The evidence we're gathering from the brains of dead athletes is pretty shocking. I'll admit I cheer during a fight, but given what we're seeing I have no problem with it being phased out.
Obviously fighting isn't the only cause of head injuries. There are plenty of guys who barely ever fought but will slip into a world of dementia in their 50s and 60s due to body checks. Fighting however is essentially useless and the easiest to eliminate. The stats show that for all the talk of them being a positive for the team (either by settling things down or amping them up), it's by and large a case of people who like fighting cherry picking instances where fighting may have had an impact. There are a few old time hockey guys I enjoy listening to, but their degree of cognitive bias is extreme.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Russic For This Useful Post:
The best hockey you've seen is when there are 8 all star teams ? No kidding! Must be because there's no fighting, not because the 20 best players from each country are playing!
The point being made is that spectators don't seem to have missed it in those games AT ALL.
I agree completely with Oil Stain about why fighting is down, and the very low number we are seeing are the "heat of the moment" fights that occur with the in-game intensity.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I don't want fighting banned, at all. I think it's existence keeps the game a bit safer. It's a fast sport with knives on your feet -- respect is paramount.
We can't count on everyone out there to have people's health top-of-mind when heading in for a huge hit. What keeps them honest? Knowing Engelland is watching you.
I'm glad the roster spot is no longer occupied by a 'fight only' kind of player, but would never want it removed entirely. You take liberties with Gaudreau? I want to watch someone teach you a lesson for it...
There is virtually no evidence to believe that fighting serves any function as a deterrent. In fact, the opposite would seem to be the case, since dirty players have been a fixture in hockey since any one of us could remember. It never stopped Brian Marchment, or Raffi Torres, or Matt Cooke, or anyone else from doing some of the loathsome things that forged their reputations.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
The point being made is that spectators don't seem to have missed it in those games AT ALL.
I agree completely with Oil Stain about why fighting is down, and the very low number we are seeing are the "heat of the moment" fights that occur with the in-game intensity.
I use to love fights, I use to love fighting.
I can still accept "heat of the moment" fights, it happens in all sport.
What I hate, and can't understand, is the "need" to fight after a clean hard hit is made. There seems to be this belief that a player, after laying a big legal hit should fight. If he doesn't he is vilified. It blows my mind, and IMO, cheapens the physical aspect of the sport.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
There is virtually no evidence to believe that fighting serves any function as a deterrent. In fact, the opposite would seem to be the case, since dirty players have been a fixture in hockey since any one of us could remember. It never stopped Brian Marchment, or Raffi Torres, or Matt Cooke, or anyone else from doing some of the loathsome things that forged their reputations.
This.
In fact, goons are one of the major reasons that the NHL needs deterrents in the first place.
Look at the list of the league's longest suspensions. You have names like McSorely, Simon, Boulerice, Dwyer, May, Brown. Mostly for smashing other players in the face with sticks.
Here's a beauty play by loved tough guy Tie Domi:
The hired goons actually create more problems that players need to be protected from. Employing goons is a race to the bottom.
What stops dirty play is league enforcement. Suspensions are effective because it hurts a guy's ability to make a living. That's the only thing that has proven to work in reducing cheap shots.
Huge borderline hits have been way down since the NHL started enforcing headshots.
Last edited by Oil Stain; 10-30-2015 at 09:16 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Oil Stain For This Useful Post:
To the ban fighting crowd: when tempers are flaring and emotions are high like in the Vancouver series, the players are just supposed to appeal to the refs calmly "he hit me sir, please penalize him".
To the ban fighting crowd: when tempers are flaring and emotions are high like in the Vancouver series, the players are just supposed to appeal to the refs calmly "he hit me sir, please penalize him".
As I said, "heat of the moment" fights will happen. It occurs in every sport.
But as I said in my post the "need" to fight after a legal big hit or staged fight is pathetic.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Mandatory visors for new players, not able to take off your helmets during fights and the instigator are all reasons why fighting will be reduced to a point where the NHL can safely eliminate it without a huge public uproar. I used to like watching fights but seeing two guys with visors fighting just annoys me and looks as idiotic as two football players throwing punches with their helmets on.
As I said, "heat of the moment" fights will happen. It occurs in every sport.
But as I said in my post the "need" to fight after a legal big hit or staged fight is pathetic.
Well good sir we are on the same page. But there are many a fan who think the NHL should ban fighting outright which means a heavy suspension if a player fights.
There is virtually no evidence to believe that fighting serves any function as a deterrent. In fact, the opposite would seem to be the case, since dirty players have been a fixture in hockey since any one of us could remember. It never stopped Brian Marchment, or Raffi Torres, or Matt Cooke, or anyone else from doing some of the loathsome things that forged their reputations.
By the same argument, cops shouldn't have guns because Michael Zehaf-Bibeau shot Nathan Cirillo. Not everyone can be controlled, but that isn't evidence that control isn't effective.
Nevertheless, by the same argument, there is no evidence that fighting is any deterrent as you mentioned.
It's just my opinion, but I really do think that it gives the game a bit more of a 'keep them honest' approach than if it was removed entirely.
Mandatory visors for new players, not able to take off your helmets during fights and the instigator are all reasons why fighting will be reduced to a point where the NHL can safely eliminate it without a huge public uproar. I used to like watching fights but seeing two guys with visors fighting just annoys me and looks as idiotic as two football players throwing punches with their helmets on.
To me this is the biggest thing. They have already neutered fighting to the point its no longer entertaining.
The entire idea behind "heat of the moment" fights that everyone still seems to be supporting is that historically guys could get revenge on dirty or rough play by punching the other guy in the face and sending him a message. But because of helmets and shields, the only message that gets sent is "I sure hope I don't break my hand and miss a bunch of games because I want to get back at this guy."
So while there are plenty of reasons to ban fighting such as head injuries, marketing the sport to a different demographic, etc.. to me, they might as well just ban it because its become less and less entertaining.
I would love to see hockey remain the one mainstream sport where you can take matters into your own hands if someone is committing ######baggery. But because of general safety rules, I feel that even that part of fighting is no longer appropriate.
Well good sir we are on the same page. But there are many a fan who think the NHL should ban fighting outright which means a heavy suspension if a player fights.
Meh, I wouldn't be opposed to say a 1 game suspension for fighting, perhaps it can be scaled to the offence.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
By the same argument, cops shouldn't have guns because Michael Zehaf-Bibeau shot Nathan Cirillo. Not everyone can be controlled, but that isn't evidence that control isn't effective.
That is not the same argument at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Split98
Nevertheless, by the same argument, there is no evidence that fighting is any deterrent as you mentioned.
It's just my opinion, but I really do think that it gives the game a bit more of a 'keep them honest' approach than if it was removed entirely.
But there are lots of professional hockey leagues where fighting IS illegal, and which serve as useful comparisons to the NHL. The evidence drawn from European leagues shows that the game is not more dangerous in the absence of fighting.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Why not? You're saying Player X did this, so it's not effective. I'm offering a counter that shows that anomalies exist in other situations -- and they don't prove a policy to be ineffective because they exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
But there are lots of professional hockey leagues where fighting IS illegal, and which serve as useful comparisons to the NHL. The evidence drawn from European leagues shows that the game is not more dangerous in the absence of fighting.
Sure, but you could also argue that they are very much different leagues. European leagues don't even play on the same sized ice. When we watched the Olympics, I noticed NA players playing far less aggressively playing in a far less confined space.
Other leagues on NA ice certainly serve as an example. But I don't know if any analysis has been made yet to show liberties vs. fighting.
Why not? You're saying Player X did this, so it's not effective. I'm offering a counter that shows that anomalies exist in other situations -- and they don't prove a policy to be ineffective because they exist.
Anomalies don't prove the ineffectiveness of a policy because of the overwhelming evidence that shows otherwise. Besides the point, there is actually a positive argument to be made for removing firearms from police officers altogether, but this is not the place to make that case.
In this instance, cheap shots and dirty plays in hockey are not analogous to the supposed anomalies in your comparative example because there is no good reason to think that their occurrence would increase in the absence of fighting. Just as there is no evidence to show that there has a reduction in such play with an increase of fighting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Split98
Sure, but you could also argue that they are very much different leagues. European leagues don't even play on the same sized ice. When we watched the Olympics, I noticed NA players playing far less aggressively playing in a far less confined space.
There is no fighting in college hockey which is played on NHL-sized ice.
All games in the 2010 Winter Olympics were played on NHL-sized ice.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Why not? You're saying Player X did this, so it's not effective. I'm offering a counter that shows that anomalies exist in other situations -- and they don't prove a policy to be ineffective because they exist.
Sure, but you could also argue that they are very much different leagues. European leagues don't even play on the same sized ice. When we watched the Olympics, I noticed NA players playing far less aggressively playing in a far less confined space.
Other leagues on NA ice certainly serve as an example. But I don't know if any analysis has been made yet to show liberties vs. fighting.
Wait, so a comparison to European leagues isn't valid because they are too different from the NHL, but you somehow think your gun analogy is valid? C'mon man, that's pretty far fetched.
The Following User Says Thank You to dobbles For This Useful Post:
Anomalies don't prove the ineffectiveness of a policy because of the overwhelming evidence that shows otherwise. Besides the point, there is actually a positive argument to be made for removing firearms from police officers altogether, but this is not the place to make that case.
In this instance, cheap shots and dirty plays in hockey are not analogous to the supposed anomalies in your comparative example because there is no good reason to think that their occurrence would increase in the absence of fighting. Just as there is no evidence to show that there has a reduction in such play with an increase of fighting.
There is no fighting in college hockey which is played on NHL-sized ice.
All games in the 2010 Winter Olympics were played on NHL-sized ice.
Fair enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobbles
Wait, so a comparison to European leagues isn't valid because they are too different from the NHL, but you somehow think your gun analogy is valid? C'mon man, that's pretty far fetched.
I said "Sure, but you could also argue that they are very much different leagues". I never said 'look at my gun analogy. Your European league analogy is not valid'.
Makes it pretty difficult to have a conversation here when you offer literally nothing constructive.
Are you offering anything to my thoughts or are you just going to loosely pick apart my argument and infer words like 'European leagues isn't valid' where you see fit to try and make me look stupid?
Love it when a star player has had enough of the hacks and wacks and and chirps and just drops the gloves. Can rally teams and can change the momentum of the game in 2 seconds. Also creates good rivalries.
Also love it when two hockey players hate each other personally (on the ice of course) and end up fighting. Creates good storylines ie. Ferland and Dorsett hating each other during the playoffs last year. They square off first game this season and then put it behind them. They are hockey players.
Hate the staged fights and employing goons. Dumb dumb dumb. While I don't think taking fighting out of the game completely will make the game better, it won't ultimately affect the game too much one way or the other. I think the current trajectory is ideal - goons and staged fights on the way out, fighting down, but still "legal".
