Fighting in the NHL

[B21]

@B21 A bit far fetched, but what if all the tough guys got together, at say a NHLPA meeting, and make a pact to fight more often, to keep it in the public's eye....and to secure the jobs of tough guys for the next generation.....hmmm...maybe that's why so many planned fights happen?

Or all of the guys who have some actual hockey skill (you know - like skating and puck handling) but who are in the AHL because Mike Tyson on skates has their roster spot ("just in case!") could get together at the next NHLPA meeting and take a stand to secure those 30 roster spots for guys in the next generation who deserve them a lot more.

[B21]

@Podein25

<< I can tell you from experience that there were guys I hated with all my heart, played against them for years, and the only thing that kept us from killing each other was fighting each other. We earned respect for each other that way, instead of doing what we wanted to do, which was to bash each others teeth or otherwise maim and injure each other. Such is the nature of the game that it leads to those passions. >>

I played too, Pods. So instead of killing each other you fought. Not to be cynical but really...what is the difference? Instead of high sticking a guy to the chops you squared up man on man. OK - but can't you bash a guy's teeth in or maim/injure him during a fight? You sure as hell can especially if there is a true hate factor involved. If your argument is that fighting is a way to let out otherwise harmful and pent up agression and hostility, I'm not buying it.

<< Fighting is the time-honored way that hockey has always policed itself, when allowed to. That is the history of the role that fighting has played in the game whether you like it or not. And all the talk about staged fights and all that crap (and it is crap) doesn't change that. >>

Yes - the staged fighting does change it because that's really all that is left now. That's the crux of my point. There is no way you can objectively look at fighting today and tell me it is about policing the game. I agree 100% that is the history of the role fighting has played. History is past tense. It is not that way anymore. It's not even close, Pods. And if that is the only fighting that is left then I want no fighting instead of the gimmick.

[flyerrod]

I'm not against fighting in hockey either.

and from your first response to me......."But if my vote counted I would get rid of it"

So even though you voted for Banning fighting(I am deducing that from most of your posts and views), you are not against fighting either. You keep referring to staged fighting which I agree does nothing for the game but you can't lump in the fighting that comes about during the course of the game. By you quoted statement above, you are voting against your own belief......That was my belief as to why the numbers Campbell is using are skewed.....

[B21]

and from your first response to me......."But if my vote counted I would get rid of it"

So even though you voted for Banning fighting(I am deducing that from most of your posts and views), you are not against fighting either. You keep referring to staged fighting which I agree does nothing for the game but you can't lump in the fighting that comes about during the course of the game. By you quoted statement above, you are voting against your own belief......That was my belief as to why the numbers Campbell is using are skewed.....

How much clearer can I be? I am for banning the crap we see today that everyone seems to think is real and necessary "fighting". The gimmicky sideshow. The kind of fighting that you refer to...the kind that comes about during the course of the game...rarely happens any more. 95% staged. 5% legitimate. So if voting for a ban on the 95% staged means the 5% legitimate has to go? So be it.

If there were ever an actual vote I don't think you could just ban 'staged' fighting. It would have to be all or nothing i/m/o.

Back to your point - if you use a little common sense you see I am not voting against my own point.

[flyerrod]

Back to your point - if you use a little common sense you see I am not voting against my own point.

It is exactly my point. Campbell is using trumped up statistics to back his POV. If you are against fighting in hockey you should vote for Banning it but don't vote for banning it and follow it up with "I am not against fighting in hockey either". Which you did....... Hockey fans in general do not want to see an end to fighting in Hockey which is what as gazoo called him "The Skip Bayless wannabe" is trying to imply.

[B21]

It is exactly my point. Campbell is using trumped up statistics to back his POV. If you are against fighting in hockey you should vote for Banning it but don't vote for banning it and follow it up with "I am not against fighting in hockey either". Which you did....... Hockey fans in general do not want to see an end to fighting in Hockey which is what as gazoo called him "The Skip Bayless wannabe" is trying to imply.

I'll take your word for it as far as Campbell's statistics. Doesn't change my feelings on the matter one way or the other.

Howabout this (since you are being a stickler on actual written words when my point is pretty clear)...I am not against real, legitimate, hate-driven fighting in hockey.

So I can vote in this poll to ban it when there really isn't any more real, legitimate, hate-driven fighting left in hockey.

Better?

[Podein25]

@B21

First, it's not true that all fighting is staged. It's probably not even two-thirds of all fights or a majority - I'd want some data on that. Last night there was one fight - in the BOS-OTT game - and it was not staged from what I can tell.

Secondly, the point is not about history, it's about the culture of the game. The staged fight does an injustice to that culture, but I understand how it came to be this way. The instigator rule has also distorted things in mostly bad ways.

Anyway, I get your point: if we were playing against each other and you speared me, let's say, I'd be dropping my gloves seeking retribution. And you would refuse and instead want me to spear you back.

Just so we're clear eh?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Podein25

[flyerrod]

So I can vote in this poll to ban it when there really isn't any more real, legitimate, hate-driven fighting left in hockey.

Better?

"Today I saw an article written by Ken Campbell siting a poll that says 68% of today's fans are in favor of banning fighting in Hockey. Am I that out of touch with the pulse of the game and the fans or is he polling mite hockey team parents or something....... "

I started this poll trying to see if there was more people against fighting than for it. I even agree with you on some points but the fact of the matter is that 68% of the people who watch Hockey are not against "ALL" of the fighting. It is a bald faced lie and misleading journalism to even imply it. I realize this is a Flyers heavy web site and we flyers fans have the "broad street bullies" mentality so I can understand a heavy leaning to the against banning but still, I hope to have fans from other teams put in their 2 cents, that was why I put the topic under Around the NHL.

[B21]

@Podein25

<< First, it's not true that all fighting is staged. It's probably not even two-thirds of all fights or a majority - I'd want some data on that. Last night there was one fight - in the BOS-OTT game - and it was not staged from what I can tell. >>

I'll respectfully disagree there. I don't have data...I just think it's higher than that. FWIW, I do think the "after the fact" fights (i.e. - Cooke fighting Thornton to answer for the Savard hit) fall into the staged category.

<< Secondly, the point is not about history, it's about the culture of the game. The staged fight does an injustice to that culture, but I understand how it came to be this way. The instigator rule has also distorted things in mostly bad ways. >>

The culture stems from that history, no? As far as the instigator, fighting was well on it's way to evolving what it has become today long before the instigator penalty was put into place and some form of this instigator has been in the rule book since the 1930's.

<< Anyway, I get your point: if we were playing against each other and you speared me, let's say, I'd be dropping my gloves seeking retribution. And you would refuse and instead beg me to spear you back. Just so we're clear eh? >>

I'd drop and whup your arse. Not staged.

[B21]

"Today I saw an article written by Ken Campbell siting a poll that says 68% of today's fans are in favor of banning fighting in Hockey. Am I that out of touch with the pulse of the game and the fans or is he polling mite hockey team parents or something....... "

I started this poll trying to see if there was more people against fighting than for it. I even agree with you on some points but the fact of the matter is that 68% of the people who watch Hockey are not against "ALL" of the fighting. It is a bald faced lie and misleading journalism to even imply it. I realize this is a Flyers heavy web site and we flyers fans have the "broad street bullies" mentality so I can understand a heavy leaning to the against banning but still, I hope to have fans from other teams put in their 2 cents, that was why I put the topic under Around the NHL.

Well if you are looking for numbers to counter his poll then you came to the right place. I'd be curious to know where his numbers came from and what question or questions were asked of the participants...but I'm not going to agree it's a lie just because you say so either.

[flyerrod]

I found the poll which was done by Angus Reid......

In the survey of roughly a thousand people,500 of them said they attended or followed Hockey regularly. SO, If I have this right, only 50% of the people you surveyed were hockey fans AND followed Angus Reid.( I have no idea who this guy is). That is on the front page of the survey in the fine print. So how do you call the input from the other 500 NON HOCKEY FOLLOWING PEOPLE relevant ?

http://www.angus-rei..._Fights_CAN.pdf

Edited March 12, 2013 by flyerrod

[jammer2]

@flyerrod Ya know rod, I have heard Hockey Night in Canada was polling Canadians, and it came back over 60-65 % were in favour of an all out ban on fighting. Like you, I really question the accuracy of these polls, and are the people who oppose fighting asking the right people the right questions to mess up the results? Something smells fishy here...

[Podein25]

I'd drop and whup your arse.

That's more like it.

[B21]

@flyerrod Ya know rod, I have heard Hockey Night in Canada was polling Canadians, and it came back over 60-65 % were in favour of an all out ban on fighting. Like you, I really question the accuracy of these polls, and are the people who oppose fighting asking the right people the right questions to mess up the results? Something smells fishy here...

As if Canadians would need this explained to them?

I'm starting to get the feeling that 60% to 65% just might be an accurante number.

[jammer2]

@B21 If 60-65% is an accurate number(s), what percentage of these people polled actually go to an NHL game? cause I see a WHOLE lot of whooping, cheering, noise etc when a fight breaks out, in many instances more excitement from the fans than when a goal is scored....so I question this whole thing...just my take.

[B21]

@B21 If 60-65% is an accurate number(s), what percentage of these people polled actually go to an NHL game? cause I see a WHOLE lot of whooping, cheering, noise etc when a fight breaks out, in many instances more excitement from the fans than when a goal is scored....so I question this whole thing...just my take.

Fair point. I whoop and cheer, too. But I also understand that what I'm watching isn't usually a "real" right. I wouldn't enjoy a game one iota less if a fight did not break out. So I can see how someone else would whoop and cheer and still care less if fighting went the way of the dodo.

[mojo1917]

I'll even go one step further...how often does a guy make a big legal hit but in the "heat of the game" (and without the benefit of replay) the teammates of the guy getting his clocked cleaned go after the guy who just made the hit? I'll argue that happens more often.

I hate that too, whatever happened to take that guys number and get him on the next shift ?

my argument for fighting comes from the podien25 school of thought, the game is fast, physical, played in a confined space with sticks and like i said if a guy goes to far, he should have to answer for his actions.

[flyerrod]

As if Canadians would need this explained to them?

I'm starting to get the feeling that 60% to 65% just might be an accurante number.

Did you not click the link I posted? Of the People polled, only 50% of them listened/attended/followed Hockey. It says that on the first page of the survey.....

So 50% of the people polled could be window licking retards to ballet dancers.......What does that have to do with Hockey you ask? Exactly.............It is NOT A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF HOCKEY FANS. That makes it a bald face lie.

[B21]

I hate that too, whatever happened to take that guys number and get him on the next shift ?

my argument for fighting comes from the podien25 school of thought, the game is fast, physical, played in a confined space with sticks and like i said if a guy goes to far, he should have to answer for his actions.

Next shift? How about not at all if we are talking about a big legal hit.

I see the point Podein is trying to make but having to answer for something really doesn't accomplish much. I get the part about a guy having to answer for his actions but that brings me back to...what's the point? Damage done. Star player taken out. How about something to deter that big illegal hit in the first place?

[Podein25]

I see the point Podein is trying to make

Well, that makes one of us!

[mojo1917]

@B21

what i mean by next shift is, the opponent puts a big hit on you, take his number and put a big hit on him next chance you get, not he has to answer for his big clean hit.

should have been more clear there.

a guy who is chronically careless with his stick in the corners answering for his indescretion is different to me than waiting to get a guy back with a good clean hit within the context of the game.

Edited March 12, 2013 by mojo1917

[B21]

Did you not click the link I posted? Of the People polled, only 50% of them listened/attended/followed Hockey. It says that on the first page of the survey.....

So 50% of the people polled could be window licking retards to ballet dancers.......What does that have to do with Hockey you ask? Exactly.............It is NOT A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF HOCKEY FANS. That makes it a bald face lie.

Yes - I did. Can you read? My comments were in response to the HNIC poll that jammer cited. Or is that the same as these Ken Campbell or Angus Reid (whoever that is) polls?

Either way - doesn't change my opinion. But since you keep bringing up polls...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/does-fighting-belong-in-hockey-majority-of-globe-readers-say-no/article9474493/?cmpid=rss1

It's an online Globe & Mail poll found in the Maple Leafs beat section...a place one probably doesn't go to read unless they are a hockey fan. And the results of this poll to which over 8,00 hockey fans responded??

23% (1,776) said fighting is a part of the game.

77% (6,556) says it doesn't belong.

[Polaris922]

As for the Crosby/Engelland example...

So on one hand hockey players are supposed to be fearless; the toughest and meanest SOB's in all of sports. On the other hand, the threat of having to fight an above average heavyweight in Engelland is supposed to keep guys from taking a run at Crosby. So which is it? I can give you a laundry list of guys who did not seem to fear having to drop the gloves in return for taking a run at him.

I think hockey players are NOT fearless. I think it does weigh in a little, and would weigh in more if they did away with the instigator rule. I think the instigator does stop some players from being that third man in. But I also agree some will do it regardless. (i.e. Goddard).

I would agree with you IF the league took a more serious stance on protecting the players from cheap shots, and they became consistent in that stance. Without that change, I will remain against removing fighting. I think the fights ten seconds into the game are stupid, but I do think players need to be allowed to defend themselves or others at least until the league does.

[flyerrod]

8,000 people who just watched that Dave Dzzsfkhkrbbr get inihilated in a staged fight that he really did not want to be a part of(and for the record, Fights like that do not belong). Gee, I wonder what they were thinking.......You still are talking about a small sampling of fans who were targeted in the heat of the crime as it were......

[B21]

8,000 people who just watched that Dave Dzzsfkhkrbbr get inihilated in a staged fight that he really did not want to be a part of(and for the record, Fights like that do not belong). Gee, I wonder what they were thinking.......You still are talking about a small sampling of fans who were targeted in the heat of the crime as it were......

Actually 8,000 is a pretty large sample and no one was "targeted". You had to see the link and decide on your own to vote. It's not like these were random people who were getting phone calls and being asked ambiguous questions about fighting. These were 8,000 hockey fans...safe assumption most were Leafs fans which makes them die hards in my book (I've never heard of a "casual" Leafs fan). 77% of them think there is no longer a place for fighting in hockey. Doesn't matter at all who's arse got kicked the night before. That is very telling.