[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by strombad

...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...

This isn't the argument, it's a straw man. The argument is NOT that fighting is dangerous ergo must be removed from the game. The argument is that it doesn't clearly serve any useful purpose, and thus is unnecessarily dangerous. When I say that it doesn't clearly serve any useful purpose, I am intentionally taking issue with the nuclear deterrent argument that Iginla has adopted in his piece. The problem with Iginla's opinion is that he is making it from inside of a bubble. HE MAY VERY WELL BE RIGHT, but it is foolish to take an opinion at face value that has not been formed by way of a comprehensive consideration of the evidence; something that is impossible to do from within the bubble. As I have argued many times in the past, and as I will continue to do so, there needs to be more serious study, and the accumulation of more data before we can conclude one way or the other. The opinions of hockey players does not qualify as reliable data. Their opinions are important, yes, but they ought not be taken to the exclusion of evidence that has been compiled from the collection of data.

Originally Posted by strombad

...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.

No, they aren't. The "true experts" are the ones who will compile the data and correctly assess the results. The players are just as much in the dark on this issue as everyone else, simply because they do not know any differently. NONE OF US DO, because the study has not yet seriously been undertaken.

From my perspective, THIS IS THE DEBATE. It is not as simple as whether or not fighting still has a place in the game. It is about the quality of the evidence for the opinion that it does, and it is about wanting to see the issue scrutinised with greater rigour to ensure that it is not unnecessarily dangerous.

Originally Posted by strombad

...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.

From inside of a bubble, and from a saturation of hockey culture that knows no different. Can you honestly not see the weakness in this argument?

Originally Posted by strombad

...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.

NOT confirmed.
Premise A: There is fighting in hockey, and there has always been fighting in hockey.
Premise B: There is dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey, and there has always been dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.
Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest a correlation between fighting and the instances of dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.

I actually think that what happened in last night's Flames v. Oilers game fairly emphasises the problem with the nuclear deterrent position. Based on Iginla's argument, the fight between McGratton and Gazdic in the first period should have tempered instances of unsportsmanlike conduct on both sides. Later in the same period, Ference initiated a fight with an unwilling combatant, Stempniak, in retaliation for what he (incorrectly) perceived to be a bad hit.

Did the first fight have any affect on the instances of unsportsmanlike play in the game? How can we know one way or the other? However, it could be reasonably be argued that Ference's reaction to Stempniak's hit was unsportsmanlike conduct, ergo, the first fight in fact accomplished nothing.

Did the second fight cause the shift in momentum that Edmonton needed, or did it affect the way the Flames continued to play? Not at all. Both fights appear to have had a negligible impact.