Burke article on Fighting in the NHL

[Flames89]

I am firmly on Burke's side with this. I understand the other side's argument, but I believe the game would transform into a pale shadow of what it is and has been during my time as a fan.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Part of the reason that the NHL has always been a fringe sport in the US is because of the fighting.

Bullcrap.

Hockey is a "fringe" sport in warm weather areas of the US for the same reason curling, luge and speed skating are.

[Textcritic]

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.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Appeal to authority is an argumentative fallacy.

Yes! But what puck luck has posted here is the exact opposite of an appeal to authority. It rather actually make precisely this point about the frequent assertions about how positively fighting in hockey is regarded by the players. In short (and thank you for spelling this out so clearly), it's irrelevant.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes! But what puck luck has posted here is the exact opposite of an appeal to authority. It rather actually make precisely this point about the frequent assertions about how positively fighting in hockey is regarded by the players. In short (and thank you for spelling this out so clearly), it's irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant if the players don't get to decide whether fighting stays or goes. Thus, being that they ARE the ones who decide, it's quite relevant.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by 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?

This is my biggest issue with the enforcement argument. There are plenty of sports played at a high speed with lots of intensity in a small area. If fighting is a true form of cathartic release, shouldn't every football game end with somebody having their neck broken? I just don't see this aggression boiling over in other sports.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Russic

This is my biggest issue with the enforcement argument. There are plenty of sports played at a high speed with lots of intensity in a small area. If fighting is a true form of cathartic release, shouldn't every football game end with somebody having their neck broken? I just don't see this aggression boiling over in other sports.

I think you're confusing physical play with agression. Football is physical but there are no cheap shots. All players get injured by accident and even now blows to the head are penalized.

I watched an entire football game last night and there was not one incident that would have been determined as 'cheap'.

As much as I like hockey, it's a very dirty sport compared to football and needs to be regulated by the refs (who don't) or by the players.

Originally Posted by 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?

again baseball players enforce their own rules (a fastball to the head)

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 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.

This has as much to do with NHL culture as anything. In other words, with a major crackdown on fighting that would eventually lead to its elimination from the sport, one may see an increase in chippy play, but if approached properly, it would also likely subside with times as teams adjust to the change.

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

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.

Maybe. Or maybe there was no actual change at all, and Giordano merely felt better because of what McGrattan did. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that as intuitive creatures, human beings are naturally prone to develop strong feelings and form unfounded beliefs and opinions on totally unverified perceptions.

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

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.

Wrong. I am skeptical of Giordano's perception of things because I don't have much confidence in the reliability of his intuitive human nature. This is precisely why this issue requires rigorous study; because we shouldn't have much confidence in the non-empirical, anecdotal opinions that form from intuitions. Giordano's feelings do not constitute evidence.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes! But what puck luck has posted here is the exact opposite of an appeal to authority. It rather actually make precisely this point about the frequent assertions about how positively fighting in hockey is regarded by the players. In short (and thank you for spelling this out so clearly), it's irrelevant.

No, what Puckluck posted was precisely an appeal to authority, even if implied. The argument being made is that the players are apparently too stupid to know what's best for them, someone above them must make the decisions on their behalf.

The problem you have is that the people above them undoubtedly share the same view in the same percentages. The owners know how the crowd reacts to fighting. They know it helps bring people to the arena. EA knows what sells when they include fighting in commercials for their video games. The media hypes the hell out of rematches following fight-filled games.

Fighting sells. Fighting makes money. Everyone knows this, and that is why it is staying. Not only was Puck's post an appeal to authority, it was appealing to an authority that doesn't share your viewpoint. Also, as Strombad noted, the players sit on the rules committees. Their view most certainly is relevant.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by strombad

It's only irrelevant if the players don't get to decide whether fighting stays or goes. Thus, being that they ARE the ones who decide, it's quite relevant.

That depends upon what we are talking about here:

Yes, the majority opinion of NHL players is relevant with regards to whether fighting does or does not remain a part of the game.

No, the majority opinion of NHL players is irrelevant with regards to the actual function and effectiveness of fighting in the sport.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Russic

This is my biggest issue with the enforcement argument. There are plenty of sports played at a high speed with lots of intensity in a small area. If fighting is a true form of cathartic release, shouldn't every football game end with somebody having their neck broken? I just don't see this aggression boiling over in other sports.

The football argument is weak for the simple reason that there is no ongoing flow and momentum to a football game. The play carries on for anywhere from 4 to 10 seconds - not a lot of time for emotions to get the better of guys.

In fact, on longer plays, such as kick returns, where contact continues and the play continues beyond the typical one iteration of contact, there are often more heated skirmishes.

Another aspect of football is that it is very structured and the players are aware of, and prepared for, exactly the type of contact they are going to experience.

Again, with the same example, on a longer play where multiple players are running along the sidelines, or where there is a fumble and the play moves in multiple directions, there are instances of more unusual and unpredictable contact.

As soon as you see the longer plays and the unpredictable contact, tempers predictably rise almost immediately.

If anything, football serves as a pretty good controlled-experiment for violence in sports and why hockey is so prone to escalation.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

...As much as I like hockey, it's a very dirty sport compared to football and needs to be regulated by the refs (who don't) or by the players...

If the culture of hockey changed, then it is fair to presume that there would no longer be any need for this form of self-regulation.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think there are compelling arguments on both sides of this debate. i.e. It can't just be about player health or hitting has to go.

But what I don't understand is how being on one side or the other means you are a scumbag.

if you participate in any of the following debates, by definition you are a scumbag to your opponent:

- religion
- CBA
- gun control
- advanced stats
- hockey fights
- mobile OS

I wish it were possible to have a civil debate without all the passive (or aggressive) potshots but I guess these kinds of things have to be done thunderdome style where two go in, and only one leaves.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, what Puckluck posted was precisely an appeal to authority, even if implied. The argument being made is that the players are apparently too stupid to know what's best for them, someone above them must make the decisions on their behalf...

That is not at all what he said. He said that players are not very dependable sources from which to draw in forming an argument because they are prejudiced by the impact that the issue potentially has on their livelihood. He's not wrong, and his assertion in no way conforms to any definition of an appeal to authority.

What it does do is highlight how effective an actual appeal to authority is in this discussion. It shows how the popularity of fighting is the primary reason for its continued part in the game. It shows how far popular opinions have the capacity to mislead based on an historical analogy.

[Enoch Root]

^^ rainbows

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That depends upon what we are talking about here:

Yes, the majority opinion of NHL players is relevant with regards to whether fighting does or does not remain a part of the game.

No, the majority opinion of NHL players is irrelevant with regards to the actual function and effectiveness of fighting in the sport.

How is it irrelevant in that sense either? You do realise they are the ones affected by fighting right?

I doubt you'd be so bold to walk up to an NHL player yourself and tell him that he doesn't know any better, and that his opinion on fighting is irrelevant.

That line of thinking is laughable. To think that YOU know better about fighting's role in the NHL than an NHL player is so incredibly arrogant and embarrassing that I can only assume any appeal to logic would have zero effect on you, being that your argument is based on none.

Regarding pucklucks point about helmets, that's an entirely different issue. That's taking a players opinion on safety, and if you're asking a player about the safety involved in fighting, you might have a point. But this isn't about that, this is about fighting's role in the game and how it affects the game. In this sense, there is NO higher authority than the players themselves, and no one with the requisite first hand knowledge of today's NHL than players playing in today's NHL.

If you're arguing about safety, sure. But if you're trying to argue that players don't know about fighting's role in the NHL, that is just idiocy.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by strombad

How is it irrelevant in that sense either? You do realise they are the ones affected by fighting right?

This remains to be proven. Which is why I continue to ask for some sort of evidence to show that fighting serves the purpose that proponents claim it does.

Originally Posted by strombad

I doubt you'd be so bold to walk up to an NHL player yourself and tell him that he doesn't know any better, and that his opinion on fighting is irrelevant.

That's not exactly what I am saying. Let me put it this way: How fighting makes one feel as a player, and whatever positive impact he perceives it to have on the game is so far asserted in the absence of evidence. The positive impact can only be properly established with evidence, and one's perceptions (regardless of their place and stake in this discussion) are a poor substitute.

Originally Posted by strombad

That line of thinking is laughable. To think that YOU know better about fighting's role in the NHL than an NHL player is so incredibly arrogant and embarrassing that I can only assume any appeal to logic would have zero effect on you, being that your argument is based on none.

Since when is it "laughable", "arrogant", and "embarrassing" to demand that claimants offer evidence to support their position about anything?

Originally Posted by strombad

...this is about fighting's role in the game and how it affects the game. In this sense, there is NO higher authority than the players themselves, and no one with the requisite first hand knowledge of today's NHL than players playing in today's NHL.

How do players form their opinions? Are they prone to misdirection? Are they possibly prejudiced because of the perceived impact on their livelihood? Are they possibly prejudiced by their own upbringing and acceptance of the culture of hockey?

This is why evidence is important.

Originally Posted by strombad

If you're arguing about safety, sure. But if you're trying to argue that player don't know about fighting's role in the NHL, than that is just idiocy.

First a scumbag, and now an idiot. I can always count on you to avoid the high ground, and you seldom disappoint.

You seem to be slightly misconstruing my point. I have no doubt that players are sincere about this, but that is not always the same thing as knowledgable. All players have developed strong feelings about fighting because of their experience in the game, but as human beings, our tendency to construct patterns from our experiences is often misleading. I'm trying to argue that there is not much (if any) good evidence to support the players' interpretation of their experiences. In the absence of said evidence, I will continue to question their perception.

What do you have against evidence, anyways?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by strombad

How is it irrelevant in that sense either? You do realise they are the ones affected by fighting right?

I doubt you'd be so bold to walk up to an NHL player yourself and tell him that he doesn't know any better, and that his opinion on fighting is irrelevant.

That line of thinking is laughable. To think that YOU know better about fighting's role in the NHL than an NHL player is so incredibly arrogant and embarrassing that I can only assume any appeal to logic would have zero effect on you, being that your argument is based on none.

Regarding pucklucks point about helmets, that's an entirely different issue. That's taking a players opinion on safety, and if you're asking a player about the safety involved in fighting, you might have a point. But this isn't about that, this is about fighting's role in the game and how it affects the game. In this sense, there is NO higher authority than the players themselves, and no one with the requisite first hand knowledge of today's NHL than players playing in today's NHL.

If you're arguing about safety, sure. But if you're trying to argue that players don't know about fighting's role in the NHL, that is just idiocy.

It's relevant in the same way the opinion of football players and "getting back out there after you had your 'bell rung'" is. Lets face it here, other than the irony of Perros choosing to scrap, we're not exactly talking about a group of scholars here. Not only does it ruin the pace of the game, and not really keep anyone in line, one day someone is going to die as a result of their head hitting the ice. And yes, someone dying during a fight is a huge difference compared to someone dying during play.

Why have that black mark on the game forever?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's relevant in the same way the opinion of football players and "getting back out there after you had your 'bell rung'" is. Lets face it here, other than the irony of Perros choosing to scrap, we're not exactly talking about a group of scholars here. Not only does it ruin the pace of the game, and not really keep anyone in line, one day someone is going to die as a result of their head hitting the ice. And yes, someone dying during a fight is a huge difference compared to someone dying during play.

Why have that black mark on the game forever?

We're having two different conversations. Fighting has a place in the game, it has a role, it's PART of the game. It is those things because players almost unanimously agree that it is. There is no higher authority than the opinion of the players in this regard. This is not "getting back out there," this is an element of the game.

Now, you want to talk about safety? Alright, we can have that conversation, but what your post doesn't address and what I take issue with people like Textcritic saying is that players aren't the most reliable experts on the role of fighting in the game. We aren't talking about the negative after effects of fighting, we are talking about it's role in the game. Of course most players will not be experts on the health effects of fighting in the NHL, but they are the HIGHEST experts on fighting's effectiveness in the game of hockey.

Aside from that, I'm not sure what basis there is for saying hockey players aren't that smart, or if you weren't suggesting that but rather actually suggesting you had to be a scholar to understanding the effects of fighting, then I'm not sure I really agree with that either.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

again baseball players enforce their own rules (a fastball to the head)

Let's leave sports like Basketball and Baseball out of this discussion. I don't think they compare, there is not the same physical skin on skin component. There are sports like Football, Rugby, Lacrosse, League that are all very physical and they don't have players floating around punching people in the face (the one caveat to my post is Lacrosse. I don't know enough about the sport/rosters). The aforementioned sports have fighting sometimes, but for the amount of contact/abuse between players the number/instances of fights is minimal.

So what is wrong with Hockey players?

[Fan in Exile]

I guess I'm just one of those guys that doesn't get it according to Burke. But I think that my argument is more on the side of reason and evidence than his. I have never seen any proponent of fighting quote a statistical analysis of how fighting makes the NHL safer than other leagues that don't. I don't see it with other sports either and I don't see how the code results in dirty players taking fewer liberties. I see very little cause and effect between fighting and regulating dirty play which as far as I can tell is more prevalent in hockey than any other major team sport.