Should fighting be banned?

If fighting is so necessary and an emotional part of the game then why is it so rare in the payoffs? Because no team wants to get saddled with an instigating minor that could have them lose a playoff game. Until the instigator came in there were more fights in the playoffs than the regular season.

Fighting is premeditated where it's usually the designated tough guys going at it so they entertain the crowd and feel they are doing something useful. Many tough guys have confessed during pregame skates that they will look at each other and nod yes or no as to whether they should tangle that night. This hardly makes it an emotional outlet that's necessary. It makes it look like the WWF and I'm saying it's hard to take the sport seriously and whether you like it or not the sport needs the American market to survive.

Would you want football to be interupted several times a game with guys trying to beat each other up. It's bad enough that instant replays interupt the flow of that game. Watching a playoff hockey game do you ever feel the need to see a fight to enjoy the game more. Out of sight, out of mind. If it's a tight game I want to see them play. Not watch a midget like Tie Domi try and act tough.

Hockey players need to act like football players, take the hit and move on to the next play rather than take it personally like little kids at recess. I've played both sports competitively and with all due respect to hockey, football is a more violent and punishing sport.

[Patman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yosemite Dan

If fighting is so necessary and an emotional part of the game then why is it so rare in the payoffs? Because no team wants to get saddled with an instigating minor that could have them lose a playoff game. Until the instigator came in there were more fights in the playoffs than the regular season. Fighting is premeditated where it's usually the designated tough guys going at it so they entertain the crowd and feel they are doing something useful. Many tough guys have confessed during pregame skates that they will look at each other and nod yes or no as to whether they should tangle that night. This hardly makes it an emotional outlet that's necessary. It makes it look like the WWF and I'm saying it's hard to take the sport seriously and whether you like it or not the sport needs the American market to survive. Would you want football to be interupted several times a game with guys trying to beat each other up. It's bad enough that instant replays interupt the flow of that game. Watching a playoff hockey game do you ever feel the need to see a fight to enjoy the game more. Out of sight, out of mind. If it's a tight game I want to see them play. Not watch a midget like Tie Domi try and act tough. Hockey players need to act like football players, take the hit and move on to the next play rather than take it personally like little kids at recess. I've played both sports competitively and with all due respect to hockey, football is a more violent and punishing sport.

Oh, if it were that simple it would have been done by now. The problem isn't that players can't take a hit, they can't take the extra cheap stuff... there's a fine line between a hit, and a several series of hits that don't get called (I've seen it... you can't tell it doesn't happen, I've counted punches to the back of the head). Hockey is a very emotional game, moreso than football where you can take long 30 second breaks for every 10 seconds of action. This isn't the best comparison, but what if your quarterback got beaten around on every other play? Well, in football that's the o-line's fault since they are there to prevent it... well, what if you decided to take 6 players off the field... you are going to need a bit more than a large agile body to keep your players from being physically abused by the other players.

Playoff hockey is not necessarily a better brand of hockey. The only reason its glorified is because its high stakes. Take a look at the play on the ice... its about as chippy as it is over the rest of the season and there's much more interference going on. Also there are a lot of fans that want to scrap the instigator rule and lets face it the game would be better for it as it would regulate away a lot of the stupid play out on the ice. If you also take into account the ability of today's players you aren't going to see the fighter/goon warrior type of old because he just won't be able to keep up on the ice.

As for the "American audience" bull, I believe you'd actually gain fans from the fighitng in hockey alone. Its the media that has made fighting out to be such a horrible thing since they don't like it. It also turns off the upper income folks who think fighting is offensive to the way they percieve the world and is a gutter act (under the idea that their kiddies some how have to be protected from this). This is why the NHL has tried to limit fighting... they still live in that fantasy world where they'll get those people to come to the games. Its amazing that the same american culture that treats boxing as a sport and not as a rigged ballerina dance is willing to forsake hockey over fighitng. That's a load of crap. The problem is there is a fair amount of ignorant people that think that fighting is a horrible thing to have in sports but then don't question the idea of men sliding down a patch of ice at 20 mph careening into each other in a means to exert as much pain as legally possible wearing knives that could cut a ham using 5 foot long plank that has and will continue to maim the faces of countless people while firing a little rubber cylinder at about 100 mph.

What is holding people back in reagards to hockey is the attitude that fighting is a horrible thing... its not... its rather negligible. In any hockey game the other 3 minutes not devoted to idiots smacking themselves around is devoted to the game and cleaning the ice. I don't see how eliminating fighting adds that missing part needed for the NHL's popularity.

-----

This is from a person who thinks fighting in hockey is stupid and a waste of time and the least interesting part of the game but I'm keenly aware of why its there and what it does for the game and the fans. Fighting draws fans, it just doesn't draw those fans that can place down $200 a night.

I don't understand your argument, you cite boxing but that is the purpose of boxing, that's why they wear gloves and that's why people watch it. Do they allow you to kick and and headbutt in boxing. If it happens you get disqualified. If you've seen "Million Dollar Baby" did you not laugh at the boxing scenes where in that title fight the champion gave all these cheap shots after the bell like she was a wrestler. It was laughable because in boxing that would never happen because the fight would be stopped right away. If your QB gets knocked around after the whistle the offending players are ejected, they don't play like "the Longest Yard" because the NFL wouldn't allow it. I never see the offensive lineman trying to start a fight when their QB gets sacked.

That's why it looks silly in hockey and makes it bush league because the mindset of the NHL is it's part of the game which is utterly ridiculous and the only sport in the world where it happens unless you count wrestling and roller derby. If there are cheap shots after the whistle then eject the player. In no way would it affect the intensity on the ice.

If the NFL and NBA allowed the same "intensity" to occur in thier sports where there are cheap shots every other play and a couple of fights a game they would lose a massive part of their audience. The MNF game is a good example between Philly and Atlanta. I wasn't sitting there going crazy watching 2 players fight like ******s before the game. I was thinking "kick the guys out and let's watch some football". When a football players gets crunched would you want the game delayed for 10 minutes because he got his feelings hurt and wants to go mano a mano?

[woostopalypse]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yosemite Dan

I don't understand your argument, you cite boxing but that is the purpose of boxing, that's why they wear gloves and that's why people watch it. Do they allow you to kick and and headbutt in boxing. If it happens you get disqualified. If you've seen "Million Dollar Baby" did you not laugh at the boxing scenes where in that title fight the champion gave all these cheap shots after the bell like she was a wrestler. It was laughable because in boxing that would never happen because the fight would be stopped right away. If your QB gets knocked around after the whistle the offending players are ejected, they don't play like "the Longest Yard" because the NFL wouldn't allow it. I never see the offensive lineman trying to start a fight when their QB gets sacked. That's why it looks silly in hockey and makes it bush league because the mindset of the NHL is it's part of the game which is utterly ridiculous and the only sport in the world where it happens unless you count wrestling and roller derby. If there are cheap shots after the whistle then eject the player. In no way would it affect the intensity on the ice. If the NFL and NBA allowed the same "intensity" to occur in thier sports where there are cheap shots every other play and a couple of fights a game they would lose a massive part of their audience. The MNF game is a good example between Philly and Atlanta. I wasn't sitting there going crazy watching 2 players fight like ******s before the game. I was thinking "kick the guys out and let's watch some football". When a football players gets crunched would you want the game delayed for 10 minutes because he got his feelings hurt and wants to go mano a mano?

I completely agree, I like the NFL analogy. If a defensive end sacks a QB does a coach go and send a guy bigger player who cant play football to go cheap shot and instigate the defensive end. NO! becuase this isnt what sports is about. It's not a child game where if you score on my team im going to send someone to hurt you. The skilled players should be able to play the game without having to worry about about cheap shots. The NFL and Coaches realize this.

Somewhere the NHL lost it's sense of decency and allowed goons to ruin careers of NHL players. What's the NHL solution to this problem? Nothing. What to do teams do about it? They get other goons to end other star players careers and fight other goons. So what we have here is a bunch of goons who cant play hockey taking the place of ones who actually can Just so those teams can not worry about their star player facing a cheap shot. SO basically the game is controlled by intimidation and not skill.

This is a disaster, Who ever would rather watch goons fight than watch skilled players play has to question their ethics and I say you are NOT a fan of hockey. If you were you would want the players who actually can play it to play and too so fairly.

[umt_griz]

There is WAY less fighting going on in the NHL today than in the 70's or even the 80's and early to mid 90's!!!!! I dont think its fair to compare hockey with the NBA or NFL. In basketball if you barely make contact with another guy they call a little foul on you. And as for the NFL, football players only actually play like 3 or 4 minutes in a 3 hour game. Plus hugging someone to the ground at 2 mph is way different than slamming someone into a wall at 10+ mph with a stick in hand.

[DGetz]

Quote: Originally Posted by woostopalypse

Somewhere the NHL lost it's sense of decency and allowed goons to ruin careers of NHL players. What's the NHL solution to this problem? Nothing. What to do teams do about it? They get other goons to end other star players careers and fight other goons. So what we have here is a bunch of goons who cant play hockey taking the place of ones who actually can Just so those teams can not worry about their star player facing a cheap shot. SO basically the game is controlled by intimidation and not skill.

Again this is a case of goonism and not of fighting. I think everyone is in agreement that cheap shots have no place in hockey or any other sport. But they simply are not the same thing as fighting. You say there are a bunch of goons who cant play taking out players who can...when has this happened? Can anyone provide an example of this? The only thing I can think of is Bertuzzi-Moore and in that clearly wasnt the type of thing you are talking about because it wasnt the case of a far less skilled playre trying to injure a star.

I also dont see how eliminating fighting would eliminate cheap shots by that arguement. I think the solution to eliminating cheap shots is suspensions. In my view that's what prevents cheap shots anyhow; having to forfeit 1/4 of your yearly pay is a much bigger deterrant than having to fight someone.

And as for intimidation - that is a skill, the skill to throw other players off their game because of intimidation. It shouldnt be fear of a cheap shot or a career ending injury or anything but fear of being hit hard - what is wrong with that? You have that in the NFL, where there are certain safties that make recievers not want to run routes over the middle and in the major leagues with certain pitchers.

I still maintain the problem is that there are not enough instigator penalties called. When you see someone get hit hard and they come up wanting to go or someone else on their team comes over to fight - instigator. When two guys go right off the face off, heck give 'em both instigators. The potential penalty kill situation plus the subseqeunt suspension and lost pay would make those kinds of fights a lot less common.

[DGetz]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yosemite Dan

If it's a tight game I want to see them play. Not watch a midget like Tie Domi try and act tough.

Okay not to get off topic too much but Domi is listed at 5-10; 213. Even if he is actually a littler smaller than that he is hardly a (physical) midget. And the guy is tough - he does fight guys who are a lot bigger than he is. As much as he grates on my nerves (to say the least) I have to give the guy credit for being tough.

[rudyjuly2]

Quote: Originally Posted by CanuckJ

I don't like fights but I would rather see a fight face to face than checking from behind and sucker shots like a McSorley stick to the head or a Bertuzzi face first piledrive into the ice.

That's a bad argument in my book. It's the Don Cherry argument that if you take out fighting, it leads to chippy play where more people get hurt. Why can't you have both? The problem is that the players have long policed themselves through fighting when its a job that belongs to the league in terms of fines and suspensions.

Playoff hockey is far better than regular season hockey and there are virtually no fights. Fights are very entertaining but I don't think they have to be an integral part of the sport. Hockey fans love watching it but it only hurts the people who aren't fans that don't want to watch that stuff. If fighting is an integral part of the game that's so fun, how come nodody does it in rec leagues or out on the pond in the winter time?

ESPN dropped hockey so the NHL and its diehards need to listen. No matter what Canadians say, most of the teams are in the U.S. and you do have to cater to that market if you want to make more money. The NBA used to suck 30 years ago and had tons of fighting but since the punch (Kermit) they cleaned it up and allowed the skill to shine. Its ratings improved a lot. Hockey needs to do that too. Make Kariya a star again by getting rid of the clutch and grab crap. People may like a good fight but a good game is what makes them a fan.