Men Who Love Goons...

Or this way.....when 2 hockey players fight, they can return to the game and play after spending 5 minutes in the sinbin (that's the penalty box). I don't know anything about the fight in Denver, but I assume Carmelo was thrown out of the game, correct?

 

All of that is nice -- it still evades the fundamental flaw in your entire premise-- that perceptions of fighting are shaped by preconceived stereotypes about who is doing the fighting.

And yeah, I can imagine if the NBA had one player designated as a goon on every bench, that would make people look at fighting in the NBA differently.

Sheesh, talk about dog chasing its tail -- again this is no different than the Fox News and MSNBC crowd spending night after night trying to explain why Obama struggled in rural parts of Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky....has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with, well, "he called them bitter", "he is an elitist with a college degree", "his wife speaks too much".....

Nope cannot be racism in whole or in part.

 

Zag, you are misquoting, misunderstanding, and grossly overgeneralizing what I have said. Once again, I do NOT dispute that perceptions of fighting WITHIN the NBA have changed over the years. I know that's probably true, and get this: I wholeheartedly AGREE that race has something to do with it.

But that is NOT the claim of yours that I disputed on this thread. I was merely addressing your comparison to hockey, and claim that race was the reason fighting is more accepted in hockey than basketball (which you later expanded to included football). Without denying that race might have something to do with it, my point was only that you are completely ignoring other reasons that better explain the hockey/basketball difference.

THAT is the issue being debated here which you are evading and mischaracterizing. Quit trying to change it. I don't care if fighting was percieved differently WITHIN basketball in the 50s, I AGREE it probably was, that's not the point. The relevant question are: do you dispute that there were more fights in hockey than basketball in the 50s? Do you dispute that fighting was more acceptable in hockey than basketball in the 50s? Do you dispute that the basic difference in the way fighting is percieved as part of the game existed back then just as it does now? You can't. Why not? Race doesn't explain it. What does?

 

IT IS DIFFERENT, IT JUST IS!!!!!

And when the same media guys and gals who are gushing about hockey fights and fighters being tough guys are in the next breath screaming about a bunch of thugs and gangsters because of a fight in a basketball game they DO have something to do with each other...

I'll break this whole thing down and make it very simple....

Do you think that racism plays any role at all in how fighting is covered and perceived in hockey versus how it is covered and perceived in basketball?

 

That's a stupid hypothetical. They don't.

 

No.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

In the 50's -- probably yes, still more fights in hockey than basketball.

In the 50's -- no it was accepted in basketball, in fact, I'm fairly certain though I am trying to find the definitive answer, that it wasn't even an ejection-worthy offense in the early days and it was accepted part of the game far more than it is today, and yes, the perceptions of basketball players as being gritty and scrappy was far different than it is today, as well.

And Race DOES explain much of that, thank you.

 

Well, there you have it -- JR is left with -- THAT'S DIFFERENT, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOCKEY, IT IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE I SAID SO AND I AM THE GRAND OOBAH OF SportsJournalists.com NOW THAT FENIAN IS GONE AND IT IS DIFFERENT......

And I am quite sure a big liberal like yourself doesn't really believe your answer, so not only are you lying to yourself, you are lying to all of us.....

 

Dude, you obviously are so dead-set that your way is the only way, and that absolutely no other argument could possibly be argued that it's almost pointless for you to post here. At least most of us on here, liberal, conservative or other, are man enough to be open to SOME new ways of thinking. And we're also adult enough to admit when we're wrong (which I've done several times on this site, unashamedly).

You want to believe it's racism? Fine. Nothing will ever change your mind, so why bother even debating it with anyone on here?

 

I'm officially done with this conversation.

Goin' nowhere fast.

 

Zag,

Both of the articles you posted are more in line with what I'm trying to get at, in so much as they use specific, concrete examples to make a case. Thank you for posting them. (Especially Bo's, he's good people). I personally feel that both of them draw sweeping, overly broad conclusions from relatively small pools of evidence, and that both of them confuse correlation with causation. However, the latter is often the case when discussing racism, since racism is a human attitude, not a natural phenomenon, and therefore hard to prove in any sort of classical sense.

I also think that both articles are at their most persuasive when discussing racial attitudes and how they pertain to the reaction to Palace brawl. That's where almost all of the evidence/examples are. As for connecting that to reactions to hockey fighting, and then determining that a double standard due to racism is at play ... well, I think there are still some pretty big jumps in reasoning there, and that it's just too simplistic and reductive. The case just isn't as strong, because the comparison may be more apples to bowling balls than apples to apples.

(Totally unrelated question: if racism explains the reactions of some in the media and society at large to the Palace brawl, then why didn't similar reactions occur during the 1990s brawls featuring the Bulls and Knicks, or the Knicks and Heat? Why did the nation laugh at Van Gundy hanging from Mourning's leg, instead of recoiling in race-induced Willie Horton horror? I'm not trying to be snide here -- I'm actually curious, because I think the answer suggests that there are factors beyond race in these sorts of things that are just as, if not more, important).

Anyway, both articles give the reader something to actually think about, and respond to, and question and compare and so on -- for instance, I've seen ESPN shows treat NFL training camp fights between black players with the same light touch as the Roy incident discussed by Bo in his article, how do we square that? -- and better still, neither one acts as though what they're saying is beyond argument, like asserting that water is wet. I think you could learn something from them beyond their specific content.

As for sitting in big event press boxes and listening to whomever happens to be in earshot, I've done that, and I've never heard anything racial, or even coded racial language, like the "marry my daughter" thing you mentioned before. I have heard people talk about which athletes are hurt, or who should have a big game, or who is going to struggle, or who you want taking the last shot. I've heard a lot of praise and a lot of criticism, but it's usually focused on on-field performance, or sometimes how good or bad an athlete is to deal with -- coincidentially, most of the @$@heads are white. So I guess we don't sit near the same people. I also have to admit that I spend as little time listening to press box chatter as possible, because I'm not really interested in people I'm not writing about.

I don't read many basketball/hockey columnists, so I don't know what they had to say about the Palace brawl vs. hockey fights. Share some articles, I'd love to see them.

I think that this: "Many of the same middle-aged white media guys who celebrate hockey fights condemn fighting as thuggery and a part of hip hop culture in basketball and football"

is a sweepingly prejudicial statement, and a pretty good summation of your original argument, which makes you guilty of the same sort thinking you are admirably trying to condemn. That's the biggest reason I don't find you convincing: you draw simple, one-size-fits-all conclusions from small, cherry-picked amounts of data, and instead of acknowledging that alternate explanations might be plausible -- that they might even stand side by side with your theory, that human behavior and attitudes are seldom, if ever, so reductive -- you continue to act as though people are stupid for disagreeing with you.

I think you're missing the chance to broaden your own views here, let alone broaden anyone else's.

I also just want to point out again that there are many hockey fans -- and many more sports fans turned off by brawling in hockey -- who believe that fighting in the sport ought to be a major infraction. It's actually a passionate and ongoing debate. Which suggests that race is not the sole, or even most relevant, way of looking at the subject.

 

Couple of points ...

And now the same people who were calling bullshit on the whole "dogfighting is a cultural thing and thus Michael Vick should get a pass" argument are trying to make the claim that "fighting in hockey is cultural and thus it is OK whereas in basketball, fighting equals thuggery...."

Fighting is part of the hockey culture and Michael Vick should fry in fucking hell for what he did to those dogs, not get a pass. OK?

The NHL sells fighting, promotes and glorifies it.

No, the NHL, in fact, does not sell, promote and glorify fighting. Find me an NHL-sponsored commercial with a fight in it. I dare you.

Why is it OK in the eyes of many in the media for white hockey players to fight but it is not OK in the eyes of many of the same media members for basketball players to fight?

Here's what you're not getting, zagoshe. A fight in hockey is often agreed upon by the two combatants. It is often orchestrated to spark the emotions on one's bench, or get a silent crowd into a game, or in defence of a teammate.

Is it within the boundaries of the rules? Well, that's a grey area because there are rules against fighting, yet it is permitted to go on.

Some times, I really wish fighting wasn't permitted in any way in hockey. It would save me from ridiculous arguments such as this and from the criticisms against a game I've been watching and loving since I popped out of the womb (as the story goes, I was 13 months old and squealed and clapped along with my dad when Paul Henderson scored The Goal).

It would also save me from this incessant chatter about The Code. I find this topic ridiculous, a waste of column inches and a bothersome way to spend a few minutes of your time with a guy who otherwise wouldn't have the talent to land a pro hockey contract.

Don't get me wrong. I certainly did enough of the 'tough guy' stories in my day. Hell, I dated one of them for three years.

But while we're finding ourselves constantly defending the culture of fighting in hockey, we're missing out on the good things the game has to offer.

Hell, I never once looked at Jarome Iginla and thought, 'hey, dude, you're black!'
At least not until SI ran the story BLACK CAPTAIN IN THE NHL.

Or was that ESPN?

Honestly, this racism appears to be your issue and thank heaven that's not the mass attitude towards hockey.

Sound your battle cry. Cite all the BLOGS! you like.

The reality is hockey players fight. When the anomalies such as Bertuzzi, Simon and Roy occur, the game gets called out on the carpet. Just like basketball players and their little slappyfests do.