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!

Topic on Ban on Fighting in the NHL Pretty Much Unanimous amongst players:

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-28-2012, 12:26 AM
  #1
Granlund2Pulkkinen*
New Kid on the Block
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Country: South Africa
Posts: 39,941
vCash: 500
Topic on Ban on Fighting in the NHL Pretty Much Unanimous amongst players:

**** no


Granlund2Pulkkinen* is offline  
Old
04-28-2012, 01:00 AM
  #2
JetsHomer
Registered User
 
JetsHomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,979
vCash: 500
yeah, they also didn't want to wear helmets and visors so take the opinion of a bunch of macho alpha males with a grain of salt.

That said I do agree that fighting should be allowed.

JetsHomer is offline  
Old
04-28-2012, 08:56 AM
  #3
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 15,125
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying High View Post
yeah, they also didn't want to wear helmets and visors so take the opinion of a bunch of macho alpha males with a grain of salt.

That said I do agree that fighting should be allowed.
I am a big fan of personal responsibility.

As they say, we don't need safer railroad crossings, we just need smarter people.

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
04-28-2012, 04:56 PM
  #4
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
I am a big fan of personal responsibility.

As they say, we don't need safer railroad crossings, we just need smarter people.
Spoken like someone who has no idea what an unsafe railroad crossing actually looks like. You should visit the area that my wife is from, which still has heavy rail traffic and more unsafe crossings than can be counted.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
04-28-2012, 04:59 PM
  #5
Dantes19
Registered User
 
Dantes19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
It seems to me that the "ban fighting" opinion generally comes from people who don't know much about the sport.

Dantes19 is offline  
Old
04-28-2012, 05:17 PM
  #6
Beville
#ForTheBoys
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Engerlanddd!
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
vCash: 500
Yes to fighting.

Beville is offline  
Old
04-28-2012, 05:17 PM
  #7
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 23,146
vCash: 500
I'm curious to whom the one player out of 200 wanted fighting banned.

Clowe Me is offline  
Old
04-28-2012, 05:39 PM
  #8
Frankie Spankie
Registered User
 
Frankie Spankie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Dorchester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
I'm curious to whom the one player out of 200 wanted fighting banned.
It's really just a .5% margin of error.

Frankie Spankie is offline  
Old
04-28-2012, 07:42 PM
  #9
Playerwinner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 920
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
I am a big fan of personal responsibility.

As they say, we don't need safer railroad crossings, we just need smarter people.
Saying there is no need for safer railroad crossings is a brutal example of "personal responsibility".

Playerwinner is offline  
Old
04-28-2012, 09:35 PM
  #10
Baba Booey
Rookie User
 
Baba Booey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Playerwinner View Post
Saying there is no need for safer railroad crossings is a brutal example of "personal responsibility".
Only if youre a railroad safety manager.

Baba Booey is offline  
Old
04-29-2012, 12:17 AM
  #11
blamebettman*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotPartoftheGame View Post
You can't generalize. I'm against fighting and have been playing and watching for more than 40 years. Jim Thomson, former enforcer, is against fighting and so is Ken Dryden. I'll agree that anti-fighting fans would be in the minority but lots of pro-fighting fans can be guilty of not understanding the game or why fighting is so ingrained in hockey today. If you want some history on fighting in hockey over the past 40 years, check out my blog - http://itsnotpartofthegame.blogspot....-get-here.html.
drydens opinion holds no water, he's always been a holier than thou "i'm too good for the game" pansy

blamebettman* is offline  
Old
04-29-2012, 07:02 PM
  #12
moog35
Registered User
 
moog35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotPartoftheGame View Post
You can't generalize. I'm against fighting and have been playing and watching for more than 40 years. Jim Thomson, former enforcer, is against fighting and so is Ken Dryden. I'll agree that anti-fighting fans would be in the minority but lots of pro-fighting fans can be guilty of not understanding the game or why fighting is so ingrained in hockey today. If you want some history on fighting in hockey over the past 40 years, check out my blog - http://itsnotpartofthegame.blogspot....-get-here.html.
Jim Thomson is always on off the record complaining about fighting, if he hated doing it so much he should have stopped, what a complainer

moog35 is offline  
Old
04-29-2012, 07:06 PM
  #13
acor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Its good to know (from this poll) Kronwall is only NHL player against fighting...

acor is offline  
Old
04-29-2012, 08:41 PM
  #14
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moog35 View Post
Jim Thomson is always on off the record complaining about fighting, if he hated doing it so much he should have stopped, what a complainer
Good to know that no one's allowed to change their minds on something after stepping away from a situation. Personally, I'd hate to think that what I thought at age 15 or 25 is what's going to define my life, since heaven forbid I be able to assess and re-assess what I thought then and what I think now.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
04-30-2012, 02:51 AM
  #15
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotPartoftheGame View Post
You can't generalize. I'm against fighting and have been playing and watching for more than 40 years. Jim Thomson, former enforcer, is against fighting and so is Ken Dryden. I'll agree that anti-fighting fans would be in the minority but lots of pro-fighting fans can be guilty of not understanding the game or why fighting is so ingrained in hockey today. If you want some history on fighting in hockey over the past 40 years, check out my blog - http://itsnotpartofthegame.blogspot....-get-here.html.
Why limit it to 40 years ? Fighting has been around for more than twice that. I can completely respect your opinion and to be honest I have respect for people who will take the extreme minority position based on principle. But what I cant stomach is people who believe that the get to unilaterally proclaim what is, and is not part of the game and who are convinced that their beleifs trump reality.

As long as players have laced them up there have been fights and like many things fighting is cyclical, some times more some times less. And if your two examples of people against fighting are the philosopher king who never dropped them and a grade A hypocrite like jim thompson, you might want to re-evaluate which side of the argument you want to be on.

sandysan is offline  
Old
04-30-2012, 10:58 AM
  #16
Oak
Hockey Connoisseur
 
Oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,621
vCash: 397
I can see it coming out eventually. Most of the time now it is just a circus act to attract attention to a game or the sport.

Get rid of the instigator rule and keep fighting permanently.

Oak is offline  
Old
04-30-2012, 01:30 PM
  #17
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Why limit it to 40 years ? Fighting has been around for more than twice that. I can completely respect your opinion and to be honest I have respect for people who will take the extreme minority position based on principle. But what I cant stomach is people who believe that the get to unilaterally proclaim what is, and is not part of the game and who are convinced that their beleifs trump reality.

As long as players have laced them up there have been fights and like many things fighting is cyclical, some times more some times less. And if your two examples of people against fighting are the philosopher king who never dropped them and a grade A hypocrite like jim thompson, you might want to re-evaluate which side of the argument you want to be on.
In the last 40 years, breakfast has gone away from bacon and eggs to high-sugar cereal, carbonated soft drinks have gone from an occasional indulgence to a daily replacement for water, and all we see are millions of people that struggle to walk to class or across an office building. Has 40 years of these trends really been a positive? Wait, twice that long? How long were bloodletting and smoking tobacco regarded as something positive for good health?

Knowledge can change over time as more becomes known. 40 years ago, no one could definitively say that there were serious long-term consequences for low- to mild-grade head trauma; so-called "punch drunk syndrome" was thought of differently for various reasons. Just because something has existed and been thought of as positive for 40 years, or 80 years, or 120 years, does not make it so. And to unilaterally proclaim that it is simply because it's been around for a long period of time does not make it so.

The idea that nothing can change because there's the possibility of something negative happening as a result ignores the bigger picture. Stick-swinging was considered a part of hockey going back to the beginning; why did it go away, and why would it be very harshly dealt with if it happens today? Were there any negatives that came from this? Bench-clearing brawls were part of hockey going back a long way; what were the negatives that came from cracking down severely on them?

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
04-30-2012, 03:30 PM
  #18
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
In the last 40 years, breakfast has gone away from bacon and eggs to high-sugar cereal, carbonated soft drinks have gone from an occasional indulgence to a daily replacement for water, and all we see are millions of people that struggle to walk to class or across an office building. Has 40 years of these trends really been a positive? Wait, twice that long? How long were bloodletting and smoking tobacco regarded as something positive for good health?
If people want to indulge in these vices that is their perogative. It's not your place to impose your will onto other adults who make decisions that you disagree with in order to protect people from themselves. And I suspect that of all of the people walking the planet, the people who are most intimately aware of the potential consequences of fighting are the fighters themselves.

The game evolves but this evolution should be from within, not to sate the offended sensibilities of some people who will never have to face the consequences of an out and out ban on fighting. And if you want to legislate based on the potential of harm in a game where the players have knives on their feet, clubs on their hands and launch vulcanied rubber in excess of 100 mph, you are going to be pretty busy. I've seen guys get smoked dropping the mitts, i've also seen guys almost die on the ice becuase of their choice ( McCleary) or wrong place wrong time ( Malarchuck). Should we ban blocking shots and force goalies to stay on their feet in case something bad might happen ?

The game is inherently dangerous, the players are very much aware of this fact. Should the day come when the players decide they dont need fights, I'm fine with that but in the meantime please forgive me for not supporting the argument of an extreme minority of fans whose entire argument boils down to " but I really really dont like the fights" over the desires of the very people who have to face the consequences of this decision.

sandysan is offline  
Old
04-30-2012, 03:52 PM
  #19
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
If people want to indulge in these vices that is their perogative. It's not your place to impose your will onto other adults who make decisions that you disagree with in order to protect people from themselves. And I suspect that of all of the people walking the planet, the people who are most intimately aware of the potential consequences of fighting are the fighters themselves.
You mean guys like Ken Dryden and Jim Thomson? Two of the guys whose opinion on the matter you just summarily dismissed as "philosopher king" and "grade-A hypocrite" because their opinion on the matter now is different than it was when they played?

Quote:
The game evolves but this evolution should be from within, not to sate the offended sensibilities of some people who will never have to face the consequences of an out and out ban on fighting. And if you want to legislate based on the potential of harm in a game where the players have knives on their feet, clubs on their hands and launch vulcanied rubber in excess of 100 mph, you are going to be pretty busy. I've seen guys get smoked dropping the mitts, i've also seen guys almost die on the ice becuase of their choice ( McCleary) or wrong place wrong time ( Malarchuck). Should we ban blocking shots and force goalies to stay on their feet in case something bad might happen ?
Don't be absurd. There's a difference between an accident and an intentional act. Blocking a shot and catching the puck in the throat is a different beast than hitting an opposing player and being cross-checked in the throat.

Quote:
The game is inherently dangerous, the players are very much aware of this fact. Should the day come when the players decide they dont need fights, I'm fine with that but in the meantime please forgive me for not supporting the argument of an extreme minority of fans whose entire argument boils down to " but I really really dont like the fights" over the desires of the very people who have to face the consequences of this decision.
Players as a collective have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, whether that's due to external pressure or due to ignorance. Players have been told from the time they were squirts that everyone has to answer for whatever real or imaginary sins they may be involved with, that one's failure to answer the bell results in teammates becoming targets and in that being justified, and that tradition is more important than anything else. Everyone is told (and many believe) that if fighting were to go away, that there'd be a myriad of stick fouls, cheap shots, and the type of outright violence that would make "Slap Shot" look like roller hockey.

Out of 200 players polled that gave genesis to this thread, how many have ever actually thought about the role of fighting in hockey? How many responded the way that they did out of fear of their name and answer eventually becoming public? How was the question itself asked?

And for the record, I don't believe I've ever suggested outlawing fighting. I have said that an intelligent discussion on the role and necessity of fighting in hockey is long overdue, but apparently it's easier to set up strawmen or make thinly veiled shots than it is to take part in an intelligent discussion.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
04-30-2012, 04:01 PM
  #20
Banana Sandwiches
Registered User
 
Banana Sandwiches's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 2,547
vCash: 500
Fighting isn't going anywhere, nor should it.

If the players want it, it should stay.

Banana Sandwiches is offline  
Old
04-30-2012, 04:04 PM
  #21
maroon 6
Live and let live
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,966
vCash: 50
Whose that Bruin in that picture?

maroon 6 is offline  
Old
04-30-2012, 04:28 PM
  #22
Banana Sandwiches
Registered User
 
Banana Sandwiches's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 2,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotNamed View Post
Whose that Bruin in that picture?
Gregory Campbell

Banana Sandwiches is offline  
Old
04-30-2012, 05:34 PM
  #23
ean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,802
vCash: 500
The NHL doesn't want to remove fighting from the game. What they do want to remove are fights that occur between players who only play 5 minutes a game or less. They want these fights out because to outsiders they look like WWF gimmicks when they trot out to center ice and those inside the game know these fights contribute nothing.

ean is offline  
Old
04-30-2012, 05:37 PM
  #24
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
You mean guys like Ken Dryden and Jim Thomson? Two of the guys whose opinion on the matter you just summarily dismissed as "philosopher king" and "grade-A hypocrite" because their opinion on the matter now is different than it was when they played?



Don't be absurd. There's a difference between an accident and an intentional act. Blocking a shot and catching the puck in the throat is a different beast than hitting an opposing player and being cross-checked in the throat.



Players as a collective have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, whether that's due to external pressure or due to ignorance. Players have been told from the time they were squirts that everyone has to answer for whatever real or imaginary sins they may be involved with, that one's failure to answer the bell results in teammates becoming targets and in that being justified, and that tradition is more important than anything else. Everyone is told (and many believe) that if fighting were to go away, that there'd be a myriad of stick fouls, cheap shots, and the type of outright violence that would make "Slap Shot" look like roller hockey.

Out of 200 players polled that gave genesis to this thread, how many have ever actually thought about the role of fighting in hockey? How many responded the way that they did out of fear of their name and answer eventually becoming public? How was the question itself asked?

And for the record, I don't believe I've ever suggested outlawing fighting. I have said that an intelligent discussion on the role and necessity of fighting in hockey is long overdue, but apparently it's easier to set up strawmen or make thinly veiled shots than it is to take part in an intelligent discussion.

So your argument is that because a guy who never dropped the mitts ( Dryden) and thompson who dropped them more than his fair share oppose fighting that we should give their opinions preference over the other 99.5 % of the people who played the game and who have no problem with fighting ( and for the record I didn't come up with Philosopher king, and I doubt I'm the first to call thompson a hypocrite). That as soon as there is one lonely dissenter that we are obligated to re-evaluate the entire role of fighting in the league ?

And blocking a shot requires a choice, not everyone will do it many a players has done the flamingo. Yes it was a freak accident but if we prevented players of putting themselves in this situation we can all go around patting ourselves on the back saying that we really care about player safety. The number of people who suffered to the same extent as mccleary or Malarchcuk at the end of someones fist is pretty much zero ( go ahead, bring up don sanderson).

And I really love the argument you put forward, that you somehow have divined a more pure and complete notion of what is best for the game over those unwashed " ignorant" players who spend more time on skates than you do one your behind. That they are really not at all concerned about the role of fighting in the game and are being pried with under the table payments from don cherrys rock em sock em franchise to keep fighting alive. Whether you consider yourself more intelligent than the average player is irrelevant, they are adults and they get to make their own damn decisions. You don't like them ? Keep on whining about it or go get bent. I dont like it when pitchers throw at guys cin baseball to protect their teamates, but its part of the game that is going to go away any time soon no matter how much I act like a petulant child.

I cant say what the NHL would look like without fights and more importantly neither can you because this beast has never existed. But the insistence that some anonymous hfboarders have a fundamentally better understanding of the game then the overwheliming majority of GM's, coaches, players past and present requires a sense of self-delusion of pathological levels. If that's the path you want to take, be my guest but be aware that you will be just the latest to make this argument and those that have come before you have made zero progress in advancing the position you seem to hold so dear.

sandysan is offline  
Old
04-30-2012, 06:05 PM
  #25
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Players as a collective have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, whether that's due to external pressure or due to ignorance. Players have been told from the time they were squirts that everyone has to answer for whatever real or imaginary sins they may be involved with, that one's failure to answer the bell results in teammates becoming targets and in that being justified, and that tradition is more important than anything else. Everyone is told (and many believe) that if fighting were to go away, that there'd be a myriad of stick fouls, cheap shots, and the type of outright violence that would make "Slap Shot" look like roller hockey.

Out of 200 players polled that gave genesis to this thread, how many have ever actually thought about the role of fighting in hockey? How many responded the way that they did out of fear of their name and answer eventually becoming public? How was the question itself asked?
Do you fancy Wayne Gretzky and Mats Sundin as "ignorant" individuals who have never "thought about the role of fighting in hockey"?

eyeball11 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 AM.

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

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