But hurling your 200 pound body at another individual at 20 mph is any better?
If two consenting adults want to fight in a controlled environment that has proper guidelines, regulations and safety protocols in place (Boxing, MMA), then they should be able to.
Tight roping, going down water falls and base jumping not only is dangerous for whoever is doing it, but it's dangerous for whoever may be in the area and for the rescue crews who have to respond if something goes wrong
You're missing the point. They're doing it for entertainment dollars, and this isn't government sanctioning.
A private entertainment cartel (the NHL) should be doing it's best within reason to limit serious injuries. Why bother limiting head shots of not also punches? No one is suggesting the government get involved. I don't want people in my store having fist fights, so I don't allow it. I don't need to get the government involved there either.
Our society legislates against lots of things that are highly self destructive. Why not blood sports?
Yes.
Should we also allow people to tightrope walk between skyscrapers? Or to descend Niagara Falls in barrels? Or to base jump at will? Why not? After all, it's up to every individual to decide what's best for her, no?
Besides the individual risks, blood sports promote a barbaric and backward collective mindset that has no place in any functional aspect of modern society. As a form of entertainment, these activities are not socially productive. It's time to grow up, and do away with them.
Our society legislates against lots of things that are highly self destructive. Why not blood sports?
Should we also allow people to tightrope walk between skyscrapers? Or to descend Niagara Falls in barrels? Or to base jump at will? Why not? After all, it's up to every individual to decide what's best for her, no?
Besides the individual risks, blood sports promote a barbaric and backward collective mindset that has no place in any functional aspect of modern society. As a form of entertainment, these activities are not socially productive. It's time to grow up, and do away with them.
You're being extremely hyperbolic here. Tight roping between skyscrapers? Obviously that wouldn't fly due to the dangers to the public and potential for damaged property. The Niagara thing is ridiculous because people would sue the government when death/injury occurred.
We're clearly not going to agree here, so there's no sense in a lengthy back and forth, but I felt I should respond to your post anyway. I just happen to think that the government's reach is already too intrusive, so I don't agree with anything that sees more government involvement in our lives. You clearly disagree. I also think that all recreational drugs should be legal to consume, even though I don't touch any of them. People need to be in control of their own lives, a bloated bureaucracy consisting of corrupt politicians has no business running the lives of private citizens, unless other people's rights are jeopardized in the process. Just my opinion of course. I honestly think that if you go keep going down that road, at some point it will become a big brother situation where everything we do is examined in excruciating detail. Now I'm being hyperbolic I guess, but it is worth considering IMO.
Besides, I'm pretty sure they would never outlaw MMA or boxing, so 30 second fights in hockey probably aren't even on their radar. There's too much money involved, people would just get bought off if it ever got to that point (legislation). Even if the Canadian government pulled it off, the US would NEVER go there, so all those Canadian citizens you wish to protect would just do their thing south of the border. If the war on drugs has taught us anything, people will find ways to do the self destructive things they want to do, threat of imprisonment be damned. There's no sense making criminals out of ordinary people because some don't agree with their life choices.
In my eyes the change will likely be a result of what we'll learn over the next 5-10 years as we study the extent of head traumas. Of course boxing and MMA aren't going away because their entire sport is hinged on fighting. The removal of fights from hockey though would be relatively simple. As hockey fights continue to diminish, I argue we'll see more and more that fighting isn't nearly as important to the game as many were led to believe. Couple that with what could be a tragedy, and I think the league will just make the penalties for fighting so severe the problem will solve itself. Frankly, I just hope it doesn't require a player to die on the ice or have a Chris Benoit situation for it to happen.
Somebody like Prust comes out and says "I'm not going to run a guy because I know I'll have to answer the bell at some point". Does that comment hold a lot of weight coming from a guy who is technically lobbying for the existence his own job? I give a lot more weight to a guy like Barnaby who says fighting didn't stop him. Fighting is supposed to be the answer to the Barnaby, Burrows, and Cooke type players. A lot of chicken-**** players that fighting is supposed to solve don't fight anyways.
I do laugh at the irony of some posters here that have made posts alluding to supporting the reduction of head shots, fighting and player safety in the game, and at the same time, they are regulars in the MMA thread as hard core fans. Where the primary objective is to inflict enough brain damage to concuss your opponent into unconsciousness.
Seems like a very hypocritical stance. How can you support MMA fighting, when you adamantly oppose fighting and head shots in the NHL because of the safety implications?
The Following User Says Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
I love fighting in hockey. I love watching MMA. Normally I love watching guys get knocked out but learning about Grats getting KO'd, I could honestly say I didn't even watch the video or seen it on highlights. I think it's due to Grats being a former Flame and I'm still a fan. Even when Ivanans or Westgarth got KO'd, it was hard to watch and I felt dejected.
Call me crazy for hate watching my own guys get KO'd but still believe fighting should stay in hockey.
Somebody like Prust comes out and says "I'm not going to run a guy because I know I'll have to answer the bell at some point". Does that comment hold a lot of weight coming from a guy who is technically lobbying for the existence his own job? I give a lot more weight to a guy like Barnaby who says fighting didn't stop him. Fighting is supposed to be the answer to the Barnaby, Burrows, and Cooke type players. A lot of chicken-**** players that fighting is supposed to solve don't fight anyways.
The thing is Barnaby etc. was or is protected by the Instigator rule. When that was brought in it spelled the end of for a lot of retribution or self policing. I'm not saying it wasn't needed as the brawls were getting out of hand but life changes and so does hockey. The hockey goon is a dying breed and will probably be completely gone in almost all leagues in a couple of years. One reason is there is just too many skilled players for a team to devote a space to a 5 minute enforcer.
Fighting will probably be gone in a few years because the concussion problem will force the NHL to stop it. The refs and the cameras are going to need to get more proactive to protect the players. For me the entertainment value will go down but that's how it goes and nobody wants more players ending up like Steve Montador.
Not read all the way through this thread, so apologies if already mentioned, I find it amazing how many hockey reporters on Twitter were saying how bad it was and how awful he looked laid out on the ice, then proceeded to provide a link to Hockey fights or other links of the fight.
If it was that bad why link to it?? (Click bait i guess)
We are still very unsure about the long-term effects as they are limited to absorbing multiple, frequent blows to the head in a hockey fight, or sustaining a head injury from a big hit.
I don't think that you can say the two things are the same. And in the light of growing concerns about head trauma, I am all for reducing incidents that are known to cause it. The elimination of fighting in hockey would most certainly work towards that reduction.
Hockey is known to cause head trauma. Reduce the season to 18 games only?
We are still very unsure about the long-term effects as they are limited to absorbing multiple, frequent blows to the head in a hockey fight, or sustaining a head injury from a big hit.
I don't think that you can say the two things are the same. And in the light of growing concerns about head trauma, I am all for reducing incidents that are known to cause it. The elimination of fighting in hockey would most certainly work towards that reduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Hockey is known to cause head trauma. Reduce the season to 18 games only?
Yes that is exactly what he meant.
Or, he may have meant eliminate fighting, take a stronger position on targets checks to the head. Which is just off the top of my head and only 1/2 a coffee into my day.
We all know hockey has inherent risks, due to the very nature of the game itself. Fighting isn't a part of Hockey.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
