Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper
No you didn't, you filled your perception of what you think is the widely accepted idea of what a NHL enforcer is and then trying to pass it off as indeed a well know fact..... it's just your perception of what an enforcer is and therefore understandable why you think it's obsolete... Since you are strongly against and biased towards the enforcer role you have created an definition that only reflects a negative outlook of the enforcer
|
God, this is ridiculous.
So, if I am to understand correctly, your most concerned about the continued use of the word "enforcer" in hockey? If you want to continue to call players "enforcers" I have no problem with that, but that really seems to be far afield of the discussion taking place here.
So let's do this: We can make some general distinctions between two types of hockey players. That is NOT to say that all players fit one of the two categories, only that some players best fit one of the following two descriptions as either:
1) Players who regularly fight, and who also skate, carry and distribute the puck, and shoot at an NHL level. In other words, when not fighting, these players are still doing other things on ice which contribute positively to the team's play in general.
2) Players who regularly fight, but who do not skate, carry and distribute the puck, and shoot at an NHL level. In other words, when not fighting, these players tend to be detrimental to the team's play in general.
Player type-2 was once believed to serve a useful and important function for the team. His on ice presence was deemed significant enough to overcompensate for his obvious deficiencies in skill. This type of player is now obsolete. At present, the league is trending towards employing only players who can keep up with the play, make plays, and think the game at a NHL level.
I hope this helps to clarify things. To be perfectly frank, I don't care a whit whether or not you want to continue to use the term "enforcer," and my use of the term has nothing to do with my own biases—I use it because in my estimation it effectively describes Player type-2. For the sake of transparency, let's just say that Player type-2 is obsolete—whether or not you or I choose to call him an "enforcer."