Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
Those former players are much more in tune with the consequences of fighting. They get front row seats for witnessing their friends and former teammates enjoy their retirement after being goons in the NHL.
The current players are young, dumb and probably still think they are indestructible. They haven’t gotten to the point yet where someone they have known for years dies and donates his brain to science. By the time they gain that wisdom, they will be the old guy that is no longer in the trenches playing the sport and some other young dumb kid will be saying something about how fighting is good.
Edit: In short what I am saying is that the opposite of what you are claiming is true. It is the young guys that do not (yet) have the relevant experience to fully understand the impact of the situation.
|
That's regarding the consequences of fighting which those who fight willingly take on. Players aren't idiots, it's very clear and obvious that brain damage occurs, you can't bet they all know that. I would never deny that fighting may not be worth it in the long run, but my argument is that it keeps people honest, and polices hockey in a way that referees can't. If your point is that it's dangerous down the road, then we're having two different conversations. If you want to ask a former player if fighting has negative health effects over the long term, then you absolutely should, their opinion is the best one to have. If you want to ask a former player if fighting has a valuable place in hockey today, then you're asking the wrong person.
You're trying to prove a different point than the one I'm making and pretending they're the same. Obviously former players know more about the long term health effects of fighting than current players, what idiot would make an argument against that?