Instead we have a bunch of teenagers bullying and thanking posts and calling me stupid.
No surprise that posters who like watching meatheads fighting can't make a sensible argument.
Where is the feature in this forum where you can see peoples age?? I seem to have glossed over that one.
No surprise that someone who makes sweeping statements can't see any fault in their own posts
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotHotHeat
THIS is why people make fun of Edmonton. When will this stupid city figure it out? They continue to kick their own ass every day, it's impossible not to make fun of them.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sutter_in_law For This Useful Post:
I respect your opinion, but I just feel like if enforcers were true policemen and peacekeepers then we would have seen a lot more peace in their heyday. Instead it looked a bit like the wild west. Perhaps I'm way off base there.
You just can't run these events twice. You can't say "See, had he fought they would have won", because we'll never know. All we can do is say "he didn't fight, and they lost, so I guess that's why."
Well it went off the deep end with the Broad Street Bullies but before that there were legitimate policemen like Lou Fontanito and John Ferguson.
It's impossible for the fighting crowd. Which is why hardly anybody speaks out against fighting because of the bullying and personal attacks. Doesn't bother me as it just proves my point that anyone who likes fighting doesn't have a valid reason for it to stay in hockey so they resort to other tactics because they know they like fighting but once they dig deep down for that reason it's an empty feeling.
So the guy who is dominating this thread by incessantly pushing his anti-fighting obsession is whining that "hardly anybody speaks out against fighting".
I mean, it takes real skill to completely contradict yourself in the very same sentence.
Calling you out for it is no more "bullying" than your use of argumentum ad nauseam as a debate strategy is.
And we've pointed out the uses of fighting in numerous previous debates. But continuing to do so is just a waste of time because people like you plug your ears and bask in your own imagined perfection while ignoring anything you don't like or don't want to see. People like you simply waste everyone else's time.
Fighting has caused all kinds of head injuries and it's wrong but that's why guys who fight get penalized
They should do everything they can to get fighting out of the game but the players themselves are the ones who fight and as long as there is competition and adrenaline and differences of opinions in the game, players will fight
They should get rid of anything that causes brain injuries and that would include: hitting, sticks, most safety equipment, the ice and the boards which would result in a bunch of guys playing video games (but even they'd probably start to fight.
Fighting is barbaric and only "meatheads" fight except most everyone in the game has fought and it's pretty insulting to say that everyone who does something you don't agree with is a meathead
calgaryblood has every right to speak his mind but this poster doesn't have to do it in such a way that they insult anyone who isn't agreeing with them and probably shouldn't have chimed in with such a poor post to begin with (they could have got their message across without coming across so arrogant)
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Poe969 For This Useful Post:
Fighting has caused all kinds of head injuries and it's wrong but that's why guys who fight get penalized
They should do everything they can to get fighting out of the game but the players themselves are the ones who fight and as long as there is competition and adrenaline and differences of opinions in the game, players will fight
They should get rid of anything that causes brain injuries and that would include: hitting, sticks, most safety equipment, the ice and the boards which would result in a bunch of guys playing video games (but even they'd probably start to fight.
Fighting is barbaric and only "meatheads" fight except most everyone in the game has fought and it's pretty insulting to say that everyone who does something you don't agree with is a meathead
calgaryblood has every right to speak his mind but this poster doesn't have to do it in such a way that they insult anyone who isn't agreeing with them and probably shouldn't have chimed in with such a poor post to begin with (they could have got their message across without coming across so arrogant)
hahahaha quoted you to debate the points you made, then saw all the white text, which is essentially what I had planned on replying with. well said. Bravo
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotHotHeat
THIS is why people make fun of Edmonton. When will this stupid city figure it out? They continue to kick their own ass every day, it's impossible not to make fun of them.
Last edited by Sutter_in_law; 03-17-2016 at 12:28 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sutter_in_law For This Useful Post:
I think people are kidding themselves if they don't believe fighting will be gone entirely within 10 years, if not much sooner.
Concussions will be the main reason.
I don't buy into the argument that fighting has ever been a successful deterrent. There have been dirty players and dirty plays as long as hockey has existed, and I don't see any proof that scraps have any impact on that.
It is really tough to say. I would think it is definitely trending that way.
However, there are two things in my mind that make it a bit unclear.
1) Has fighting contributed to more concussions? Especially with the heavyweight enforcers being completely pushed out of the picture now? I don't know the answer to that. However, for me it seems that the elimination of the red-line has been the cause of way more concussions than fighting has. Does the game need fighting out of it, does it need to be slowed down, or both? I would be interested in seeing statistics on concussions (and other injuries) based on fighting vs hits.
2) Hockey is a contact sport, and fighting has been an accepted part of that since.. well.. forever. I am going to say that most people who are against fighting will find this argument to lack substance, but here is at least a different way of looking at it. If one accepts that fighting has been part of hockey, and that recent research dictates that it shouldn't be due to injuries, isn't it at least similar to having boxing change so that opponents can't hit each other in the head? Perhaps are only allowed to jab? MMA needs to be turned into only submissions? Etc. In my mind, you are altering the sport. Players still favor fighting in hockey at very high confidence rates (wasn't it in the 90 something percentile?), and I argue that it was indeed part of the sport, so why eliminate it completely? I think the way the NHL has been going thus far has been the right approach - discouraging fighting and limiting it, but not eliminating.
Kypreos brought up a good point the other week. It wasn't about the elimination of fighting, but about the elimination of the enforcer role. He states that it probably won't change fighting all that much, and that rather than having the enforcer handle it, guys who are bottom pairing defencemen trying to stick in the NHL, or bottom 6 guys who traditionally didn't fight much are now taking up that role more regularly in an effort to stay in the lineup. I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing vs having an enforcer out there with a 'staged fight' (and I have always hated that expression - these fights I don't consider staged - the enforcers on each team try to change momentum or try to get the other team to play less physical - or chippy - and their fights are a way to try and influence that).
I think that what we all agree on is that we don't want players hurt. I think focusing on eliminating fighting is an easy out, but I am not convinced it is going to have any influence on the long-term health implications of NHL players - at least not with the elimination of the enforcer role. Most of the concussions we hear about at the NHL level have been from hits to the head. I can't remember the last one I heard from fighting - at least excluding the enforcers (who have been essentially eliminated, so it is kind of a moot point to talk about them).
Anyone have any stats on how many players are getting concussions from fighting? Has the NHL been tracking these? If not, I think the NHL HAS to start tracking it so that they can either speed up the elimination of fighting (and I would be 100% on board with it if the stats proved it).
The question I find myself asking is: "At what point does it stop? It is a contact sport, and always has been. Players are always going to get hurt, and they enter the league fully aware of it."
I think more protocols have to be put in place (for instance, players should never be asked if they are 'ok' on the bench - the moment a concussion is suspected, they should be seeing a doctor in the dark room to get assessed - and I think all fights should have the same thing done as well).
I still think the elimination of the red line (sped up the game by a LOT) plus the elimination of the clutching and grabbing (again, sped up the game) has contributed more to concussions than fighting has ever done. I think it is wrong of the NHL to speed up the game in this way causing more traumas, but pointing at fighting as the culprit without any substantial evidence.
If the NHL is serious about brain trauma, they should eliminate fighting, reinstate the two-line pass and allow some clutching/grabbing/hooking. Will the product be as fun to watch? No. It would be safer though.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
So the guy who is dominating this thread by incessantly pushing his anti-fighting obsession is whining that "hardly anybody speaks out against fighting".
I mean, it takes real skill to completely contradict yourself in the very same sentence.
Calling you out for it is no more "bullying" than your use of argumentum ad nauseam as a debate strategy is.
And we've pointed out the uses of fighting in numerous previous debates. But continuing to do so is just a waste of time because people like you plug your ears and bask in your own imagined perfection while ignoring anything you don't like or don't want to see. People like you simply waste everyone else's time.
I'm not taking a position on the subject, however, constructive criticism; your logic was downright terrible and complete fallible immediately. Flimsy weak logic makes for bad arguments.
I'm not taking a position on the subject, however, constructive criticism; your logic was downright terrible and complete fallible immediately. Flimsy weak logic makes for bad arguments.
Which logic? That he contradicted himself, or that I am am not fond of repeating arguments with someone who has obviously decided anything he does not support is "invalid"? Or, perhaps, you are referring to my dismissal of his rushing to use "waaah, people disagree with me so that means I am being bullied" argument as a protective shield? Constructive criticism is welcome, but you'll have to educate me on what you are actually criticizing.
Engelland's fight last season vs Anaheim, according to Russell, changed the tide of the game and led to the win.
If a fight can inspire a team to a win, well then that's a legitimate argument to keep it in the game in my book.
Was it the fight or the powerplay that started right after? I was at this game and this is the moment where I became anti-fighting. Every fan was cheering and celebrating, all I could think was it was two grown men beating each other. I became disconnected from my surroundings and actually felt like leaving. Comparison has been made plenty of times, but it honestly felt like Roman times.
The Following User Says Thank You to Magnum PEI For This Useful Post:
Was it the fight or the powerplay that started right after? I was at this game and this is the moment where I became anti-fighting. Every fan was cheering and celebrating, all I could think was it was two grown men beating each other. I became disconnected from my surroundings and actually felt like leaving. Comparison has been made plenty of times, but it honestly felt like Roman times.
This is actually how I feel about seeing the big huge open ice hits that leave a player laying on the ice. It happens even with perfectly legal hits.
My simple point from my massive (sorry everyone) post is this - you can't take out fighting from the game claiming that it is done for the safety of the players, but make rule changes to speed up the game causing hits to be more violent.
If people don't want violence in hockey, and if the NHL is really serious about protecting their players, then they need to look at fighting AND the rule changes coming out of the '04 lockout. They need to do a better job policing the predatory hits than they have been - especially the ones that happen against non-stars.
If they want to eliminate fighting because it causes injuries, then they also better stop using 'how injured a player was' when handing out disciplinary action. Most fights don't result in injuries. Predatory hits - or even huge open ice hits - I argue cause more. Fans stand up and applaud a huge open ice hit, and then when the player is laying flat on the ice, the crowd gives that player a 'supportive cheer' as he is getting stretchered off the ice.
I just don't see how people can argue against fighting in particular, but aren't arguing for a return to a slower game. Why? They don't like fighting, but they like to see a fast-paced end-to-end game.
I don't like to see anyone hurt. I would like to see some rule changes that will help make it safer for players. I would like to see more severe penalties dished out from the disciplinary actions, and ones that don't seem to sometimes protect the star players more than the non-stars - I hate to see anyone laying on the ice hurt, regardless of how much of a star a player is or isn't.
Hockey is a violent sport - not just because of the fighting. The fighting just makes it a more obviously violent sport. I would bet that more severe injuries are happening to more players from incidents not involving fighting. If the NHL and its' fans no longer want a violent sport, then change as many rules as possible. In my opinion, they are just putting lipstick on a pig by eliminating fighting. It is addressing only a small portion of the problem. Change it, or just be happy with the pig.
I am not even arguing about the merits of fighting. My entire rationale is based on what I think is happening in the NHL right now - a lack of impetus to make the game safer. Most people still applaud and cheer when a fight happens. Most people still applaud and cheer when there is a big open ice hit by the home side. Nobody cheers seeing a guy laying on the ice hurt. Over the course of 10 games, how many guys are laying on the ice hurt due to fighting, versus laying on the ice hurt due to being hit (even by legal checks?).
This is actually how I feel about seeing the big huge open ice hits that leave a player laying on the ice. It happens even with perfectly legal hits.
My simple point from my massive (sorry everyone) post is this - you can't take out fighting from the game claiming that it is done for the safety of the players, but make rule changes to speed up the game causing hits to be more violent.
If people don't want violence in hockey, and if the NHL is really serious about protecting their players, then they need to look at fighting AND the rule changes coming out of the '04 lockout. They need to do a better job policing the predatory hits than they have been - especially the ones that happen against non-stars.
If they want to eliminate fighting because it causes injuries, then they also better stop using 'how injured a player was' when handing out disciplinary action. Most fights don't result in injuries. Predatory hits - or even huge open ice hits - I argue cause more. Fans stand up and applaud a huge open ice hit, and then when the player is laying flat on the ice, the crowd gives that player a 'supportive cheer' as he is getting stretchered off the ice.
I just don't see how people can argue against fighting in particular, but aren't arguing for a return to a slower game. Why? They don't like fighting, but they like to see a fast-paced end-to-end game.
I don't like to see anyone hurt. I would like to see some rule changes that will help make it safer for players. I would like to see more severe penalties dished out from the disciplinary actions, and ones that don't seem to sometimes protect the star players more than the non-stars - I hate to see anyone laying on the ice hurt, regardless of how much of a star a player is or isn't.
Hockey is a violent sport - not just because of the fighting. The fighting just makes it a more obviously violent sport. I would bet that more severe injuries are happening to more players from incidents not involving fighting. If the NHL and its' fans no longer want a violent sport, then change as many rules as possible. In my opinion, they are just putting lipstick on a pig by eliminating fighting. It is addressing only a small portion of the problem. Change it, or just be happy with the pig.
I am not even arguing about the merits of fighting. My entire rationale is based on what I think is happening in the NHL right now - a lack of impetus to make the game safer. Most people still applaud and cheer when a fight happens. Most people still applaud and cheer when there is a big open ice hit by the home side. Nobody cheers seeing a guy laying on the ice hurt. Over the course of 10 games, how many guys are laying on the ice hurt due to fighting, versus laying on the ice hurt due to being hit (even by legal checks?).
Wow.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Before you call me a pessimist or a downer, the Flames made me this way. Blame them.
You can Google and get all sorts of graphs like this. Based on that, I would conclude it's more about the contact within a sport and not the fighting.
And that's partially why they've changed rules throughout the recent history of hockey to get rid of head shots. Scott Stevens used to blast guys in the head left and right and it was legal. If he played the same way today he'd be getting Raffi Torres like suspensions.
This is actually how I feel about seeing the big huge open ice hits that leave a player laying on the ice. It happens even with perfectly legal hits.
My simple point from my massive (sorry everyone) post is this - you can't take out fighting from the game claiming that it is done for the safety of the players, but make rule changes to speed up the game causing hits to be more violent.
If people don't want violence in hockey, and if the NHL is really serious about protecting their players, then they need to look at fighting AND the rule changes coming out of the '04 lockout. They need to do a better job policing the predatory hits than they have been - especially the ones that happen against non-stars.
If they want to eliminate fighting because it causes injuries, then they also better stop using 'how injured a player was' when handing out disciplinary action. Most fights don't result in injuries. Predatory hits - or even huge open ice hits - I argue cause more. Fans stand up and applaud a huge open ice hit, and then when the player is laying flat on the ice, the crowd gives that player a 'supportive cheer' as he is getting stretchered off the ice.
I just don't see how people can argue against fighting in particular, but aren't arguing for a return to a slower game. Why? They don't like fighting, but they like to see a fast-paced end-to-end game.
I don't like to see anyone hurt. I would like to see some rule changes that will help make it safer for players. I would like to see more severe penalties dished out from the disciplinary actions, and ones that don't seem to sometimes protect the star players more than the non-stars - I hate to see anyone laying on the ice hurt, regardless of how much of a star a player is or isn't.
Hockey is a violent sport - not just because of the fighting. The fighting just makes it a more obviously violent sport. I would bet that more severe injuries are happening to more players from incidents not involving fighting. If the NHL and its' fans no longer want a violent sport, then change as many rules as possible. In my opinion, they are just putting lipstick on a pig by eliminating fighting. It is addressing only a small portion of the problem. Change it, or just be happy with the pig.
I am not even arguing about the merits of fighting. My entire rationale is based on what I think is happening in the NHL right now - a lack of impetus to make the game safer. Most people still applaud and cheer when a fight happens. Most people still applaud and cheer when there is a big open ice hit by the home side. Nobody cheers seeing a guy laying on the ice hurt. Over the course of 10 games, how many guys are laying on the ice hurt due to fighting, versus laying on the ice hurt due to being hit (even by legal checks?).
They really need to start calling boarding and charging to eliminate the human torpedos (Zach Rinaldo) from the game as well.
Interesting how the non-contact sports have girls' sports higher than boys (Basketball, Baseball/softball, soccer).
It doesn't surprise me after seeing some women's soccer. Those ladies are vicious.
There is an old report from the NCAA that noted the concussion rate was actually higher in women's hockey than men's at that level. It was part of a larger story in the New York Times, I believe. But the general gist was that the amount of contact in the game coupled with the non-bodychecking nature meaning players were less prepared to take hits (i.e.: false sense of security mostly) that the risk of brain injuries were higher.
That being said, it is fair to note that Leeman4Gilmour's post doesn't answer the question presented. Even as a pro-fighting guy, I can't argue that fighting does cause more concussions than would be the case if fighting was banned. I don't believe banning fighting would make a significant difference in the number of concussions though.
Also, that does not touch the whole issue of CTE not being perfectly synonymous with concussions. One does not need the latter to be affected by the former. But short of ending sports like hockey and football entirely, it quite simply becomes a risk of participating. That is true regardless of the status of fighting.
