McGrattan ko'ed in the AHL

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I don't think insinuating that anyone who enjoys fighting is stupid is the smart way to go here...

Definitely not smart which is why I didn't do that. Do you understand what sensible means?

[JiriHrdina]

Watch the personal attacks in this thread please.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Definitely not smart which is why I didn't do that. Do you understand what sensible means?

I sure do. It is not sensible for you to continue your lastest trend of insulting anyone who doesn't necessarily agree with you. Or those who didn't even disagree with you but simply pointed out you are going the wrong way down a one way street; but if you are too proud to back up, feel free to keep going.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Watch the personal attacks in this thread please.

It's impossible for the fighting crowd. Which is why hardly anybody speaks out against fighting because of the bullying and personal attacks. Doesn't bother me as it just proves my point that anyone who likes fighting doesn't have a valid reason for it to stay in hockey so they resort to other tactics because they know they like fighting but once they dig deep down for that reason it's an empty feeling.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I sure do. It is not sensible for you to continue your lastest trend of insulting anyone who doesn't necessarily agree with you. Or those who didn't even disagree with you but simply pointed out you are going the wrong way down a one way street; but if you are too proud to back up, feel free to keep going.

Quote the posts which I insulted someone.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

It's impossible for the fighting crowd. Which is why hardly anybody speaks out against fighting because of the bullying and personal attacks. Doesn't bother me as it just proves my point that anyone who likes fighting doesn't have a valid reason for it to stay in hockey so they resort to other tactics because they know they like fighting but once they dig deep down for that reason it's an empty feeling.

Your posts have been more ridiculous than anyone else in this thread.

You're being childish. Without saying it directly, you're basically implying that anyone who supports fighting is too dumb to come up with a reasonable argument.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by codynw

Your posts have been more ridiculous than anyone else in this thread.

You're being childish. Without saying it directly, you're basically implying that anyone who supports fighting is too dumb to come up with a reasonable argument.

No I'm saying it's impossible to come up with a reasonable argument. Go ahead, try and come up with a reasonable argument onto why fighting should be allowed.

The smartest person in the world couldn't do it.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Quote the posts which I insulted someone.

Let's see...

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

No surprise that posters who like watching meatheads fighting can't make a sensible argument.

We have this one here, where you feel the need to suggest anyone who enjoys fighting is not smart enough to make a sensible argument. It is also rather condescending that you refer to any fighter as a meathead, when I am sure guys like Ivanans and Westgarth would gladly speak up about that.

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Definitely not smart which is why I didn't do that. Do you understand what sensible means?

And here you insult my intelligence.

[Coach]

Fighting isn't allowed, the same way hooking isn't allowed. There's a penalty for it.

Whether you think that's harsh enough or not is a different question. But it's not allowed. It's against the rules.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

No I'm saying it's impossible to come up with a reasonable argument. Go ahead, try and come up with a reasonable argument onto why fighting should be allowed.

The smartest person in the world couldn't do it.

This to me looks a lot like you're implying that anyone who supports fighting is dumb.

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

No surprise that posters who like watching meatheads fighting can't make a sensible argument.

I don't even necessarily support fighting anymore. Definitely not as much as I used to. But you're just being ridiculous.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Still waiting for someone to make a legitimate argument onto why fighting should still be in hockey. Instead we have a bunch of teenagers bullying and thanking posts and calling me stupid.

No surprise that posters who like watching meatheads fighting can't make a sensible argument.

Prepare to be truth bombed.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/g...ames-comeback/

In the replacing Mark Giordano department, the pairing of Dennis Wideman and Kris Russell had three assists each. Another defenceman, Deryk Engelland, stepped up with a momentum-changing scrap when the Flames were trailing 2-0 early in the first period.
“Eggo steps up, has a big fight for us, changes the tide,” said Russell.

Engelland's fight last season vs Anaheim, according to Russell, changed the tide of the game and led to the win.

If a fight can inspire a team to a win, well then that's a legitimate argument to keep it in the game in my book.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

No I'm saying it's impossible to come up with a reasonable argument. Go ahead, try and come up with a reasonable argument onto why fighting should be allowed.

The smartest person in the world couldn't do it.

Tradition.

There you go, sensible argument. You may not agree with it but most of what we do in life is no more than tradition from circumcision to marriage to funerals to celebrating birthdays to wearing red to a Flames game and like it or not tradition is very important to a lot of people.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

It's impossible for the fighting crowd. Which is why hardly anybody speaks out against fighting because of the bullying and personal attacks. Doesn't bother me as it just proves my point that anyone who likes fighting doesn't have a valid reason for it to stay in hockey so they resort to other tactics because they know they like fighting but once they dig deep down for that reason it's an empty feeling.

From the start, your posts seemed to be designed with a purpose to get a certain type of response.

I would say that this is a thread on a particular incident in hockey to one of the board's more recently loved players. It is fine that you don't like or agree that fights happen in hockey. There are a few threads on fighting in hockey you can pull up to argue your case there. I just don't see why you would enter a thread like this, and start posting in this manner, and not expect some type of backlash.

Also, I find it very offensive to call anyone that enjoys a hockey fight stupid. You aren't getting attacked because you don't agree with hockey - you are getting the type of responses that one would expect based on your posts. What type of a reaction are you really soliciting here? Reasonable discussion? I would say it seems you are more intent on escalating more than anything else.

If you really want to have a discussion on the merits (or not) of fighting, there aren't that many older threads that can be revived and you can discuss it there (imo). I am obviously not a mod or anything (and I am really not trying to overstep my boundaries or anything), but that is what I would personally do if I was in your situation rather than continuing this posting style that is at the very least, not diffusing the situation to the point where a reasonable discussion can be had, and to which you claim you are looking for. Just my two cents.

[Vulcan]

Hockey is a game of intimidation. A big part of intimidation is physical toughness. Fighting is a part of this. If you remove it completely the game is changed and we get something like basketball which seems to be what a lot of non fans want. The majority of hockey fans like a good scrap.

Another part of this is that players have traditionally policed their own game. This can be seen from the basic pick up game to the NHL. What we call goons used to be called policemen because they helped enforce the game so that a player or team didn't take advantage without paying a price. Today we now have two refs so that less is missed but still it isn't perfect and can never be despite all the video reviews. Myself I'm getting sick of the delays for video reviews for possible off sides etc and it will probably get worse. The NHL is trying to take the policing out of the players hands and it is succeeding to some extent but it's still a part of hockey and always will be for me.

[Russic]

I find the "tide changing" aspects of a fight to be interesting. Tons of guys will use the argument, but statistically I don't think it can be backed up. It may give the team a jolt of energy, but I think you're much more likely to hear about the times the jolt has a benefit. Plenty of times teams get energized but it doesn't change anything.

I don't personally like fighting in hockey, but I can probably take a stab at arguing for it. Fighting is without doubt the #2 crowd engaging event behind goals. Removal of hockey would certainly (in my mind) remove the game from a certain type of new fan, and perhaps some old ones. The argument could be made that those fans aren't important, but perhaps they are. Fighting certainly gives the game exposure.

The counter to that is that fighting keeps people away as well. There are leagues that have banned fighting... are there numbers to back up if they've dropped or gained in popularity?

I like McGrattan, but recently I'm finding myself wanting to see fighting less. I'm told fighting makes the game less dangerous and chippy, yet the majority of sports don't have fighting and we don't see incidents like Nurse happening in those sports. It's supposed to energize a team, yet statistically it seems beneficial to not do it. It's supposed to make rats accountable, yet many rats smile and skate away when challenged (because you know... they're good at being rats).

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Russic

It's supposed to make rats accountable, yet many rats smile and skate away when challenged (because you know... they're good at being rats).

Which circles back to the instigator rule which many people still hate so many years later. To me if that particular rule change from that many years ago is still debated, it means that fighting still has a place because it is still important to enough people.

[Galakanokis]

How about respect? Motivation? Displaying a never back down attitude? It came up in the Vancouver is No Good thread. Would we look at Henrik (whichever Sedin it was) differently if he had stood up for himself when Marchand was speed bagging his head? Would his team have responded differently in the series? I think so.

I am not a huge fan of fighting especially the staged ones but I do think there is a time and place for it. It's an emotional game played with high intensity and is very physical. Sometimes there are only so many slashes and crosschecks a man can take before he does something about.

[JiriHrdina]

I think people are kidding themselves if they don't believe fighting will be gone entirely within 10 years, if not much sooner.
Concussions will be the main reason.
I don't buy into the argument that fighting has ever been a successful deterrent. There have been dirty players and dirty plays as long as hockey has existed, and I don't see any proof that scraps have any impact on that.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Which circles back to the instigator rule which many people still hate so many years later. To me if that particular rule change from that many years ago is still debated, it means that fighting still has a place because it is still important to enough people.

I respect your opinion, but I just feel like if enforcers were true policemen and peacekeepers then we would have seen a lot more peace in their heyday. Instead it looked a bit like the wild west. Perhaps I'm way off base there.

You just can't run these events twice. You can't say "See, had he fought they would have won", because we'll never know. All we can do is say "he didn't fight, and they lost, so I guess that's why."

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Russic

I respect your opinion, but I just feel like if enforcers were true policemen and peacekeepers then we would have seen a lot more peace in their heyday. Instead it looked a bit like the wild west. Perhaps I'm way off base there.

You just can't run these events twice. You can't say "See, had he fought they would have won", because we'll never know. All we can do is say "he didn't fight, and they lost, so I guess that's why."

I never said I believed it. But enough people do that it still gets mentioned and I think that says alot about how important fighting is to people still.