Meh, I'm not really that interested in arguing this, so just a couple of quick points.
If you don't care for hockey fights, you pretty much start ignoring them. IMO if you start ignoring them, the claim that it "changes tides" starts to look very dubious very quickly.
When a fight happens, I generally either use that time to read the internet, go to the bathroom or the kitchen or just skip ahead if I'm watching a recorded game.
When you skip the fights, some things become apparent:
- There is no visible change in the game after a fight
- There is absolutely no way of telling who won the fight by looking at the game
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames
Bleh why does the anti fight crowd have to bring this thread down.
|
It's the "anti-fight crowd bringing the thread down" when you don't like your beliefs challenged.
It's "pro-fighting people wanting jumping at any chance to prove how right they are about fights" if you look at it from the other direction.
It's really equally annoying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntingwhale
If the players say the fight turned momentum and it got them going, then it turned the momentum and got them going. Doesn't work all the time, but last night it worked. Therefore, Engelland's fight was the turning point.
|
Sometimes I change from the sofa to the bean bag during a game. Doesn't work all the time, but last night it worked.
See how that works?
Obviously you can't prove a negative, so this is one of those talks that really doesn't go anywhere.