison was based on liberties. I guess I was allueding to the fact that players can perform "accidental" contact on todays stars and have little reprecussion. (sorry my spelling is horrible today.) Where as Gretzky was alligned with Semenko, D. Brown, McSorly, players during that time feared retribution as there was no instigator rule. Gretzky was a very skilled player and could allude most hits but he did have "goons" to watch his back and create a stigma about messing with him.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Ziggy66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 01:10 PM
  #75
babcockscowl
Registered User
 
babcockscowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
it's not going anywhere, Fighting goes on in Hockey, in Baseball....sometimes Basketball....there's a use and need for it in their respective sports

babcockscowl 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 12:33 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.