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
10-15-2011, 02:31 AM
  #101
AlexanderTheGood
Registered User
 
AlexanderTheGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 682
vCash: 500
There isn't much fighting during the playoffs, and I don't hear many people yearning for it then. I like fighting in hockey, and agree with those who say that the game might become more dangerous without it. But still, I don't think it would be a darker world without fighting in hockey.

AlexanderTheGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 08:00 AM
  #102
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,860
vCash: 500
Fighting in European Hockey

The non-fighting crowd makes the claim that there is little or no fighting in European hockey. Better research is in order:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=1002095

Add the European imports who played in the NHL - Oliwa, Ivanens, Artyukhin plus a few others.

There is a certain irony in this. In the 1960s when NHL sponsorship of junior teams ceased and was phased out, the new wave of independent junior team owners turned to fighting to increase revenues at the gate.

In Quebec, similar to Russia, there was a shortage of fighters so they turned to imports. The most ballyhooed was Dave Schultz who played app. half a season for Sorel in the MMJHL. For his efforts Dave Schultz was badly beaten by Kevin Morrison(St. Jerome) and a couple of other local fighters.

As for the other European elite leagues, they are rather compact without the pressure of generating greater revenues due to rapid expansion and salary escalation.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 10-15-2011 at 08:01 AM. Reason: typo
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 08:40 AM
  #103
Mr Irreverent
Put me in coach!
 
Mr Irreverent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruiser View Post
Fighting will always be part of the game. Fans who think that fighting isn't a necessary part of the game, don't fully understand hockey. Any fan who is against fighting and for banning it needs to at least read "The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL", by Ross Bernstein.

Players, coaches, GM's and most fans want it in the game. As usual the few fans who are against it are the most outspoken ones. These are the same kinds of people that think that mixed martial arts and boxing are barbaric and that football is a game for animals and that their shouldn't be any aggression or anything considered to be violent in sports.

Fighting is a way of policing the game, it prevents players from taking cheap shots and provides space for skilled players. Unlike in Europe, hockey in North America is played on a small surface with big players who are willing to be physical, this is conducive to increased intensity. That intensity creates emotional responses and if fighting wasn't the outlet then you would see a lot more dirty hits and stick work.

The only argument against fighting that I accept as being rational is that if a player can't handle more than five minutes of ice time than he shouldn't be in the game. The 3 shift goons who only take part in staged fights can be exciting at times but they are replaceable by slightly smaller players than can actually play the game. A fighter should at the very least be able to contribute to his team in other ways than fighting such as pk, pp, hitting, cycling the puck, net presence.
Link?

Mr Irreverent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 11:16 AM
  #104
JustGivingEr
How far we done fell
 
JustGivingEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Hamsterdam
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,280
vCash: 50
I really dislike the comparisons to other sports when people talk about fighting. Hockey is a completely different game and when decided whether or not there should be fights I think you should focus on whats best for the game of hockey and not because other sports don't do it.

Saying other sports don't have fighting and still do okay is like saying other sports aren't played on ice and they still do okay, therefore we should remove Ice from the game as well.
Now how stupid does that sound?

Also to the person who mentioned that Europeans think its barbaric and a freak show and laugh when they see fights, I think soccer extremely boring and has a bunch of pansies diving when I watch it.

The people who think fighting is a freak show don't understand the game of hockey just as I don't understand the game of soccer.

JustGivingEr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 10:32 PM
  #105
thehumanpanda
Registered User
 
thehumanpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mega City, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 402
vCash: 500
The talk of Aaaron Asham not being "classy" because he made a couple of hand gestures is hilarious, considering he just brutally assaulted a human being right before that. Shouldn't the "outrage" come from the obvious assault that just happened??

I am an all around sports fan. I follow hockey, basketball, baseball, and football with equal vigor. I speak from that point of view. I will not defend this embarrassment to the game of hockey. Ban this idiocy of fighting in hockey now. Nobody respects hockey, hockey fans, hockey players, or hockey culture because of this. Trust me, get around and see.

3 human beings just DIED this summer. Many more are concussed and are going to suffer life long brain damage. I'm not going to condone this.

thehumanpanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 10:50 PM
  #106
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 thehumanpanda View Post
The talk of Aaaron Asham not being "classy" because he made a couple of hand gestures is hilarious, considering he just brutally assaulted a human being right before that. Shouldn't the "outrage" come from the obvious assault that just happened??

I am an all around sports fan. I follow hockey, basketball, baseball, and football with equal vigor. I speak from that point of view. I will not defend this embarrassment to the game of hockey. Ban this idiocy of fighting in hockey now. Nobody respects hockey, hockey fans, hockey players, or hockey culture because of this. Trust me, get around and see.

3 human beings just DIED this summer. Many more are concussed and are going to suffer life long brain damage. I'm not going to condone this.
This has to be satire, right? I've never had anyone tell me they don't respect me because I like a sport that allows fighting, and I'm sure it's even less true in Canada.

__________________
mrwarden is in ur threads, deleting ur posts
mrwarden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 11:27 PM
  #107
Papaspud
Bring on...
 
Papaspud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: the ketchup!!
Posts: 7,000
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?
The same Joe Thornton who chatted up Ryan Getzlaf to drop their gloves on the opening face-off of a playoff game between the Ducks and Sharks? That Joe Thornton?
Yeah, somehow I doubt he's that much against fighting.

Papaspud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 12:24 AM
  #108
Banana Sandwiches
Registered User
 
Banana Sandwiches's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 2,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehumanpanda View Post
The talk of Aaaron Asham not being "classy" because he made a couple of hand gestures is hilarious, considering he just brutally assaulted a human being right before that. Shouldn't the "outrage" come from the obvious assault that just happened??

I am an all around sports fan. I follow hockey, basketball, baseball, and football with equal vigor. I speak from that point of view. I will not defend this embarrassment to the game of hockey. Ban this idiocy of fighting in hockey now. Nobody respects hockey, hockey fans, hockey players, or hockey culture because of this. Trust me, get around and see.

3 human beings just DIED this summer. Many more are concussed and are going to suffer life long brain damage. I'm not going to condone this.
First off, people obviously respect it in Canada. Second, the people who don't "respect" or more accurately "don't like" hockey in the US aren't turned off by fighting. I know plenty of people who don't follow hockey but like equally grueling/brutal sports like football, MMA, and boxing. Fighting isn't the reason why they don't like hockey.

Also, who cares what other people who don't like hockey think of it? Why should we change our game to attempt to satisfy them? Hockey is perfectly fine as a niche sport. Making rule changes to make it less violent is just going to get rid of the hardcore fans.

And lastly, people are fools if they're associating Boogaard's, Rypien's, and Belak's death to fighting.

Banana Sandwiches is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 12:39 PM
  #109
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The other sport argument has a few fallacies. NFL football is used as an example of very limited fighting because fighting is not encouraged. Yet those arguing this point would be better served to research their facts. No NA sport has as long a list of banned, illegal techniques as the NFL.
Complete red herring. This has nothing to do with certain techniques being banned, it has to do with excusing fighting in hockey because it happens when the players get "riled up" and therefore need a release, or else they'll do something else even more dangerous. Tackling techniques don't enter into it. It has nothing to do with "competitive advantage". It has to do with claims that players essentially can't control their emotions, and thus can't be blamed when they do something dangerous. The point is, since NFL football is an intensely physical game, why don't its players need a "release" like fighting to keep them from boiling over with regularity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The non-fighting crowd makes the claim that there is little or no fighting in European hockey. Better research is in order:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=1002095
Better research is indeed in order. Better research than, say, posting a single video. This is a laughable attempt at making a point. You've provided no data, just an anecdote. (Also, notice how many comments there are in that thread about how "pathetic" and "embarrassing" the Vityaz team is, and notice that many of the perpetrators involved there are North Americans...)

Anyway, I believe the KHL is indeed quite different from most other high-level European leagues, and different from previous Russian leagues as well, before their best players began to leave for the NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
As for the other European elite leagues, they are rather compact without the pressure of generating greater revenues due to rapid expansion and salary escalation.
This bears no relevance to Canadian hockey, because the claim is that fighting has always been a "part of the game", predating expansion and salary escalation.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 12:45 PM
  #110
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stagedfightsrule View Post
Also, who cares what other people who don't like hockey think of it? Why should we change our game to attempt to satisfy them? Hockey is perfectly fine as a niche sport. Making rule changes to make it less violent is just going to get rid of the hardcore fans.
Strawman argument, because the people complaining loudest are presumably hockey fans, otherwise they wouldn't care enough to complain.

Also, if a self-described hockey fan ceases being interested if there were no fighting, I'd suggest that fan was far from a "hardcore" hockey fan - he is a fan of violence only, not hockey. Arguably hardcore hockey fans are the ones who continue to watch the game despite it containing an element (fighting) that they dislike - they love hockey so much they watch it despite the flaws in the NHL game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stagedfightsrule View Post
And lastly, people are fools if they're associating Boogaard's, Rypien's, and Belak's death to fighting.
Don Cherry over medical professionals? That seems rather foolish, or myopic, or whatever. There are apparently clear links (according to people who study these things, rather than people who spout off about them) between fighting and concussions, concussions and depression, and depression and drug abuse.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 12:48 PM
  #111
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderTheGood View Post
There isn't much fighting during the playoffs, and I don't hear many people yearning for it then. I like fighting in hockey, and agree with those who say that the game might become more dangerous without it. But still, I don't think it would be a darker world without fighting in hockey.
This is a point that I've raised myself many times in the past, and have never received a satisfactory answer. There are two big questions:

1. If playoff hockey is "real" hockey, then why is there so much less fighting in the playoffs? Why do thugs watch the game from the pressbox so much more in the playoffs than the regular season?

2. If fighting is due to players getting emotional and caught up in the game, wouldn't there be more fighting in the playoffs, which are supposed to be all about emotions and pressure and intensity?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 01:57 PM
  #112
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,860
vCash: 500
The European Illusion

The anti-fighting crowd like to point to the various European league as examples of "genteel" hockey that is appreciated by audiences that abhor fighting.

Let us look at the PIM numbers for various leagues for the 2010-11 season. Courtesy to preliminary data (work in progress) culled from Hockeydb and hockey-reference.

2010-11
NHL
30 teams, 82 game regular season schedule. Per team, PIMs ranged from 694 minutes - Florida and Nashville to 1489 for the Islanders. 17 of the 30 teams played the season while receiving < 1000 PIMs.
Of the 13 teams with > 1000 PIMs only 6 made the playoffs.

KHL
23 teams, 54 game regular season. Per team, PIMs ranged from 622 to 1344 (Chekov Vitaz). Projected to an 82 game schedule, 18 of the 23 teams would have surpassed 1,000 PIMs.

SEL
12 teams, 55 game regular season. Per team, PIMs ranged from 320 - 844(Timra) per team. Projected to an 82 game schedule, 5 of the 12 teams would have surpassed 1,000 PIMs.

Finland
14 teams, 60 game regular season. Per team, PIMs ranged from 678 to 1002 minutes. Projected to an 82 game schedule, 12 of the 14 teams would have surpassed 1,000 PIMs.

Germany
14 teams, 52 game regular season. Per team, PIMs ranged from 634 to 1006 minutes. Projected to an 82 game schedule, 13 of the 14 teams would have surpassed 1,000 PIMs.

Switzerland
12 teams, 50 game regular season. Per team, PIMs ranged from 501 to 884 minutes. Projected to an 82 game schedule, 5 of the 12 teams would have surpassed 1,000 PIMs.

British(EIHL)

10 teams, 62 game regular season. Per team, PIMs ranged from 677 to 1479 minutes. Projected to an 82 game schedule, 7 of the 10 teams would have surpassed 1,000 PIMs.

Be it fighting or other against the rules activities replacing fighting, rule breaking was at the same if not greater level during the 2010-11 in studied European leagues than in the NHL.

Yet the European fans appreciated the hockey with little known complaints.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 03:08 PM
  #113
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Be it fighting or other against the rules activities replacing fighting, rule breaking was at the same if not greater level during the 2010-11 in studied European leagues than in the NHL.

Yet the European fans appreciated the hockey with little known complaints.
Strange that you didn't just use average PIMs per game, rather than an arbitrary cutoff of 1000 PIMs per 82 games.

But regardless, we're not talking about PIMs, we're talking about fighting. Comparing PIMs across leagues is nearly useless since they can all have their own standards of officiating; for instance, if a league calls interference much tighter than the NHL does, its PIMs would be higher. Even if there are more penalties called in Europe, that doesn't mean there's more (or as much) violent play. Just looking at PIMs is far too superficial for that.

And even if you could show there were (for example) more stick fouls called in Europe, that doesn't demonstrate that there is more stickwork in Europe; it could as easily be that European refs call a tighter game for that type of foul, so that the same amount of stickwork would result in more penalties called. There are two aspects to a penalty: what the players do, and what the referees let them get away with. You can't assume just one or the other explains a difference in PIMs.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 03:16 PM
  #114
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papaspud View Post
The same Joe Thornton who chatted up Ryan Getzlaf to drop their gloves on the opening face-off of a playoff game between the Ducks and Sharks? That Joe Thornton?
Yeah, somehow I doubt he's that much against fighting.
He's already stated this publicly, the fact he may or may not be a hypocrite wasn't my contention.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 03:31 PM
  #115
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Strange that you didn't just use average PIMs per game, rather than an arbitrary cutoff of 1000 PIMs per 82 games.

But regardless, we're not talking about PIMs, we're talking about fighting. Comparing PIMs across leagues is nearly useless since they can all have their own standards of officiating; for instance, if a league calls interference much tighter than the NHL does, its PIMs would be higher. Even if there are more penalties called in Europe, that doesn't mean there's more (or as much) violent play. Just looking at PIMs is far too superficial for that.

And even if you could show there were (for example) more stick fouls called in Europe, that doesn't demonstrate that there is more stickwork in Europe; it could as easily be that European refs call a tighter game for that type of foul, so that the same amount of stickwork would result in more penalties called. There are two aspects to a penalty: what the players do, and what the referees let them get away with. You can't assume just one or the other explains a difference in PIMs.
So, since nothing can be proven to contradict your points, lets closed the thread then. Plenty of players have attested to exactly what your saying can't be proven, we should ignore them too, all the way back to Esposito, Henderson ect to players of today.

You are speculating that nothing would change or the game wouldn't become more dangerous or that violence wouldn't orchestrate itself in a different manner, tbh, you have no idea either, so lets stop pretending we know the answers and let the players who play the game decide what belongs and what doesn't. I think there is a lot more education with regards to concussions ect to make the point that comparing players who didn't feel the need to wear helmets to those who feel fighting belongs in the game a stretch, and not at all relevant.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 03:51 PM
  #116
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
So, since nothing can be proven to contradict your points, lets closed the thread then.
Nothing can be proven by using PIM totals from different leagues. That's what I said. Not sure what post you were reading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Plenty of players have attested to exactly what your saying can't be proven, we should ignore them too, all the way back to Esposito, Henderson ect to players of today.
And research shows those players are probably wrong. Just because you're a hockey player doesn't mean you're an expert on all things that can come into play in the game, such as how human beings behave in certain situations. If you're brought up in the hockey culture, chances are you're going to believe the truisms that are contained therein. That doesn't make them accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
You are speculating that nothing would change or the game wouldn't become more dangerous or that violence wouldn't orchestrate itself in a different manner, tbh, you have no idea either, so lets stop pretending we know the answers and let the players who play the game decide what belongs and what doesn't.
I'm more asking questions than anything here. For example, "Why, if fighting is a vital part of NHL hockey, does it drop off so dramatically in the playoffs?" That kind of question.

Defenders of fighting in hockey are putting forward specific defences for it, but none of them are supported by anything resembling real evidence. They're opinions disguised as truths. That's why the discussion needs to be opened up, rather than shouted down.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 03:53 PM
  #117
WorkingOvertime
Registered User
 
WorkingOvertime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This is a point that I've raised myself many times in the past, and have never received a satisfactory answer. There are two big questions:

1. If playoff hockey is "real" hockey, then why is there so much less fighting in the playoffs? Why do thugs watch the game from the pressbox so much more in the playoffs than the regular season?

2. If fighting is due to players getting emotional and caught up in the game, wouldn't there be more fighting in the playoffs, which are supposed to be all about emotions and pressure and intensity?
1. There were 12 fights in the playoffs last year- all/most by players who are regular contributors to their respective teams. It seems this point shows that pure goons may not be effective in the playoffs, but it does not speak to the other (majority) players in the league.

2. Most playoff games are close. In the regular season there are less fights in close games. In addition, as I pointed out in (1) the players fighting in the playoffs aren't necessarily the same fighting in the regular season. Further, skilled players are less likely to fight in the playoffs against less-skilled players. Having Chara off the ice for 5 min in exchange for a fourth liner generally doesn't help the Bruins. There are circumstances where the Bruins would take that trade, but they are far less common in the playoffs, where one goal can end a season, than in the regular season.

For those against fighting, why do the GM's, ~98% of players (in a poll(s)), and coaches value fighting? What insight do you have that they lack? How are you more informed?

WorkingOvertime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 04:47 PM
  #118
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,044
vCash: 500
Scottrocks58
There is fighting in the khl and other leagues.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 04:50 PM
  #119
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This is a point that I've raised myself many times in the past, and have never received a satisfactory answer. There are two big questions:

1. If playoff hockey is "real" hockey, then why is there so much less fighting in the playoffs? Why do thugs watch the game from the pressbox so much more in the playoffs than the regular season?

2. If fighting is due to players getting emotional and caught up in the game, wouldn't there be more fighting in the playoffs, which are supposed to be all about emotions and pressure and intensity?
In the play offs most games are close its when you have a lop sided game is when you see fights.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 05:53 PM
  #120
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingOvertime View Post
1. There were 12 fights in the playoffs last year- all/most by players who are regular contributors to their respective teams. It seems this point shows that pure goons may not be effective in the playoffs, but it does not speak to the other (majority) players in the league.
Indeed. It's the goons that lose their playing time in the playoffs.

12 fights in 89 games. A fight every seven games. Can something that happens once every 7 games really be considered so vital to the game, that if it were removed, it would no longer be that game? What about the six of seven that don't have fights? Are they not hockey?

And if fighting was vital to the game being the game, wouldn't the players who do it best also be vital to it? Why are they cast aside when the "real hockey" begins?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingOvertime View Post
2. Most playoff games are close. In the regular season there are less fights in close games. In addition, as I pointed out in (1) the players fighting in the playoffs aren't necessarily the same fighting in the regular season. Further, skilled players are less likely to fight in the playoffs against less-skilled players.
So close, exciting games are the ones that feature less fighting. Does this mean that fighting is a replacement for hockey in games where it's a blowout, and thus a less exciting hockey game? That it's not hockey, but a sideshow to hockey?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingOvertime View Post
For those against fighting, why do the GM's, ~98% of players (in a poll(s)), and coaches value fighting? What insight do you have that they lack? How are you more informed?
Given that the system currently favours fighting, it's not surprising that those currently within the system (which is of course not an objective meritocracy but a self-selecting group) also favour it.

We do have the advantage of not being part of "the system", so to speak. If you have a teammate who's an enforcer, how can you speak out about enforcers and still expect to be considered a team player? Cultures tend to have strong self-reinforcement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
In the play offs most games are close its when you have a lop sided game is when you see fights.
This is not all of it, though. It's not just that there are fewer fights, it's that the players who engage in the most fights do not even dress most of the time. I did an article on this years ago, and identified the players who would be called goons or thugs (ie, whose only job is fighting) - they played in two-thirds of regular season games but only one-quarter of playoff games. Other players who happened to fight, but were still good hockey players, played a consistent percentage of games.

So it cannot be explained by game situations alone; coaches simply do not play thugs as often in the playoffs as in the regular season. And it's a dramatic dropoff, not a slight one.

---

Now, since fighting occurs mostly in blowouts, it seems that the "intensity" argument is fallacious, since close games are certainly at least as intense than blowouts, if not moreso. If players can keep it together in the close games, why can't they do so in the blowouts?

Is there a relationship between blowouts and the need to "protect" your star players? One would think a team well ahead in a game would feel less need to attack the other's star players, since the game has already been decided. If there's no relationship, then the "protection" argument also seems spurious.

Why are fights more common in blowouts than close games? We know the reason that's commonly given: to "send a message" for next time (that's by "The Code", right?). If this is the case, these fights have nothing to do with intensity or protection, they are a strategic attempt at intimidation. Is there another reason?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 06:04 PM
  #121
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,860
vCash: 500
The NHL 1917-18 to 1966-67

The following looks at fighting or aggressive hockey during the first fifty seasons of the NHL.Conveniently the NHL breaks down into two segments. The first 25 seasons featured a variable number of teams. The last 25 seasons featured the Original 6 teams. Hockeydb has viable summaries of specific PIM totals for these seasons as do other sources.

First 25 seasons 1917- 18 to 1941-42. The first three NHL championships - right to compete for the Stanley Cup, were won by teams that that lead the league in PIMs. After winning the Stanley Cup in 1920 the Ottawa Senators parted ways with Sprague Cleghorn early the following season. They became the least penalized team but won the Stanley Cup again. For the first twenty - five seasons of the NHL the most penalized regular season team won 8 out of 25 championships/Stanley Cups or 5 out of 22 after the first three seasons.

From 1942-43 to 1966-67, only 5 of the 25 Stanley Cup champions led the league in PIMs during the regular season. Three can be traced back to Conn Smythe's "Beat them in the Alley" Maple Leafs.

Effectively the early Ottawa Senators showed that success is possible without a goon or gratuitous violence.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 06:17 PM
  #122
WorkingOvertime
Registered User
 
WorkingOvertime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Indeed. It's the goons that lose their playing time in the playoffs.

12 fights in 89 games. A fight every seven games. Can something that happens once every 7 games really be considered so vital to the game, that if it were removed, it would no longer be that game? What about the six of seven that don't have fights? Are they not hockey?

And if fighting was vital to the game being the game, wouldn't the players who do it best also be vital to it? Why are they cast aside when the "real hockey" begins?


So close, exciting games are the ones that feature less fighting. Does this mean that fighting is a replacement for hockey in games where it's a blowout, and thus a less exciting hockey game? That it's not hockey, but a sideshow to hockey?


Given that the system currently favours fighting, it's not surprising that those currently within the system (which is of course not an objective meritocracy but a self-selecting group) also favour it.

We do have the advantage of not being part of "the system", so to speak. If you have a teammate who's an enforcer, how can you speak out about enforcers and still expect to be considered a team player? Cultures tend to have strong self-reinforcement.


This is not all of it, though. It's not just that there are fewer fights, it's that the players who engage in the most fights do not even dress most of the time. I did an article on this years ago, and identified the players who would be called goons or thugs (ie, whose only job is fighting) - they played in two-thirds of regular season games but only one-quarter of playoff games. Other players who happened to fight, but were still good hockey players, played a consistent percentage of games.

So it cannot be explained by game situations alone; coaches simply do not play thugs as often in the playoffs as in the regular season. And it's a dramatic dropoff, not a slight one.

---

Now, since fighting occurs mostly in blowouts, it seems that the "intensity" argument is fallacious, since close games are certainly at least as intense than blowouts, if not moreso. If players can keep it together in the close games, why can't they do so in the blowouts?

Is there a relationship between blowouts and the need to "protect" your star players? One would think a team well ahead in a game would feel less need to attack the other's star players, since the game has already been decided. If there's no relationship, then the "protection" argument also seems spurious.

Why are fights more common in blowouts than close games? We know the reason that's commonly given: to "send a message" for next time (that's by "The Code", right?). If this is the case, these fights have nothing to do with intensity or protection, they are a strategic attempt at intimidation. Is there another reason?
Your post(s) fails to a clear stance against fighting. You fail to present any argument against fighting. Further, you fail to show how fighting degrades the game.

Just because there are less fights in the playoffs doesn't mean fighting doesn't have a purpose. If anything your argument only suggests fighting is overused in the regular season, not that fighting is a negative aspect of the NHL.

You also failed to argue the 'system' that rewards fighting. The coaches, GMs, and players want fighting to stay, and you did not present any thorough argument against that, other than stating they are part of a self-reinforcing system.

It is easy to argue against others, but much more difficult to present an argument. What is your argument against fighting?

WorkingOvertime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 06:39 PM
  #123
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,860
vCash: 500
Fighting/Irrationality in the Playoffs

The issue of fighting and/or irrationality may be illustrated by two examples from the 2010-11 playoffs.

First example. 6 of the 13 teams that received over 1,000 PIMs during the 2010-11 regular season did not qualify for the playoffs. So going in a good number of the marginal players and goons were eliminated as a factor. The Islanders were the most penalized NHL team last season. They had a ripple effect within their division driving the PIM totals of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and the Rangers upwards. The Senators had the same effect in their division driving the PIM totals upwards for the Bruins and Canadiens. So going into the playoffs a large part of the cause of fighting had been reduced.

Second example. Coaches do not want to have the marginal players have an impact on the games. Aaron Rome's hit on Nathan Horton at the start of game three changed the series.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/romeaa01.html

Let's see how much Aaron Rome plays this season.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2011, 06:59 PM
  #124
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The following looks at fighting or aggressive hockey during the first fifty seasons of the NHL.Conveniently the NHL breaks down into two segments. The first 25 seasons featured a variable number of teams. The last 25 seasons featured the Original 6 teams. Hockeydb has viable summaries of specific PIM totals for these seasons as do other sources.

First 25 seasons 1917- 18 to 1941-42. The first three NHL championships - right to compete for the Stanley Cup, were won by teams that that lead the league in PIMs. After winning the Stanley Cup in 1920 the Ottawa Senators parted ways with Sprague Cleghorn early the following season. They became the least penalized team but won the Stanley Cup again. For the first twenty - five seasons of the NHL the most penalized regular season team won 8 out of 25 championships/Stanley Cups or 5 out of 22 after the first three seasons.

From 1942-43 to 1966-67, only 5 of the 25 Stanley Cup champions led the league in PIMs during the regular season. Three can be traced back to Conn Smythe's "Beat them in the Alley" Maple Leafs.

Effectively the early Ottawa Senators showed that success is possible without a goon or gratuitous violence.
Back then it was different while i don't like goons you can expect it to be the same as the 1920 era.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2011, 02:44 AM
  #125
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Helmets took approximately one generation post Masterson tragedy, before they received 100% acceptance from the NHL players.Once accomplished what happened? Blows to the head increased at a very fast pace. Introduce anti-obstruction rules to speed up the game and what happens? Unimpeded blindside hits increase. Did the proponents of helmets see the consequences that arose? Did the anti-obstruction proponents see the consequences that arose?
Um, no?, & excellent points, along with your other posts, specifically with respect to penalty minutes & the correlation's, albeit generic without more detailed study, between violence & infractions globally. In 1984, the American Journal of Economics & Sociology (sorry, no link available) published a paper on Hockey & Violence that tracked & parsed penalty minutes (Minors, Majors, Misconducts) during the NHL's 83/84 season and their relationship to attendance. What they determined was that there was a POSITIVE relationship between their aggregate measures of violence (penalty minutes) and attendance in both Canada & the US, however, in the United States, attendance really spiked when Majors & Misconducts were being handed out like free Chiclets on the Midway.

Do hockey fans as spectators have a taste for violence?. Clearly, the data shows that yes, they indeed do, and as its ingrained in the players, shaped by the very rules, the leagues & players are delivering precisely what the paying customer wants to see, within reasonable bounds of course, though close enough to the edge that none of the "potential" for violence is any way neutered. I think like a lot of people who grew up playing the game, volunteers, coaches, scouts, trainers, Joe Fan watching a game almost anywhere, is the alarming & often shocking disrespect & disregard players have for one another which started when helmets were made mandatory at the amateur levels in the mid-60's. Subsequent equipment innovations over the past 40yrs have revolutionized the game to the point now that kids, already with an innate sense of indestructibility, find themselves kitted out like RoboCop & hey, "Game On"...

Watching a complete Moron like Patrice Cormier, embarrassingly the Captain of Team Canadas Junior Team in 09-10 cruising around at a buck ninety throwing his elbows armed in bullet proof kevlar is criminally irresponsible. Watching some little Punk washing his hands after delivering a Haymaker to an opponent, enforcer or not, is not the "Code" of yore, of days gone bye. You pulled that, benches would empty. Did anyone seriously consider the ramifications of inserting the Instigator Rule?. The other night, Asham needed to be taught a lesson, right then & there by one of Beagles team mates that behaviour like that is unacceptable, a lesson that Greaser shouldve been taught in Bantam or Midget, taught him to respect his opponents even if you can beat them up. Thats not hockey, that not sportsmanship, and it sure aint classy.

Soft cap equipment, mandating players chin straps are actually done up & flush, helmet innovations, respect. Its not Rocket Science. This debate over fighting & violence has been going on now for decades. As Conn Smythe once replied when asked about it; "Were' going to have to stomp out that kind of thing or people are going to keep on buying tickets". A more modern & up to the minute comment from US author Stokely Carmichael who wrote Soul on Ice observes that "Violence is as American as Cherry Pie". Im against the removal of fighting, but tell ya what?, Im not real impressed with so called pugilists populating todays NHL nor have I been since about 1969... Helmets. I blame it all the Helmet Brigades... Just another Neanderthal howling at the Moon though. Carry on Gang.


Last edited by Killion: 10-17-2011 at 02:51 AM.
Killion is online now   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 11:27 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.