Obligatory fighting in hockey debate thread #84, version 3

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by mhsyyc

Hockey is a game of intimidation as Vulcan says. But intimidation comes in many forms. You can be physically intimidated by Big Ern sticking his mitt into your jaw. You can be physically intimidated by Lance Bouma running your face into the glass. You can be psychologically intimidated as Patrick Kane stickhandles his way around making you look like a pylon and you can be scared sh*tless by Shea Weber loading up on a slapshot that you know will be headed straight for you.

Guys like Kane and Weber take awhile to develop and they're rare. Guys like Bouma are easier to find and are numerous. Guys who fight are cheap and easy to find. That's why the exist. If you can't intimidate your opponent with skill you do it physically.

The things is guys like McGratton don't go around punching guys in the face. They fight only other fighters, in a kind of mutually-agreed-to ritual. How, exactly, is that intimidating to non-fighters? What is McGratton going to do to intimidate Taylor Hall that a non-fighter can't do?

Toughness and intimidation =/= fighting.

[mhsyyc]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The things is guys like McGratton don't go around punching guys in the face. They fight only other fighters, in a kind of mutually-agreed-to ritual. How, exactly, is that intimidating to non-fighters? What is McGratton going to do to intimidate Taylor Hall that a non-fighter can't do?

Toughness and intimidation =/= fighting.

I don't disagree. All else being equal, the best fighters fight only the team's other fighters. The problem, of course, with your question is that Taylor Hall is usually a non-factor for the opponent on most nights because.....Edmonton is no good.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The things is guys like McGratton don't go around punching guys in the face. They fight only other fighters, in a kind of mutually-agreed-to ritual. How, exactly, is that intimidating to non-fighters? What is McGratton going to do to intimidate Taylor Hall that a non-fighter can't do?

Toughness and intimidation =/= fighting.

It goes something like this, Bouma hits Hall and some tough Oiler steps in to go after Bouma. McGrattan steps in and straightens out the Oiler so Bouma can go about his business. Hall goes into hiding.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It goes something like this, Bouma hits Hall and some tough Oiler steps in to go after Bouma. McGrattan steps in and straightens out the Oiler so Bouma can go about his business. Hall goes into hiding.

But if he goes after Bouwa he'll get a penalty.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It goes something like this, Bouma hits Hall and some tough Oiler steps in to go after Bouma. McGrattan steps in and straightens out the Oiler so Bouma can go about his business. Hall goes into hiding.

I actually think this neatly illustrates CliffFletcher's point. Thanks.

Why would Hall "go into hiding" based on something that doesn't happen to him? If McGrattan and the Oilers' tough guy are simply removed from the equation, I don't think it would change the result. If Hall goes into hiding, as you say, following an incident like you described, then I would think it has everything to do with watching for Bouma, and not some other altercation in which he is not involved.

[Oil Stain]

It goes something like this, Bouma hits Hall and some tough Oiler steps in to go after Bouma. McGrattan steps in and straightens out the Oiler so Bouma can go about his business. Hall goes into hiding.


Well, if there is one thing Hall is known for, its doing anything possible to avoid getting hit......

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I actually think this neatly illustrates CliffFletcher's point. Thanks.

Why would Hall "go into hiding" based on something that doesn't happen to him? If McGrattan and the Oilers' tough guy are simply removed from the equation, I don't think it would change the result. If Hall goes into hiding, as you say, following an incident like you described, then I would think it has everything to do with watching for Bouma, and not some other altercation in which he is not involved.

You miss the point, without McGrattan, Bouma can't play his game like he wants and Hall doesn't need to watch for Bouma.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You miss the point, without McGrattan, Bouma can't play his game like he wants and Hall doesn't need to watch for Bouma.

I think that's absurd. If there is no McGrattan and and no Oilers tough guy in the game, then who is Bouma watching out for? Who will Bouma need to worry about for fear of laying out Hall in tonight's game?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I never meant to suggest that his opinion is what carries any special weight, but I do find it significant that—given his history—he has become somewhat vocal about this issue.

Sorry about missing this in earlier reports; I seem to have missed or forgotten these.

S'alright; I get what you are saying. Milbury is essentially a "born-again Christian" as it relates to fighting.

Ultimately, however, his voice is drowned out by the 19,000 cheering fans in the arena when one breaks out.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

S'alright; I get what you are saying. Milbury is essentially a "born-again Christian" as it relates to fighting.

Ultimately, however, his voice is drowned out by the 19,000 cheering fans in the arena when one breaks out.

19,000 happy fans >>>>>>>> brain injury

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

19,000 happy fans >>>>>>>> brain injury

Million dollar salaries + free choice...

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

19,000 happy fans >>>>>>>> brain injury (to a guy that has recieved 7 figures to take on the risk of fighting, and likely wouldn't trade what he is doing for the world)

Now you are getting it!

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think that's absurd. If there is no McGrattan and and no Oilers tough guy in the game, then who is Bouma watching out for? Who will Bouma need to worry about for fear of laying out Hall in tonight's game?

Some middleweight who's a better fighter than Bouma. Tonight though he's got Bollig and Engelland to watch his back.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Million dollar salaries + free choice...

So why isn't it free choi for other workplace safety issues elsewhere? The money? What is the door figure where everything is allowed? Or is it a step wise approach? At a million or more, brain injury risk becomes ok?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So why isn't it free choi for other workplace safety issues elsewhere?...

This is unrelated, but your question prompted me to imagine what it would be like to have NHL-type "enforcers" in my profession...

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is unrelated, but your question prompted me to imagine what it would be like to have NHL-type "enforcers" in my profession...

Lol. Or mine. Wait, street pharmacists often do have enforcers...

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So why isn't it free choi for other workplace safety issues elsewhere? The money? What is the door figure where everything is allowed? Or is it a step wise approach? At a million or more, brain injury risk becomes ok?

You aren't allowed to slam your coworkers into the walls as hard as you can or fire rubber discs at them at 100MPH either.

It is actually sad that this has to be said: a hockey game is not comparable to your workplace.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You aren't allowed to slam your coworkers into the walls as hard as you can or fire rubber discs at them at 100MPH either.

It is actually sad that this has to be said: a hockey game is not comparable to your workplace.

It is though. I can't shoot at people in my job like police can, yet they have safety rules. I sell drugs for a living and others can't, but I still have rules. Where do you get this idea that workplace safety doesn't pertain to hockey? They absolutely still have to follow workplace safety. Sorry, but your condescension doesn't make you point valid.

If you honestly believe in a black and white separation of work place safety and hockey, you're on the fringe, not the minority. Whether you believe the injury is severe enough for the abolishment of fighting, is a reasonable argument. Saying safety concerns are not valid in hockey is definitely a fine opinion.

What's "sad" is you seem to think your enjoyment trumps brain injury prevention.

[Resolute 14]

I've said this before, but the only way an anti-fighting advocate could use "safety" as an argument without being disingenuous would be if they advocate removing ALL CONTACT from hockey. Otherwise, you are simply cherry picking which aspects of player safety you care about to suit personal opinion.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I go back and forth on the fighting thing quite a bit (and I admit - I do enjoy it, and I do think it has an effect on the outcome of a game). Just some random thoughts that I think of when I see these debates pop-up. Both 'pros' and 'cons'.

- The NHL is cracking down on concussions. Checking to the head especially. How many concussions/injuries are the result of fighting in the NHL, and how many are the results of physical play 'withing the rules'? The NHL has removed the 2-line pass. What happens? Players are moving a LOT faster than they used to, and are getting rocked in open ice more regularly. I am willing to bet that more players have suffered more serious injuries from hits.

- Essentially, what is wrong with fighting in hockey? What I mean is, there is MMA and Boxing. Why eradicate fighting in hockey when there is obviously a market for the 'gladiator sports', and when the majority of fans seem to get excited when there is a fight?

- Injuries from fighting do happen. Psychological problems as a result of the stress related to an upcoming game where a fighter knows he will end up fighting someone who is going to beat him up. Some fighters have developed certain addictions in an effort to self-medicate. Etc. There is a real and 'ugly' side to fighting in hockey. Long-term injuries involving the brain are not really well understood - but then again, you have to look at checks. Hockey is a VIOLENT sport - not just from the fighting aspect, but from the sheer brutality of some hits.

- I don't think there should be a hypocritical stance on the whole 'enforcers', 'staged fights' vs the 'regular players' and 'fighting out of the heat of the moment'. You are either pro-fighting, or you are anti-fighting. You either take it out of the game completely, or you leave it in. The 'regular players' are just as likely to be injured (maybe even more likely, as many simply don't know what they are doing anyways).

- What does fighting do for the game of hockey? Do they really release anger that would otherwise be released in different ways (cheap shots, stickwork, etc)? Do they change momentum? Personally, I do think they change momentum as there have been a number of players that have been quoted as saying they get pretty excited when their enforcer goes out for a fight. I do think an enforcer can often impact a game that is otherwise 'chippier' than normal, by having the other team calm down a bit. Perceptual bias? Perhaps. However, when I read or listen to quotes about the smaller skilled guys saying things like "we feel 2" taller out there", or when a 'semi-tough' skilled guy like Jarome comes out and says "I want a fighter on the team, as otherwise I feel I need to do it myself". There is obviously a 'need' for this IF players are really feeling this way.

- Also, shouldn't it be up to the players? Both fighters and non-fighters seem to think (an overwhelming majority of active players from the last NHL player's survey that I saw) fighting should stay in the game. If the players themselves want fighting in the league they play in, and seem to think there is a reason to keep it in the game, and the majority of fans themselves seem to enjoy it, then should it be taken out? I am not sure there is a right or wrong answer actually, and even the 'moral' answer can go both ways (we should be looking out for the welfare of players vs many careers will be extinguished and very good livelihoods will be lost).

- I love hockey because it is fast, it is exciting, there is a lot more emotion shown in the game than any other professional sport that I can think of, and it is the toughest physically out of all the sports. When you start making a case for eradicating hockey - for better or worse - then you have to (in my opinion) have to build a case for slowing the game down and reducing hits, even 100% legal hits as well. The whole issue is on player safety after all, right?

- Lastly, let's get rid of 'goons'. I am not talking about guys like McGrattan. I am talking about guys like McIntyre. I am talking about guys like Gillies (who I am not happy having on the farm, though he seems 'controlled' at the moment). Enforcers know their role and go out and do it. They will physically intimidate and fight. A goon just goes out and 'goons' - a few players have had their careers ended from cheap shots and blatant attempts to injure, who are enforcers. The NHL seems to have stepped up removing outright goons from the league (and they should follow that up with guys who have a history of slew-footing and other cheap shots - like Matt Cooke).

I think getting rid of fighting opens up a huge can of worms the instant you make it about player safety. You can't target just fighting without targeting other aspects of the game (imo) if it is really about player safety. If it is about appeasing what may constitute the minority of fans who are vocal in that they find fighting 'barbaric', then the NHL should come out and address that as such, and not try to include it under player safety. The Pat Lafontaines, Paul Kariyas and Eric Lindroses didn't have their careers cut short from fighting, and they don't have long-term lingering effects from fighting. I would argue the vast majority of hockey players with post-concussion health issues sustained them not from fighting, but from playing in a very violent sport in which fighting is a part of.