Tom Wilson KOs Oleksiak - UPD: Oleksiak is dealing with a concussion.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Fighting and hitting are fundamental parts of hockey.

Not necessarily. There is no fighting (or very rarely) in Europe, College hockey, womens hockey, minor hockey. No hitting in most age levels of minor hockey, old-timer hockey.

Do players know the risk? I don't think they really do, as there is much that is still being researched. Is there any amount of money that compensate you for serious brain damage in your 40s? Don't you think some players would return their career earnings for their mental health back?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Fighting and hitting are fundamental parts of hockey. It's unfortunate that yourself and a sizable minority of fans and media members (most of whom have never played the game at a high level) are pushing this holier-than-thou narrative at every opportunity.

Please explain to us how fighting is "fundamental" to hockey? What will change in its absence? What has changed with sharp reduction of hockey fights over the past number of years that we so dearly miss?

Players who fight choose to do so knowing full well the potential consequences. I recognize that there have been advances in science related to brain injuries but it's obviously not groundbreaking news that being punched in the head can be hazardous to one's health...

I am not convinced of this. At least, not so much until quite recently. Even in spite of the advances made in the past decade in brain sciences there is still a lot that no one knows or does not understand about the long term effects of frequent blows to the head sustained by fighting in hockey. There are occasions when decisions that are unnecessarily harmful to one's safety and long-term health need to simply be removed altogether. Again, I fail to grasp why fighting is so integral to hockey that it must continue.

You'd be foolish to argue that players are not compensated appropriately for the risk they bear in choosing to fight.

Do you really think so? For years, players with marginal professional hockey skills occupied positions on NHL rosters because they could fight, and these players were commonly the lowest compensated players on the team. What is "appropriate compensation" for risking one's life and long-term mental health?

So what is your issue with willing participants - who know the risks and are compensated for them - choosing to fight, especially considering that a majority of fans and the vast majority of players support it being a part of the game?

I am not convinced that players who choose to fight do in fact know the risks. This is stuff we have only been talking about seriously for seven or eight years now. It will likely take a generation for the science to become common knowledge. I am also not convinced that any level of monetary compensation mitigates the long-term mental health risks, and I am dubious about the extent of the majority on this issue. If anything, traditional opinions on fighting in hockey are shifting dramatically and quickly, and it is likely we will see it outright eliminated in the near future.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Granted its still really popular but with all the competition for people's attention and the immigration rates into Canada, they've got to be smart if they want to stay relevant long term and not become a sport just older european background Canadians are into. I think they are effectively removing fighting without offending the older fans by getting rid of all the physical play and it'll get to the point where it is the exception rather than the norm. Still some guys who fight but the model is trending towards faster smaller players with skill.

Well, the game will change to a certain extant but it will always be physical and probably will include fighting. It may shock you but even today higher ranked Atom players drop the gloves and fight. Not every game but it does happen. Not that I am a fan of 10 year olds fighting but its still there.

You are right about immigration trends, but that will be a unique problem for Canada and indeed may already be reflected in the recent drafts that have Finns, Swedes, and Americans at the top. The NHL will not change the rules, but like other things today, Canada will get less competitive as we move into the "snowflake" era of our country's history.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

...You are right about immigration trends, but that will be a unique problem for Canada and indeed may already be reflected in the recent drafts that have Finns, Swedes, and Americans at the top. The NHL will not change the rules, but like other things today, Canada will get less competitive as we move into the "snowflake" era of our country's history.

Canada has won the last three best-on-best hockey tournaments, and five of the past six over the course of the past 20 years.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Please explain to us how fighting is "fundamental" to hockey? What will change in its absence? What has changed with sharp reduction of hockey fights over the past number of years that we so dearly miss?


I am not convinced of this. At least, not so much until quite recently. Even in spite of the advances made in the past decade in brain sciences there is still a lot that no one knows or does not understand about the long term effects of frequent blows to the head sustained by fighting in hockey. There are occasions when decisions that are unnecessarily harmful to one's safety and long-term health need to simply be removed altogether. Again, I fail to grasp why fighting is so integral to hockey that it must continue.


Do you really think so? For years, players with marginal professional hockey skills occupied positions on NHL rosters because they could fight, and these players were commonly the lowest compensated players on the team. What is "appropriate compensation" for risking one's life and long-term mental health?


I am not convinced that players who choose to fight do in fact know the risks. This is stuff we have only been talking about seriously for seven or eight years now. It will likely take a generation for the science to become common knowledge. I am also not convinced that any level of monetary compensation mitigates the long-term mental health risks, and I am dubious about the extent of the majority on this issue. If anything, traditional opinions on fighting in hockey are shifting dramatically and quickly, and it is likely we will see it outright eliminated in the near future.

I'm not anti-fighting or anti-hitting, but I agree "knowing the risks" is a specious argument, especially when dealing with 20-somethings, most of whom have a high school education. The same kids who get caught taking PEDs, other drugs, etc.

As for "fundamental", well, for fighting, it's still against the rules last time I checked, so it can't be fundamental to the game. And it's not the natural byproduct of a physical game (see football, rugby, etc.) Heck, you get DQed for impromptu fighting in combat sports.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Fighting and hitting are fundamental parts of hockey. It's unfortunate that yourself and a sizable minority of fans and media members (most of whom have never played the game at a high level) are pushing this holier-than-thou narrative at every opportunity.

Players who fight choose to do so knowing full well the potential consequences. I recognize that there have been advances in science related to brain injuries but it's obviously not groundbreaking news that being punched in the head can be hazardous to one's health. You'd be foolish to argue that players are not compensated appropriately for the risk they bear in choosing to fight.

So what is your issue with willing participants - who know the risks and are compensated for them - choosing to fight, especially considering that a majority of fans and the vast majority of players support it being a part of the game?

Ah. The 'ol "you didn't play the game so you don't know" argument. Very predictable.

My issue is that athletes are willing in the moment because they don't grasp what it will mean to their life long-term.
Do you think that ex players suffering daily with post concussion syndrome and staring at a very uncertain future, would be willing now with what they know?


Nic Boynton seems like he would like a do-over:

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en...ythings-not-ok


These are the guys we should be listening to.

"I have a three-year-old son named Russell. And let me tell you … does that kid ever love hockey. Loves watching it, loves talking about it, and loves taking the mini-stick out and whacking away at some pucks.
He wants to be like his dad, you know what I mean?
But I cannot, in good conscience, let him play the game of ice hockey until something changes and we start looking out for our players by taking the problems of head hits and concussions — and their potential impact on mental health — more seriously."

More from him, which matches what I've been saying about the future looking past at this era with shame:

"But at the same time, the potential to make a difference right now is just so great. It’s sitting out there for guys, just waiting for someone to grab hold of and initiate some conversations that will end up saving people’s lives. And at the end of the day, that, more than anything, will be the best thing for this sport. Because this stuff isn’t going away anytime soon, and hockey can either be on the right side of this, or on the wrong side.

With each day that goes by without any real, decisive action, this league’s legacy gets worse and worse."

Real words from an ex player living with this every day. THIS is the stuff we should be paying attention to.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

The NHL will not change the rules, but like other things today, Canada will get less competitive as we move into the "snowflake" era of our country's history.

Fighting is already against the rules, there have been rules put in place in this era that have attempted to curb it further (instigator penalties, punishment for fighting in the last 5 minutes, etc) and it is not unrealistic in any way that this trend will continue.

It’s always the people who use the term “snowflake” that are whining about not getting their way, like their preference for fighting somehow trumps science and logical trends.

Fighting is going bye-bye, stop being “snowflakes” and get over it. Stop mentioning how fundamental it is, or how removing it further means we have to look at everything else. Fighting is a dumb thing that is against the rules. I ENJOY fighting, but even I’m not foolish enough to clutch on to it like mother’s pearls. Let’s let it die without bringing up strawmen and acting like without seeing a fight once every 5 games we’re just going to stop watching hockey and instead act like a little more like we’ve actually evolved from cavemen. Or just hold on to fighting, kill a boar with your bare hands, and club someone who tries to steal your berries. Either way I guess.

/rant

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by troutman

Not necessarily. There is no fighting (or very rarely) in Europe, College hockey, womens hockey, minor hockey. No hitting in most age levels of minor hockey, old-timer hockey.

Which is great - there are options that offer people a choice to avoid hitting and fighting should they so choose as they progress through minor hockey. That's the way it should be, no one is arguing that fighting needs to be part of all levels of hockey, there should options for individuals based on their level of comfort with contact. However, the Canadian game at a high level has always featured fighting as a central, fundamental component just as hitting is.

Originally Posted by troutman

Do players know the risk? I don't think they really do, as there is much that is still being researched. Is there any amount of money that compensate you for serious brain damage in your 40s? Don't you think some players would return their career earnings for their mental health back?

How much research do you need to do to understand that being bashed in the head repeatedly, or any other part of your body, is not good on a long term basis. Do you think players are complete morons? It's common knowledge that playing high contact sports like hockey, football, and rugby is a hazardous career path and it's been common knowledge for ages.

Why should grown adults not be afforded the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to engage in an activity knowing full well the potential consequences?

It's a risk / reward decision similar to the choices we all make throughout our lives. This small anti-fighting lobby (which is driven moreso by overly cautious insurance companies and litigation fears in the US than by any genuine concern for player safety) is simply the manifestation of this tendency towards mollycoddling that is infecting every facet of North American society.

[Manhattanboy]

Lost in all of this is that the dude's little sister is the gold medal swimmer for Canada.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Which is great - there are options that offer people a choice to avoid hitting and fighting should they so choose as they progress through minor hockey. That's the way it should be, no one is arguing that fighting needs to be part of all levels of hockey, there should options for individuals based on their level of comfort with contact. However, the Canadian game at a high level has always featured fighting as a central, fundamental component just as hitting is.

How much research do you need to do to understand that being bashed in the head repeatedly, or any other part of your body, is not good on a long term basis. Do you think players are complete morons? It's common knowledge that playing high contact sports like hockey, football, and rugby is a hazardous career path and it's been common knowledge for ages.

Why should grown adults not be afforded the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to engage in an activity knowing full well the potential consequences?

It's a risk / reward decision similar to the choices we all make throughout our lives. This small anti-fighting lobby (which is driven moreso by overly cautious insurance companies and litigation fears in the US than by any genuine concern for player safety) is simply the manifestation of this tendency towards mollycoddling that is infecting every facet of North American society.

For me it has nothing to do with mollycoddling or being soft... it's about making logical decisions.

We have a better understanding of what occurs when people take massive or repeated blows to the head these days. Sure they used to know getting hit in the head was bad but the attitude was you "shake it off" and move on - now its been proven that CTE causes dementia, brain damage, depression, etc. Now you know how bad it is and that the effects don't get shaken off, make a logical decision and take steps to avoid it at least a little more.

Second, is about the game thriving and staying in the mainstream. Many ppl I know who don't watch hockey have immigrated from circumstances that are tougher than most of us have seen growing up in a place like Canada. They're not snowflakes. They also don't want to teach their kids to solve problems and police themselves with their fists like apes because they have often seen and understand where that leads when applied on a wider scale coming from places that are war torn. Violence isn't a novelty to a lot of them.

If the NHL wants to keep growing and appeal to non-traditional hockey fans and families, they will shift away from hits to the head across the board. Otherwise it will end up a niche sport. My opinion is the league knows this and that's why they are slowly steering the game in that direction.

For me it's not tough to blow your lid, get in a fight for 60 seconds a bunch of times and end up with CTE - it's stupid. It's tough to stay on your feet, keep your emotions in check like a mature adult, take care of your head and use it to work every day so you can look after yourself and your family. That's a harder and tougher slog than this BS idea that you're some kind of valiant warrior for losing your temper over something stupid and taking a bunch of head shots ending up a drooling wreck society and your family needs to take care of.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Disagree fully and completely.

Reference the pic of Wilson steaming in with gloves dropped while Oleksiak is skating to be in position. There was no agreement that a fight was happening at that time. Full stop. One guy is playing hockey, the other guy is being a thug.

Consider contact being made inside the blue line, and that the fight happened halfway between blue line and center, and was over immediately after

Consider that if the fight lasted 2 seconds tops, was Oleksiak really prepared to defend himself? He was down a fraction of a second after his momentum stopped them and they had barely spun around. The guy may have swung, but he sure as crap didn’t have time or opportunity to agree to a fight and wasn’t set and ready.

Watch Iggy and Engelland act with honour. Consider how actual combat sports start. It’s not one guy jogging around the ring and another guy jumping him.

Think about the risk involved in a fight and if you really think it is okay for it to start without agreement, and without one party set and ready to defend himself.

Nope. This was akin to jumping a guy in the alley.

Cheap way to take advantage, by a known cheap shot artist. But even if it was Mikael Backlund and not Wilson, I would disapprove.

This is perplexing to me. Clearly one guy started a fight and it was not expected by the other guy, evidenced by video and still pictures, and still some guys think it was somehow fair and square.

Just because the guy reacted fast enough to engage sure as crap doesn’t mean he agreed or was ready.

Bizarre and arguably scary morals.

That's the key right there - he reacted fast enough to engage, as you said it yourself. Oleksiak reacted fast enough to engage. Did they have a conversation before and say: "Are you ready bud?". No. But it was hardly a mugging. Oleksiak was a willing participant, and even threw the first punch.


Contrast that with Lomberg's attack on Dumba. Classy for Lomberg not to continue to throw punches, but in no way shape or form did Dumba want to engage. Oleksiak did.


Oleksiak wasn't blind-sided. He wasn't unsuspecting. He saw Wilson coming, had time to throw his gloves off and even get a punch off before Wilson did. Have you not seen other guys getting jumped in the NHL before? They don't get a chance to throw their gloves down, much less get off the first punch. If Wilson was blind-sided and unsuspecting like you make it out to be, Wilson would be getting a 20+ game suspension. Was it fast? Yes. Hardly getting jumped or blind-sided, however.



And are you questioning my morals here? You have absolutely no fricken idea what my morals are, and you are just coming off as an ass by insinuating that my morals should be questioned. Seriously, questioning someone's morals just because someone thinks two combatants were ready is one of the most bizzare and asinine comments I have read on these forums. Seriously, you are questioning my very morals on this?? Get off your high horse and and quit appealing to some higher ground. Two guys fought. Two guys had their gloves off before any punch was thrown. Two guys were willing to engage.



FFS, I guess the NHL will have to bring in a Michael Buffer for every game, and when a fight looks like it is about to break-out, there will be a stoppage in play, Buffer will announce each participant, say "are you ready?" to each party, and then give instructions to "Fight".



I am not anti-fighting, but the funny thing is, I absolutely can't stand these instances that deviate from the proverbial 'code', especially attacking unsuspecting players. I hate cheap-shots, attempts to injure, pounding a guy when he is already on the ground and defenceless (even when Iginla did it at times), etc. I see nothing here that makes me feel it was unfair or against the code, or cheap... and I especially don't feel like I should have my damn morals being put into question by an overly emotional poster.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Ah. The 'ol "you didn't play the game so you don't know" argument. Very predictable.

I never said I played at a high level - I just recognize that those closer to the game are in a better position to have an opinion on this than I am as a mere fan. Rather than being dismissive, I'd be curious to see you address the fact that the majority of players support fighting in the game. Do you think that you (as a media guy? / fan?) are in a better position to make an informed decision weighing the benefits and drawbacks of having fighting in the game?

I'd like to have a respectful debate here, I don't mean to discredit you if you haven't played hockey. I just find that the will of the players is often ignored in these fighting discussions.

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

My issue is that athletes are willing in the moment because they don't grasp what it will mean to their life long-term.
Do you think that ex players suffering daily with post concussion syndrome and staring at a very uncertain future, would be willing now with what they know?

How is it any different than any other hazardous career path? Welders, loggers, labourers, etc. are afforded the opportunity to choose those jobs based on the particulars of their own personal situations. Part of being an adult is having the latitude to make your own decisions - treating people like children incapable of making their own decisions is wrong.

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Nic Boynton seems like he would like a do-over:

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en...ythings-not-ok

These are the guys we should be listening to.

"I have a three-year-old son named Russell. And let me tell you … does that kid ever love hockey. Loves watching it, loves talking about it, and loves taking the mini-stick out and whacking away at some pucks.
He wants to be like his dad, you know what I mean?
But I cannot, in good conscience, let him play the game of ice hockey until something changes and we start looking out for our players by taking the problems of head hits and concussions — and their potential impact on mental health — more seriously."

More from him, which matches what I've been saying about the future looking past at this era with shame:

"But at the same time, the potential to make a difference right now is just so great. It’s sitting out there for guys, just waiting for someone to grab hold of and initiate some conversations that will end up saving people’s lives. And at the end of the day, that, more than anything, will be the best thing for this sport. Because this stuff isn’t going away anytime soon, and hockey can either be on the right side of this, or on the wrong side.

With each day that goes by without any real, decisive action, this league’s legacy gets worse and worse."

Real words from an ex player living with this every day. THIS is the stuff we should be paying attention to.

That's really unfortunate, and I certainly feel for Nic. It's great these stories are being published because it provides more information for players looking to enter the league to make an informed decision.

However, your use of this is still an anecdotal argument and I'd venture to say that basing your views off these appeals to emotion is somewhat problematic. As a counterpoint, I'd offer the story of a close friend of mine who played in the WHL and surely would have made the NHL had his career not been ended by repeated concussions. He suffered severe PCS for a few years but is thankfully doing much better today. That said, he wouldn't have changed anything because he felt that he had to take his shot at a career in hockey.

The only thing he would change is ensuring that up and coming players are educated with respect to following proper concussion protocols. So I would agree with those of you who are saying that education younger players is important - I just don't agree that there is a necessity to remove fighting or hitting from the game.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I never said I played at a high level - I just recognize that those closer to the game are in a better position to have an opinion on this than I am as a mere fan. Rather than being dismissive, I'd be curious to see you address the fact that the majority of players support fighting in the game. Do you think that you (as a media guy? / fan?) are in a better position to make an informed decision weighing the benefits and drawbacks of having fighting in the game?

I guess that's where we differ. I don't think those that are close to the game are well positioned to make this call. They are true wrapped up in the traditional thinking and mindset about these issues. Players, when left to their own devices, will make incredibly poor decisions. This is a league that has had to mandate that players wear helmets and visors. Athletes will do all sorts of things, including taking steroids, even if they are aware of the consequences. The role of the league is to take reasonable steps to protect the players, including from themselves. Not eliminating fighting is in my opinion negligent.



Obviously I'm not saying I'm the right person to make the decision. I'm just one person with one opinion. But I do not think this should be left to the players.

Originally Posted by Zarley

I'd like to have a respectful debate here, I don't mean to discredit you if you haven't played hockey. I just find that the will of the players is often ignored in these fighting discussions.

Sorry I was defensive. Just that the argument of if you don't play your opinion has no value has been used a lot in the past. But indeed I do largely ignore the will of the players. I don't think that's how this decision should be made.

Originally Posted by Zarley

How is it any different than any other hazardous career path? Welders, loggers, labourers, etc. are afforded the opportunity to choose those jobs based on the particulars of their own personal situations. Part of being an adult is having the latitude to make your own decisions - treating people like children incapable of making their own decisions is wrong.

Within those careers the employer is expected to take reasonable steps to protect those workers. This is no different. Except that a lot of those jobs are essential to provide things we need. Hockey is entertainment. Why are we allowing human beings to take unnecessary risk if it is only for our pure entertainment

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I never said I played at a high level - I just recognize that those closer to the game are in a better position to have an opinion on this than I am as a mere fan...

That's bullocks. Not that players do not have a more intimate and directly informed level of experience than others, but that this also qualifies them to make rational decisions about the sport. Simply put: I think players are too close to it to see fighting in hockey with a crucial element of dispassionate reason. It's all they have ever known—generation upon generation of growing up in a culture in which they are told over and over again about "the code," its importance, and the mythical dire consequences certain to occur in its absence. It's hockey voodoo.

Rather than being dismissive, I'd be curious to see you address the fact that the majority of players support fighting in the game. Do you think that you (as a media guy? / fan?) are in a better position to make an informed decision weighing the benefits and drawbacks of having fighting in the game?

For my part, I assume that scientists and brain specialists who are raising awareness and sounding alarms about fighting in hockey know better than all of us. THESE are the people we need to be listening to.

How is it any different than any other hazardous career path? Welders, loggers, labourers, etc. are afforded the opportunity to choose those jobs based on the particulars of their own personal situations. Part of being an adult is having the latitude to make your own decisions - treating people like children incapable of making their own decisions is wrong.

All decisions? Are you such an entrenched libertarian to promote rights for adults to make ANY decision with regards to their own well being?

I think this returns to my original question I posed to you: Why is fighting so important in the first place? Why do players "decide" to fight? Do they do so because they want to? Or do they do so because it is what we have always done? Is it the product of will, or is it the product of pressure?

When the day comes that fighting is outright banned from hockey (it's coming), how many players will miss fighting? I would warrant few if any.

That's really unfortunate, and I certainly feel for Nic. It's great these stories are being published because it provides more information for players looking to enter the league to make an informed decision.

However, your use of this is still an anecdotal argument and I'd venture to say that basing your views off these appeals to emotion is somewhat problematic. As a counterpoint, I'd offer the story of a close friend of mine who played in the WHL and surely would have made the NHL had his career not been ended by repeated concussions. He suffered severe PCS for a few years but is thankfully doing much better today. That said, he wouldn't have changed anything because he felt that he had to take his shot at a career in hockey.

The only thing he would change is ensuring that up and coming players are educated with respect to following proper concussion protocols. So I would agree with those of you who are saying that education younger players is important - I just don't agree that there is a necessity to remove fighting or hitting from the game.

Would not the best course of action be to make the sport as safe as possible by eliminating as many unnecessary hits to the head as possible?

So, let's remove the anecdotes, and stick with the science.

Stop the violence and play hockey
The Connection between Concussions and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) in Professional Athletics: A Necessary Change in the Sports Culture in Light of Legal Barriers
Ethical Issues Surrounding Concussions and Player Safety in Professional Ice Hockey
Consequences of Traumatic Brain Injury in Male Ice Hockey Players

That is just a selection of academic articles from the first two pages of my scholar.google.com search.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zarley

However, your use of this is still an anecdotal argument and I'd venture to say that basing your views off these appeals to emotion is somewhat problematic.

I think we can be forthcoming enough to admit that appeals to emotion are the entire foundation of the pro-fighting argument. There is nothing tangible, no academic or logical insight that supports fighting. The only side based on grounds that aren’t problematic is the anti-fighting side.

The science is out. Fighting is bad. It’s against the rules, it poses an increased risk of detrimental health impacts, and is trending out of the sport.

Take all the emotion out of it and that’s everything we know. The facts aren’t hidden, they’re there. I 100% agree that ignoring the facts we know and instead basing an argument off of emotion is problematic, which is why the pro-fighting side is failing in their efforts, slowly but surely.

[Fire]

All sport should be eliminated to decrease risk of detrimental health impacts. Human beings should be limited to only brisk walks.

As long as participants know the risks, then it up to each individual to decide if they want to participate or not. It's their body, their choice.

[Travis Munroe]

IMO, you reduce long term head trauma by eliminating any open ice hits. I don't have stats to back this up but being very close to someone who has travelled north america and europe seeing head specialists for concussion issues, it sounds as if fighting is a very very small part of the long term problems players in today's game will face.
I mention todays game as fighting is way down and fights have a reason behind them compared to 10+ years ago where 2 tough guys felt the need to fight for the sake of it.

I am not sure how accurate this would be but I have also heard from more than 1 source that the thickness of your neck plays a huge role on head trauma. A thicker or shorter more supportive neck is able to brace those small checks against the boards much more than a small or long neck. Repetitive hits for someone who has a less developed neck is like whiplash over and over but on such a small scale it is barely noticable at the time.

Anyway, I think you remove open ice hits before you remove fighting. The eye test tells you more guys are being hurt for unnecessary open ice hits than they are in the limited fighting which takes place today (not to mention a open ice hit usually leads to a fight anyway)

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Fire

All sport should be eliminated to decrease risk of detrimental health impacts. Human beings should be limited to only brisk walks.

As long as participants know the risks, then it up to each individual to decide if they want to participate or not. It's their body, their choice.

That's sort of the problem. Players are only vaguely aware of the risks, and they certainly are not part of academia or active research. A bit too busy playing hockey to read up on the issues for the most part. They rely on the league and specifically team doctors to manage their health for them and provide them that information. Being that clinical recommendations are often decades behind active research, it is unlikely that hockey players have all the pertinent information.

Honestly, even the research community doesn't have all the pertinent information yet, but there is a strong push to find it out as soon as possible. Long term studies are the next step in this issue as we only really have anecdotal cases to work with in that regard. Not to mention that the ability to confirm an actual concussion is based on symptom reporting and few biological markers, which makes it exceedingly hard to get accurate data for studies, and even harder to give players a proper diagnosis.

However, there seems to be new work being done in blood biomarkers, which gives hope for an accurate test in the near future. Spoiler alert: We aren't there yet.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...erts-are-wary/

So all in all, this is a new field of study that is in its infancy. It's presumptive to think players have all the information to make an effective decision, and that's not even getting into the cultural norms set in the profession that push them towards a possibly dangerous act. There's enough evidence out there now to look at concussions as life-altering threats, one that may end a player's life early. We aren't even talking about big concussions either, but repetitive blows that add up over a career. Some of that is an unavoidable part of playing on a frozen sheet of ice with hard boards and equipment, but the stuff that can be avoided, i.e. unnecessary fights, should be taken out of the game as much as possible to ensure the best possible environment for hockey players to pursue their career in. Consider it part of WHMIS if you need a proper analogy.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

IMO, you reduce long term head trauma by eliminating any open ice hits. I don't have stats to back this up but being very close to someone who has travelled north america and europe seeing head specialists for concussion issues, it sounds as if fighting is a very very small part of the long term problems players in today's game will face.
I mention todays game as fighting is way down and fights have a reason behind them compared to 10+ years ago where 2 tough guys felt the need to fight for the sake of it.

I am not sure how accurate this would be but I have also heard from more than 1 source that the thickness of your neck plays a huge role on head trauma. A thicker or shorter more supportive neck is able to brace those small checks against the boards much more than a small or long neck. Repetitive hits for someone who has a less developed neck is like whiplash over and over but on such a small scale it is barely noticable at the time.

Anyway, I think you remove open ice hits before you remove fighting. The eye test tells you more guys are being hurt for unnecessary open ice hits than they are in the limited fighting which takes place today (not to mention a open ice hit usually leads to a fight anyway)

It's part of it, and it's why I think Elias Pettersson is destined for a short career in the NHL based on his anatomy.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think we can be forthcoming enough to admit that appeals to emotion are the entire foundation of the pro-fighting argument. There is nothing tangible, no academic or logical insight that supports fighting. The only side based on grounds that aren’t problematic is the anti-fighting side.

The science is out. Fighting is bad. It’s against the rules, it poses an increased risk of detrimental health impacts, and is trending out of the sport.

Take all the emotion out of it and that’s everything we know. The facts aren’t hidden, they’re there. I 100% agree that ignoring the facts we know and instead basing an argument off of emotion is problematic, which is why the pro-fighting side is failing in their efforts, slowly but surely.

Aren't appeals to emotion the entire foundation of spectator sports? There isn't much in the way of logical benefit to spending so much money on watching other people do things while eating and drinking garbage.

Logic has value, but it is not everything. I'm sure you could significantly reduce the number of injuries by instituting a speed limit so people aren't moving fast enough to injure knees in collisions and make the puck soft so it can't cause as much damage hitting someone, but the sport sure wouldn't be as exciting anymore.

I don't mean this as a pro-fighting stance. I'm not really sure where I stand in the fighting debate. I just don't think this appeal to logic is a very good argument or as triumphant a closing point as people often seem to think it is.