Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I get it, and I have decided that it is obsolete.
|
It's not up to you, nor is it up to me.
You're droning about argumentative fallacies and my apparent attempts at "moving the goalposts," but you're just using filler to round out your argument. My point is that players are the foremost experts on the impact fighting has on the game. You are not refuting that, so there is nothing for us to debate.
Is it irreplaceable? I doubt it. Is it risky? Absolutely.
Talk in maybes and would'ves or could'ves all you want. At the end of the day, my claim is this:
- Fighting has an affect on players, players believes this because they feel it. They are the only ones who truly understand this affect, because they are the only ones who feel it.
I implore you to hire a few highly regarded scientists to start the research that will inevitably prove your point. Until you or someone else does, it will remain a bit of fantasy.
As I've maintained, I think the debate over fighting being worth the risks is a real one worth having. But this whole notion that players don't know the in-game effect of fighting has become a bit silly.
As you said, sport is full of emotion. Does fighting provide all of the emotion? Of course not, but does it provide the same emotion that a blocked shot does? I couldn't tell you, I'm not in the NHL. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest it's elimination would result in a loss of particular emotional response, whether or not the emotional response you perceive it to elicit "valuable" is subjective to you, but that doesn't make it definitive.