Yzerman, Shero and Rutherford want to explore eliminating fighting

[Street Pharmacist]

How many players will throw their teammates under the bus and say they don't want fighting in hockey even if they feel that way. There's many reasons for it

1) Don't want to look weak
2) Some of their often closest teammates have a job because there is fighting
3) Lots of bubble players have a job because they can fill that need if necessary
4) In a union environment they will NEVER vote to get rid of some members
5) There will always be those resistant to change just because

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Burrows has played at the World Championships. Funny how none of the other teams had goons to keep him honest.

They wouldn't be able to keep him honest anyway. They would be too busy trying to keep him from biting their fingers.

[Hanna Sniper]

rinse repeat

until the players vote drastically changes, and thats not going to happen for a long long time, then every unfortunate moment during a fight will bring out the same press agenda to change the game.

Thats what the press does, an freak injury that happens whether it be a helmetless player skating at warmups, a player skating with his head down, a one sided ko in a fight will bring a immediate uproar from the media before any public response has time to reacted. We as viewers react to the media's whim rather the the media reporting the voice and desires of the people the are reporting too. This (fighting in the NHL) is NOT the NHL's wishes, Not the players wishes and Not the fans wishes... yet this is a major witch hunt by the media at the drop of a hat at the moment they can use a players injury as a sympathy ambulance chasing sort of way

If the media wishing to remove fighting from the game then they need to stop waiting for incidences like what happened to Parros (which was balance and not the actual fight) and listen and give guys like dave schultz more air time and not just when something bad happens. If you want to see a man speak negatively on fighting's place in the game then look at him. Bob Probert donated his brian to concussion research, focus on those stories if the goal is sincere.... but its not.

The media knows the arguments, they know the results and they know that this is the easy root for their reporting will be the water cooler talk the next day. This has less to do about Fight in the game then ratings (not NHL but TSN)

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by strombad

You're trying to prove a different point than the one I'm making and pretending they're the same. Obviously former players know more about the long term health effects of fighting than current players, what idiot would make an argument against that?

I'm just trying to discuss a topic.

Realistically, I do not think the game has changed so much since Yzerman played that he is now out of touch with the way things are. Also, the changes to the game that have occurred in the last decade has mainly been about increasing safety, speed and scoring and restricting fighting and hitting.

In the last 30 years, fighting as an activity has been put into a smaller and smaller cage with more rules wrapped around it and more restrictions as to how it can be performed. Back in the day, you wouldn't just have fights and line brawls, you would have bench clearing brawls that could potentially spill into the stands.

So really, a player in the 80s would be much more in touch with the culture of fighting than anyone actively playing today. They would also be more in touch with the consequences. AND as GMs these guys in particular are painfully aware that there is a dedicated roster spot for a "goon" that serves no purpose other than to cater to the last breath of the culture of fighting. That puts them in a very unique spot to push to eliminate the role and restructure their organizations.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Only two of those names played in the NHL. 2 minus 2 equals 0.

You're one for three on that list. It's too bad it's the last one instead of the first one.

Burrows has played at the World Championships. Funny how none of the other teams had goons to keep him honest.

READ:
- Find where I say "retired from the NHL", I simply said retired, as in, retired from hockey.
- Find where I say Burrows wasn't invited to the World Championships. Find where I discussed the World Championships as opposed to the Olympics.
- Find where I said a goon is required in hockey, at all. Go ahead. Find it.

THINK:
- Think of the things above and realise that you're posting inane ramblings while you struggle not to be embarrassed and trying to pass it off like you have a point.
- Think of the difference between requiring fighting to police the game, and requiring enforcers to police the game. There's a very large difference.

POST:
- Post a response where you've actually read the posts you're responding to, thought about their content, and formed a valuable opinion.
- In this post, try to include your thoughts and opinions on the matter in response to other posts. Comments like "read the title" are captivating to you, I'm sure, but they make you come off like an ignorant troll with nothing intelligent to say.

You're welcome.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I'm just trying to discuss a topic.

Realistically, I do not think the game has changed so much since Yzerman played that he is now out of touch with the way things are. Also, the changes to the game that have occurred in the last decade has mainly been about increasing safety, speed and scoring and restricting fighting and hitting.

In the last 30 years, fighting as an activity has been put into a smaller and smaller cage with more rules wrapped around it and more restrictions as to how it can be performed. Back in the day, you wouldn't just have fights and line brawls, you would have bench clearing brawls that could potentially spill into the stands.

So really, a player in the 80s would be much more in touch with the culture of fighting than anyone actively playing today. They would also be more in touch with the consequences. AND as GMs these guys in particular are painfully aware that there is a dedicated roster spot for a "goon" that serves no purpose other than to cater to the last breath of the culture of fighting. That puts them in a very unique spot to push to eliminate the role and restructure their organizations.

I think we're on the same page-ish. Maybe the same chapter, different page.

I'm all for abolishing the role of the enforcer, I just don't buy that a former player is as in touch with the value of fighting. Again, that's not to say we should have enforcers rolling around, I'm all for penalties that decrease fighting substantially, but I believe it should remain a viable option.

As I said, you're kind of discussing the negative effects of the dedicated fighter and if his role holds value, and I agree with you entirely on the fact that it really doesn't.

But the role of fighting in the NHL is something I firmly believe in. Give me a Schenn/Lupul scrap once a month over a Parros/Orr scrap once a week. There's too much fighting, and too much of it serves such little purpose. Players use it to show value, to try and change the flow of a game, and I don't think that works anymore. It should be use between capable players as a direct method of deterrence. If Lupul runs Giroux, then Lupul should scrap a guy his size, not have Orr go out and scrap with a Philly enforcer, that stuff is garbage.

[Tinordi]

Good article on fighting in today's NHL:

http://canucksarmy.com/2013/10/2/loo...e-have-to-talk

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by strombad

But the role of fighting in the NHL is something I firmly believe in. Give me a Schenn/Lupul scrap once a month over a Parros/Orr scrap once a week. There's too much fighting, and too much of it serves such little purpose. Players use it to show value, to try and change the flow of a game, and I don't think that works anymore. It should be use between capable players as a direct method of deterrence. If Lupul runs Giroux, then Lupul should scrap a guy his size, not have Orr go out and scrap with a Philly enforcer, that stuff is garbage.

Right, very similar viewpoints. Get rid of the goons.

Previously my stance was to go ahead and keep the fighting. Every once in a while it provided some decent excitement when an actually good fight took place or when it wasn't a staged goon fight.

However, I recently had a change of mind and I am more of the mindset that I do not see the value of fighting, at all, at any level of hockey. When I really sit down and think about it, the fighting is so staged that it really doesn't perform the function that it was originally designed for. I know the current NHL players claim otherwise but truthfully, these guys are all paid so much money that there is no way that a fight is going to get them to change their game, especially if their $$ is based on them playing the game the way that they do.

Really, the only reason I would give 5 fights before the automatic suspensions (as I posted half a dozen pages back) is to give a buffer for the star players to get dragged into a fight by a plug and not get an automatic suspension. The last thing I would want to see is 4th line grinders targetting first line players for fights in order to trigger an automatic suspension.

[renny]

Originally Posted by strombad

<snipped>
It's like going up to a police offer and questioning their need for a gun, they then say "well it acts as both a deterrent and protection" but you just turn around and say "you don't know best, there's no proof of that, let me take away your gun and we'll see."<snipped>

Actually, living in Japan, in general cops do not carry guns and guess what, Japan is one of the safest countries in the world. So, there is no proof that it acts both as a deterrent and protection, conversely there's proof that it's unnecessary in the enforcement of law.

Your example is pretty poor, also, you do realize that Yzerman has only retired for about 6 years. Yzerman isn't THAT far removed from the situation.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Really, the only reason I would give 5 fights before the automatic suspensions (as I posted half a dozen pages back) is to give a buffer for the star players to get dragged into a fight by a plug and not get an automatic suspension. The last thing I would want to see is 4th line grinders targetting first line players for fights in order to trigger an automatic suspension.

That would be a total disaster, and a very real possibility. Hockey, like most sports at that level, is high adrenaline and high testosterone. There's no way in the world you guy a whole season without plugs drawing at least a couple star players into fights if they know it's going to lead to an automatic suspension.

This (KIND OF) speaks to the argument about keeping players honest. If you make it an automatic suspension, you're going to have pests looking to draw players into that zone with dirty play, in hopes that a star player gets too heated and drops the gloves.

Probably doesn't happen more than a few times a season, but it's a very real possibility. That's why I'm into the 5 fights limit. It's enough for spontaneous fighting to occur without good players getting shut down for multiple games, but not enough for guys like Orr to have any value on a team. It's got to be the way it goes.

Though, Shanahan could just do what he does now and hand out different levels of punishment based on the skill level of the player. That seems to work

[strombad]

Originally Posted by renny

Actually, living in Japan, in general cops do not carry guns and guess what, Japan is one of the safest countries in the world. So, there is no proof that it acts both as a deterrent and protection, conversely there's proof that it's unnecessary in the enforcement of law.

Your example is pretty poor, also, you do realize that Yzerman has only retired for about 6 years. Yzerman isn't THAT far removed from the situation.

It really was just a casual example, but if you want to attack it to high heavens, be my guest! I just used it as a basic example, I didn't necessarily intend to go into the crime rates and police effectiveness of different countries. But I'm sure you're right, my casual example would probably do me no good in court.

It's 7 years, if we're being nitpicky, but my point didn't hinge on how much the game has changed, as it hasn't much in 7 years, but rather the effect of being away from daily physical competition, in which 7 years is still pretty long. Your headspace changes, you no longer think the game the same way. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad. Stevie Y might be right about all this, but concerning the value of having fights be a viable option in the game, I'm still leaning on current players.

Either way, you're probably right about the police, if that's what you think my argument hinged on, feel free to disregard the entirety of it.

[TheGrimm]

There are a lot of ideas in this thread revolving around punishment of the player who is fighting. Escalating suspensions etc just means owners will bring in more replacement goons. I think to address the issue of goons while still leaving the occasional "heated" fight that most of us are fans of, the answer is to fine the team for each fight.

If you keep hitting the owners pockets every time one of their goons fights you will see a marked reduction in the amount of enforcers each team is willing to run.

Personally, I would like to see a 5-10 fight free zone, and then have additional fights cost $50k of CAP space. The numbers could be tweaked obviously, but you get the idea.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by strombad

READ:
- Find where I say "retired from the NHL", I simply said retired, as in, retired from hockey.

How am I supposed to know what you mean when you defend yourself with vague and misleading language?

Even then none of those three guys are retired from hockey. They are still working in hockey. Maybe you meant retired from playing hockey. Or retired from playing NHL hockey.

Although your assertion goes from actual NHL player as in this statement from you:

I take big issue with your assertion that you, or anybody else, might know more about the role of fighting in the NHL than actual NHL players.

Since Shero never played a game in the NHL I don't think anyone is going to think of him as an actual NHL player but both Yzerman and Rutherford have played NHL games so they are only two of the three in the title you can logically disqualify from your previous statement when you decide to define actual NHL players as active NHL players with this:

As well, how relevant are the opinions of two guys who haven't played a game since the 80's and now have desk jobs on how fighting actually affects players?

Even then it is a silly statement if you are talking about Shero and Rutherford. Both of them have Stanley Cup rings in their roles as GM so they would clearly understand hockey well enough to know how fighting affects the sport.

- Find where I say Burrows wasn't invited to the World Championships. Find where I discussed the World Championships as opposed to the Olympics.

I say there's no goons in the Olympics and World Championships. You say there are no Burrows type players in the Olympics. I point out he played in the World Championships. You're not wrong but you're doing a horrible job in attacking my argument and making yourself look foolish because you're not disproving my statements.

- Find where I said a goon is required in hockey, at all. Go ahead. Find it.

You said actual NHL players know best. It has been stated in this thread that actual NHL players like having the goons around to police the game. Either you think NHL players don't know best and you're contradicting yourself or you know better than actual NHL players and you think goons don't belong in the game. Which is it?

random gibberish

I have a point. My point is that your posts are a waste of time because they are full of poor arguments and contradictions. You defend yourself with vague language that you can later reinterpret anyway you which to poorly defend your statements.

[Hanna Sniper]

Why would the owners financially punish themselves for something they don't want removed from the game, I have yet to see one poll within the NHL, that being Executives, Owners, Players that anywhere favour the removal of fighting in the game.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Why would the owners financially punish themselves for something they don't want removed from the game, I have yet to see one poll within the NHL, that being Executives, Owners, Players that anywhere favour the removal of fighting in the game.

Not arguing the "why", just stating my opinion on the "how". If the day ever comes where they agree they need to reduce/eliminate fighting from the game, I am not convinced that punishing enforcers who are just doing what they are PAID to do is going to accomplish.

Personally I don't mind fighting, but I am definitely tired of the goon fights which don't really add anything to the game. If I want to watch fighting I can watch UFC. I'd rather that roster spot be taken by a player who can actually play the game.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

How am I supposed to know what you mean when you defend yourself with vague and misleading language?

Even then it is a silly statement if you are talking about Shero and Rutherford. Both of them have Stanley Cup rings in their roles as GM so they would clearly understand hockey well enough to know how fighting affects the sport.

You said actual NHL players know best. It has been stated in this thread that actual NHL players like having the goons around to police the game. Either you think NHL players don't know best and you're contradicting yourself or you know better than actual NHL players and you think goons don't belong in the game. Which is it?

I have a point. My point is that your posts are a waste of time because they are full of poor arguments and contradictions. You defend yourself with vague language that you can later reinterpret anyway you which to poorly defend your statements.

Oh my bad, it's ok for you to go around making up things I said because you don't possess the ability to understand them? Too bad for you.
I could easily respond to your comments about my vague language with saying that you're simply struggling to have any relevant or meaningful thing to say, and you're doing so by making up things that were never said and arguing against those things. Would you like to argue with yourself all day?
I have seen your previous posts, you're more interested in fighting and throwing out that one liner instead of ever saying anything intelligent, that's your M.O.
I'm guilty of similar things, but at least I attempt to make a point when speaking to others. Even when I say a few things to rile someone up, I try and add a little bit of a point in there. I have yet to see you say ANYTHING of value towards the conversation, unless you count your ridiculous attempts at invalidating my points as somehow being the same as making some of your own. I don't even know how you feel about fighting, which is what we're talking about here. The closest thing you've said in regards to actually having a conversation is "read the title".
Great, witty, striking barb. Really made your point with that one, not at all "vague", because you know, heaven forbid you might have said some "vague" comment, might make you a hypocrite and all.
Actual NHL players have said there is a role for fighting, they did not mention players whose role was specifically to fight. Again, your inability to read the things you're trying to argue is astounding. You take a basic statement, and assume it means something entirely different in order to fit your argument. Really, go back and read the quotes, do they say fighting should be a part of hockey? Or that players who's only job it is to fight should be part of hockey? You're assuming one because of the other, when they are separate points entirely.
Really, don't quit your day job, you seem to embarrass yourself a lot when you get into little tiffs on here. Try discussing topics, not attempting to negate things by nitpicking points that you've made up.
If your point are that my posts are a waste of time, then I feel terribly sorry that you've got quite literally nothing better to do with your day then re-interpret my waste-of-time posts in order to better argue against my waste-of-time posts. That's an awful lot of effort to put into wasting time. I usually watch a bit of tele, play NHL 14, go for brews. You.... argue on the Internet.... to each their own. I'll let you go on wasting that time. I come here to talk hockey, I've got little time for someone who comes here to argue on the Internet.

[East Coast Flame]

Well past time for hockey to ban fighting. I welcome the day when it finally happens. All fighting should be eliminated. Period. It is a lothsome part of the greatest sport in the world.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

Well past time for hockey to ban fighting. I welcome the day when it finally happens. All fighting should be eliminated. Period. It is a lothsome part of the greatest sport in the world.

As long as it's hockey(re:the players themselves) that get rid of fighting. As long as the players themselves deem fighting is necessary then I don't see it going anywhere for awhile.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by strombad

Oh my bad, it's ok for you to go around making up things I said because you don't possess the ability to understand them? Too bad for you.

Oh, I'm plenty capable of understanding pretty much any discussion about hockey. I understand what you're writing but I don't know if you do.

I did not make up anything you said. I just logically filled in the gaps of your vague statements.

I could easily respond to your comments about my vague language with saying that you're simply struggling to have any relevant or meaningful thing to say, and you're doing so by making up things that were never said and arguing against those things. Would you like to argue with yourself all day?

Just because you can't come up with a logical argument doesn't mean that I'm making things up or arguing about things you've never said. You're a horrible poster. You hide behind vague language and illogical statements but nitpick irrelevant things.

I have seen your previous posts, you're more interested in fighting and throwing out that one liner instead of ever saying anything intelligent, that's your M.O.

Good for you. Based upon the source I'll give your opinion the consideration it deserves.

I'm guilty of similar things, but at least I attempt to make a point when speaking to others. Even when I say a few things to rile someone up, I try and add a little bit of a point in there.

So you admit to trolling? Nice.

I have yet to see you say ANYTHING of value towards the conversation, unless you count your ridiculous attempts at invalidating my points as somehow being the same as making some of your own. I don't even know how you feel about fighting,

I've posted my thoughts on fighting multiple times in this thread. For someone who claims to have read my previous posts and is participating in this thread to not know how I feel about fighting that's pretty embarrassing.

which is what we're talking about here. The closest thing you've said in regards to actually having a conversation is "read the title".
Great, witty, striking barb. Really made your point with that one, not at all "vague", because you know, heaven forbid you might have said some "vague" comment, might make you a hypocrite and all.

You should probably read threads before you start participating in them.

Actual NHL players have said there is a role for fighting, they did not mention players whose role was specifically to fight. Again, your inability to read the things you're trying to argue is astounding. You take a basic statement, and assume it means something entirely different in order to fit your argument. Really, go back and read the quotes, do they say fighting should be a part of hockey? Or that players who's only job it is to fight should be part of hockey? You're assuming one because of the other, when they are separate points entirely.

Let me make this nice and simple for you. Step in any time you feel a made an incorrect statement.

You believe actual NHL players are the only ones who should decide on fighting in the game.

George Parros and Brian McGrattan are actual NHL players.

They are also enforcers.

Because they are enforcers it would be in their best interests to believe enforcers should be part of the game.

You are not an actual NHL player.

Your thoughts on enforcers not being part of the game is irrelevant because you are not an actual NHL player.

Really, don't quit your day job, you seem to embarrass yourself a lot when you get into little tiffs on here. Try discussing topics, not attempting to negate things by nitpicking points that you've made up.
If your point are that my posts are a waste of time, then I feel terribly sorry that you've got quite literally nothing better to do with your day then re-interpret my waste-of-time posts in order to better argue against my waste-of-time posts. That's an awful lot of effort to put into wasting time. I usually watch a bit of tele, play NHL 14, go for brews. You.... argue on the Internet.... to each their own. I'll let you go on wasting that time. I come here to talk hockey, I've got little time for someone who comes here to argue on the Internet.

Ah yes. The old "I have a life and you don't" argument. Very solid argument there. Especially when I have averaged 2 posts a day on here and you've averaged 9 posts a day on here. Yes I'm the one without the life and you live a rich and fulfilling life of tv, video games and beer.

Nine posts a day. That's quite a bit for someone who's been here less than two months. Let me guess.... you've lurked here for years?

[Hockeyboi]

Didn't 97% of the players vote to keep fighting in an NHLPA poll?