McGrattan and fighting debate

[Resolute 14]

You see concussions and other serious side effects from body checking. Why aren't you campaigning against body contact?

As to the first statement, the advent of the goon and later enforcer has done nothing at all to institutionalize fighting in general. It has institutionalized the idea of a designated fighter, but that's about it.

Many of the early NHL's biggest stars were also among its best fighters - including Shore, Horner and Black Jack Stewart. Never mind Mr. Gordie Howe Hat Trick himself. Rocket Richard would likely have faced criminal charges more than once if he played under present sensibilities.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

^ You're begging the question. There is no consensus that there is an actual problem to solve.



In a thread full of hyperbole, that statement is pretty close to the top.

Don't know what to tell you:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...6/the-survivor

You read read it, you know a bunch of these guys killed themselves. What, you need more suicides to think it's problem?

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You see concussions and other serious side effects from body checking. Why aren't you campaigning against body contact?

As to the first statement, the advent of the goon and later enforcer has done nothing at all to institutionalize fighting in general. It has institutionalized the idea of a designated fighter, but that's about it.

Many of the early NHL's biggest stars were also among its best fighters - including Shore, Horner and Black Jack Stewart. Never mind Mr. Gordie Howe Hat Trick himself.

Now you are just being silly, comparing Howe and Gratts?

You know what the topic is, don't dumb it down.

[puckluck2]

Nevermind fighting, why is big Ern getting a regular shift? He hasn't done a single thing all year.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You see concussions and other serious side effects from body checking. Why aren't you campaigning against body contact?

As to the first statement, the advent of the goon and later enforcer has done nothing at all to institutionalize fighting in general. It has institutionalized the idea of a designated fighter, but that's about it.

Many of the early NHL's biggest stars were also among its best fighters - including Shore, Horner and Black Jack Stewart. Never mind Mr. Gordie Howe Hat Trick himself. Rocket Richard would likely have faced criminal charges more than once if he played under present sensibilities.

Are you trying to give the impression that the frequency of fighting in hockey in the old days is the same as today?

[Stay Golden]

Grats on after hours was awesome. So open about his personal life and his role as an enforcer.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Don't know what to tell you:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...6/the-survivor

You read read it, you know a bunch of these guys killed themselves. What, you need more suicides to think it's problem?

I could say "correlation does not equal causation", but there isn't even real evidence that there is a correlation. A good argument can be made that Boogaard's overdose is directly related to his on-ice role. Any links for Rypien and Belak are speculatory. Regardless, you said that "a lot" of theses guys don't live long enough to enjoy their savings. I suspect that a small handful of guys who died for various reasons to not equate to "a lot" of the fighters/goons/enforcers/agitators in NHL history. Or even in the present day.

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Now you are just being silly, comparing Howe and Gratts?

You know what the topic is, don't dumb it down.

Yes. That is what I was doing. By comparing the era before designated fighters to the present day, I was making a comparison between Howe and McGrattan.

Would you like to try again, but without the straw man?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Are you trying to give the impression that the frequency of fighting in hockey in the old days is the same as today?

The same? Impossible to say. Significant? Certainly. But I will state, as my opinion, that hockey was a much dirtier sport in its earlier days. "Bad" Joe Hall, for instance, earned his nickname for his involvement in a litany of incidents throughout his career. Among them were incidents of trying to drive opponent's heads through the catch fences around the rinks and he was even arrested once for an on-ice fight. And after spending a game being slashed in the head repeatedly - with no penalty calls - he eventually slashed the referee. Nearly got him banned, but the referee forgave him after Hall paid to repair the hole he put in the ref's pants.

Now, that is merely an anecdote involving one player, but there are countless examples to argue that hockey in much of last century was brutal. It is impossible to believe that straight fighting was not a large part of it as well. Not when guys like Hall were putting up 100PIMs in 16 game seasons.

It has been argued that the advent of the enforcer/goon did help calm the sport down - and that is the opinion that many modern players hold today (i.e.: Iginla). There is an argument to be made that the game's evolution to designated enforcers vs. the free-for-all days where every player had to be prepared to defend themselves was a contributing factor to this. That is obviously subjective, and at the same time, I don't believe that removing fighting (or simply the enforcer role) would cause a return to the free-for-all days, either.

But to the original point, no, I do not believe fighting is a modern day phenomenon that was born in the 1960s when the Canadiens brought up John Ferguson and invented the enforcer role.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The same? Impossible to say. Significant? Certainly. But I will state, as my opinion, that hockey was a much dirtier sport in its earlier days. "Bad" Joe Hall, for instance, earned his nickname for his involvement in a litany of incidents throughout his career. Among them were incidents of trying to drive opponent's heads through the catch fences around the rinks and he was even arrested once for an on-ice fight. And after spending a game being slashed in the head repeatedly - with no penalty calls - he eventually slashed the referee. Nearly got him banned, but the referee forgave him after Hall paid to repair the hole he put in the ref's pants.

Now, that is merely an anecdote involving one player, but there are countless examples to argue that hockey in much of last century was brutal. It is impossible to believe that straight fighting was not a large part of it as well. Not when guys like Hall were putting up 100PIMs in 16 game seasons.

It has been argued that the advent of the enforcer/goon did help calm the sport down - and that is the opinion that many modern players hold today (i.e.: Iginla). There is an argument to be made that the game's evolution to designated enforcers vs. the free-for-all days where every player had to be prepared to defend themselves was a contributing factor to this. That is obviously subjective, and at the same time, I don't believe that removing fighting (or simply the enforcer role) would cause a return to the free-for-all days, either.

But to the original point, no, I do not believe fighting is a modern day phenomenon that was born in the 1960s when the Canadiens brought up John Ferguson and invented the enforcer role.

I think one can demonstrate that fighting has gradually increased, with time, in NA hockey, in combination with the emergence of the enforcer (goon), for a variety of reasons.

I have been watching hockey since the 40's, and don't recall fighting starting to become quite common until the NHL started expanding in the 60's. Before then, the goons usually did not have enough skill to make the NHL. So with increasing numbers of players, they gradually started becoming part of each team.

The extremely rough hockey started with the "Broad Street Bullies" in the 70's which in my view allowed the NHL to beat the enormously skilled Russian teams. NA hockey seemed to change from that point on... with much more physicality to the game. I believe an increase in fighting resulted.

In the 80's, guys like Gretzky, who needed someone to protect them, so they could exercise their skills without hindrance from their opponents, made enforcers more acceptable, and an increase in the amount of fighting ensued.

Then through the 90's, as the NHL expanded further, more and more teams employed enforcers to protect their skilled players, and fighting
became a part of the attraction to promote hockey

So in summary I believe you can say that increased fighting in the NHL has happened as a result of:

60's - NHL expansion and emergence of the goons.
70's - Increased physicality of the NHL
80's - Protection of super skilled players, not able to defend themselves
90's - The commercializing of hockey

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Nevermind fighting, why is big Ern getting a regular shift? He hasn't done a single thing all year.

McGrattan is getting a regular shift, you really are clueless about his role on the team.

The great thing about having a guy that knows his role like McGrattan is that you can NOT give him a regular shift and he isn't going to cry and whine about it. He's going to wait on the bench and support his teammates and when he does hear his number he's going to give his full effort rather then sulking.

Fourth line duties is a very hard task and most skilled players can't coupe with not being used. You'll never hear McGrattan cry about his minutes.... that acceptance to do what needs to be done to help the team and be 100% ready to go regardless if he hasn't seen the ice in 10 minutes is very underrated. Having a guy like McGrattan dressed in the lineup helps Jiri and Cammy to hit the ice more and when things get hairy all you need to do is tap him on the shoulder and he'll give 100% to provide an enery spark for the team with a hard shift and return to his spot on the bench

regular shift my buttocks

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

So in summary I believe you can say that increased fighting in the NHL has happened as a result of:

60's - NHL expansion and emergence of the goons.
70's - Increased physicality of the NHL
80's - Protection of super skilled players, not able to defend themselves
90's - The commercializing of hockey

I certainly don't have the direct history you do, but based on my reading of NHL history, I would agree that the expansion era NHL was the high water mark for fighting. However, I think your explanation for the 80s is a bit off. The entire reason why Montreal brought up Ferguson in the late 50s/early 60s was because bigger teams were abusing their players. When he retired in 1971, it became a problem for them again. You are also also wrong about the 1990s, as fighting has been in a generally downward trend since the start of that decade.

While I maintain that fighting has always been a prominent part of the sport, if anything, your views support the idea that the brutality of the early NHL was curtailed by the increasingly controlled nature of fighting over time.

[flamesfever]

nm