Burke article on Fighting in the NHL

[Rocky Raccoon]

Originally Posted by habernac

Football is a contact sport. Why aren't there 3 fights per game there?

Because unlike the NHL, it would probably escalate to gun fighting.

I kid...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

Not to be abrasive, but there will never be evidence either way and using other sports and other leagues as evidence to support your opinion are folly because they are not the NHL and they do not have the same culture. I respect your opinion, but to state it as fact because the other side of the debate has no evidence either puts both sides in the same position; neither one is right or wrong.

Rubbish. One side of this debate is definitely right and the other is wrong. Hiding behind the lame circumstances in which we do not yet know whether fighting is in fact a useful deterrent, or whether it is an antiquated relic of a bygone era is simply dodging the question. And this is really the point. The league and the players continue to insist that fighting in hockey serves a purpose, because it has always served a purpose. The time has come where enough questions are being raised to finally put the matter to the test: If the evidence is not conclusive, then this means that much more rigourous study needs to be undertaken in this debate. I won't believe that fighting is effective as a control mechanism until I see some clear evidence that shows as much. It is as simple as that.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by strombad

To be fair, don't you think that an executive who is terribly close to the game knows more about whether or not it actually deters interactions than you, a guy who just watches the game?

I have to imagine that most people who say it isn't a deterrent have never actually had a chat with the players about whether or not it is. Pretty easy to say it isn't when you're sitting on your couch, I imagine it's a bit more difficult when you're on the ice or in the locker room.

You might find his arguments tired, good for you, but if they have no real basis, then essentially every comment you dare to make is without basis or merit. Burke has 100x more basis for hockey related comments than you, so reign it in a little.

Honestly, if his comments have no basis, where does the basis for your comments come from?

Appeal to authority doesn't make a whole lot of sense when there are several high profile hockey people who've expressed an opposing view (Bowman, Yzerman, Shero, etc.).

My opinion is that like it or not, staged fighting is on its way out and most other fighting will probably be curtailed over time.

Goons with ECHL level skills serve absolutely no purpose and are a blight on the sport. They didn't even exist until the watered down expansion era of the '70s, so why people seem to equate them with "old time hockey" or being an integral part of the game is beyond me. They're a relic and serve no useful purpose.

I don't really get Burke's criticism of the instigator rule either. Why should someone be able to start a fight with an unwilling player without incurring an extra penalty?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by strombad

To be fair, don't you think that an executive who is terribly close to the game knows more about whether or not it actually deters interactions than you, a guy who just watches the game?

Maybe. Maybe not. I tend to think that most of the players are too close to know any different. Burke is no different from most former North American professional hockey players in that he doesn't know anything BUT a game in which fighting is both tolerated and encouraged. I don't accept his opinion as gospel on the mere premise that he is closer to the game, ergo must know better. The fact of the matter is that Burke—like most of us—are not familiar enough with fight-free hockey to be able to draw conclusions he does. As near as I can tell, he doesn't have the requisite evidence to support his opinion, which is founded almost entirely on an appeal to tradition, and lame attempts to demonstrate some sort of causation where there is none.

Originally Posted by strombad

I have to imagine that most people who say it isn't a deterrent have never actually had a chat with the players about whether or not it is. Pretty easy to say it isn't when you're sitting on your couch, I imagine it's a bit more difficult when you're on the ice or in the locker room.

Irrelevant. Players are notoriously not always the best source for determining the best course of action to promote safety and sustainability in the game. What they think or what they want really shouldn't take pride-of.place over what the facts reveal about fighting in hockey.

Originally Posted by strombad

You might find his arguments tired, good for you, but if they have no real basis, then essentially every comment you dare to make is without basis or merit. Burke has 100x more basis for hockey related comments than you, so reign it in a little.

His arguments ARE tired because they are the same ones we have been hearing proponents and players parroting for decades, and all in the utter absence of any supporting evidence for their verification. Again, I don't care about how much hockey experience Burke has when it comes to this discussion. If he cannot produce any compelling evidence to confirm his opinion, then his opinion is not to be trusted. Just show me the evidence.

Originally Posted by strombad

Honestly, if his comments have no basis, where does the basis for your comments come from?

FROM A REASONABLE EXPECTATION TO SEE SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIMS.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by habernac

Football is a contact sport. Why aren't there 3 fights per game there?

To me there doesn't seem to be any cheap shots in football. Watch tonight's game and let's see if there's anything that makes you mad.

Yes it is a hard-hitting contact sport but hits are clean and those that aren't are penalized. Hits also seem to be more about technique rather than collision. When a player gets hit out of bounds, you do see a reaction.

Hockey is so much faster and more collisions with the danger of the boards rather than technical 'tackling'. Plus there are so many cheap shots in the NHL. Like running the goalie or even snowshowing the goalie is so stupid. In the NFL they can't hit the QB late and if they hit him clealy, they don't kick dirt into his face to throw him off his game.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Rubbish. One side of this debate is definitely right and the other is wrong. Hiding behind the lame circumstances in which we do not yet know whether fighting is in fact a useful deterrent, or whether it is an antiquated relic of a bygone era is simply dodging the question. And this is really the point. The league and the players continue to insist that fighting in hockey serves a purpose, because it has always served a purpose. The time has come where enough questions are being raised to finally put the matter to the test: If the evidence is not conclusive, then this means that much more rigourous study needs to be undertaken in this debate. I won't believe that fighting is effective as a control mechanism until I see some clear evidence that shows as much. It is as simple as that.

You keep rubbishing then. If neither of the NHL or NHLPA want it gone; then I suppose if you feel strongly enough about your opinion, start selling girl guide cookies to fund this undertaking.

Until then, you are entitled to your opinion; however, if you aren't going to do anything about it, then your opinion is nothing but an empty scale.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

First – the league is the party that regulates the game. No other sport puts this in the hands of the players, except for baseball with its equally foolish practice of guys throwing pitches at each other.

False dichotomy and appeal to authority. There is no reason why both can't regulate what happens on the ice.

Second – If this was an effective deterrent – where is the evidence? There are dirty players in virtually every game. If this is the purpose of fighting – it is doing a piss poor job of achieving it.

This is an emotional argument, and unprovable, frankly. You can no more say that the existence of fighting does not curb such plays than I can say that the absence of fighting would double such incidents.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

...Until then, you are entitled to your opinion; however, if you aren't going to do anything about it, then your opinion is nothing but an empty scale.

I'm not so naive as to think that I could do something to change the culture of hockey even if I wanted to. Fortunately, there seems to be a groundswell of support to finally begin taking this matter seriously, and conduct the necessary study into the efficacy of fighting in hockey. Five years ago, the hockey-world was virtually silent on the issue. Today, general managers and former all-star players are beginning to raise questions. In a few years I wouldn't at all be surprised to see some dramatic changes.

...So, I'll keep my Girl Guide cookies, if you don't mind.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

...This is an emotional argument, and unprovable, frankly. You can no more say that the existence of fighting does not curb such plays than I can say that the absence of fighting would double such incidents.

This is NOT an emotional argument. But you are correct, which is all the more reason to expect to see some evidence about the efficacy of fighting in hockey once and for all. The traditionalists might be right, but I'm not willing to simply extend them the benefit of the doubt simply because we don't know one way or the other.

[CSharp]

Yeah, agreed that the WWE crap must go from the game and get back to the nuclear armament era when teams have enforcers as deterrents against roughing the smaller skilled guys.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm not so naive as to think that I could do something to change the culture of hockey even if I wanted to. Fortunately, there seems to be a groundswell of support to finally begin taking this matter seriously, and conduct the necessary study into the efficacy of fighting in hockey. Five years ago, the hockey-world was virtually silent on the issue. Today, general managers and former all-star players are beginning to raise questions. In a few years I wouldn't at all be surprised to see some dramatic changes.

...So, I'll keep my Girl Guide cookies, if you don't mind.

Actually, there's been bleeding hearts trying to remove fighting from the sport for decades now. A couple of fools in Minnesota once tried to pass a law banning fighting in the NHL in the 80s.

The "groundswell" is certainly louder, but the simple truth is, barely 2% of players want it removed, and if you judge by crowd response last night, and every fight, you'd be lucky to find 2% of fans who want it removed as well.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

...The "groundswell" is certainly louder, but the simple truth is, barely 2% of players want it removed, and if you judge by crowd response last night, and every fight, you'd be lucky to find 2% of fans who want it removed as well.

I'm aware of that. But popularity doesn't somehow win the debate about about the effectiveness and purpose of fighting in hockey. Evidence will.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm aware of that. But popularity doesn't somehow win the debate about about the effectiveness and purpose of fighting in hockey. Evidence will.

No, but it will win the debate about the continued presence of fighting in hockey.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, but it will win the debate about the continued presence of fighting in hockey.

That doesn't make it acceptable, in my opinion. Throwing one's hands in the air and pleading impotence in the face of popular opinion is a defeatist's refuge. Until I see some actual evidence to support the notion that fighting has a useful place in the game, I'm going to continue to speak my mind against it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That doesn't make it acceptable, in my opinion. Throwing one's hands in the air and pleading impotence in the face of popular opinion is a defeatist's refuge. Until I see some actual evidence to support the notion that fighting has a useful place in the game, I'm going to continue to speak my mind against it.

We can trade anecdotes forever if we want. Matt Cookes vs. times when a big fight sparks a team and changes momentum.

But once again, look at the crowd reaction. Even if you want to believe that fighting serves absolutely no other purpose - and we obviously will not agree on that - hockey is first and foremost an entertainment business.

There are three things that get people out of their seats: big goals, big hits and big fights.

Fans love it and the players want it. It is not a defeatist attitude to say that it is a popular aspect of the sport and should be retained.

[SuperMatt18]

Im honestly not sure where I sit in this argument but I always think of the playoffs, and how good the hockey is then, then recall that there is rarely fighting in the playoffs and that doesn't seem to make the game boring or dirty instantly.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

I'm not so sure of that Itse and the reason I feel that way is because of the difference in NHL culture; however, I am not discounting your hypothesis.

Difference in culture, hmm. What exactly do you mean?

[Redrum]

Thank god, a voice from the right side of the argument. It's been tiring over the last few years hearing from so many bleeding heart scumbags that don't know what they're talking about, and have nothing better to do than whine. These anti-fighting people are almost as bad as Quebec.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

...Fans love it and the players want it. It is not a defeatist attitude to say that it is a popular aspect of the sport and should be retained.

It is a defeatist position to make this claim as a justification for avoiding due diligence and seeking the evidence to support it. Again, I have no problem with fighting in the game (outside of the fact that it is boring) IF it is deemed useful and important enough to retain, and IF it is not unnecessarily risking the lives and long-term health of the players. The popular opinion is not always the right one, and in the wake of recent scientific research, I think it is important for the NHL and the NHLPA to study the issue, and ground their position in some actual evidence.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Redrum

Thank god, a voice from the right side of the argument. It's been tiring over the last few years hearing from so many bleeding heart scumbags that don't know what they're talking about, and have nothing better to do than whine. These anti-fighting people are almost as bad as Quebec.

Finally! A well thought-out and reasoned argument!