1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fighting in hockey

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Gator, Jan 1, 2012.

  1. Iron_chet

    Iron_chet Well-Known Member

    Basketball in the 70s had plenty of fights. In the Pluto book he talks about many of the teams having guys that the rest of the league was scared of and would throw down when needed.

    Hockey does not need fighting. The players will not get more chippy if fighting is eliminated because it is not the chippy instigators who have to answer for their actions.

    These are pro athletes. Ban fighting, enforce the rules vigilently on stickwork, cheap hits, etc and NHL hockey becomes a way better game.
  2. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    If you don't believe that the game won't be more chippy, I'm not sure what to tell you. You're Canadian, I will assume you've played. When players have no fear of retribution stick work becomes insane.

    Smash in her two posts has put it better than I think most can, she is spot on.
  3. Iron_chet

    Iron_chet Well-Known Member

    I think the chippiness can be relegated to a more tolerable agree if the rukles are strictly enforced. How many fights did Claude Lemieux have in his career? How did the culture of fighting and retribution make him any less of a dirty player. Matt Cooke is still a shit disturber.

    I think the arguement that fighting is the outlet that keeps the game from spiralling out of control is false. I realize that it was the best players in the world but I think most will agree that the best hockey in recent memory have been the Olympic medal games, nary a fight to be seen and it's not like guys were getting carved up by stick work all over the place.
  4. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Your Olympic argument is the one that drives me nuts, it is the weakest argument people use against fighting. There is no comparison, you are talking about the best players in the world in a scenario where 1 game can knock you out. How does that compare to game 36 of an 82 game season? One team is up 5-0, what is stopping them from taking liberties on your top players?

    Claude Lemieux would actually fight and defend himself at times. He is still a colossal piece of shit but he did answer for his deeds at times.
  5. NickMordo

    NickMordo Active Member

    You did just prove you are a peripheral fan because fans don't buy tickets or tune in just to see fights. They want to, ya know, see the game and goals and big hits and fast-paced action. Fighting always has been and always will be a part of the sport, so why tinker with it? And as someone else noted, there are bruisers and stars and the bruisers look out for the stars. (See: Bob Probert or Darren McCarty or Tie Domi.)
  6. derwood

    derwood Active Member

    about 10% of concussions are due to fighting.
  7. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Do you have a link to prove that?

    At some point fighting in hockey will get phased out because teams don't want to tie up a roster spot and cap space for a guy who plays three minutes a game and has no other skills.

    Putting an end to fighting will not end concussions in hockey--that's pretty obvious-but it will put an end to one of the causes of concussions.

    Part of the problem right now is that there is effectively no penalty for fighting. The two goons go sit in the box for five minutes and the game goes on as if nothing has happened.

    It's odd that although the league wants to put an end to head shots it still allows fighting. Anyone who says that no one gets hurt in a fight is delusional.
  8. Iron_chet

    Iron_chet Well-Known Member

    I noted in my response that it was different because of they were the best players in the world but I used the Olympic arguement to show that fighting does need to be part of the game.

    The way you have players not take liberties on game 47 when they are down 5-0 is too make the penalty too great to do something stupid when there is nothing at stake.

    Intentional penalty when nothing is at stake = having a seat for 5 games. Start making the consequences financial and watch how quickly things get cleaned up.

    My point is that if the league really wanted to they could get rid of fighting but they don't becaue of the archaic old boy arguement that it is part of the game. Fighting was part of the game in basketball at one time as well, seeing itnow is a rarity.

    It is all about the will and honesty to say that you want to get rid of fighting.
  9. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Fighting was never part of the game in basketball, it has always been an automatic ejection. Ridiculous comparison.
  10. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    Part of the fabric of the game but indefensible in a sports culture that now has a conscience over its concussed current players and broken-down old players. Watch Bettman's interview in the NYT/Boogaard story, he makes all the right points but still sounds ridiculous. Tough spot to be in.
  11. Gator

    Gator Well-Known Member

    The other part about hockey that I don't like/understand is that Zdeno Chara can be investigated by the Montreal police for a hit deemed legal by the league, but if Chara had broken the eye socket of said player during a fight, that's just part of the game. It doesn't make sense.
  12. Iron_chet

    Iron_chet Well-Known Member

    Read some history on basketball in the 60s and 70s. Was not uncommon by any means.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page