McGrattan ko'ed in the AHL

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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

So you can't produce a single post. Ok then

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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

There is only one person that brought up moral superiority during our exchange.

I like contact sport, my son, my daughter and I all play contact sport.

You haven't been able to show where fighting is a key part of hockey.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

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"?

Fighting is hockey voodoo.

It is a ritual performed during the course of a game that is believed to effect the game's outcome. Without any actual proof of this players have convinced themselves of the efficacy of hockey voodoo from years of being on the receiving end of this strong message combined with anecdotal evidence they can recall from games where they believe a fight to have spurred their own team to victory. It is "essential" only because players believe it to be essential. For any number of potentially life threatening activities and substances we as a civilized society have determined the cost to far outweigh the benefit, and have set strict controls on their occurrence and usage even despite the strongly held beliefs of a segment of the population. I don't see this debate much differently. Fighting in hockey is very dangerous—dangerous enough to trump the beliefs of its proponents about its efficacy and value.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

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.

You have cited your enjoyment of hockey on its explosive demonstration of "passion." I refuse to accept that with a strict control on fighting that passion will suddenly disappear. Players will experience and display the same level of passion whether a fight breaks out or not. The level of passion experienced or on display in a hockey game is not relative to how many fights that occur.

[TomLeeMC]

I think that staged fights will stop but you can't stop fighting outright. Serious question, would players not take liberties on others if they knew the opposition couldn't stand up for themselves and fight it out? Johnny would be getting even more hacks and slashes all game. Then what stricter rules on hooking? Slashes? Sounds like hockey would be a boring sport now. Who would watch that? Your either going to see a lot more chippy, dirty hockey or something very boring that resembles hockey.

UCB posted above that on his beer league team fights are rare but they do occur. My beer league is very similar. Nobody WANTS to fight (we all have to work in the morning) but things get out of hand and people lose their mind sometimes. Now if a 30-something PAYING to play hockey can get his emotions up so high that he has to resort to dropping the gloves and throwing some punches what do you think someone who gets paid millions is going to do when the emotions are that high? Yea they're going to fight, whether it's to stick up for himself a teammate or whatever the circumstance he's gonna drop em.

I for one am not a fan of boxing or ufc. Watching two men beat it out until someone is knocked out is not my idea of fun. But when you have 10 grown men, being paid millions to win, skating around with adrenaline on 100%. Things are going to get out of hand and ####'s going to happen. Emotions will get the better of some and fights will occur. YOLO right? Seriously though I like where it's at now with fighting being down but I find it hard to believe it will be taken right out of the game.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

...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.

Do anti fighting arguments apply just as much to bodychecking? On the contrary, scientists are still exploring the causes of CTE and are still very much in the early stages of coming to an understanding about it. Having said that, the research conducted to date has rather formed a fairly convincing circumstantial link between the fighting culture in hockey and the onset of CTE. Have the same links been suggested by researchers for bodychecking? Not as far as I know.

Moreover, I take issue with this notion that my concerns about the long term effects of bare-knuckled fighting are inconsistent with my views of player safety more generally. For me this issue is not a simple one to solve, nor does the solution occur in one fell swoop of dramatic changes to eliminate all potential for injuries. Based on the information that we do have to date, a reasonable course of action to take that WILL greatly reduce the potential for life threatening head injuries is to eliminate fighting from the game. The fact that this is the only change I would be willing to make at present does not make me a hypocrite, or somehow inconsistent in my thinking. At this point, I think it is a necessary first step to take because it is a simple way towards finding a solution.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TomLeeMC

I think that staged fights will stop but you can't stop fighting outright. Serious question, would players not take liberties on others if they knew the opposition couldn't stand up for themselves and fight it out? Johnny would be getting even more hacks and slashes all game. Then what stricter rules on hooking? Slashes? Sounds like hockey would be a boring sport now. Who would watch that? Your either going to see a lot more chippy, dirty hockey or something very boring that resembles hockey.

There is no good reason whatsoever to think that the elimination of fighting will produce a increase in "chippy, dirty hockey." This is one of the myths perpetuated within hockey culture that continues to promote the necessity of hockey voodoo.

I for one am not a fan of boxing or ufc. Watching two men beat it out until someone is knocked out is not my idea of fun. But when you have 10 grown men, being paid millions to win, skating around with adrenaline on 100%. Things are going to get out of hand and ####'s going to happen. Emotions will get the better of some and fights will occur. YOLO right? Seriously though I like where it's at now with fighting being down but I find it hard to believe it will be taken right out of the game.

Hockey is the ONLY professional sport that tolerates the occurrence of fights on the ice. And this is not because of this ridiculous notion that hockey players are somehow more passionate or more adrenaline driven than professional athletes in other sports. The reason fighting occurs is because this is the conditioned response to objectionable activity during the game that we all learned when we play. Hockey continues to be tolerated because of the misplaced and anecdotally derived beliefs about its efficacy that persist in youth hockey. I am almost certain that as this mindset begins to change—when fighting is no longer promoted as a solution, or tolerated as a valid response among young players and at elite levels of juniour hockey—then fighting in hockey will just naturally disappear. It is already heading quite rapidly in that direction.

[MarkGio]

As much as people have a right their opinion in a discussion forum, I don't think anyone here can discredit the culture of hockey and the meaning of fighting to the players. It has been a staple of the game for over 100 years and continues to take place despite the league's increasing efforts to eliminate it.

I think the philosophers in this forum are forgetting some key science about hockey. We are humans, members of the animal kingdom. All of us are subjected to "fight or flight" instincts, such as territoriality towards our mates, protection of our cubs, predation towards those below us in the food chain, and aggression towards our predators when escape is not an option. We want to "fight" (or agress) people who cut us off in traffic, who insult us online, who oppose our views, etc. Some of the most civilized nations experience some of the most tragic, purely aggressive animal behavior. There was soccer riots in the UK where bodies of other fans are pissed on. These are just normal people who fell into a riot and behaved this way. Look at what people do during the Red Mile. They harrassed women because they were in the comfort of chaos.

Take any colonized nation that had the colonizer pull out and leave the indigenous in chaos, without law and order. People become pure animals. There are Africans who cut each other's arms off out of pure predation.

The point is, you give these guys the system to agress each other, they will result to their most primitive instincts. Fights break out because we are animals, who only "walk away" because the consequences of engaging in a fight outweight the benefits, especially when a person is the prey in a conflict. It's apart of the game so long as it's apart of the players. If it wasn't, why does it then happen? Why do players fight to begin with? Why do they vote to keep it in the game?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

As much as people have a right their opinion in a discussion forum, I don't think anyone here can discredit the culture of hockey and the meaning of fighting to the players. It has been a staple of the game for over 100 years and continues to take place despite the league's increasing efforts to eliminate it.

That's ridiculous. We maintain the right and the obligation to be critical about any number of human behaviours, institutions, traditions, and social trends. Why do you think hockey is somehow exempt from the same level of criticism that we level towards government or religion?

I think the philosophers in this forum are forgetting some key science about hockey. We are humans, members of the animal kingdom. All of us are subjected to "fight or flight" instincts...

Well, if I can speak for the "philosophers" I would counter that we are not at all ignoring the instinctive patterns in human behaviour. Quite to the contrary, I would say that my promotion of the need to quell these instincts actually stems from a clear recognition of their existence. And we have and continue to overwhelmingly demonstrate as a species an ability to correctly assess contexts in which the appropriate "fight or flight" response applies. I would maintain that sporting events are NEVER the appropriate venue, so why should we continue to tolerate such behaviour from players or fans?

Take any colonized nation that had the colonizer pull out and leave the indigenous in chaos, without law and order. People become pure animals. There are Africans who cut each other's arms off out of pure predation.

You quite frankly don't know what you are talking about. This is not a behaviour tied to "pure predation." This is the result of centuries of tribalism, which is another matter entirely that has very little to do with predatory instincts.

The point is, you give these guys the system to agress each other, they will result to their most primitive instincts. Fights break out because we are animals, who only "walk away" because the consequences of engaging in a fight outweight the benefits, especially when a person is the prey in a conflict. It's apart of the game so long as it's apart of the players. If it wasn't, why does it then happen? Why do players fight to begin with? Why do they vote to keep it in the game?

I answered these questions in post #263:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Fighting is hockey voodoo.

It is a ritual performed during the course of a game that is believed to effect the game's outcome. Without any actual proof of this players have convinced themselves of the efficacy of hockey voodoo from years of being on the receiving end of this strong message combined with anecdotal evidence they can recall from games where they believe a fight to have spurred their own team to victory. It is "essential" only because players believe it to be essential.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's ridiculous. We maintain the right and the obligation to be critical about any number of human behaviours, institutions, traditions, and social trends. Why do you think hockey is somehow exempt from the same level of criticism that we level towards government or religion?

So how can you reconcile that North American society as a whole does not agree with your view of acceptable health risks that adults can choose for themselves? Not because you are wrong that fighting creates health risks...but because no matter how concerned you are for the health of pro hockey players they are adults and they get to decide for themselves.

Your earlier suggestion that players are too invested and are not the best people to decide is nonsense. It presupposes professional athletes decide their safety issues in the middle of an adrenaline fueled rage while actually fighting. They have agents, most of them can read and even surf the same internet sources you can about CTE etc. They vote on these issues at conventions. They have doctors, accountants, insurance policies, wives...they have all of the advice and information that anyone could possibly have, AND it just happens to also be about them personally.

And do not mistake me for saying they come to the 'sensible' decision every time. But for crying out loud it is their decision.

McGrattan being the example that started this thread. We are not his parents. We can be concerned for him as random people, but he is clearly the best person to decide whether he will continue to drop the gloves to provide for his family just as he is the best person to decide whether he will ride a horse or eat peanut butter without an epi-pen loaded by his side.

Are there any stats that say fighting in hockey is an overwhelming health risk more than prize fights, consensual bare-knuckled fighting outside of bars, MMA and NFL football, snowmobiling in the mountains, jumping out of airplanes, NASCAR, smoking, leaving a hospital emergency room against medical advice, and on and on. All of those things are inherently dangerous and yet perfectly legal (within certain rules and regulations).

If society to date accepts that two adult fans can legally choose to punch each other outside the stadium for the sake of settling an argument then why is there some kind of ultra-concern to make sure none of the players ever punch each other in the battle that is the game inside the stadium?

Can anyone answer that?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MBates

If society to date accepts that two adult fans can legally choose to punch each other outside the stadium for the sake of settling an argument then why is there some kind of ultra-concern to make sure none of the players ever punch each other in the battle that is the game inside the stadium?



Can anyone answer that?

Well, society doesn't condone that, society condemns it as moronic, and the laws of consent that would make that legal are also incredibly strict. If not arrested for assault, they'll both be arrested for disturbing the peace.

There's your answer.

[PepsiFree]

On fighting, I don't even think the NHL needs to be drastic to placate both sides.

Give game misconducts for fighting. No extra suspensions, just game misconducts. I think if you get fights down to 5-10% of games played, that's enough.

The question I'M interested in is why, under the assumption that aggression needs release and these men are only playing out their nature, do the playoffs (where intensity increases by a huge amount) feature so little fighting?

Is there anyone out that that argues the playoffs are not premiere NHL hockey in every way? Would they be better if fights occurred in 30-50% of games?

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Fighting is hockey voodoo.

It is a ritual performed during the course of a game that is believed to effect the game's outcome. Without any actual proof of this players have convinced themselves of the efficacy of hockey voodoo from years of being on the receiving end of this strong message combined with anecdotal evidence they can recall from games where they believe a fight to have spurred their own team to victory. It is "essential" only because players believe it to be essential. For any number of potentially life threatening activities and substances we as a civilized society have determined the cost to far outweigh the benefit, and have set strict controls on their occurrence and usage even despite the strongly held beliefs of a segment of the population. I don't see this debate much differently. Fighting in hockey is very dangerous—dangerous enough to trump the beliefs of its proponents about its efficacy and value.

Two things I will argue with you here (and keep in mind, I have previously conceded fighting is not 'essential' but I think it is unnecessary to do anything to remove it):

1. Fighting is not worthless hockey voodoo - it is a strong psychological influence on the confidence of players. A previous poster described it as intimidation. Players might call it a mind f---. Anyway you tag it, mental confidence is a massive element of actual performance in any sport but clearly at the NHL level of hockey. Player confidence being influenced up or down by a fight or a barrage of brutal hits is 100 percent real.

I am able to admit I played against opponents who scared me. I got pummeled into the ice by a goalie once during a line-brawl. Do you think it was voodoo that made me stay further from his crease after that? Nope. No magic involved. His ability to beat me up as he did subsequently affected my confidence and as a result my performance.

And if I was one of the tough guys who protected my teammates, do you think it was not real that my being affected that way would impact our whole team's confidence when we played that team?


2. What proof do you offer that "fighting in hockey is very dangerous - dangerous enough to trump the beliefs of its proponents about its efficacy and value"?

This is clearly your opinion and that's fine. But out of the total number of hockey fights per year, how many people suffer serious injury...or injury at all?

Fighting in hockey has the potential to cause instant death. But at what percentage is that risk? Is it a statistically significant higher risk than a player getting his throat slit open like Clint Malarchuk? Maybe, but I am not aware that any such stats exist.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, society doesn't condone that, society condemns it as moronic, and the laws of consent that would make that legal are also incredibly strict. If not arrested for assault, they'll both be arrested for disturbing the peace.

There's your answer.

Incredibly strict?!

Guy #1 - Hey, wanna fight?

Guy #2 - Ok.

Yep...its a veritable labyrinth of legal technicalities.

And society officially condones it...hence it is not illegal even if we think it is not really worth much as a behaviour.

You and the group of people you associate with may look down on it (and you would hardly be alone) but that is precisely what condone means:

to forgive or approve (something that is considered wrong) : to allow (something that is considered wrong) to continue

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condone

Police might arrest you - temporarily to stop you. But its not illegal so then you get let go. Sort of like getting a penalty in a hockey fight I guess.

[Charcot]

interesting article in the Globe an Mail from Eric Duhatschek about fighting. In it Bobby Smith a pretty bright guy and former NHLer talks about fighting in major junior and NHL.

He makes a number of arguments that the presence of fighting deters actions that might otherwise cause concussions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle29300049/

Earlier arguments about fights being linked to CTE seem clear when looking at hockey. However there are more published cases of CTE in football players and probably concussions in football players than hockey. High velocity hits even without direct head contact can cause concussion.

Smith makes the point in the article that canadian college players have double the concussion rates of NHL players. If true it does support his argument that fighting decreases reckless play that could result in concussion.

It always surprises me when people who do support fighting are against it after "clean" hit. Good clean hits can injure and concuss players. They are not punished by a penalty because they do not break the rules. If you believe that fighting is a deterrent that protects player safety, then a clean hit that injures or could have injured a teammate might be expected to result in a fight.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MBates

Incredibly strict?!



Guy #1 - Hey, wanna fight?



Guy #2 - Ok.



Yep...its a veritable labyrinth of legal technicalities.



And society officially condones it...hence it is not illegal even if we think it is not really worth much as a behaviour.



You and the group of people you associate with may look down on it (and you would hardly be alone) but that is precisely what condone means:







http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condone



Police might arrest you - temporarily to stop you. But its not illegal so then you get let go. Sort of like getting a penalty in a hockey fight I guess.

Even if two people are 100% in agreement that they'd like to fight each other, if one gets hurt, consent becomes void. If someone feels pressured or cornered into a fight, or needs to defend themselves from someone who wants to fight, there is no consent. Lots of issues where fighting is not legal. And that's just the act between the two people, it's illegal to fight on public property.

This is not considering the fact that I think the type of utopian version of fighting you're talking about where two gentlemen agree to meet when the clock strikes 19:00 and exchange fisticuffs up to but not including the extent of any injury plainly doesn't exist.

And no, society does not officially condone it. Even based on the dictionary definition of condone. Unless you're living in a backwards society where fights are never broken up, no attempt is made to stop them, police are never called, etc, but simply walked by/stared at/cheered on.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Charcot

interesting article in the Globe an Mail from Eric Duhatschek about fighting. In it Bobby Smith a pretty bright guy and former NHLer talks about fighting in major junior and NHL.

He makes a number of arguments that the presence of fighting deters actions that might otherwise cause concussions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle29300049/

Earlier arguments about fights being linked to CTE seem clear when looking at hockey. However there are more published cases of CTE in football players and probably concussions in football players than hockey. High velocity hits even without direct head contact can cause concussion.

Smith makes the point in the article that canadian college players have double the concussion rates of NHL players. If true it does support his argument that fighting decreases reckless play that could result in concussion.

It always surprises me when people who do support fighting are against it after "clean" hit. Good clean hits can injure and concuss players. They are not punished by a penalty because they do not break the rules. If you believe that fighting is a deterrent that protects player safety, then a clean hit that injures or could have injured a teammate might be expected to result in a fight.

This part of the article:

It is clear that we could immediately eliminate the 0.8 of a fight per 100 games if fighting were banned from the NHL. But if Bobby Orr, Jarome Iginla and common sense are to be believed, the elimination of fighting will lead to more reckless and dangerous actions on the ice. Those other eight concussions per 100 games are going to increase, perhaps dramatically.

might be why:

In the most recent NHL Players’ Association survey, 98 percent of players said they support fighting, and they’re the ones with the most skin in the game.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/fi...it-stay-or-go/

[Charcot]

I agree that that is the reason players say they want fighting in the game. Smith's arguments and the data from the Canadian universities support the player's belief. Better data with closer comparables would be better. A study comparing two leagues with similar levels of players who are evaluated the same way for concussion would help. Perhaps the AHL vs the Sweedish elite league. The different size of the ice surface and style of play there would confound things though.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Watch the NHL ban fighting only to have concussions increase. The players would probably sue them if that happened.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Even if two people are 100% in agreement that they'd like to fight each other, if one gets hurt, consent becomes void. If someone feels pressured or cornered into a fight, or needs to defend themselves from someone who wants to fight, there is no consent. Lots of issues where fighting is not legal. And that's just the act between the two people, it's illegal to fight on public property.

This is not considering the fact that I think the type of utopian version of fighting you're talking about where two gentlemen agree to meet when the clock strikes 19:00 and exchange fisticuffs up to but not including the extent of any injury plainly doesn't exist.

And no, society does not officially condone it. Even based on the dictionary definition of condone. Unless you're living in a backwards society where fights are never broken up, no attempt is made to stop them, police are never called, etc, but simply walked by/stared at/cheered on.

I think we will agree its best we don't turn this into a 'consent' thread. But if unintended injuries result in a fight that does not void consent.

My point that I am trying to make is society could make it 100% illegal to engage in a fight. We do not.

Pro hockey could make the punishments so severe that it could nearly 100% eliminate fighting. It does not.

In that sense, pro hockey treats fighting pretty much the same as does society at large. So what is the push to eliminate it from the sport?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

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

I neither said nor implied such a statement. If you are not capable of countering what I do say, don't make crap up to make your own position easier to defend.

You people keep pointing to how many levels of hockey do not allow fighting, therefore it is not integral to the sport. That very same argument applies to bodychecking. It is excluded from many levels of hockey, ergo, your logic argues it is not integral to the sport. It is merely a feature, like fighting, that some levels and leagues allow.

You only say hitting/bodychecking is integral because you like it. And because you want it. That's it. That's the reason.

Would removing it represent a change to how the sport is played at the NHL (CHL, AHL, etc.) level? Yup. Would it make the game less enjoyable to watch? Fire of the Phoenix is honest enough to admit is likely. Would is make the game safer? Yup.

So if you actually and honestly care about the health and welfare of the players, then you should be supporting that change too.

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

That should be their call, frankly. Not yours.