Iginla: Hockey is better and safer with fighting in it

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I'll take the word of all current/former NHLer's who believe fighting should be in the game.

MOD EDIT: Deleted over the top comments.

4 Deicers at Canadian Airlines were killed at Mirabel airport in 1995 when their deicing trucks tipped over and they were flung from their buckets. At that time, there was a pervasive culture of not using proper safety equipment, with many experienced, and properly trained employees refusing to use a safety harness.

14 years later, a deicer in Calgary was killed when he fell from his deicing truck bucket. Despite warnings from management, the employee was not using a safety harness.

Sometimes, people experienced in things don't know better.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by mikeecho

4 Deicers at Canadian Airlines were killed at Mirabel airport in 1995 when their deicing trucks tipped over and they were flung from their buckets. At that time, there was a pervasive culture of not using proper safety equipment, with many experienced, and properly trained employees refusing to use a safety harness.

14 years later, a deicer in Calgary was killed when he fell from his deicing truck bucket. Despite warnings from management, the employee was not using a safety harness.

Sometimes, people experienced in things don't know better.

So are you saying de-icing planes doesn't make it safer to fly? That's the equivalent of your argument, or 'borderline ######ed' as puckluck would say.

Because they didn't harness-up has nothing to do with fighting in hockey.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Zevo

So are you saying de-icing planes doesn't make it safer to fly? That's the equivalent of your argument, or 'borderline ######ed' as puckluck would say.

Because they didn't harness-up has nothing to do with fighting in hockey.

That wasn't his point but no surprise you missed it.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by drewtastic

I completely disagree with these "You've never played" arguments. I've never been a Member of Parliament, but I've got a perspective on politics in this country. Should I not be allowed to voice my opinion because I've never actually participated in HOC debates?

My point is that you can actually have a reasonable opinion about something without having to be continually immersed in it. And, as TextCritic and Jiri have both excellently pointed out, it is also possible for the reverse to be true--that one could be 100% involved in something and have a completely irrelevant and incorrect perspective.

Iginla is a tough player, and we all love him. But he can still be wrong about fighting. As I mentioned in the other thread on this (Burke's comments about this topic), if fighting were as effective as Iginla argues, one would think that the instances of "dirty play" would already be in decline. Yet debates about how to rid the NHL of such play remains an annual discussion.

As TextCritic has also pointed out in previous posts, statements like the one Iginla made are not necessarily supported by evidence. Iginla's assertion could very well be true. The problem is that we have no way of knowing because fighting has never not been a part of the NHL. It also doesn't mean that fighting is the only solution to eliminating dirty play.

I believe that Jiri said it in the other thread, but it bears reiterating: the NHL has the means to eliminate dirty play by enforcing the rules that already exist. Who's to say that harsher suspensions would not have at least the same effect on curtailing dirty play than fighting? The reason fighting gets a pass is because it's entrenched in NHL 'culture'. I'm arguing that it's a relic and that the NHL would not suffer with its elimination.

Whoa, missed this reply completely.

It's a valid point however, you wasted a lot of words with those 5 paragraphs (at least in response to me) because that's not at all what I said. Jiri said:

I don't really care at all what the players say about this issue.

That's what I'm talking about. To not care at all what the players say removes any credibility in the comment. If he doesn't care what any of the players say then he isn't worth listening to as his mind is completely closed. I never said anything about not playing hockey, I'm talking about considering the opinion of NHL players talking about the NHL.

Jiri could have played tyke, bantam, or college, I don't really care - but I'm pretty sure he didn't play in the NHL, so to not consider what the NHL players think is absurd.

Ironically I don't really care for fighting. Doesn't do much for me, I don't stand when there's a fight or go all Rob Kerr. I could see the argument go either way and would watch the NHL and probably have no real worries if it remained or was removed. I can see the point of the former players and some management or are against fighting, some I'd take their opinion at face value, others I think are bias due to a business perspective. But I'm not so ignorant as to completely dismiss the opinion of the people who are still playing in the game just like I wouldn't ignore those now outside.

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Whoa, missed this reply completely.

It's a valid point however, you wasted a lot of words with those 5 paragraphs (at least in response to me) because that's not at all what I said. Jiri said:

I don't really care at all what the players say about this issue.

That's what I'm talking about. To not care at all what the players say removes any credibility in the comment. If he doesn't care what any of the players say then he isn't worth listening to as his mind is completely closed. I never said anything about not playing hockey, I'm talking about considering the opinion of NHL players talking about the NHL.

Yep. Missed the spirit of your comment completely. My bad.

[BBQorMILDEW]

I hope that they never take out fighting. To me, it's one of the most sacred parts of the game. There was nothing that could bring my team closer together, than a teammate throwing down. It builds trust and brings about a family like environment.

It'll be a sad, sad day when they ban it.

Guess I'm just old school...

[Jake]

Two fights tonight in the Flames game... two more fights that don't fall into the category of "policing the game". The Ference fight was complete garbage. Stempniak makes a clean hit, pays for it with a couple of teeth. There is no place for that in the game. I don't see how that is making the game safer.

I know many fans enjoy seeing a fight. The McGrattan fight tonight was great (but again, not about deterring cheap shots). I'm sick of people hiding behind the "policing the game" argument to support fighting when the majority of fights obviously have nothing to do with that.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Jake

Two fights tonight in the Flames game... two more fights that don't fall into the category of "policing the game". The Ference fight was complete garbage. Stempniak makes a clean hit, pays for it with a couple of teeth. There is no place for that in the game. I don't see how that is making the game safer.

I know many fans enjoy seeing a fight. The McGrattan fight tonight was great (but again, not about deterring cheap shots). I'm sick of people hiding behind the "policing the game" argument to support fighting when the majority of fights obviously have nothing to do with that.

He lost teeth? I thought it looked like his nose was bleeding.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by codynw

He lost teeth? I thought it looked like his nose was bleeding.

That was a bad uncalled for fight. Ferrence got rocked cleanly and then punched his teeth out. No need for that. He did not want to fight and then was being punched.

The other fight both combatants were willing.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

...all the guys on ESPN and other American networks calling for it barely watch hockey to begin with, so their opinion is hardly relevant. If a Gretzky or Bowman were making a point to call for a ban people would pay attention, but that hasn't happened yet.

Steve Yzerman, Ken Holland and Ray Shero HAVE made it a point to explore the elimination of fighting. It's time to pay attention.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=130833

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by strombad

...The error you make, and the same error that many of the anti-fighting crowd make, is bring in elements of player safety as evidence against fighting as a whole, as though everyone who supports fighting is not aware of the health risks...

This isn't the argument, it's a straw man. The argument is NOT that fighting is dangerous ergo must be removed from the game. The argument is that it doesn't clearly serve any useful purpose, and thus is unnecessarily dangerous. When I say that it doesn't clearly serve any useful purpose, I am intentionally taking issue with the nuclear deterrent argument that Iginla has adopted in his piece. The problem with Iginla's opinion is that he is making it from inside of a bubble. HE MAY VERY WELL BE RIGHT, but it is foolish to take an opinion at face value that has not been formed by way of a comprehensive consideration of the evidence; something that is impossible to do from within the bubble. As I have argued many times in the past, and as I will continue to do so, there needs to be more serious study, and the accumulation of more data before we can conclude one way or the other. The opinions of hockey players does not qualify as reliable data. Their opinions are important, yes, but they ought not be taken to the exclusion of evidence that has been compiled from the collection of data.

Originally Posted by strombad

...The point others are making, that you are not addressing, is that fighting HAS a place in the game. It simply does. Is it risky? Yes. Players are not the foremost experts on it's effects on health, of course, but they ARE the only true experts on it's role in the game of hockey.

No, they aren't. The "true experts" are the ones who will compile the data and correctly assess the results. The players are just as much in the dark on this issue as everyone else, simply because they do not know any differently. NONE OF US DO, because the study has not yet seriously been undertaken.

From my perspective, THIS IS THE DEBATE. It is not as simple as whether or not fighting still has a place in the game. It is about the quality of the evidence for the opinion that it does, and it is about wanting to see the issue scrutinised with greater rigour to ensure that it is not unnecessarily dangerous.

Originally Posted by strombad

...This has nothing to do with helmets, or work boots, or whatever, it has to do with an action that takes place during the game which players have stated affects others as well as themselves.

From inside of a bubble, and from a saturation of hockey culture that knows no different. Can you honestly not see the weakness in this argument?

Originally Posted by strombad

...Risky? Yes, experts in the medical field have stated as much, congrats on your ability to use the Internet or read an article. Still a place in the game? Absolutely, as confirmed by experts in the game of hockey.

NOT confirmed.
Premise A: There is fighting in hockey, and there has always been fighting in hockey.
Premise B: There is dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey, and there has always been dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.
Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest a correlation between fighting and the instances of dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.

I actually think that what happened in last night's Flames v. Oilers game fairly emphasises the problem with the nuclear deterrent position. Based on Iginla's argument, the fight between McGratton and Gazdic in the first period should have tempered instances of unsportsmanlike conduct on both sides. Later in the same period, Ference initiated a fight with an unwilling combatant, Stempniak, in retaliation for what he (incorrectly) perceived to be a bad hit.

Did the first fight have any affect on the instances of unsportsmanlike play in the game? How can we know one way or the other? However, it could be reasonably be argued that Ference's reaction to Stempniak's hit was unsportsmanlike conduct, ergo, the first fight in fact accomplished nothing.

Did the second fight cause the shift in momentum that Edmonton needed, or did it affect the way the Flames continued to play? Not at all. Both fights appear to have had a negligible impact.

[Street Pharmacist]

Fighting prevents dirty plays? Really? When? They are still happening. Frequently

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by troutman

Are leagues that don't have fighting, ex. NCAA and Europe, less "safe" than the NHL? I don't know if there is much evidence for that.

It reminds me of talking healthcare with an American. They refuse to look outside the NHL bubble.

Other leagues are likely no less safe that don't allow fighting. So how can we call this "open and shut" because a player said so? What insight do they have that no one else does? Is Iginla right because he says so, in spite of any sort of proof? It's a big part of his game, and how he earns his living, why would he not want it?

It is a player safety issue at the core of it all, and while their opinion is worth something, it is far from the most important argument. Helmets, visors, and goalie masks were all not favored by the "opinions" of the players at the time of implementation, but haven't they all made a valuable contribution to the safety of the game?

I enjoy fights and find them entertaining. That has no bearing on the argument IMO

[Heavy Jack]

Then you see Ference last night punch teeth out of a pretty much defenseless Stempniak who wasn't expecting to or wanting to fight. Get it out. What a joke.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Then you see Ference last night punch teeth out of a pretty much defenseless Stempniak who wasn't expecting to or wanting to fight. Get it out. What a joke.

Stempniak didn't have to drop the gloves. It was his choice.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Fire

Stempniak didn't have to drop the gloves. It was his choice.

Give me a ####ing break. He dropped his gloves when ference's arm was cocked and his gloves were already off. He had two choices, take a punch to the face and then turtle or try to get his hands up.

Ference lost the respect of most of CP, who loved him for this. Implied consent and all those other dumb arguments the mens men are making is bull, when I play beer league hockey I'm not consenting to fighting anymore than stempniak did.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Fire

Stempniak didn't have to drop the gloves. It was his choice.

At that point the alternative was what, exactly? Continue to absorb unprovoked punches to the head? It looked a lot more like self-preservation to me.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

At that point the alternative was what, exactly? Continue to absorb unprovoked punches to the head? It looked a lot more like self-preservation to me.

He could have turtled but he stepped up and fought which was good to see. Ference received a deserving instigator penalty. They were in the same weight class, it's not like Gazdic went after Stempniak.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This isn't the argument, it's a straw man. The argument is NOT that fighting is dangerous ergo must be removed from the game. The argument is that it doesn't clearly serve any useful purpose, and thus is unnecessarily dangerous. When I say that it doesn't clearly serve any useful purpose, I am intentionally taking issue with the nuclear deterrent argument that Iginla has adopted in his piece. The problem with Iginla's opinion is that he is making it from inside of a bubble. HE MAY VERY WELL BE RIGHT, but it is foolish to take an opinion at face value that has not been formed by way of a comprehensive consideration of the evidence; something that is impossible to do from within the bubble. As I have argued many times in the past, and as I will continue to do so, there needs to be more serious study, and the accumulation of more data before we can conclude one way or the other. The opinions of hockey players does not qualify as reliable data. Their opinions are important, yes, but they ought not be taken to the exclusion of evidence that has been compiled from the collection of data.


No, they aren't. The "true experts" are the ones who will compile the data and correctly assess the results. The players are just as much in the dark on this issue as everyone else, simply because they do not know any differently. NONE OF US DO, because the study has not yet seriously been undertaken.

From my perspective, THIS IS THE DEBATE. It is not as simple as whether or not fighting still has a place in the game. It is about the quality of the evidence for the opinion that it does, and it is about wanting to see the issue scrutinised with greater rigour to ensure that it is not unnecessarily dangerous.


From inside of a bubble, and from a saturation of hockey culture that knows no different. Can you honestly not see the weakness in this argument?


NOT confirmed.
Premise A: There is fighting in hockey, and there has always been fighting in hockey.
Premise B: There is dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey, and there has always been dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.
Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest a correlation between fighting and the instances of dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.

I actually think that what happened in last night's Flames v. Oilers game fairly emphasises the problem with the nuclear deterrent position. Based on Iginla's argument, the fight between McGratton and Gazdic in the first period should have tempered instances of unsportsmanlike conduct on both sides. Later in the same period, Ference initiated a fight with an unwilling combatant, Stempniak, in retaliation for what he (incorrectly) perceived to be a bad hit.

Did the first fight have any affect on the instances of unsportsmanlike play in the game? How can we know one way or the other? However, it could be reasonably be argued that Ference's reaction to Stempniak's hit was unsportsmanlike conduct, ergo, the first fight in fact accomplished nothing.

Did the second fight cause the shift in momentum that Edmonton needed, or did it affect the way the Flames continued to play? Not at all. Both fights appear to have had a negligible impact.

Your points are all well and good, but unfortunately the major issue with everything above is that you're leaning on physical evidence and "proof" of something's emotional or mental impact.

Fighting, while misused in some regards, is a tool that only affects the mental state of players. That is it's role. The only evidence therein that is even applicable in this situation is the word of players.

If someone were to undertake this study, it would not be a study that is comparable to something like "Does stick stiffness result in harder shots?" where you could in fact take a measurable form of physical data and apply it to your study, this is something more like "Does a particular food improve mood?"

Fighting is a physical act, but it's effect is not at all physical, it is entirely mental. You can ask for studies by professionals, but what exactly do you think they are going to draw their data from? It's going to be from players, because of it being a mental effect, they are the only real source of information.

Harp on these players being in a bubble all you want, but fighting is only effective inside that bubble, so I hope you don't see that point as being a detractor against their credibility on the situation.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by strombad

...Fighting, while misused in some regards, is a tool that only affects the mental state of players. That is it's role. The only evidence therein that is even applicable in this situation is the word of players.

If someone were to undertake this study, it would not be a study that is comparable to something like "Does stick stiffness result in harder shots?" where you could in fact take a measurable form of physical data and apply it to your study, this is something more like "Does a particular food improve mood?"

Preposterous. Of course studies could be undertaken, and not with much difficulty. The actual affect that a fight does or does not have can be measured in terms of in game events that occur as a result. The players continue to tell us that the effects are there, so one should be able to detect them.

Furthermore, tests to measure or at least account for the impact of fighting in hockey could occur by running a test season in one of the minor leagues, or in the CHL. Track the instances of stick fouls and unsportsmanlike play through the course of a regular season, and measure those against the test season and draw conclusions.