Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Major
If a guy agrees to a fight while his team is up 2-0, he is in a no win situation. He does so out of impulsive emotion, defending his own honor, or out of respect for the other player involved. Prust did a great job of illustrating this in his player's Tribune article. If a player takes advantage of one of these reasons and has a well-timed fight (Engelland's was perfect), than he has demonstrated a hockey based skill which effected the belief of his team and changed momentum within the game.
|
I understand and accept that, thanks. And yes, I do tend to think that England's fight the other night worked out in the Flames favour. It certainly feels like it did.
I find that more recently I am framing the questions differently. It's less about whether or not a fight
can impact a game—there do seem to be instances in which it does. My question is much more with regards to the necessity of fighting in hockey; with measuring its value against the consequences.
The title of Prust's article was "Why we fight." He answered it with a string of clichés that we have been hearing for a couple of decades now, but the whole piece, in my opinion, missed the point.
The title should have been "
Should we fight?" And the answer to that question is only if it is necessary. Is it necessary in hockey? I am convinced that it is not.