Iginla: Hockey is better and safer with fighting in it

[SebC]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

They can't totally prevent fighting, they can only determine what kind of penalties are handed out afterwards.

If they treat it like an assault (as much of the rest of society does), it would be very close to totally prevented.

[habernac]

Again, how many fights did you see in the Olympics? In the 87 Canada Cup? The World Cups? It's not necessary. Those games weren't a stick show, either. The league could easily get rid of this stuff but chooses not to. Suspend the cheap shot artists out of the game.

I have no issues with a good fight, but the writing is on the wall. It will disappear sooner rather than later. And it won't be a big deal to me.

[Vulcan]

Some people on here remind me of this woman.

http://bcove.me/qln633t3

[zamler]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The same players who didn't want helmets in the game as being mandatory?
Sorry I don't really care at all what the players say about this issue. No one can argue that fighting in the NHL prevents more injuries because fighting has always been in the NHL.

I've noticed this is a theme with you. Not sure why you don't care, they are the ones putting their bodies in harms way. What they say matters.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

And this is when the argument gets silly by somehow jumping to nonsensical suggestions

Pretty sure it got silly at this point.

"Sorry I don't really care at all what the players say about this issue."

[Roughneck]

Whatever Iginla says, I ####ing love that guy.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

If a weasel like Burrows or Cooke comes out and says they thought better of a hack or idiot play for fear of being beaten up it might mean something. I don't buy it.

Guys who fight saying they like fighting.... Well duh.

Ah, but if a weasel like Burrows or Cooke came out and said that hitting from behind should be legal, and the high-sticking penalty should be eliminated... well, they play the game, so they obviously know better than some random internet poster.

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by habernac

Again, how many fights did you see in the Olympics? In the 87 Canada Cup? The World Cups? It's not necessary. Those games weren't a stick show, either. The league could easily get rid of this stuff but chooses not to. Suspend the cheap shot artists out of the game.

I have no issues with a good fight, but the writing is on the wall. It will disappear sooner rather than later. And it won't be a big deal to me.

I doubt it; only a small portion of the fanbase, and even less people involved in hockey actually want to see it removed. Just because a few broadcasters and columnists are making an agenda out of it does not mean fighting will be eliminated anytime soon. Modifications will surely happen, but at least in our lifetimes I sincerely doubt there will be a ban. Plus all the guys on ESPN and other American networks calling for it barely watch hockey to begin with, so their opinion is hardly relevant. If a Gretzky or Bowman were making a point to call for a ban people would pay attention, but that hasn't happened yet.

[BBQorMILDEW]

Originally Posted by habernac

Again, how many fights did you see in the Olympics? In the 87 Canada Cup? The World Cups? It's not necessary. Those games weren't a stick show, either. The league could easily get rid of this stuff but chooses not to. Suspend the cheap shot artists out of the game.

I have no issues with a good fight, but the writing is on the wall. It will disappear sooner rather than later. And it won't be a big deal to me.

Unfortunately, those were all star teams. Not nhl teams.
Completely different hockey.
Maybe if they eliminate 10 teams, they'll be able to have those all star games.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Fighting does belong in this testosterone filled game and I haven't heard any hockey analyst, player or coach say otherwise.

Have you ever heard of Scotty Bowman? He was an analyst on Flames games in the 80's. I think he was also a coach at some point. And Steve Yzerman, who is the GM of Tampa (though GMs don't necessarily have the same perspective of people who actually played the game).

This is not unanimous "on the inside".

Because Player X (or Coach Y, or Analyst Z, or Whoever A) said it one way or the other doesn't make it correct.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by habernac

Again, how many fights did you see in the Olympics? In the 87 Canada Cup? The World Cups? It's not necessary. Those games weren't a stick show, either. The league could easily get rid of this stuff but chooses not to. Suspend the cheap shot artists out of the game.

I have no issues with a good fight, but the writing is on the wall. It will disappear sooner rather than later. And it won't be a big deal to me.

This is completely irrelevant.

Fights stem from rivalries (many going back to Junior hockey) or just pure hatred for the opposing team (regardless the reason). You get paid millions of dollars to help your NHL team win.

They play International hockey for fun and to represent their country. There are very few rivalries and it's not the same game. Players don't physically give it their all and because of this games have less intensity. Almost like watching the all star game. It's just about the skill and not as much about physically dominating the other team. Half the guys don't even speak the same language so they can't trash talk eachother. I mean seriously??

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by BBQorMILDEW

Unfortunately, those were all star teams. Not nhl teams.
Completely different hockey.
Maybe if they eliminate 10 teams, they'll be able to have those all star games.

It's also a completely different game on larger ice surfaces. Players run into each other more frequently on smaller surfaces (like in the NHL). Meanwhile in International tournaments and in the KHL they are playing on larger surfaces, where interactions occur less often.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

This is completely irrelevant.

Fights stem from rivalries (many going back to Junior hockey) or just pure hatred for the opposing team (regardless the reason). You get paid millions of dollars to help your NHL team win.

They play International hockey for fun and to represent their country. There are very few rivalries and it's not the same game. Players don't physically give it their all and because of this games have less intensity. Almost like watching the all star game. It's just about the skill and not as much about physically dominating the other team. Half the guys don't even speak the same language so they can't trash talk eachother. I mean seriously??

Are you new to hockey?

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Pretty sure it got silly at this point.

"Sorry I don't really care at all what the players say about this issue."

It's only silly if you're too obtuse to understand the point.

[Zevo]

nm

[troutman]

Are leagues that don't have fighting, ex. NCAA and Europe, less "safe" than the NHL? I don't know if there is much evidence for that.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

I doubt it; only a small portion of the fanbase, and even less people involved in hockey actually want to see it removed. Just because a few broadcasters and columnists are making an agenda out of it does not mean fighting will be eliminated anytime soon. Modifications will surely happen, but at least in our lifetimes I sincerely doubt there will be a ban. Plus all the guys on ESPN and other American networks calling for it barely watch hockey to begin with, so their opinion is hardly relevant. If a Gretzky or Bowman were making a point to call for a ban people would pay attention, but that hasn't happened yet.

It may be insurers and tort lawyers that force the removal of fighting.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by kn

I have a problem with staged fights right after the linesman drops the puck. The McGrattan-Bordeleau fight the other night was a waste of time. I also don't know how two goons having to fight makes another player accountable.

Iginla-Lecavalier, and any two players who can actually play, in the heat of battle -- yeah, I have no problem with that.

The problem is those fights are few and far between. If that was representative of what fighting in the NHL was I'd maybe change my view. But the vast majority are irrelevant to the outcome of any game

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

It's only silly if you're too obtuse to understand the point.

The point is pretty obvious, the lack of understanding even more so.

But thanks shawshank!

[strombad]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

The idea that players know what's best for them is borderline ######ed.

Look no further than your average Joe working at a warehouse. He should know better because he works at a warehouse right? Now go to any warehouse and give them the option to not wear a hardhat, safety glasses or steel toe boots and I can personally guarantee you 99% would show up in running shoes with no safety gear at all BUT it's their job they should know better right?

It is also the job of doctors and scientists to figure out blows to the head have extreme consequences.

I know what side I'm on.

Originally Posted by puckluck2

It's only silly if you're too obtuse to understand the point.

I find it a little bit troubling that you can't seem to make an argument against fighting without calling people "borderline ######ed" (which, if you were wondering, the word '######ed' hasn't been acceptable since the 80's) or "obtuse" simply because someone finds your point disagreeable.

The error you make, and the same error that many of the anti-fighting crowd make, is bring in elements of player safety as evidence against fighting as a whole, as though everyone who supports fighting is not aware of the health risks.

Some people who support fighting lob up suggestions like "well why don't we just take out hitting?" which is noted as absurd, but some anti-fighting folks like yourself make equally absurd comparisons to helmets and work boots, so it seems fair to me.

Nobody is debating the negative health effects of fighting, and I doubt very much you could find a player that wouldn't admit it is a risky endeavour. So what sort of point are you making? Just finding an excuse to call others "######ed"?

The point others are making, that you are not addressing, is that fighting HAS a place in the game. It simply does. Is it risky? Yes. Players are not the foremost experts on it's effects on health, of course, but they ARE the only true experts on it's role in the game of hockey.

This has nothing to do with helmets, or work boots, or whatever, it has to do with an action that takes place during the game which players have stated affects others as well as themselves. Risky? Yes, experts in the medical field have stated as much, congrats on your ability to use the Internet or read an article. Still a place in the game? Absolutely, as confirmed by experts in the game of hockey.

Change your argument. Insulting the intelligence of others and ignoring the opinions of those whom fighting directly affects is no way to go about it.