HFBoards

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

Habs trade Philippe Lefebvre and a 7th to Florida for George Parros

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-29-2013, 10:06 AM
  #876
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I agree, throwing at a guy in almost universally non-consentual whereas the overwhelming number of fights in hockey are consentual.

But as others have mentioned, if the primary concern to advocate fundamental changes in the game rests on the canard of player safety, there are MANY things that would take precedence over fighting ( predominantly hitting). There are no-hitting hockey leagues so in a sense hitting can be removed from the game. But no one advocates making the NHL the "no hit league" because it fundamentally alters the fabric of the sport.

Now when you recognise that fighting in the NHL has been around as long as hitting, the notion that you can selectively decide which parts of the game are " important" and which are " expendible" requires a staggering level of self-importance. I dont support fighting because I am some mouth breathing vampire, I support fighting because the players ( the ones willingly and knowingly putting themselves at risk) overwhelmingly support it. The day the PA comes out against it, is the day my support for it dies.

I cannot believe that anyone who has watched the game thinks that there are fights to sate vampire fans in the stands.
Hitting is a lot more important as it is a way to get your opponent off the puck. It is also a strategy to tire your opponent out and make them more hesitant to battle in corners or use a certain lane.
But they are limiting hitting, they're a dinosaur league (probably why fighting still is there) so it's super slow to adjust, but knee hits aren't legal, head shots are being targeted for a while now, you can't hit with your stick...
So they are trying to make hitting as clean as possible.

Fighting though is useless. There's this notion that it can sway momentum and help chemistry, but that changes all the time throughout a game. At the end of the day, a fight isn't going to give you a goal.

As I said the PA represents fighters, it's their job to support them, they'll never go against them.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:11 AM
  #877
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,773
vCash: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiggsBozon View Post
Let me just say that:

You see headcases like Lucic punch from behind (like he did with Kostitsyn) or just simply take the opponent by the head and almost attempt to break his neck (like he did with Komisarek).

You see an idiot like Gorges throwing a puck at other players.

You saw goofies like Matt Cooke in the past try and rip the head off his opponents.

And you still think fighting has to get out of this game?

These guys FEED off emotion, rivalries and adrenaline. There are big time rivalries out there. Between both teams and players. These guys are for the most part in their physical peak, in the high-twenties, and have tons of testosterone.

This aggressivity, no matter how it's being demonstrated, just HAS to be demonstrated. It inevitably WILL happen.

Now, you have two options:

1. Two guys dropping the gloves, face to face, both expecting to hit AND get hit.
2. A guy who keeps telling to himself he's going to get revenge, to eventually attack the other guy without him expecting it at all.

Now, tell me you're naive enough to think that by eliminating fighting, the rivalries, animosity and aggressiveness between those players will just go away as easily as that. Tell me some of the headcases out there won't try and get revenge one way or another. Tell me the post-whistle scrums will stop happening.

Hockey has ALWAYS been like this. Changing the culture of the game and expecting the players to become choir kids and stop going at each other, no matter the way, is idiotic. People who would expect that live in a whole different world.

Few players get concussions as a result of fighting. In huge part because players all have outstanding strength nowadays, and that more often than not, the blows exchanged in a fight are definitely not significant. They find ways to protect themselves, they lose a huge part of their aggressivity in the exercise, and they feel like they did themselves "justice".

You guys are looking the wrong way.
'Cause again, everything you mentioned as incidents do happen WITH fighting in the game. Still tons of proofs that fighting doesn't solve anything. Who went to Gorges and knocked his ass out? 2 guys drop the gloves....great so let's Colton Orr grab Gorges, to see how that finishes. As if Gorges will drop them first, 'cause dropping them is not mandatory as some would like it to believe. Strangely, some hate to have some punches threw at their faces. Especially the ones that aren't good at it. So what does this mean? It means that if Gallagher doesn't want to drop it, he'll need to stop driving the net. Means that Subban and Emelin needs to stop bodychecking. Means that Marchand needs to stop running his mouth. Yet, you said it yourself...hockey is a sport of emotion. But in what world people live in when they think that removing fighting (or giving harsher sentences) means removing emotion from the game? Have you liked your playoffs? How was the emotion? In what sport do such an important trait be SOOOOOOOO important during the regular season and be SOOOOOOOO invisible during THE most important season of them all in the playoffs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
So when Chara perceives that emelin has taken liberties with Seguin and goes, that's bad ? but when that uber tough guy fleischman runs georges from behind and Whitey pistons him up good, that's good ? Getting back to this thread topic, the value of Parros is that we no longer have to rely on one guy to stick up for a lot of our players who in many respects cannot stand up for themselves.

Hockey has always had fights, the fans in the arena's seem to like them and the notion that if the league banned fights that this would translate to a) better player safety or b) more fans is nothing more than random supposition. There have been eras in which fighting was more prominent and less prominent but an NHL without fighting is a figment of some people's imagination.
By the way, I do live with the sport that we have now. The fact that they do allow fighting, I WAS totally for having Prust on our team. I would be totally FOR having guys that can play hockey and fights. If McCarron and Crips happens to be the players that we think they are, I'll be fine with that. But if you happen to remove fighting fighting from the game and McCarron "only" happens to be a 25-goal scorer that you can't remove from in fron of the net and if Crisp happens to be an incredible forechecker and great at bodychecking, I'll be fine with that.

Yep....an NHL without fighting is a figment of some people's imagination or.....what is called.....the playoffs.

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:11 AM
  #878
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post

As I said the PA represents fighters, it's their job to support them, they'll never go against them.
The PA also represents a lot of guys who could not punch their way out of a wet paper bag. Why is it they also support fighting to the same extent ?

if you want to go back to the days when everyone was responsible for their own protection, a lot of the current habs are out of a job.
The advantage of protection by proxy ( the enforcers) means that little guys with crazy skills have a chance in the league, and i think the league is better off because of it.

sandysan is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:19 AM
  #879
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
By the way, I do live with the sport that we have now. The fact that they do allow fighting, I WAS totally for having Prust on our team. I would be totally FOR having guys that can play hockey and fights. If McCarron and Crips happens to be the players that we think they are, I'll be fine with that. But if you happen to remove fighting fighting from the game and McCarron "only" happens to be a 25-goal scorer that you can't remove from in fron of the net and if Crisp happens to be an incredible forechecker and great at bodychecking, I'll be fine with that.

Yep....an NHL without fighting is a figment of some people's imagination or.....what is called.....the playoffs.
Two years ago, what series got the most press ? The pens flyers which was decidely not great hockey. when there was a line brawl in the habs-sens game and we got our hats handed to us, that was pretty much it.

Yes there are often fewer fights in the playoffs but the notion that there are none is misplaced. I dont want guys fighting all the time, there are times to fight and times not to.

And as to your suppostion " if you happened to remove fighting fro mthe game" is precisely the appeal to something that 1) will not happen in my lifetime 2) has never existed, ever. Its the same nonsensical appeal as if " if you happened to remove hitting or wristshots from the game........".

I get it, some people dont like fights. but the notion that if we can somehow magically remove fights that the games gets 1) better, 2) safer 3) more popular is nothing more than a wish. you might as well wish for a pony, or free beer in the stands of the no-fighting NHL.

sandysan is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:22 AM
  #880
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
You know who disagrees with you ? Pretty much every single player who has ever laced them up in the NHL ( with the possible exception of Dryden who knew he'd never have to drop them himself) Who is more of an authority, you or them ?

I dont understand why the kardashians are popular, that doesnt mean that they are not. The notion that because you dont understand the value of something means that there is no value is nonsencial.
So what? Some players would still Like to skate without a helmet, some still dont want a visor. The players have proven time and time again to not like changes, and take a very slow process to evolve.
To use this as proof is very weak actually. As this was poll was about banning it, not reducing it. But my guess is that wouldn't change anyways. If my good buddy is Parros, or Thornton, or mcGrattan, or Scott, or whoever, and I have to take a poll on whether or not I want to see my friend stay in the league or be out of a job, what do you think I'd say?

Kardashian are there because people love celebrities and reality tv. I think it's dumb but it's entertainment to some.
Hockey is a sport I love, fighting is a small part of it, it doesn't even happen in every game. It adds or deducts nothing from the score, it can't even happen during a play! They need to stop the whole game so that two guys can go at it. Could it be reduced or banned? I don't see why not, but as I said, not until suspensions are harsher.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:30 AM
  #881
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
The PA also represents a lot of guys who could not punch their way out of a wet paper bag. Why is it they also support fighting to the same extent ?

if you want to go back to the days when everyone was responsible for their own protection, a lot of the current habs are out of a job.
The advantage of protection by proxy ( the enforcers) means that little guys with crazy skills have a chance in the league, and i think the league is better off because of it.
Because those guys are friends with guys that only fight. Would you wish your friend to lose his position? I wouldn't.

Except the "protection by proxy" you speak off doesn't really exists. Guys still hit smaller players no matter who's on your team. Emelin went after Seguin despite their roster. Chara went after him. That didnt prevent Emelin from trying to hit any other Bruins, nor did it make Seguin safer.
And going after Emelin for a clean hit is just dumb. Fighters don't prevent or protect anything. They're solely used as a payback machine or sometimes as crap diffusers. That's it's. I don't see the necessity in that if the league knew how to suspend their players.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:34 AM
  #882
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,773
vCash: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Two years ago, what series got the most press ? The pens flyers which was decidely not great hockey. when there was a line brawl in the habs-sens game and we got our hats handed to us, that was pretty much it.

Yes there are often fewer fights in the playoffs but the notion that there are none is misplaced. I dont want guys fighting all the time, there are times to fight and times not to.

And as to your suppostion " if you happened to remove fighting fro mthe game" is precisely the appeal to something that 1) will not happen in my lifetime 2) has never existed, ever. Its the same nonsensical appeal as if " if you happened to remove hitting or wristshots from the game........".

I get it, some people dont like fights. but the notion that if we can somehow magically remove fights that the games gets 1) better, 2) safer 3) more popular is nothing more than a wish. you might as well wish for a pony, or free beer in the stands of the no-fighting NHL.
But where do Banning fighting means none? Why do people keep saying that? It will happen. Just that an harsher sentence than a 5 minute penalty will happen. I mean, you keep responding to me, I guess you have seen the 1000 times where I mentioned that. As far as the most press....well no that incident got some. But pretty sure people were not talking about as the key moment of the playoffs. And it's great that you're taking 1 example of the past so many years to prove a point. You know that this example isn't the norm in the playoffs. There are less and less fighting. And that's being polite.

Well great if you don't believe it will happen. My point about "if it happens" has just more value that your point about the fact that you don't think it will happen. It's called opinions and they are welcome in this board. I know that at one point, mandatory helmets were ludicrous. Mandatory visors were removing a right from the players to deal with their faces the way THEY wanted to deal with. And yet, 1 already happened. And the other one will be happening.....in your lifetime. I agree, it will be a long process. I'm not expecting to see that happening in the next 5 years. But things change. I also was pretty sure that the Montreal Forum was too much of a sacred place to be demolished....and yet it was. And tons of things like that. Some takes a longer time. Not because it does though that we can't have an opinion that we should remove it or not.

Thing is, while I don't turn off my TV when a fight happen, my problem with fighting, as I already mentioned yet you seem to want to ignore it for some odd reasons, is because players and fans are talking this fighting thing to a totaly different idiotic level. That you have to fight when you do some legal checks. That you have to fight even if you are not a fighter. THAT is the reason why I want it to be removed. If fighting would not have been about that, I might have had a different take. Not anymore. Players are too stupid to define what fighting should be about, so let's take it out of their hands and ban it. And if your next point is to tell me that I shouldn't know more than players who actually are playing the game, please tell me how great and sane it is that a fight occurs almost everytime a legal hit yet hard is used? Tell how intelligent that is. Besides, you know that unless you don't have a secret voting made by EVERY player in the league, you won't have a real idea of what the players want. I mean, the idea is that tough players shouldn't wear a visor 'cause you look like a ***** instead of just a guy who doesn't want his career to end because of an eye injury...and then you'll tell me that tons of players will voice that they'd prefer the fighting to end 'cause they are not good at it and don't want to change their game because they have to fight? So yes....players that played the game might not be ALWAYS the smartest guys to take a decision about their own game. Not always. To be called a ***** because I wear a visor...that's also pretty mandatory in this league....tell me how "brillant" it is now because it's coming from guys that laces them up.....Yet again, before I know what the players exactly are thinking about....I'd reserve my right to wait for a secret voting....not a tidbit on TV telling me how Parros is crucial 'cause he defends me. Just like 2 years ago how I heard from the same people who "team toughness" was the most crucial thing.....having 1 tough guy wasn't that much important....Players adapt to the situation in hand. Or at least....that,s what they are telling us....would love to know what they really think.....and it could go both ways. As in this example, I'm pretty sure that this team toughness was complete BS for them. Yet, in this league, with this fighting, they had to pretend as if it wasn't important.


Last edited by Whitesnake: 07-29-2013 at 10:39 AM.
Whitesnake is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:38 AM
  #883
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
So what? Some players would still Like to skate without a helmet, some still dont want a visor. The players have proven time and time again to not like changes, and take a very slow process to evolve.
.
so the argument is that we should simply accept your infantilization of the players because you have some deep seated understanding of "what is best for the game" that eludes the overwhelming majority of the people who have to deal with the consequences of their decisions ?

I am sure you are very intelligent and have the players best interest in mind. But if I have to choose with what you think is best, and what they players overwhelmingly support, I choose the latter every time.

The players are not dumb, they understand far more than most what figthing does and does not do for the game. If the basis for your argument is that "the players are too dumb to understand and things would be better if they just listened to me" you risk coming off in not the greatest light.

sandysan is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:43 AM
  #884
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,773
vCash: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
so the argument is that we should simply accept your infantilization of the players because you have some deep seated understanding of "what is best for the game" that eludes the overwhelming majority of the people who have to deal with the consequences of their decisions ?

I am sure you are very intelligent and have the players best interest in mind. But if I have to choose with what you think is best, and what they players overwhelmingly support, I choose the latter every time.

The players are not dumb, they understand far more than most what figthing does and does not do for the game. If the basis for your argument is that "the players are too dumb to understand and things would be better if they just listened to me" you risk coming off in not the greatest light.
You respond to Kriss E yet totally disregard his argumentation. We "think" we know what the players want based on what we hear. But didn't we heard the same players bashing the mandatory visor? How come now they accepted it? I guess because it won't touched them as it's more for the guys coming after them....but how is that great for the game? The game will survive them right? Or do they only have THEIR own interest at heart?

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:43 AM
  #885
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
so the argument is that we should simply accept your infantilization of the players because you have some deep seated understanding of "what is best for the game" that eludes the overwhelming majority of the people who have to deal with the consequences of their decisions ?

I am sure you are very intelligent and have the players best interest in mind. But if I have to choose with what you think is best, and what they players overwhelmingly support, I choose the latter every time.

The players are not dumb, they understand far more than most what figthing does and does not do for the game. If the basis for your argument is that "the players are too dumb to understand and things would be better if they just listened to me" you risk coming off in not the greatest light.
Answer this simple question, would you vote for your friend to lose his job? Yes or no?
I'm not saying I know better, I'm saying once you realize the guys are obviously biased, the results become skewed and irrelevant.

And again, it's been proven the players do not like change and take a long time before evolving, so I don't see why it would be any different with fighting and even more so now as it would mean seeing some of their friends lose jobs. You really don't need to know how these guys think to figure this one out.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:49 AM
  #886
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Answer this simple question, would you vote for your friend to lose his job? Yes or no?
I'm not saying I know better, I'm saying once you realize the guys are obviously biased, the results become skewed and irrelevant.
It would depend. If I vote for my friend and have to face the possibility of someone else friend could beat me to a pulp, I might, sure.

You couldnt get 99% of people to agree that kicking puppies is bad, there is no debate as to whether the players support fighting. Are they doing it to get jobs for their friends ? or to ensure they dont have to drop them ? I suspect some fall into the former category and some the latter. the notion that they all vote this way ( when the vote is anonymous) to support their friends who are enforcers presumes something that I dont know there is support for.

And I dont think that all of the players are friends with every other player on the team.

sandysan is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:53 AM
  #887
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
You respond to Kriss E yet totally disregard his argumentation. We "think" we know what the players want based on what we hear. But didn't we heard the same players bashing the mandatory visor? How come now they accepted it? I guess because it won't touched them as it's more for the guys coming after them....but how is that great for the game? The game will survive them right? Or do they only have THEIR own interest at heart?
you are completely missing the point. they are not enforcing mandatory visors, guys who play without one now are gransfathered in. and this was accepted by the PA. As I've said EVERY TIME the day the players accept banning fighting is the day I'm on board. your position is that because YOU think that fighting is stupid that the PA should be forced to do it because the players are " stupid" and that you know what is better for them, or the game, is stupifyingly self-centered.

sandysan is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:56 AM
  #888
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
It would depend. If I vote for my friend and have to face the possibility of someone else friend could beat me to a pulp, I might, sure.

You couldnt get 99% of people to agree that kicking puppies is bad, there is no debate as to whether the players support fighting. Are they doing it to get jobs for their friends ? or to ensure they dont have to drop them ? I suspect some fall into the former category and some the latter. the notion that they all vote this way ( when the vote is anonymous) to support their friends who are enforcers presumes something that I dont know there is support for.

And I dont think that all of the players are friends with every other player on the team.
It's irrelevant. Once you admit the results to be skewed than the poll is flawed. I don't care if ta 1-5-10-50%, it is flawed. Simple, clear, and obvious.

I think any kid that has gone up through the ranks has met someone along the way that either is or becomes a goon at some point, either in minor leagues or the NhL, it's inevitable.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 10:58 AM
  #889
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
you are completely missing the point. they are not enforcing mandatory visors, guys who play without one now are gransfathered in. and this was accepted by the PA. As I've said EVERY TIME the day the players accept banning fighting is the day I'm on board. your position is that because YOU think that fighting is stupid that the PA should be forced to do it because the players are " stupid" and that you know what is better for them, or the game, is stupifyingly self-centered.
How about thinking for yourself?

Kriss E is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 11:02 AM
  #890
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
It's irrelevant. Once you admit the results to be skewed than the poll is flawed. I don't care if ta 1-5-10-50%, it is flawed. Simple, clear, and obvious.

I think any kid that has gone up through the ranks has met someone along the way that either is or becomes a goon at some point, either in minor leagues or the NhL, it's inevitable.
I cant think of any public opinion poll that approaches this level on uninamity, can you ? To be frank I dont care what the motivations of the players are, if they want to keep fighting to keep them safe or to keep jobs for their friends or to keep our unicorn overloads at bay or some combination of the three is immaterial to me. It doesnt change the fact that when asked, they overwhelmingly support fighting.

And you will have to excuse me if I dont agree that the results are flawed based on your unsupported claims of omniscience. I really dont care about the rationalizations of their support, if you know of a poll who asked a follow up question that asked the players WHY they overwhelmingly support fighting, I'd love to see it.

sandysan is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 11:05 AM
  #891
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
How about thinking for yourself?
I'm not in the position of telling other adults how they should live their lives because I presume I know what is best for them. people do all kinds of things I would not, but if they do it and are cognizant of the consequences, that's on them. if their decisions dont affect me, or others, then they can do whatever they like.

I'm all for people thinking for themselves, I'm against people who think that their thoughts can be imposed on other adults. The world is not run for your approval.

sandysan is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 11:24 AM
  #892
groovejuice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Forgive me for saying this but your singling out of "certain markets, especially in the US" is a display of ignorance and your ill-conceived prejudice toward fans not from Canada.

I am not going to assume which fanbases you are targeting but I have a very good idea.

So I will ask you this question. Two markets. NY Rangers. NY Islanders. One sells out 100% of the time. One sells out 82% of the time. Why the difference? Fighting in "certain markets"?

By the way. Nashville, that city with the "good old Southern boys who loves them some NASCAR sitting in the stands", sells out 99.2% of the time and is ranked 18th for fighting majors.

Why is it OK to have an incorrect prejudice against a certain segment of people as long as it does not involve race? Same difference man.......
I never implied or suggested anything based on prejudice. Maybe you just inferred that based on your own.

What I said is that in my mind a person who goes to hockey games primarily to see fighting is identical in mindset to those who go to car races primarily to see crashes. I also wouldn't expect those 2 fanbases to intersect much.

It is clear the NHL, regardless of its public statements, is acutely aware that fighting is part of the overall spectacle that is a hockey game. Keeping that spectacle intact is clearly deemed more important for the sake of ticket sales. Sales are important to all franchises, but particularly those with small fanbases and empty seats.

As for the difference in attendance between the 2 New York teams? Maybe because one has made itself a perennial contender and the second has not.

groovejuice is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 11:33 AM
  #893
groovejuice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Just a cheap shot to try validate his opinion, even though nothing he stated is based on merit or fact. Most North Americans ie Canadians/Americans don't dislike fighting. They are a loud vocal minority.
You make an erroneous assumption that I am part of a segment that hates hockey fights. I am not. I just believe that it is not integral to hockey.

And where did I state that most North Americans dislike hockey fights? Your inference is laughable.

groovejuice is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 11:35 AM
  #894
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by groovejuice View Post
I never implied or suggested anything based on prejudice. Maybe you just inferred that based on your own.

What I said is that in my mind a person who goes to hockey games primarily to see fighting is identical in mindset to those who go to car races primarily to see crashes. I also wouldn't expect those 2 fanbases to intersect much.

It is clear the NHL, regardless of its public statements, is acutely aware that fighting is part of the overall spectacle that is a hockey game. Keeping that spectacle intact is clearly deemed more important for the sake of ticket sales. Sales are important to all franchises, but particularly those with small fanbases and empty seats.

As for the difference in attendance between the 2 New York teams? Maybe because one has made itself a perennial contender and the second has not.

If fighting puts butts in the seats, care to explain the implementation of the instigator ? the nhl has not only indicated it would like a league with less fights, they have already implemented rules to try and acheive this goal.

I asked before, I'll ask again. What proportion of the fan base do you think are vampires and what is it that says that there are more of them in " US markets" ?

In bus leagues, fighting probably is a draw to fans, but if you thinks that there are vampires so enamored with blood that they would pay NHL priced tickets ( where fights are decidely not assured) as opposed to a multitude of other events that would sate the bloodlust ( boxing, MMA, surfing), then not only are they bloodthirsty, they are also exceptionally stupid.

sandysan is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 11:38 AM
  #895
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,773
vCash: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
you are completely missing the point. they are not enforcing mandatory visors, guys who play without one now are gransfathered in. and this was accepted by the PA. As I've said EVERY TIME the day the players accept banning fighting is the day I'm on board. your position is that because YOU think that fighting is stupid that the PA should be forced to do it because the players are " stupid" and that you know what is better for them, or the game, is stupifyingly self-centered.
Honestly, this is becoming better and better. No. I'm not missing the point. THIS is my point. You talk about the players knowing what's best for THE GAME (the game which isn't solely about them as the game will survive after them), but then mentions that of course they accepted the visor as they will be able to keep not having it based on the rule. And that's not SELF-CENTERED? If having a mandatory visor is bad for the game...should have they been able to fight it for the incoming kids? Or is the game starts and ends when THEY started and will stop playing it? And that's not self-centered? It's impossible to apply it to that, but I guess if there was a way for them to get a grandfather ruling to fighting as well and ban it with the upcoming kids....they'd be ok with that? Luckily enough, there's no way we'll know about that. Strange though, I'm pretty sure that the same players now that don't want fighting to stop, predict that one day, it will be banned....Yet, that one day...there will be players too no? Why would they accept? Unless, again, those brillant players from today only has at heart what's great for them....

And again, yes, players can be stupid. You don,t answer my points. If having to fight after a LEGAL check not stupid? Is making Subban, Emelin, Gallagher or everybody who plays hard but don't have that fighting ability HAVING to fight not stupid? Isn't there enough gestures on the ice to not think that some players aren't stupid? In everybody's line of work....aren't they making stupid decisions? Do anybody needs to apply some guidelines because as brillant as we all are, we might not be THAT brillant? Why is playing a game makes you automatically the most intelligent brand that has ever lived? Strangely, all the goons that stopped gooning are almost saying that in this game now, people should stop refrained from fighting? Why is it coming from ex-players? Didn't they played the game? Is Don Cherry more intelligent than the rest of the planet? Only one point I'll agree with Cherry is the stupid equipment that are hard as rocks. Which STRANGELY people that plays the game don't seem to have any problem with, yet, you don't need to have elbows that hard. No need for shoulder pads to be THAT hard too. And that's being used by those intelligent people you are talking about. I might not be intelligent, but I also refuse to think that those guys that played the game are ALL the most brillant human being on the planet, even for their own sport. 'Cause strangely, once they get out, they sing a totally different tune. No, what they are doing is that they do what's best for their wallet. That's the definion of self-centered. Reason why most goons will want to keep the fights, and the ones that don't depend on them anymore, want them out. Why you hear so many of "I didn't want to, but to keep my job, I had to". That doesn't sound to me as guys who thought that they knew what they wanted for themselves....

By the way, you TOTALLY have the right to keep the fights because you like that part of the game in a hockey game. You do.

Also, whether we are for or against it, we don't know what's best for them based on THEIR opinions as we don't have it. And like I said, it's not a couple of interviews on TV that changes it. It would be a secret vote. Which I'm probably sure we didn't have lately.

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 11:38 AM
  #896
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by groovejuice View Post
You make an erroneous assumption that I am part of a segment that hates hockey fights. I am not. I just believe that it is not integral to hockey.

And where did I state that most North Americans dislike hockey fights? Your inference is laughable.
when you become emperor of the NHL, your opinion might matter. Until then you don't get to unilaterally decide what is and is not part of the game. We have history for that, and that history is ripe with fisticuffs and if the PA has a say ( they do) this is not going to change anytime soon.

sandysan is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 11:46 AM
  #897
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post

And again, yes, players can be stupid. You don,t answer my points. If having to fight after a LEGAL check not stupid? Is making Subban, Emelin, Gallagher or everybody who plays hard but don't have that fighting ability HAVING to fight not stupid?
no, and no.

And what constitues a LEGAL check is subjective, I have no problem with a guy sending messages to lay off the little guys. I dont think that Chara saw what emelin did to segiun, but he saw the aftermath and decided that emelin was taking liberties, even though there were many who said that seguin dove. I LOVED what matt carkner did the Brian boyle when boyle decided he was going to try and manhandle Karlsson. I love the fact that at the start of the year the two gallys played with prust to give them space.

I also liked when Gallagher got leveled and cube was going to come to his defense that Brendan told him he was okay and to let it slide.

We have a small team. If prust and parros fighting gets people to take their foots off the gas for our little guys, legal or not, I'm fine with that. its a lot better than the alternative of letting our team get manhandled ( which is growing a little tired).

sandysan is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 11:51 AM
  #898
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
By the way, you TOTALLY have the right to keep the fights because you like that part of the game in a hockey game. You do.

Also, whether we are for or against it, we don't know what's best for them based on THEIR opinions as we don't have it. And like I said, it's not a couple of interviews on TV that changes it. It would be a secret vote. Which I'm probably sure we didn't have lately.
The secret ballot votes are out, and it does not help your position, at all. You can invoke the conspiracy of peer pressure that causes people to say things they dont beleive for fear of being found out and thus labelled " soft" as many of your antifighting bretheren do.

And I admit I like the fights, but my support for them is not based on attempts to make the game more personally appealing. I support the fights because the players want it, nothing more nothing less. If the players come out and say they dont want or need the fights, I'll switch my position irrespective of whether I like fights or not. This is the polar opposite to your position that there should be no fighting because you would like it more and that the will of the players is either moot, or subserviant to your idealized vision of the game.

sandysan is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 11:56 AM
  #899
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,773
vCash: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
no, and no.

And what constitues a LEGAL check is subjective, I have no problem with a guy sending messages to lay off the little guys. I dont think that Chara saw what emelin did to segiun, but he saw the aftermath and decided that emelin was taking liberties, even though there were many who said that seguin dove. I LOVED what matt carkner did the Brian boyle when boyle decided he was going to try and manhandle Karlsson. I love the fact that at the start of the year the two gallys played with prust to give them space.

I also liked when Gallagher got leveled and cube was going to come to his defense that Brendan told him he was okay and to let it slide.

We have a small team. If prust and parros fighting gets people to take their foots off the gas for our little guys, legal or not, I'm fine with that. its a lot better than the alternative of letting our team get manhandled ( which is growing a little tired).
Fine. So it ends here my friend. If you don't think that having to fight after hard legal checks isn't stupid, we are such in a different planet in regards to that topic.

Though I'll say this for probably the last time....I am not amongst the ones who don't want to play with the rules we have in hand. I keep asking to get bigger. I keep saying that the beating we took against Boston and Ottawa are a disgrace to the CH and so on. That I loved the Prust acquisition and I love the Parros one, not really because I'M too fond of him but because it will relieve Prust. And I'm amongst Moen harsher critic for not stepping up and letting Prust do all the work. But that's with the rules we live in NOW. My point is that the day they remove fighting, I'll still be watching. And I'll also be glad to see that some of the guys in there that can play tough but can't fight, will not have to fight because that team, or those fans think he should.

Yeah, it's all great when a guy goes after another because he takes liberties...Just like I would be great to see Subban hitting Marchand hard enough to send him bend in 2 directly on his bench because he hate this piece of crap and because he yaps too much. Personnally, I think hitting is ALSO way at getting back at somebody. And HITTING in the game of hockey, HAS to be mandatory for EVERY player that plays at a high level. Not fighting as fighting is an art that is really tough to have but people disrespect it and think everybody can do it.

As far as abolishing it or not...I guess the Boogaard family will have a say in this.....Suddenly, chances are the league and the PA will have a sudden change of heart....

Whitesnake is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 12:11 PM
  #900
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,773
vCash: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
The secret ballot votes are out, and it does not help your position, at all. You can invoke the conspiracy of peer pressure that causes people to say things they dont beleive for fear of being found out and thus labelled " soft" as many of your antifighting bretheren do.

And I admit I like the fights, but my support for them is not based on attempts to make the game more personally appealing. I support the fights because the players want it, nothing more nothing less. If the players come out and say they dont want or need the fights, I'll switch my position irrespective of whether I like fights or not. This is the polar opposite to your position that there should be no fighting because you would like it more and that the will of the players is either moot, or subserviant to your idealized vision of the game.
Well of course it is. Just like my position about the visor to which you didn't respond to. Most tough guys think that a tough guy shouldn't wear a visor 'cause you are a ***** for doing it...How brillant is that? Remove your freakin helmet in a fight, or unclip your visor the day that you won't be able to remove your helmet in fight CHL style but you read some comments about why they should keep fighting and most answers are..."well it was always like that"....Well goalies didn't have masks before....and players didn't have helmets before....and players didn't have visors before...IT WAS ALWAYS LIKE THAT...but things changes. Red line was part of hockey before. For quite some time now. Goalies were always able to play the puck....this is a big part of the game...but now they can't too much. Things change. Nobody whines too much. And I stated that before, even if we found that this is REALLY what they want, that they are really for fighting, what was the ballot about visors before? Or about almost every rule that changed something that wasn't there before? How about hooking and grabbing? Yet, there still have some things to work on but you can't hook the way you were able to before. Yet, it was also part of the game.

And you talked about the instigating rule before...well great then. So the changes ARE in effect....see? That wasn't difficult. Did they accepted it? Strangely, some have some problems with it as they mention that the instigating rule is EXACTLY what removes the possibility of getting back at Marchand and Co. So they can't fight them as the instigating rule is existing, ask our brillant George Laraque about it....Well, so be it, remove it totally then. So they started to apply some pressure towards fighting....who knows, slowly maybe some next steps are coming. Guess it's the way to make it acceptable in the end.

Whitesnake 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 03:10 PM.

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.