McGrattan ko'ed in the AHL

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Keep pretending you hold the moral high ground, UCB. If it is what you need to get through your day, far be it from me to take that from you.

Is it physically possible for you to make an argument without condescension and petty insults?

You've done a freakin' terrible job of illustrating why something that is penalized in the league for 5 minutes is somehow an integral part of hockey that can't be lost.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Keep pretending you hold the moral high ground, UCB. If it is what you need to get through your day, far be it from me to take that from you.

Argue the position, not the poster.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

If you haven't figured it out by now then there's no use continuing this debate.

Hockey is a sport for real men and tough women. If there was no contact or fighting then it would be as dull as speed skating.

You don't have to play it. Your kids don't have to play it. You don't have to watch it. Just don't try and ruin the sport for the majority who love it the way it is/has been for 120 years.

Sorry, can you point out where I have advocated a removal of contact from hockey?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

If you haven't figured it out by now then there's no use continuing this debate.

Hockey is a sport for real men and tough women. If there was no contact or fighting then it would be as dull as speed skating.

You don't have to play it. Your kids don't have to play it. You don't have to watch it. Just don't try and ruin the sport for the majority who love it the way it is/has been for 120 years.

There is a lot going on in this post that defeats itself.

In the first place you advocate for fighting in hockey on the premise of the excitement it promotes in a sport of "real men," and yet this statement on its own must then preclude most NHL playoff games on the basis that fighting almost never happens during the post season. I don't expect that you watch the first round of the playoffs only to conclude that it is "as dull as speed skating."

Second, your call on the history of hockey to promote the idea that fighting belongs because that is "the way it is/has been for 120 years" then fails by implication that game has undergone dramatic transformations to render it nearly unrecognisable in contrast to the product that was played in 1917. Or do you rather feel just as strongly about reinserting the rover and removing the forward pass?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Argue the position, not the poster.

I am, actually. Like I said. Most of the anti-fighting supporters frame the debate as their side being the morally superior one. This, really, is the chief argument being made. "I dislike fighting and that makes me better."

And UCB - I'm still waiting on you to justify the continued need for bodychecking. And, despite what others are turning this to, I mean all bodychecking, not just the big hits.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MBates

...People love to play hockey without fights, without hits and yes even without slapshots. It's called rec hockey and it is not marketable at the level of the current NHL. This is my opinion. We differ in opinion whether one day it will be.

And I don't disagree that over time true thuggery lovers have become a much smaller group. But I think player safety as the bedrock principle is being far overvalued by the anti-fight side here.

The league and the players have a vested interest in player safety. If it is so self evident fighting must be eliminated from the game why is it still there? You are imposing your own views of how much risk a player should take on behalf of adult professionals who don't assess it the way you do.

I think this is a bit of a loaded argument since it fails to recognise the vested interests of players who would keep fighting in the game even at the expense of their own long-term well being. It is not as simple as NHL players performing a consistent or even legitimate cost analysis and always arriving at a sensible conclusion. With fighting so deeply engrained in the culture I would argue that it is all the more difficult for participants who are immersed in the culture to make valid judgements about it. From the time they are teenagers players have drummed into them the message that fighting protects them and it forms a rallying point, and their memories of their own experiences become a self-fulfillment of the message. They promote a fierce belief in the absence of any real evidence and claim it as a fact. On the contrary, given the climate I would actually think that an uninvested outside observer is much more likely to make the decision about what is the most acceptable level of risk.

I don't think my position is unreasonable to take...I am saying the amount of fighting is right where the league wants it and it will stay where it is now. It is not being promoted and as you say it's a small part of the game. So they have the balance just where they want it. Fans who enjoy fights get what they want. Fights that benefit the game still get done. Negative impacts on player health and safety are within acceptable levels. No reason to take any steps to remove fighting from the game any more than it has been to date.

I actually agree with some of this, only insofar as the dramatic trend towards the elimination of fighting coupled with the increasing concerns about player safety do serve to indicate where the acceptable level of risk is headed. A movement towards eliminating fighting at the juniour level seems very plausible to me, and I suspect that a ban on fighting in CHL play would rapidly follow through with the disappearance of fights from the professional game altogether. With how often games occur presently in the absence of a hockey fight, it is slowly but surely proving to be a completely unnecessary element of the game, and I expect that trend to continue.

[taco.vidal]

A few things might speed up the end of fighting in the NHL
-insurance costs or other financial considerations. Money talks.
-serious, career ending or life changing injury to a star player. Imagine Jarome Igunla gets a brain injury from a punch then hit from the ice
-death to a player.

[Zarley]

Fighting in hockey is an integral part of the sport and it will be very sad to see a day when it is eradicated.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am, actually. Like I said. Most of the anti-fighting supporters frame the debate as their side being the morally superior one. This, really, is the chief argument being made. "I dislike fighting and that makes me better."

And UCB - I'm still waiting on you to justify the continued need for bodychecking. And, despite what others are turning this to, I mean all bodychecking, not just the big hits.

If you consider wanting to reduce head trauma an attempt to be morally superior than I guess that's true.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am, actually. Like I said. Most of the anti-fighting supporters frame the debate as their side being the morally superior one. This, really, is the chief argument being made. "I dislike fighting and that makes me better."

And UCB - I'm still waiting on you to justify the continued need for bodychecking. And, despite what others are turning this to, I mean all bodychecking, not just the big hits.

Show me one post where someone has said that. Thats your slanted view of it and not an actual accurate representation of the arguments

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am, actually. Like I said. Most of the anti-fighting supporters frame the debate as their side being the morally superior one. This, really, is the chief argument being made. "I dislike fighting and that makes me better."

And UCB - I'm still waiting on you to justify the continued need for bodychecking. And, despite what others are turning this to, I mean all bodychecking, not just the big hits.

Hitting is an integral part of hockey. It's involved in almost every shift. Rates of injury are far, far lower than fighting. Fighting on the other hand, is absent from almost every game and doesn't change the outcome or affect the game in a meaningful way.

One is a small change to the rules that won't affect the game much yet prevent some serious injuries, the other is a massive change affecting the game immensely.

If you can't see the difference is because you don't want to

[PepsiFree]

Resolute effectively admitted he couldn't comprehend the anti-fighting crowd being anything more than "I just don't like it" because his only justification for fighting is "I LIKE IT!" The fighting/checking thing is just a clumsy attempt at distraction.

I happen to really like fighting but I see that there are more logical reasons to be rid of it than there are to keep it.

As for the fighting/checking thing: the answer as to why one is essential to NHL hockey and the other isn't is clear.

???? - happens in <30% of season games and <6% of playoff games
???? - happens in 100% of games, period.

Guess which is which.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Resolute effectively admitted he couldn't comprehend the anti-fighting crowd being anything more than "I just don't like it" because his only justification for fighting is "I LIKE IT!" The fighting/checking thing is just a clumsy attempt at distraction.

I happen to really like fighting but I see that there are more logical reasons to be rid of it than there are to keep it.

As for the fighting/checking thing: the answer as to why one is essential to NHL hockey and the other isn't is clear.

???? - happens in <30% of season games and <6% of playoff games
???? - happens in 100% of games, period.

Guess which is which.

I think both sides of the argument are calling things 'essential' and 'non-essential'.

Polls conducted on players still hugely support fighting, and many players fight. Tonnes of players will make a hit - and a big one at that - when an opportunity arises. I have seen on the Flames Wideman make a big hit, Stempniak is not known for hitting, but he will hit a player hard when an opportunity arises. Giordano will go games of just 'separating the player from the puck', but if an opportunity arises, he will level a guy. These guys are not known as hitters or fighters - yet they have all fought and hit in the last few seasons.

So, if the players as a whole are much in favor of keeping fighting in the game, then can we not assume it is indeed an essential element? Or "a part of hockey"?

On the other side of the coin, there are tonnes of players that have never fought in the NHL before. Lots of players don't register a hit for a whole block of games. So, is fighting and hitting essential?

I would say that both sides are indeed correct.

I myself want to have fighting and checks in the game - as long as either of them are within a certain guideline. Nurse or Domi type fights? Absolutely not. I was extremely disappointed with the amount of games these guys were given as a suspension. Likewise, Raffi Torres shouldn't have 5 or 10 notable incidents before he gets a half-season's worth of suspension.

I won't speak for every fan, but this is why I like hockey so much:

I love soccer. I used to love boxing (I find it boring at times now with all their bad decisions) and still enjoy MMA. Although I don't follow football as much as I wish since I just don't have the time, I really enjoy watching Football. Basketball with all their plays and individual efforts is something I used to love. Baseball with all their.. yeah, baseball is the only major sport I dislike.

Hockey screams passion. It is a combination of elements that I love in so many other sports. No other sport I can think of has this combination (well, except lacrosse) of all these different elements wrapped up into one game.

The flair of soccer with fancy moves like Ronaldo, Messi, Zidane, Figo, etc - Jagr, Lemieux, Gaudreau, Kane, etc.

The pugilistic warrior way of answering the bell and going toe-to-toe like Holyfield, Ali, Pacquio - Engelland, McGrattan, Ferland.

Buzzer-beater moments to win the game like Curry, Jordan, etc, - Gaudreau in OT (or any Stanley Cup OT).

Defence and tackling like Butkus, Lott, Lewis - Weber, Regehr, and any open ice hitter in the NHL.

Now, to me, that is 'hockey'. Everything so well intertwined into one glorious game. This is why I am a huge hockey fan. I love football (er.. soccer!), and still passionately watch various league games and tournaments. Hockey to me has all the wonderful attributes of soccer, but the dial is cranked all the way up in terms of speed and passion.

Would I watch hockey if fighting was taken out? Probably. It would make me enjoy it a little less. For me, it isn't all about the fight itself. It is the excitement of seeing too guys battling hard and one guy getting so emotionally invested he needs to take off his gloves, or a team mate who sees another pushed around and comes to the rescue. That is emotion for me. Emotion is what keeps me interested in any sport. I would still watch hockey and still enjoy it without fighting, but it would be somewhat lessened. How much more lessened? I have no idea... but I am sure I would get used to it.

Take bodychecking out of the equation, and for me personally half the emotion is gone. Ringette is a fine sport. I am just not a fan of ringette. For me, it would be turning hockey into a form of ringette. Now, it won't be ringette to everyone. I just think I would like hockey a whole lot less since emotions and adrenaline rushes wouldn't be quite there.

Sure, part of the game I love the most is watching players like Gaudreau, Makarov, Loob, Huselius, etc., make extremely fancy and talented plays - even if they don't score. That is fun to watch. Would that happen more often to compensate? I don't think so. It would be a combined 55 total minutes of ringette to me, interspersed with 5 minutes of fancy skills competition.

That is how I would see the game anyways. Maybe I am not envisioning it like it would be.

It is funny that I like some of these aggressive sports. There are times when I admit a bit of a smirk comes over my face when I see someone like Tyson get knocked-out, or when I see a guy get hurt like Nick Diaz. However, 99% of the time I don't like to see someone 'hurt'. It isn't bloodthirst that makes me enjoy those aspects. It is the battle and the emotion that I really love, intermixed with talent and skill.

So, to the non-fighting/non-hitting crowd, what does the game look like to you guys? What am I not seeing in this version that should keep me excited and hungry to watch more? I am really only seeing Ringette at the very highest level personally (and not meaning to insult - like I said, Ringette is a fine game, but one that I don't have an interest in watching). Paint the picture of what it looks like to you. It has to change. I either see ringette or 'boring' trap-like games devoid of emotion.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am, actually. Like I said. Most of the anti-fighting supporters frame the debate as their side being the morally superior one. This, really, is the chief argument being made. "I dislike fighting and that makes me better."

And UCB - I'm still waiting on you to justify the continued need for bodychecking. And, despite what others are turning this to, I mean all bodychecking, not just the big hits.

Res, I think you're fighting a losing battle here. Who has said that?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Show me one post where someone has said that. Thats your slanted view of it and not an actual accurate representation of the arguments

It is just dripping off people like Calgaryblood and UCB, dude.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Hitting is an integral part of hockey. It's involved in almost every shift. Rates of injury are far, far lower than fighting. Fighting on the other hand, is absent from almost every game and doesn't change the outcome or affect the game in a meaningful way.

One is a small change to the rules that won't affect the game much yet prevent some serious injuries, the other is a massive change affecting the game immensely.

If you can't see the difference is because you don't want to

And back into the circle we go. If hitting is integral to the game of hockey, why are there so many levels of it and leagues that don't allow it? Hitting is not integral to the women's game, to most senior/beer leagues, or to most levels of youth hockey.

I can see the difference, dude. And that is my point. The difference is that you like hitting/bodychecking, so you want to keep it. You hate fighting, so you want it removed.

And as an opinion, that is perfectly fine. But the fact that you call one "integral" and the other unnecessary when the very same arguments apply to both is self-serving and borderline hypocritical. Just be honest. You like one and hate the other, so you want one and not the other. I like both, so I want both.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Resolute effectively admitted he couldn't comprehend the anti-fighting crowd being anything more than "I just don't like it" because his only justification for fighting is "I LIKE IT!" The fighting/checking thing is just a clumsy attempt at distraction.

Not at all, actually. You will note that I haven't been calling out people like JiriHrdina, who roots his anti-fighting stance pretty much entirely in the questions of long-term medical issues, and is also aware enough to be willing to look at bodychecking the same way. Though I doubt even he is willing to go so far as to replicate the women's game in the men's - where separating a player from the puck is dependent on positioning rather than initiating contact.

But most people on the anti-fighting side hand wave the medical concerns. I really do mean it when I say for people like Calgaryblood and UCB, I believe the need to come off as morally superior on the issue of fighting is the driving factor. And that is why people like UCB are utterly inconsistent in their views of other aspects of hockey that cause CTE and other issues. That is why we see people twisting themselves into pretzels trying to argue the necessity of bodychecking. They like it, they want it, and they don't want to admit that the anti-fighting arguments apply just as much to it.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is just dripping off people like Calgaryblood and UCB, dude.

Give me a break. I never once said I was better or acted like I was better. I have suffered an actual concussion from a punch and it's made me battle with depression for 15 years. That's why I'm so against fighting in hockey and in any sport. I know the real effects from getting a concussion, that doesn't mean I think I'm better.

My entire life has changed because of one punch. Literally 15 years I've been a different person, suffer constant headaches and depression is the new normal for me. So tell me again why I would agree with fighting in hockey? So yeah it does bother me when I see 2 goons fighting for no reason and people cheering them on.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And back into the circle we go. If hitting is integral to the game of hockey, why are there so many levels of it and leagues that don't allow it? Hitting is not integral to the women's game, to most senior/beer leagues, or to most levels of youth hockey.

The difference is I wouldn't pay money to watch women's hockey or beer league hockey. Actually, you would have to pay me to watch it, and even then I might pass. I tried watching women's hockey a few years ago and I was pretty much bored to tears. Skill level is obviously a big part of it but no physicality was also a big reason. It just didn't seem like hockey, like something was missing. Players gliding around, boxing each other out constantly is not my idea of a good time. I think the pace is slowed a fair bit too since the players know there is no risk in getting hit. No need to make a quick desicion, just take your time because the defensive player is really limited by what they're allowed to do. I definitely wouldn't watch the NHL without hitting, but I wouldn't care if they ditched fighting at all.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And back into the circle we go. If hitting is integral to the game of hockey, why are there so many levels of it and leagues that don't allow it? Hitting is not integral to the women's game, to most senior/beer leagues, or to most levels of youth hockey.

I can see the difference, dude. And that is my point. The difference is that you like hitting/bodychecking, so you want to keep it. You hate fighting, so you want it removed.

And as an opinion, that is perfectly fine. But the fact that you call one "integral" and the other unnecessary when the very same arguments apply to both is self-serving and borderline hypocritical. Just be honest. You like one and hate the other, so you want one and not the other. I like both, so I want both.

So you think 90% of current nhl games is the same as women's hockey. Alright then


Edit: and if you read what I wrote, I love a good scrap. It's enjoyable and fits with the emotions of the game. I just don't think my enjoyment for 40 seconds once every 6 games is written the toll on these guys' brains