Barn Burner: The Boys are Back!! (Boomer, Pinder & Warrener)

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A little more info.
As best as I can source, fighting majors have fallen from 0.64 per game in 2000 to 0.26. But that decline has flattened out in recent years. It's not falling further.
More steps are required to fully remove from the game.
If we care about humans, we should also care about the guys who are having their faces regularly pounded.
Mathieu Olivier had 15 fights last year.
Brandon Duhaime and Mark Kastelic had 10 each.
Pat Maroon and Marcus Foligno had 9 each.

That's still too much for a human to be taking.
The per game averages mask this element, because the aggregate numbers don't look too bad: 1 fight every 8 games.

But there are still guys doing this way too much.

Do hockey players punch harder than UFC fighters? If ten 20-30 second fights per season is too much, how can the UFC justify having these guys kick and punch for 15 minutes multiple times per year?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Do hockey players punch harder than UFC fighters? If ten 20-30 second fights per season is too much, how can the UFC justify having these guys kick and punch for 15 minutes multiple times per year?

Boxer’s dementia isn’t a new idea and boxing is still going strong. Fighting isn’t allowed in any other major league sport and those are really the ones the NHL should be compared to instead of MMA and boxing.

I’m actually glad the league has been moving away from the staged fights between goons. I still don’t mind a fight when tempers are flaring but maybe I won’t miss them as much either if they are phased out

[PepsiFree]

lol these conversations always get so ridiculous. If we want to talk about other sports, what other sport do people feel so personally attached to preserving a penalized act?Genuine question because I can’t think of one. But I believe that if you need to talk about combat sports to make your point then you don’t really have one, because hockey is a contact sport, not a combat sport, so let’s stay with hockey.

What other penalty do people passionately defend? Tripping? Diving? Imagine how silly this would sound if people were saying “don’t tell people how to live their lives!” because they wanted high sticking out of the game. Do people idolize Marty McSorely for his high sticking prowess?

Helmets, visors, neck guards, plenty of things have been implemented for the safety of players that they don’t all like. Maybe it’s telling them how to live their lives but sometimes that’s for the best.

As far as the question over why bother if it’s already a penalty and rare, why wouldn’t you bother? If you’re one small step away from eliminating it altogether, might as well, as there’s zero downside. Most leagues outside the NHL ban it outright. It delays the game and is nothing but a short and long term injury risk. I watch hockey because I like hockey and enjoy it most when it’s the best players playing their best. I don’t need a circus to keep me entertained.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I've still got "if you don't like it watch figure skating" open on my bingo card.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Saqe

You can care about other humans, that's fine. Telling them how to live their lives is another thing.

We live in a society where there are all sorts of constraints placed upon us to prevent us from ourselves.
Such as seatbelts.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I've still got "if you don't like it watch figure skating" open on my bingo card.

I specifically added “I enjoy it most when it’s the best players playing their best” to preempt being told to watch “one of those leagues” (without fighting) lol.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

lol these conversations always get so ridiculous. If we want to talk about other sports, what other sport do people feel so personally attached to preserving a penalized act?Genuine question because I can’t think of one. But I believe that if you need to talk about combat sports to make your point then you don’t really have one, because hockey is a contact sport, not a combat sport, so let’s stay with hockey.

What other penalty do people passionately defend? Tripping? Diving? Imagine how silly this would sound if people were saying “don’t tell people how to live their lives!” because they wanted high sticking out of the game. Do people idolize Marty McSorely for his high sticking prowess?

Helmets, visors, neck guards, plenty of things have been implemented for the safety of players that they don’t all like. Maybe it’s telling them how to live their lives but sometimes that’s for the best.

As far as the question over why bother if it’s already a penalty and rare, why wouldn’t you bother? If you’re one small step away from eliminating it altogether, might as well, as there’s zero downside. Most leagues outside the NHL ban it outright. It delays the game and is nothing but a short and long term injury risk. I watch hockey because I like hockey and enjoy it most when it’s the best players playing their best. I don’t need a circus to keep me entertained.

I don't watch UFC; I find it too violent.

But if we're serious about getting fighting out of hockey - surely we need to get serious about banning UFC. In my mind, it's 10x worse.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I don't watch UFC; I find it too violent.

But if we're serious about getting fighting out of hockey - surely we need to get serious about banning UFC. In my mind, it's 10x worse.

As a society? Sure. The NHL? No.

I don’t watch it either, not my thing.

If we’re being honest, of course it’s a bigger issue than fighting in the NHL. Regardless of what they say about training, etc. All combat sports where hits to the head are a legitimate strategy seem completely absurd to me.

But at the same time, I don’t think it’s relevant to fighting in hockey. We can acknowledge it’s a bigger problem, but it shouldn’t preclude anyone from addressing the problem at hand or be used as a counter point to anything. It’s like responding to “my kids are hungry” with “people are starving around the world.” I mean yes, that is true, but I don’t expect mom not to feed her kids until she’s solved world hunger.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

lol these conversations always get so ridiculous. If we want to talk about other sports, what other sport do people feel so personally attached to preserving a penalized act?Genuine question because I can’t think of one. But I believe that if you need to talk about combat sports to make your point then you don’t really have one, because hockey is a contact sport, not a combat sport, so let’s stay with hockey.

What other penalty do people passionately defend? Tripping? Diving? Imagine how silly this would sound if people were saying “don’t tell people how to live their lives!” because they wanted high sticking out of the game. Do people idolize Marty McSorely for his high sticking prowess?

Helmets, visors, neck guards, plenty of things have been implemented for the safety of players that they don’t all like. Maybe it’s telling them how to live their lives but sometimes that’s for the best.

As far as the question over why bother if it’s already a penalty and rare, why wouldn’t you bother? If you’re one small step away from eliminating it altogether, might as well, as there’s zero downside. Most leagues outside the NHL ban it outright. It delays the game and is nothing but a short and long term injury risk. I watch hockey because I like hockey and enjoy it most when it’s the best players playing their best. I don’t need a circus to keep me entertained.

I sometimes lie awake at night worrying about the limits on hockey players' lives that no-touch icing has resulted in.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

We live in a society where there are all sorts of constraints placed upon us to prevent us from ourselves.
Such as seatbelts.

This is only relevant if you believe that since some constraints are justified, therefore any and all constraints are justified.

Would it be justified, for instance, to forbid people to eat plums because the stones are a choking hazard? I don't think any reasonable person would agree with that. You have not done the work to show that a fighting ban in hockey falls into the category of reasonable rather than unreasonable restraints.

I happen to agree with your conclusion in this particular instance, but you need to sharpen up your argument. Otherwise you are merely preaching to the converted, and you may even deconvert a few of those.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This is only relevant if you believe that since some constraints are justified, therefore any and all constraints are justified.

Would it be justified, for instance, to forbid people to eat plums because the stones are a choking hazard? I don't think any reasonable person would agree with that. You have not done the work to show that a fighting ban in hockey falls into the category of reasonable rather than unreasonable restraints.

I happen to agree with your conclusion in this particular instance, but you need to sharpen up your argument. Otherwise you are merely preaching to the converted, and you may even deconvert a few of those.

I'm not making the argument that all constraints are justified. I was responding to someone saying that "Telling them how to live their lives is another thing." Society places reasonable constraints against all of us. The other poster was suggesting that anything where someone is being told how to live their life, is unreasonable. I was countering that.

As for doing the work, the number of deaths and what is known about CTE is sufficient for me, relative to the lack of importance fighting has in hockey to conclude fighting should be banned.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This is only relevant if you believe that since some constraints are justified, therefore any and all constraints are justified.

Would it be justified, for instance, to forbid people to eat plums because the stones are a choking hazard? I don't think any reasonable person would agree with that. You have not done the work to show that a fighting ban in hockey falls into the category of reasonable rather than unreasonable restraints.

I happen to agree with your conclusion in this particular instance, but you need to sharpen up your argument. Otherwise you are merely preaching to the converted, and you may even deconvert a few of those.

Think of how many hockey games you have watched where a fight did not occur. Now think of how many hockey games you have watched where a fight occurred.

Was there a measurable difference between value or your enjoyment in either instance?

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Boxer’s dementia isn’t a new idea and boxing is still going strong. Fighting isn’t allowed in any other major league sport and those are really the ones the NHL should be compared to instead of MMA and boxing.

I’m actually glad the league has been moving away from the staged fights between goons. I still don’t mind a fight when tempers are flaring but maybe I won’t miss them as much either if they are phased out

Boxing had an issue with guys not hitting each other enough. Boxing also had an issue with guys flopping. Now boxing has an issue with guys that aren't boxers trying to infiltrate boxing.

[memphusk]

Professional players have come out and said that if it takes years off their life to make a better life for their families that they will do it. I don't totally agree with that. I do believe that if you work hard and do what you need to do at your job to put you or your family in a good position without stealing a combanten. Some people are good at this.

Big Ern. Beauty.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Professional players have come out and said that if it takes years off their life to make a better life for their families that they will do it. I don't totally agree with that. I do believe that if you work hard and do what you need to do at your job to put you or your family in a good position without stealing a combanten. Some people are good at this.

Big Ern. Beauty.

When they say that are they realizing they could be meaning decades?

Rick Rypien died at 27
Derek Boogard died at 28
Chris Simon: 52
Steve Montador: 35
Bob Probert: 45
Wade Belak: 35.

I don't think that's what they meant. And having them gone at such a young age, I don't think means they made a better life for their family.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Think of how many hockey games you have watched where a fight did not occur. Now think of how many hockey games you have watched where a fight occurred.

Was there a measurable difference between value or your enjoyment in either instance?

Frankly, yes; because fights occurred in almost every game during the Battles of Alberta in the 1980s, and that skews the numbers.

I have, however, already said that I think fighting should be out of the game now. I just don't believe Jiri makes a good case for it when he says, ‘But seat belts!’ He makes a downright bad case when he says people like him should decide the issue because players are too stupid to know what's good for them.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Where did I say I should decide?
Also I clarified my argument wasn’t “but seatbelts”
If this is going to be one of those extended back and forths with Jay I’ll just bow out now. I know how those go

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Frankly, yes; because fights occurred in almost every game during the Battles of Alberta in the 1980s, and that skews the numbers.

I have, however, already said that I think fighting should be out of the game now. I just don't believe Jiri makes a good case for it when he says, ‘But seat belts!’ He makes a downright bad case when he says people like him should decide the issue because players are too stupid to know what's good for them.

The 80 Battles of Alberta were also between the 2 best teams in the league condensed into a single corridor of Highway 2.

I would venture a guess that what made those battles so epic had less to do with the blood spilled and more to do with fierce competition.

Personally, I can count on one hand the number of games where a fight had any retainable memory of any value, but they're also generally in games of magnitude.

I can't recall any brawl on a Wednesday in February making any difference to my enjoyment level.

[TheScorpion]

And why does that "Boomer" character always wear sunglasses inside? Unbelievable.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

When they say that are they realizing they could be meaning decades?

Rick Rypien died at 27
Derek Boogard died at 28
Chris Simon: 52
Steve Montador: 35
Bob Probert: 45
Wade Belak: 35.

I don't think that's what they meant. And having them gone at such a young age, I don't think means they made a better life for their family.

What's the common here though? I do believe it's extended medication use but I very well could be wrong.