Oh, I'm plenty capable of understanding pretty much any discussion about hockey. I understand what you're writing but I don't know if you do.
I did not make up anything you said. I just logically filled in the gaps of your vague statements.
Just because you can't come up with a logical argument doesn't mean that I'm making things up or arguing about things you've never said. You're a horrible poster. You hide behind vague language and illogical statements but nitpick irrelevant things.
Good for you. Based upon the source I'll give your opinion the consideration it deserves.
So you admit to trolling? Nice.
I've posted my thoughts on fighting multiple times in this thread. For someone who claims to have read my previous posts and is participating in this thread to not know how I feel about fighting that's pretty embarrassing.
You should probably read threads before you start participating in them.
Let me make this nice and simple for you. Step in any time you feel a made an incorrect statement.
You believe actual NHL players are the only ones who should decide on fighting in the game.
George Parros and Brian McGrattan are actual NHL players.
They are also enforcers.
Because they are enforcers it would be in their best interests to believe enforcers should be part of the game.
You are not an actual NHL player.
Your thoughts on enforcers not being part of the game is irrelevant because you are not an actual NHL player.
Ah yes. The old "I have a life and you don't" argument. Very solid argument there. Especially when I have averaged 2 posts a day on here and you've averaged 9 posts a day on here. Yes I'm the one without the life and you live a rich and fulfilling life of tv, video games and beer.
Nine posts a day. That's quite a bit for someone who's been here less than two months. Let me guess.... you've lurked here for years?
That's a mighty long response to something you deemed a "waste of time".
Keep arguing with yourself brother, you'll win or lose eventually.
Fans and media that like fighting in hockey will never convince fans and media that don't support it and vise versa.
Perhaps settle the argument via a fight
Why? We have this built in idea that we need "goons" and "enforcers" to keep hockey players honest but fail to acknowledge that the best hockey of the season (playoffs) features no goons or enforcers and rarely has fights.
The obvious reason is that it is utterly and completely disconnected from reality. Any proposal along those lines would be overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, rejected by both the players and the owners. Also, the simple truth is this: the regular season is not the playoffs. They will never be the same, and short sighted attempts to legislate such "similarities" simply does not make the game better. Besides, if we want to align the two, then fixing the overtime rules is easily more important.
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
That's a mighty long response to something you deemed a "waste of time".
Keep arguing with yourself brother, you'll win or lose eventually.
Oh I'm done with you amorak. You're just slinging mud because you can't intelligent respond to anything hockey related I've posted here. You can reply to this all you want but I'm done with replying to you on this matter.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
So just as an example...if what Rutherford/YZerman/whoever are suggesting should happen....Lance Bouma would have been thrown out of the game in the 1st period because he threw a good hit, was chased down and challenged to a fight and obliged.
So just as an example...if what Rutherford/YZerman/whoever are suggesting should happen....Lance Bouma would have been thrown out of the game in the 1st period because he threw a good hit, was chased down and challenged to a fight and obliged.
yeah...theres an NHL worth watching.
So you think players should be forced to fight because of good hits? That's the mentality that they are looking to change.
So just as an example...if what Rutherford/YZerman/whoever are suggesting should happen....Lance Bouma would have been thrown out of the game in the 1st period because he threw a good hit, was chased down and challenged to a fight and obliged.
yeah...theres an NHL worth watching.
if they implimented a rule to eject guys for doing exactly this i think it would curb a lot of unnecessary bouts .
Whats bouts are necessary and what are unnecessary?
What was the Wilson/Bouma fight?
I didnt see it so I couldn't say. I'm not asking them to look for unnecessary vs necessary. I'm talking about fights following clean hits. If you eject a guy for that it would cut out a lot of those fights very quickly. IMO all of those fights are unnecessary.
I know people don't like more subjectivity for refs, myself included. But they are on the ice specifically to make judgement calls. Most guys do a pretty decent job. And I really think you can leave it up to the guys on the ice (remember they are right in the mix too and hear/see pretty much everything) to make a good call on whether or not a fight is the subject of a couple guys in the moment for a reason, and goons that are just there to fight each other and then take their break in the box. Nothing is going to be perfect. Mistakes will be made regardless and no one is ever going agree on something like this unanimously.
I'll admit, I liked that, mostly because it's just Iggy. But he also stood up for himself rather then having some other player jump him. And yeah under what I said he would be ejected. But why not? He made and clean, stellar body check, and now he has to get into bare knuckle boxing? If you want something to be a hard and fast rule, there's going to be times when it doesn't look so good.
Either way, like I said nothing is going to satisfy everyone. And it looks like its on the way out regardless.
I just don't buy that a former player is as in touch with the value of fighting.
So let me get this straight.
You think that Steve Yzerman, who retired from playing seven years ago, is so out of touch with NHL hockey today that he just doesn't get it?
His opinions aren't as valid as those of Zack Kassian, Taylor Hall, or Dustin Byfuglien? Is that it?
He doesn't understand hockey as well as those guys?
As for that fossil Scotty Bowman, you are spot on. When he was standing behind the bench while the Habs were winning all those Stanley Cups, and mowing down the Broadstreet Bullies and the Big Bad Bruins, the concepts intimidation, retribution, and even fighting itself had yet to be invented. He just wouldn't understand hockey today.
__________________
Last edited by RougeUnderoos; 10-04-2013 at 12:37 AM.
You think that Steve Yzerman, who retired from playing seven years ago, is so out of touch with NHL hockey today that he just doesn't get it?
His opinions aren't as valid as those of Zack Kassian, Taylor Hall, or Dustin Byfuglien? Is that it?
He doesn't understand hockey as well as those guys?
As for that fossil Scotty Bowman, you are spot on. When he was standing behind the bench while the Habs were winning all those Stanley Cups, and mowing down the Broadstreet Bullies and the Big Bad Bruins, the concepts intimidation, retribution, and even fighting itself had yet to be invented. He just wouldn't understand hockey today.
It's not simply a matter of having experience, it's a matter of how connected to the matter you are.
If you work with a company at the base level, and then you move into an executive role, away from the day to day grind, you lose your point of reference. It's not a profound theory, it's just kind of what happens.
I'm not saying that these guys don't know about fighting, that they don't know about the role it played when they were players, but it simply doesn't matter to them now. When you're a player, fighting has a role, it has value. When you're an executive, fighting becomes meaningless. It's no longer protecting you, it's no longer a deterrent, it's just something that happens, and you lose your point of reference for what makes it important, because it really IS only important if you're a player.
That's all, would never suggest guys never knew the value of fighting, but when it only affects an aspect of your life that you aren't a part of anymore, you lose your relevant point of reference.
On the "he shouldn't be forced to fight after throwing a hit" argument, I tend to agree. But that does not require a ban on fighting or any stupid "suspend him for dropping the gloves" rule. All it requires is that the referees actually call the instigator properly.
