Yzerman, Shero and Rutherford want to explore eliminating fighting

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Itse

Since fighting is obviously dangerous, the people who keep coming up with these excuses for fighting should come up with some kind of facts to back up their claims that there are also benefits.

For example; if fights or having known fighters "keep the opposition honest", then that would logically mean that they make less dangerous plays, which should result in less injuries?

Please show that this is the case, this shouldn't be too hard as a statistical exercise. Feel free to come up with another statistical method if you can think of a better one.

I'm getting tired of people trying to build a case for fighting without anything in the way of facts to back them up. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Feel free to come up with statistics that fighting doesn't decrease other dangerous plays.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Itse

Since fighting is obviously dangerous, the people who keep coming up with these excuses for fighting should come up with some kind of facts to back up their claims that there are also benefits.

For example; if fights or having known fighters "keep the opposition honest", then that would logically mean that they make less dangerous plays, which should result in less injuries?

Please show that this is the case, this shouldn't be too hard as a statistical exercise. Feel free to come up with another statistical method if you can think of a better one.

I'm getting tired of people trying to build a case for fighting without anything in the way of facts to back them up. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

How about the fact that NHL players themselves think that it keeps players honest. They play the game, they should at least know better than us, right?

"I personally think you need fights in hockey to keep every one honest," said Flyers captain Claude Giroux on Wednesday. "But you get sick to your stomach seeing stuff like that."

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Zevo

How about the fact that NHL players themselves think that it keeps players honest. They play the game, they should at least know better than us, right?

That is so far from fact it's ridiculous to even suggest it.

People are famously bad at evaluating things close to them.

Originally Posted by Fire

Feel free to come up with statistics that fighting doesn't decrease other dangerous plays.

Hitting people to the head with fists is dangerous and has been shown to cause severe damage to people's health. I propably don't have to provide links for this?

So there you have the negative side. It's proven and it exists.

Your turn to prove that a positive side actually exists.

EDIT: Oh look, someone has looked into it a bit.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...ional-fighter/

There’s absolutely nothing there to suggest that fighting majors deter injury; if anything, the data suggests that fighting more frequently increases the occurrence of injury.

Also, about how it supposedly protects you, Eric Lindros would beg to differ.

Yet despite the threat of a retributive fight, taking aim at injured players persists. Eric Lindros, a star forced to retire early because of at least seven concussions sustained during his career, said players tried to exploit his history of concussions.
“You basically have an X on your back,” said Lindros, who retired in 2007. “Players who before would never come at you, once they know about your concussions, they will come at you, and with high elbows.”

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Itse

That is so far from fact it's ridiculous to even suggest it.

People are famously bad at evaluating things close to them.



Hitting people to the head with fists is dangerous and has been shown to cause severe damage to people's health. I propably don't have to provide links for this?

So there you have the negative side. It's proven and it exists.

Your turn to prove that a positive side actually exists.

EDIT: Oh look, someone has looked into it a bit.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...ional-fighter/

Also, about how it supposedly protects you, Eric Lindros would beg to differ.

I said it's a fact nhl players think it's true, which is indeed a fact and I will take thier opinion over internet posters and media anyday.

Yes, hitting people in the head is dangerous, but the players seem to think that that's a better alternative than letting the NHL dole out justice. You only have to look at the fan reaction on here when there's a suspension to see that it's not just the players that think league discipline is a joke.

Bottom line is the players don't think the refs and the league can police them adequately, and most fans apparently don't either if the reaction to Shanahans videos is any indication. Until they do, fighting isn't going anywhere.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Itse

Hitting people to the head with fists is dangerous and has been shown to cause severe damage to people's health. I propably don't have to provide links for this?

So you have no proof that fights don't decrease other dangerous plays?

Either way it doesn't matter. They are willing combatants. Just like a MMA fighter and boxer. Football is the most violent sport of all, but should the NFL be banned?

[Resolute 14]

Itse - numerous reasons to retain fighting have been brought up in this thread. Numerous reasons have been brought up in every thread. The fact that you do not like them does not mean they don't exist.

[Redrum]

If you don't like fighting there's something else that utilizes some of the same things as hockey I'm sure you'd love, they even have a section on the TSN website about it. Here, read up on it:

http://www.tsn.ca/figure_skating/

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Redrum

If you don't like fighting there's something else that utilizes some of the same things as hockey I'm sure you'd love, they even have a section on the TSN website about it. Here, read up on it:

http://www.tsn.ca/figure_skating/

Really? Figure skating? Boy you sure got us. What's next - that because we don't like fighting we must also like Ballet? Or that we have purses? Maybe we should wear dresses?

Lame. So Lame.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Really? Figure skating? Boy you sure got us. What's next - that because we don't like fighting we must also like Ballet? Or that we have purses? Maybe we should wear dresses?

Lame. So Lame.

Lot's of girls have purses and like fighting, how insulting. But other than that?... yeah pretty much.

EDIT: Now that I think about it there's a lot of people that do all three of those things and enjoy the fighting. That's gotta be a bit emasculating.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Itse - numerous reasons to retain fighting have been brought up in this thread. Numerous reasons have been brought up in every thread. The fact that you do not like them does not mean they don't exist.

Yes and no, but mostly no. The fact that "reasons" have been been brought up doesn't make those reasons true. They've just been brought up.

Stating that fights belong in hockey because they belong in hockey is an opinion, although generally it's formulated less tautologically. I'm fine with that.

But people keep making claims like "fights energize the team" or "fights help keep the game clean", which are not opinions. At some point I'd really want the people who make these claims to put up some evidence or shut up about those claims.

And no, it's not for anyone else to prove them wrong. If you make a claim about reality over and over again, at some point you should check your facts.

For example, here's a link about fights and wins:
http://############.com/2012/1/11/do...eams-win-games

Appleby notes that a team will pick up an extra win, on average, for every 60 fights on their team. This number drops to every 30 fights if a coach is judicious about when he uses his fighters. This, however, is contingent on ignoring the impact on the opposing team - because Appleby finds the momentum swings both ways; in other words, both teams shoot more after a fight. The extra 0.1 goals the team might get after a fight, in other words, are generally cancelled out by the 0.1 goals the other team will get after a fight.

Another quote:

Now before you get excited about your favorite team signing a new goon, remember that an NHL team needs to improve its goal differential by approximately six goals to win one additional game. So winning a fight is worth a little more than 1/80th of a win in the standings; given that the best fighters might win at most ten fights in a season, the direct benefit is probably on the order of having the equipment guys make sure nobody’s playing with an illegal stick.

I could find other links

“I’d say that there’s actually no statistical data that supports the idea that fighting leads to winning,” said Gabriel Desjardins, a Winnipeg-born statistician who has done consulting work for NHL teams and runs the advanced hockey statistics website behindthenet.ca.

...as fighting and winning have been studied quite a bit and nobody has been able to find a notable correlation. Yet that argument keeps coming up. Just stop it, it's just not true.

"Fighting keeping the game clean" is just a really weird claim with nothing to back it up; star players get run all the time, and no link to the amount of enforcers on the team has ever been shown either. So at this point it's just something that people like to say, but is most propably also not true. There is nothing pointing to this being a fact.

I already provided a link where it was noted that more fights actually increased the injuries on the team studied; the Oilers are really a casebook example that fights do nothing to protect the teams stars.

Everybody has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own reality.

And yes, falling back on "the players think X" is stupid. We all know they are not big on safety. They have pretty much systematically been opposed to every new piece of protective equipment too, at first, and then come around to it, and the game has been better for it. They just are not the most objective bunch on the matter.

[Hanna Sniper]

Just a couple thoughts and not necessarily targeting any one person or comment

1. Fighting is no different than any other skill set... when effective and you are able to outmatch your opposition it can be used as a form of intimidation*. The key word is "when effective" nothing is ever black and white and nothing is absolute.

* skill sets like speed and skill and be used as a form of intimidation, as with many other intangibles (puck position)

2. No one can have statistics for preventive jabs taken on your top players due to having an enforcer. If you are able to see alternate outcomes of the result of having a different person dress in a game and who would be affected is just nonsense. Having an enforcer to protect you top players is a viewpoint that only alines with your own personal bias pro/negative. What works with one team does not equal it works for every other team, everything depends on the individuals and your assessment of the individuals you are competing against.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Just a couple thoughts and not necessarily targeting any one person or comment

1. Fighting is no different than any other skill set... when effective and you are able to outmatch your opposition it can be used as a form of intimidation*. The key word is "when effective" nothing is ever black and white and nothing is absolute.

* skill sets like speed and skill and be used as a form of intimidation, as with many other intangibles (puck position)

.

I always wonder, if the fighter code is adhered to, then a fighter will never fight a skilled player. How does the threat of a fighter deter the other team? A skilled player never has to worry about dropping them, who is he affected?

[Hanna Sniper]

why would a skill player drop them? sorry don't understand the question and I don't see why you have a skill player fighting

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

why would a skill player drop them? sorry don't understand the question and I don't see why you have a skill player fighting

Sorry for not being clearer.


I guess my poorly crafted thought is, what does the threat of fighting mean to a scorer. You talked about intimidation, I assumed you meant intimidation of the other team's skilled players. Yet, if the "Code" precludes fighters from fighting skilled players I can't see as how the intimidation is applied against the other team. In short, is a top 6 forward never has to worry about fighting a "goon" where does the intimidation come into play.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sorry for not being clearer.


I guess my poorly crafted thought is, what does the threat of fighting mean to a scorer. You talked about intimidation, I assumed you meant intimidation of the other team's skilled players. Yet, if the "Code" precludes fighters from fighting skilled players I can't see as how the intimidation is applied against the other team. In short, is a top 6 forward never has to worry about fighting a "goon" where does the intimidation come into play.

Eg. Did Kessel play poorer because he was scared of Jon Scott? I think not

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sorry for not being clearer.


I guess my poorly crafted thought is, what does the threat of fighting mean to a scorer. You talked about intimidation, I assumed you meant intimidation of the other team's skilled players. Yet, if the "Code" precludes fighters from fighting skilled players I can't see as how the intimidation is applied against the other team. In short, is a top 6 forward never has to worry about fighting a "goon" where does the intimidation come into play.

Well, this is where the 'staged' aspect comes up in my mind.

Teams now have dedicated roster spots for guys who otherwise can't play at an NHL level. Usually, they have a combination of skills that are lacking: can't skate at an NHL level, can't pass at an NHL level, can't hit (skating) at an NHL level and can't think at an NHL level. However, because of their singular attribute of being large and maintaining verticality for 1 or more rounds against an equally unskilled, large player, they are "NHL'ers".

For example, Brian McGrattan. Fan favourite, and I love when he scores. However, he is not, except for his one elite skillset, an NHL player.

Fighting USED to represent toughness, physicality and a dedication to taking the body. The Big Bad Bruins weren't a team full of no-talent tough guys, they were a team of big, physical hockey players who could fight when called for.

It's where the value in guys like Lucic, Iginla, Shanahan resides, and why guys who can fight as well as take a regular shift are worth mucho dinero in todays game. A guy like David Clarkson isn't an intimidating player because he can fight, he's intimidating because he can skate, shoot, pass, hit AND fight.

David Backes is intimidating because he's going to track you down for a big hit, steal the puck and SCORE, not just come over the boards and punch another big lunkhead several times until one of them falls over.

George Laraque, while being the best fighter in the league, exuded zero intimidation factor because he couldn't catch anyone on the ice that wasn't looking for him.

Chris Simon on the other hand could catch you on the forecheck, smash your face in and score pretty goals.

I think the idea that 'fighting' keeps guys honest is 30 years out of date. It's the idea that a lunkhead might come over the boards and dirtball you into next month that does more to 'keep guys honest'. It's not that Boogaard is going to come fight you and win, it's that he's going to come out for his shift and take 5 and a game for boarding penalty on you. Because he does this, you have to go out and get your own lunkhead to eat up that guys icetime. Send Godard out there to take Boogaard off the ice for 5 minutes without getting killed in the process.

More or less has nothing to do with hockey.

[ericschand]

Bobby Orr decides to get in on the fighting in hockey debate.

He also goes for the "keeping everyone honest." He also writes that the referees have lost discretion in making calls. Long and I feel he fails to make his point.

ers