Obligatory fighting in hockey debate thread #84, version 3

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Major Major

...You concede that players believe they play bigger with good enforcers on the team, but you don't think this has anything to do with performance. As someone who has spent time working with high performance athletes, this is CRAZY to me. This flies in the face of absolutely every single scrap of research that is being done in the field of sports psychology. I'm not quite sure what science your opinions are following.

Just observationally and strictly as a spectator, watching sports my whole life, I can tell you that intimidation and fear has a massive impact on athletic performance. Look into Berbick's eyes before the bell rings and Tyson is unleashed upon him. Look at any golfer that had to tee it up in the final pairing on Sunday against Tiger in the early 2000's. Look at the Flyers against the Red Army in 76.

I did not mean to imply that I thought hockey fights had no impact on performance, but rather that the long term benefits were negligible to non-existent. Yrebmi linked to an article about a study that shows a temporary increase in offensive zone events for at least one team in a significant number of instances following a fight. The problem is that there is no way to assure which team this applies to, and furthermore the effect that this has over the course of a game, or a series of games, or a season seems to be completely random. So, yes, I agree that "hockey voodoo" works to provide temporary, inconsistent, and negligible results—but results of a relatively meaningless form nonetheless.

As for the science that I am "following," I only know of one kind: and that would be the method for empirical testing in controlled environments to produce a large enough dataset from which to ascertain reliable, repeatable results. I hope you do understand that what you classified above as "observationally and strictly as a spectator" is not in any way part of a functional, scientifically rigorous methodology. You quoted from my post a brief statement about the unreliability of our perceptions and intuitions, and challenged this assertion directly. I am curious now, especially from this part of your response:

Do you believe that your, my, anyone's perceptions and intuitions are reliable for providing useful and empirically verifiable information about the natural world? You sure do seem to set a high value on what you interpret based on what you have seen.

Originally Posted by Major Major

You have no idea what will happen if we took fighting out of hockey, and neither do I, but at least my assumptions are based on consensus theories in sports psychology. You have just said it's voodoo, quoted the bible, and presumed that nothing would happen if we just take out something that has a direct effect on both the psychology and physicality of a sport. It doesn't work that way.

What consensus?

I presume since you are convinced that I have overstepped in my prediction about the impact that the absence of fighting will have in hockey that you can and will demonstrate how and why I am wrong about this. Please do tell, how does it work?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Yup the least looked at sport in each aspect. We should follow them . Hockey will flurish

More people attend track meets then hockey in college.

I am highly confident of two things: First, the introduction of fighting to NCAA and European hockey is likely not to result in a massive increase in viewership. Second, the removal of fighting from NHL hockey will not result in such a precipitous drop in viewership that it will be rivalled in its currently healthy markets by World Cup Athletics.

[Textcritic]

^
I feel bad that my posts are so wordy. Sorry.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Yup the least looked at sport in each aspect. We should follow them . Hockey will flurish

More people attend track meets then hockey in college.

Not certain how that is relevant to the discussion. Were we discussing how to maintain or grow the business of hockey?

I love hockey fights.
They are outstanding shows of barbarism, which I'm very OK with.
It's not what I pay to see though and I'm not certain it impacts the outcome of any game in a measurable way. Fighting in hockey is excellent entertainment as far as I'm concerned, though many others don't see it that way.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

^
I feel bad that my posts are so wordy. Sorry.

No apologies, please. I'm sure most of us really appreciate your posts.

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

^
I feel despondent that my posts are so circumlocutory. Sorry.

FYP

(j/k. I appreciate your posts usually, even the long winded ones)

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

There is no fighting in international hockey.
Or college hockey.
It is being removed from junior a hockey

I think we can get an idea from that

International hockey is very often best on best, or at the very least it's close to it. And guys are there representing their countries. A little bit more is at play emotionally.

When you're dealing with 700 potential NHL roster spots, you have guys that are willing to do ANYTHING to keep getting that million dollar a year cheque. And that breeds a whole subset of guys for whom fighting is an integral part of their value proposition as hockey players.

[theinfinitejar]

Textcritic has the patience of a thousand saints.

I love the term "hockey voodoo" though. I'm going to use that next time I have argue against the kind of conformation bias this thread is full of.

[JJ1532]

I can kinda of see your point Textcritic. There is clearly no hard and fast rule to suggest that winning a fight has any relation to winning a game. Maybe it works one time, maybe it doesn't work another. But I wonder why any enforcer dropped the gloves? Did he do it with the expressed intention of giving his team a boost to try and win a game? Was he just trying to give a fellow enforcer a beating and look nails in the process? Was he standing up for a team mate or mates after some rough/dirty play from the opposition?

To be honest, I don't really care why they drop the gloves. If someone wants to maintain the myth that winning a fight helps teams win hockey games, then I don't see the harm in that, because maybe once out of 100, it actually does make a difference.

But for me, fighting still has a role to play in Ice Hockey. As a relative newcomer to the sport, I really enjoy watching 2 players go at it. I chuckle to myself every time I see a line brawl, with the goalies getting involved too. I love watching it. I think the attraction for me is that I'm English and a Soccer/footie fan and I'm used to watching 22 men act like fairies, falling over at the slightest contact and pretending they are injured before springing back up a split second later. I love the game, but I can't stand what the players are these days.

I don't want to see Hockey go the same way. Because I do think Hockey would be worse off if fighting was phased out the game. I have no stats to back this up, just my opinion. As long as coaches deem it an important part of the game, for whatever reason, and whilst there is an appetite for it from the stands, it should remain.

[indes]

Fighting, like most things in hockey can't be qualified in a set of data or statistics. The same way advanced stats can't accurately depict player growth or game outcome we can't quantify the effect of a fight. We can't quantify the effect of a hit, a giveaway or a shot block.

The thing about hockey is that it's less of a math equation and more of an organism. Any given hit, fight or block can have a huge effect on the outcome or growth of any given game.

Emotion and momentum have so much of an impact that can't be measured by statistics I would say it's impossible to argue the effects of fighting on wins or losses.

Taking fighting out of the game would just remove a piece of the puzzle that makes hockey games so exciting in my opinion.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by indes

Fighting, like most things in hockey can't be qualified in a set of data or statistics. The same way advanced stats can't accurately depict player growth or game outcome we can't quantify the effect of a fight. We can't quantify the effect of a hit, a giveaway or a shot block.

The thing about hockey is that it's less of a math equation and more of an organism. Any given hit, fight or block can have a huge effect on the outcome or growth of any given game.

Emotion and momentum have so much of an impact that can't be measured by statistics I would say it's impossible to argue the effects of fighting on wins or losses.

That's a copout. If it helps your team, the results are quantifiable. If it doesn't help you win, why do it? If it does help you win, then it's contribution can be quantified. That's how reality works.

Emotion itself is not quantifiable because it's a subjective quality. A fight either happens or it doesn't. It's quantifiable. The only important result in hockey is wins. If it helps you win, you can measure the effects.

Taking fighting out of the game would just remove a piece of the puzzle that makes hockey games so exciting in my opinion.

That's a valid point, and I agree. However, knowing what we now know about concussions I'm not sure my entertainment trumps a players future mental health

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As for the science that I am "following," I only know of one kind: and that would be the method for empirical testing in controlled environments to produce a large enough dataset from which to ascertain reliable, repeatable results. I hope you do understand that what you classified above as "observationally and strictly as a spectator" is not in any way part of a functional, scientifically rigorous methodology. You quoted from my post a brief statement about the unreliability of our perceptions and intuitions, and challenged this assertion directly. I am curious now, especially from this part of your response:

Do you believe that your, my, anyone's perceptions and intuitions are reliable for providing useful and empirically verifiable information about the natural world? You sure do seem to set a high value on what you interpret based on what you have seen.

Ok, I will take a final stab at this and then call it a day as I don't think this conversation is relevant to anything really.

First of all, I hope you realize that you started this thread based on an anecdote and a quote from the bible, then made up a bunch of terms like hockey voodoo and tangential fighting, then you proceeded to demand hard science from anyone who refuted you. I think the reason that you tend to outlast people in these highly entertaining arguments of yours is that it nearly impossible to understand someone's viewpoint that is so incongruous.

I have come to know or believe things in my life without the need for empirical evidence. Not everything, but some things. I know you have too since your whole premise of this thread seems to be based on the strictly non-empirical. My login to JStor expired a few years ago, so I won't post any articles that support my claim. The truth is, I haven't read many, or at least none that produce hard sets of data. My comment on the consensus had to do with me talking with licensed sports psychologists. They would say things like, fear-bad, confidence-good. Apparently, this is not something that you believe. (Really? You don't believe in confidence and security having an effect on job performance?) Anyhow, from there, I constructed a scenario in which removing fighting from the NHL would have a negative effect. I don't think it is so far-fetched, and I don't think it's a non-sequitur. I mean, it followed in your own line of thinking that the Flames seemed to feel more secure with Big Ern in the lineup. I guess I took to thinking, you know, based on conversations with sports psychologists, a lifetime of observations and experience, and lets see... oh right, common sense that confidence and security had a positive correlation with performance in just about any field. But nope, Text Critic says non-sequitur. That is just a bunch of unscientific nonsense! Has he/she produced any science to back up this non-sequitur call-out? Seriously though, I can't get through everything that he/she says.

My belief is that fighting props up a part of the game (as played in the NHL) that is ridiculously hard to define. If we took out the fighting t-post, maybe nothing would happen. Maybe the floor would sag. Maybe Phil Kessel would fall straight through the floor and break his d*ck off. I don't know, you don't know, and the bible certainly doesn't know. If you want to get rid of it, maybe try bringing some science?

[Sport Psych]

Originally Posted by Major Major

The truth is, I haven't read many, or at least none that produce hard sets of data. My comment on the consensus had to do with me talking with licensed sports psychologists. They would say things like, fear-bad, confidence-good.

I guess I took to thinking, you know, based on conversations with sports psychologists, a lifetime of observations and experience, and lets see... oh right, common sense that confidence and security had a positive correlation with performance in just about any field.

Not to be too pedantic, but the term/discipline is "sport psychology" (although, to be honest, most folks have moved to the broader descriptor of "performance psychology").

And the whole notion of "fear-bad, confidence-good" is entirely too simplistic. The relationship between confidence and performance is anything but linear; similarly, research examining the relationship between various emotional states (e.g., fear, anxiety, joy, anger) and sport performance does not indicate that such relationships are linear.

I'd never claim that fighting in hockey has no effect on performance from a psychological perspective. However, there is such a paucity of research in this area that one cannot claim with any sense of certainty that fighting produces significant psychological benefits for the team.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Ok, I will take a final stab at this and then call it a day as I don't think this conversation is relevant to anything really...

It's just as well, since you clearly either do not understand what I am attempting to say or have chosen to simply ignore it. Although, the way that you have fixated on the analogy that I drew from a story in the Bible strikes me as proof positive of the former.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

...To be honest, I don't really care why they drop the gloves. If someone wants to maintain the myth that winning a fight helps teams win hockey games, then I don't see the harm in that, because maybe once out of 100, it actually does make a difference.

Thank you very much for your response.

My own position on this issue has softened some in the past year or so. I became firmly convinced about the serious danger in fighting in hockey after reading the excellent series of articles in the NY Times about Derek Boogard. That concern was then amplified by the inability to see any useful function in the game beyond its entertainment appeal as a blood sport that is at best only loosely connected to the game itself. I became tired of the platitudes from players, coaches and professional observers about fighting as a nuclear deterrent. This whole line of argument has survived on the same sort of vapid anecdotal declarations made by Major Major that amount to "I remember in the day..." or "the look in his eyes..." or "the confidence that an enforcer provides..."

I was once arguing from a position of moral outrage and concern, but I am not so sure anymore that the perceived danger and its broader impact warrants the level of urgency that I exhibited a year ago. Even still, I still think that fighting is unnecessarily dangerous and prone to produce all sorts of additional, tragic complications for those who make their living by the accumulation of scar tissue on their broken knuckles. But now, I think more than anything I have lost my taste for it. I just find it kind of boring, and in light of that, I remain intensely interested in why there might be a good reason to retain its place in hockey apart from the blood sport sideshow that most people enjoy. (I also recognise that that itself is enough to ensure that there will always be fighting in hockey—which I would also interpret as a societal issue that reveals a disturbing level of barbarism that persists in our modern culture. But c'est la vie.)

So, all that to say, while I DO get it, I STILL think that it is important that we educate ourselves as much as possible about fighting in hockey and other forms of hockey voodoo. Why not learn what we can? Why should we be just content to accept what we have always been told, or what our faulty powers of perception reveal darkly?

Originally Posted by JJ1532

But for me, fighting still has a role to play in Ice Hockey. As a relative newcomer to the sport, I really enjoy watching 2 players go at it. I chuckle to myself every time I see a line brawl, with the goalies getting involved too. I love watching it. I think the attraction for me is that I'm English and a Soccer/footie fan and I'm used to watching 22 men act like fairies, falling over at the slightest contact and pretending they are injured before springing back up a split second later. I love the game, but I can't stand what the players are these days.

Opinions like yours I can accept, because it is frankly honest about what I think is the current driving force behind why there remains fighting in hockey. Fans love it.

Originally Posted by JJ1532

I don't want to see Hockey go the same way. Because I do think Hockey would be worse off if fighting was phased out the game. I have no stats to back this up, just my opinion. As long as coaches deem it an important part of the game, for whatever reason, and whilst there is an appetite for it from the stands, it should remain.

I think the reason that supporters of fighting in the NHL and among fans have deemed that it is a necessary component of the game by forwarding the conventional anecdotal arguments about its effect as a nuclear deterrent, a psychological tactic, or a momentum catalyst is because deep down a lot of people are probably disturbed by the detrimental toll that professional hockey fighting has on its practitioners. Furthermore, I suspect that some people are also bothered by the barbarism that blood sports reveal within our own modern culture. Some people really need fighting to be more about just entertainment because they are uncomfortable with the idea that we actively participate in a culture that glorifies violence, pain, revenge, mortal harm, and death.

For my part, I'm not interested in this. Not anymore. So, what it comes down to is this: If I am to accept that fighting in hockey is and will remain a part of the game, then I require convincing beyond the tired old commitment to hockey voodoo that coaches, players, and fans still hold dear. Show me real compelling evidence, and I will go away. Without it, then I will still watch the games, enjoy the games, and roll my eyes and leave the room to grab another beer when the cliched obligatory hockey fight begins. Without the evidence, I will still raise questions about why there is none, and about all sorts of interesting ideas of why the sideshow persists.

[Vulcan]

For my part, I'm not interested in this. Not anymore. So, what it comes down to is this: If I am to accept that fighting in hockey is and will remain a part of the game, then I require convincing beyond the tired old commitment to hockey voodoo that coaches, players, and fans still hold dear. Show me real compelling evidence, and I will go away.

If you are the one who requires convincing, I'd say it's up to you to do the research.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If you are the one who requires convincing, I'd say it's up to you to do the research.

I'm not qualified, which is why I depend on the expertise of others who will hopefully undertake the necessary study.

Clearly, I am not alone however. As we continue to see, the questions that I am raising are being echoed by others, and there are an increasing number of studies on the matter.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Ok, I will take a final stab at this and then call it a day as I don't think this conversation is relevant to anything really.

First of all, I hope you realize that you started this thread based on an anecdote and a quote from the bible, then made up a bunch of terms like hockey voodoo and tangential fighting, then you proceeded to demand hard science from anyone who refuted you. I think the reason that you tend to outlast people in these highly entertaining arguments of yours is that it nearly impossible to understand someone's viewpoint that is so incongruous.

I have come to know or believe things in my life without the need for empirical evidence. Not everything, but some things. I know you have too since your whole premise of this thread seems to be based on the strictly non-empirical. My login to JStor expired a few years ago, so I won't post any articles that support my claim. The truth is, I haven't read many, or at least none that produce hard sets of data. My comment on the consensus had to do with me talking with licensed sports psychologists. They would say things like, fear-bad, confidence-good. Apparently, this is not something that you believe. (Really? You don't believe in confidence and security having an effect on job performance?) Anyhow, from there, I constructed a scenario in which removing fighting from the NHL would have a negative effect. I don't think it is so far-fetched, and I don't think it's a non-sequitur. I mean, it followed in your own line of thinking that the Flames seemed to feel more secure with Big Ern in the lineup. I guess I took to thinking, you know, based on conversations with sports psychologists, a lifetime of observations and experience, and lets see... oh right, common sense that confidence and security had a positive correlation with performance in just about any field. But nope, Text Critic says non-sequitur. That is just a bunch of unscientific nonsense! Has he/she produced any science to back up this non-sequitur call-out? Seriously though, I can't get through everything that he/she says.

My belief is that fighting props up a part of the game (as played in the NHL) that is ridiculously hard to define. If we took out the fighting t-post, maybe nothing would happen. Maybe the floor would sag. Maybe Phil Kessel would fall straight through the floor and break his d*ck off. I don't know, you don't know, and the bible certainly doesn't know. If you want to get rid of it, maybe try bringing some science?

But we've given you evidence.

1) Fighting increases a player's risk for serious injury and very likely CTE. The results are clear at this point

2) Fighting has absolutely no correlation with winning. A twelve year data set showed no correlation with winning.

3) Having a goon on your team does not make your team better


What more did/do you want?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Brian Burke stated that the Flames got hit less last year after the Westgarth acquisition - and having both Westgarth and McGrattan in the lineup. If true, then this is SOME evidence that these types of players help your team win (less injuries, can make better plays as you aren't getting 'hammered' all the time, etc). I would love to have this confirmed or proven wrong.

When you have guys like Backlund (and I forgot whom else) stating that the team feels 2" taller out there when a guy like McGrattan is dressed, that to me is reason enough to give up a contract slot, pay a guy closer to an NHL minimum salary, and have him play 5 minutes a night. Doesn't really hurt your team much as long as he isn't a complete liability out there (getting scored against often, or taking stupid penalties), and allows for extra shifts for players who are deserving on that night.

I do know that players do love the fights. I still remember the quote from Titov saying how he loves it when McCarthy fought, going on how the whole team gets pumped and excited. To me, this does tell me that it does provide some sort of 'energy' to the team, or some kind of momentum lift. Every time? No idea, but like the poster above stated, it has resulted in slightly more goals.

I do think sending out a good enforcer (NOT a goon who is going to rampage and do stupid things out there) telling the other team to 'keep it clean or else' does help. I really couldn't stand Hordichuk because he would continually run guys into the boards. McGrattan gets sent out, and it changes. The Canucks followed-up with Hordichuk's physicality often it seemed. Was it just my perceptional bias? Maybe.

Having a guy like McIntyre or Scott I think is waste. If you can ONLY fight, I don't think you help your team as much. Flames made their plan around McIntyre the last few times and chose to rile him up by hitting him. Worked perfectly (thanks Sarich!). Got a PP or two out of it, and stapled McIntyre's butt to the bench the rest of the game. McGrattan doesn't get baited like that, and is a better skater and forechecker. Of course his possession numbers are going to look bad, but for his role it isn't putrid. He is a hockey player, albeit not one that dictates the play.

Am I 'pro-fighting'? Sure, I will fully admit that I like watching players fight and it is part of the excitement for me. I do think it adds another element to the game. What I don't like to see is players getting long-term serious issues from this. I can understand if the NHL eradicates or places further limits on fighting, and I can support it. I do think that fighting does serve a purpose.

I think the players have it right. They do not want the instigator penalty dropped - gives too much power to 'goons' again (for a long time, I wanted it dropped, just so that 'retribution for a dirty play' wouldn't result in a team further getting penalized, but have definitely changed my stance from it as I think it would bring guys like McIntyre who have no business playing at the NHL level back).

Players do not want fighting eliminated, however. Forgot what the percentage was, but I remember it being very high in favor of keeping fighting in hockey.

If the players and coaches feel that fighting contributes positively to the game, then that is enough evidence to agree. They are the ones out there with the most insight into how the game has 'changed' when a fight has taken place. How do you reliably measure it? How can you measure an emotional lift? Even if it is nothing more than just a placebo effect, it may still positively affect the outcome of the game (or a future game, as perhaps the 'statement' has been made - I am sure other teams took note of the Vancouver-Calgary line brawl and started seeing Calgary as a team you can't push around and intimidate any longer - did it change other teams' tactics for the games? Maybe, maybe not).

I would definitely love to see Burke's numbers on the hits. One of the few ways you can provide empirical data with regards to fighting.

As a guy who does enjoy it, and who thinks it provides more emotion and excitement, I do think it will be phased out of the game, and I am not sure I would disagree (regardless of my enjoyment of it). I do think it provides a lift, momentum, and some form of protection from 'dirty plays' somewhat. Why do I believe this? Because the players seem to believe it. If the players believe it, then I do think it gives them courage, or energy, or excitement, or whatever other emotions that help them perform. How do you measure it? Is it a good enough reason? I have no idea, but the people much closer to the game mostly feel it is important.

[koop]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

When you have guys like Backlund (and I forgot whom else) stating that the team feels 2" taller out there when a guy like McGrattan is dressed, that to me is reason enough

A reporter asks Backlund "does playing with McGratton help your game and give you more space?" What do you think he's going to say about his teammate? He may very well feel that way, I don't know, but I don't see the point in putting much stock in stupid cliched answers to stupid questions asked to players.