Burke article on Fighting in the NHL

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

Please stop trying to project your sensibilities onto me. A defeatist attitude is basically "can't win, don't try", and that is not my viewpoint. I think it is good that the players have a better understanding of the risks. But the fact that risks exist in a contact sport does not necessarily mean it is desirable to remove an aspect of it. And I said this in the last fighting argument thread, but it his hypocritical to point to these arguments as a reason to remove fighting without also calling for the removal of all contact. Don't cherry pick what aspects of the game you want changed if that is truly your concern.

[Rocky Raccoon]

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.

Sounds like a groundswell of cop-outs. A slough of people griping and complaining about something, not doing anything productive, and expecting the parties that can do something about it to change notwithstanding the fact that these parties have no appetite for such a change.

#girlguidecookies

[flamesfan1297]

i am not normally a brian burke fan but i love this arcticle and agree with everything that he says. Without fighting then there just be dirtier hits

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

Hitting unnecessarily risks the lives and long-term health of players. So we best drop that too.

[Kiran403]

I've heard that stat from the article that 98% of players support fighting and what I find most interesting about that is that the stat includes players who grew up playing in Europe where there is no fighting allowed. One would think that they would definitely oppose it as they have been able to play and watch leagues where there is no fighting but they still support it in the NHL.

Personally I enjoy the fighting but I can see why it's a negative as well. Realistically it will probably be gone from the NHL within 5 years.

As far as being able to "police" the game, wouldn't it just be easier to give players stiffer penalties for dirty plays? Ex: First time offender gets a game misconduct, 2nd offense gets 1 game suspension, 3rd time gets 5 games, 4 is a lifetime ban. Make it similar to doping penalties in other sports. Players would definitely think twice about risking their careers to make a questionable play.

[Resolute 14]

To be fair, I believe the stat is actually that 98% would not support removing fighting from the game. Semantically, that is not necessarily equivalent to supporting it.

And to be blunt, your latter proposal would completely destroy the sport. Given how ridiculously inconsistent both referees and the league/Shanahan are with handing out penalties, there is no fair way to enforce any such system.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by strombad

Hitting unnecessarily risks the lives and long-term health of players. So we best drop that too.

You can increase the penalty for fighting (which is and always has been against the rules) without fundamentally changing the game. You can't say the same thing about removing hitting from the game.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by gargamel

You can increase the penalty for fighting (which is and always has been against the rules) without fundamentally changing the game. You can't say the same thing about removing hitting from the game.

Ahh, so this really does come down to "I like hitting, but dislike fighting, therefore I will pretend to care about player health and concussions in the latter case, but not the former"?

[Azure]

I don't mind fighting be allowed, but I do think there are certain players in the NHL that serve no purpose other than to hurt other players. John Scott is an example. Players like these need to go as much as repeat offenders who are reckless on the ice.

[Passe La Puck]

I thought it was funny when they asked Hartley about coaching in Europe and one of his observations was that in a league with no fighting everyone was a tough guy, a lot of cheap shots, etc.

This is probably why that 98% includes nearly all European players as well, they know what happens when everyone's a tough guy.

[JiriHrdina]

The elimination of fighting would have to come with better enforcement of the rules through stiffer punishments

[puckluck2]

If you would have polled players from the 60's about helmets they would likely vote 98% against it as well. Players don't know what is best for them since it effects their livelihood and potentially their income.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

Without fighting then there just be dirtier hits

That may be true or it may not. But there is no proof to support that argument. There is fighting in the league now and there are dirty hits now. Before the instigator penalty there was fighting and there were dirty hits too.

Growing up watching hockey in the 80's, before the instigator, there were plenty of fights. There were also a lot more dirty hits from what I recall. Messier made a career out of hurting guys with cheap shots, as did many other players. The biggest difference now is that there is a lot more coverage (TV, internet) of the dirty hits and as a result there is a lot more public outrage.

Granted, my position is anecdotal and has as little proof as yours.

Part of the reason that the NHL has always been a fringe sport in the US is because of the fighting. The running joke in the US used to be "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out." The people that are hard core hockey fans and that grew up with the game and all of it's 'interesting' cultural uniqueness love fighting and what it brings to the game. As a result of this culture, hockey has a bit of a parriah status in certain portions of the North American sporting culture. That in itself isn't the reason to remove fighting from the game but I do think it's a factor. In general, I think it's time for the game to grow up.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Iggy: "DeKeyzer! There's bigger guys for you, big boy. Just say the word"

Thought I would volunteer that to this thread.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ahh, so this really does come down to "I like hitting, but dislike fighting, therefore I will pretend to care about player health and concussions in the latter case, but not the former"?

Not at all. I still enjoy a good fight and go back and forth on whether fighting should be eliminated from the game, but I was just pointing out that the argument that we have to eliminate hitting if we eliminate fighting is a silly one.

You can and often do have NHL games without fights, but an NHL game without a hit would be a fundamentally different experience. Players could skate with their heads down and make suicide passes without hitting, but how would they play differently without fighting? If the playoffs are any indication, they wouldn't.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

If you would have polled players from the 60's about helmets they would likely vote 98% against it as well. Players don't know what is best for them since it effects their livelihood and potentially their income.

Appeal to authority is an argumentative fallacy.

[clancy]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

If you would have polled players from the 60's about helmets they would likely vote 98% against it as well. Players don't know what is best for them since it effects their livelihood and potentially their income.

But, of course, we know better.

[clancy]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

That may be true or it may not. But there is no proof to support that argument. There is fighting in the league now and there are dirty hits now. Before the instigator penalty there was fighting and there were dirty hits too.

Growing up watching hockey in the 80's, before the instigator, there were plenty of fights. There were also a lot more dirty hits from what I recall. Messier made a career out of hurting guys with cheap shots, as did many other players. The biggest difference now is that there is a lot more coverage (TV, internet) of the dirty hits and as a result there is a lot more public outrage.

Granted, my position is anecdotal and has as little proof as yours.

Part of the reason that the NHL has always been a fringe sport in the US is because of the fighting. The running joke in the US used to be "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out." The people that are hard core hockey fans and that grew up with the game and all of it's 'interesting' cultural uniqueness love fighting and what it brings to the game. As a result of this culture, hockey has a bit of a parriah status in certain portions of the North American sporting culture. That in itself isn't the reason to remove fighting from the game but I do think it's a factor. In general, I think it's time for the game to grow up.

So removing fighting will move Hockey from "fringe" to mainstream? I think maybe the fringe aspect has something to do with the fact that it is not part of their core sporting culture. Kids in the U.S. grow up playing football, Basketball, baseball, soccer etc. In Canada, while other sports are growing, Hockey is part of our culture.
Fact is, fighting is part of Hockey, and grass roots participation for Hockey in the U.S. is on the rise in markets where the NHL has teams.

[undercoverbrother]

I always wonder why hockey is the only contact sport that needs the players to enforce the rules.

Why are there other violent/physical sports that don't require the same?

[Rocky Raccoon]

On the Fan 960 this morning they were interviewing Giordano and they asked him directly about this and to paraphrase, he said that there is a different feel with McGrattan in the lineup and that he is an important part of the team. Other teams are taking less liberties with the Flames.

In fact, he said he got popped in the LA game and McGrattan skated over to the Kings bench and said a few words and the Kings calmed down and were less physical for the rest of the game.

Now I expect to hear some posters disregard this because Giordano is a player and he is being biased; however, I am going to take his word on this because of how he answered some of the other questions in the interview. To paraphrase again he more or less said that the veterans that were traded from the team (we can assume Iginla, Tanguay, Bouwmeester) refused to play Hartley's system and the reason that the team has success this year and is exciting to watch is because they are able to buy in without these players around. That is pretty candid and unbiased.