Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
It isn't voodoo and in some cases it works otherwise we and other teams wouldn't employ them.
|
"Dallas Eakins is an NHL quality coach because he is employed by an NHL team."
"If Tyler Bozak wasn't a legitimate top-line centre, then he wouldn't be the top line centre on an NHL team."
That's a pretty circular argument. It IS voodoo because the impact is co-relative to the event itself, and is also deeply subject to interpretation: I have also noticed that the Flames play ALOT better when I have my jersey on and am tuned in to my TV, but only with a cold bottle of McEwan's in hand.
If fighting isn't hockey voodoo, then the correlation between the outcome of the event (the individual fight) and the game itself would be the same every time: you win a fight, your team wins the game.
To be sure, I don't question the fact that players, coaches and fans believe there to be some sort of impact. What I do question is the necessity of it—without the idiotic sort of fighting that is described in the attached article, players would find something else from which to draw inspiration.
*EDIT* I actually think the last line in the article sums up pretty much what I am getting at:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Justin Bourne
"The fighters truly exist under their own set of rules, and it’s hard on these guys. As much as many fans would like to see these guys eliminated from the game, they do entertain, they become fan favourites, and they know their roles. Whether they’re serving a purpose for their team or not (judging by the fact that killers like these two can’t crack the NHL full-time, you be the judge), there they are, night in, night out, doing what it takes to call themselves professional hockey players."
|
Like I said, I suspect that fighting in hockey survives not because it serves an actual purpose that contributes to the outcome of the game, but because of how it makes people feel—whether they be players, coaches or fans.