Fighting poll

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Please post what your choice is...if you feel so inclined.

Aaaaaaaaaah crap, the no effect one is supposed to be an option. Can anyone fix this?

I chose small effect. I mean, why the hell else would anybody on the East Coast stay up 'till 1 am to watch a Sharks/Kings game? Or why would you tune in to a Chicago/Nashville game? Do you want to watch the Preds because they're our competition or do you want to watch the Hawks disgrace the game of hockey? Neither, you'd watch that game to see how many fights they're going to ring up. Same reason why you might stay up late to watch Edmonton/Calgary or Rangers/Islanders.

[Skiing - Puck 0]

I would still watch the Wings play, but banning fighting would be a major bone head move, it does have its place in the game, even in the "new" NHL.

[auxlepli 17]

Voted no effect, but I feel if it's eliminated more cheap shotswould occur against good players.

I was first a fan of Olympic hockey, and there's no fighting there. Weird that the NHL can't be the same.

[Skiing - Puck 0]

"Personally I feel fighting does have it's place in hockey, & if anyone has played the game - they'd most likely agree"

That statement is 100% true, also fighting will never be banned, it just wont happen, it is woven to deep into the fabric of the game.

I play hockey, I have been playing for around 10 years (since 5th grade and I now am in college) and I feel that it belongs in the game.

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

I play hockey, I have been playing for around 10 years (since 5th grade and I now am in college) and I feel that it belongs in the game.

I agree, and you should visit Kenny Holland in his sleep and whisper that into his ear every night.

[Turkey 0]

It would have no effect on me at all. I watch the game to see the athleticism and for the excitement of the skill/speed/relatively low rate of scoring. I love a big, clean, hockey hit as much as the next guy (maybe more). But I love them because they are big and clean. That takes skill and I admire the skill. The fighting is a distraction that I don't very much enjoy.

I've never played myself, but I guess I can't understand why hockey has some inherent need to include fighting when other sports don't. Why can't grown men play a game without periodically stopping to beat each other up?

[Wings_Fan_In_Exile 3]

I voted "no effect" simply because I the amount of hockey I watch probably wouldn't change since I love the game so much. Like the example of Olympic hockey. I can watch and enjoy that just like I can college hockey which also doesn't tend to have fighting as often (from the games i've watched).

But fighing is part of the NHL, part of what makes the sport so awesome. It's engrained in the history of the league/sport and IMO has a cemented place in the game.

If they banned it I would be so super pissed that maybe it would decrease my interest in the sport until they reversed the ban.

[norrisnick 1]

You've more or less answered your own question...Many guys/gals such as yourself who never played ice hockey must realise that it's a fast paced game involving physical contact (read intimidation), & it takes placed in an enclosed playing field - aka the hockey rink.

Unlike baseball/basketball/football/soccer these sports have an "out of bounds" - in hockey if your on the ice - you're in the game, & there's no place to hide...Interestingly enough boxing/ultimate fights is enclosed as well.

Fighting in ice hockey serves in multiple areas:

1) allows for the protection of smaller/skilled players, & hopefully it'll give them more room on the ice to play their style of game (though I will agree this is debatable concerning it's effectiveness)

2) better to have opponents whom are willing combatants to square-off with knuckles versus swinging their sticks @ one another

3) can serve as a motivational tool - getting the team, & fans "into the game"

4) can serve as a reminder to your opponent that if you're losing on the scoreboard - you're not taking the loss with a grain of salt (read Flames/Ducks this past spring)

5) historically (pre-Bettman era in particular) players "policed" themselves through the use of fighting as a tool of justice when today we see Colin Campbell handing out suspensions; some find this fair, & others may not

Each sport has it's little nuances; hockey always has had fighting, & I sincerely hope it stays in the game.

I sincerely hope playing hockey doesn't cause brain damage as that is the biggest load of crap I've read in a while. The rink is enclosed so that's the reason there is fighting?? Seriously? That's just silly.

1. I'll keep debating this.

2. Or have neither?

3. Ever heard of cheerleaders?

4. So losers fight? Good job, you're still losers.

5. Lots and lots of things are historical. Very rarely is tradition for tradition's sake alone a good reason to continue doing ANYTHING let alone fighting in hockey.

Now, I'm not against fighting as a whole. Just this contrived culture of fighting being anywhere NEAR as important as some make it out to be.

[norrisnick 1]

I'll take your reply with a grain of salt since you've never played the game - therefore you'll never understand.

Cop. Out.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

You've more or less answered your own question...Many guys/gals such as yourself who never played ice hockey must realise that it's a fast paced game involving physical contact (read intimidation), & it takes placed in an enclosed playing field - aka the hockey rink.

Unlike baseball/basketball/football/soccer these sports have an "out of bounds" - in hockey if your on the ice - you're in the game, & there's no place to hide...Interestingly enough boxing/ultimate fights is enclosed as well.

Fighting in ice hockey serves in multiple areas:

1) allows for the protection of smaller/skilled players, & hopefully it'll give them more room on the ice to play their style of game (though I will agree this is debatable concerning it's effectiveness)

2) better to have opponents whom are willing combatants to square-off with knuckles versus swinging their sticks @ one another

3) can serve as a motivational tool - getting the team, & fans "into the game"

4) can serve as a reminder to your opponent that if you're losing on the scoreboard - you're not taking the loss with a grain of salt (read Flames/Ducks this past spring)

5) historically (pre-Bettman era in particular) players "policed" themselves through the use of fighting as a tool of justice when today we see Colin Campbell handing out suspensions; some find this fair, & others may not

Each sport has it's little nuances; hockey always has had fighting, & I sincerely hope it stays in the game.

that must explain all the fighting in racquetball.

I'm generally a pro-fighting guy, but the "never played hockey" argument is a weak one. You don't have to have strapped on the pads to understand and appreciate the game.

I have, but am not particularly good at hockey. And I think there's just as many fans who have never played the game who don't understand fighting on the other side of the argument. They love guys dropping the gloves and think they should be out to kill one another. Not appreciating the code, or that it's part of the job and the game. And more often than not there's no hard feelings involved. They usually don't want to brain one another because they want to be able to keep playing the game and go home to their wife and kids at night.

and #4 is the lamest of all reasons to fight, as proven by the Flames, and should not be tolerated by the league. It tarnishes the sport and makes it a joke. Yes a fight can rile the fans and team up during a game, but that's different than what Calgary did, skating around gooning it up because they're bad losers and cheapshot artists.

[CopenhagenWing 38]

I'll take your reply with a grain of salt since you've never played the game - therefore you'll never understand.

Lame.

[Turkey 0]

I agree with NN's post, not surprisingly. Frankly, the argument that a person can't talk about a thing unless they've done it is patently absurd. If that was true most people wouldn't be doing a whole lot of talking about anything would they?

I'm still waiting for a logical reason why the fighting is necessary. I don't hate it with a passion but I don't see why it should be necessary. I wouldn't miss it if it was gone and you can't deny that it would be a heck of a lot easier to market a game where the players didn't periodically stop to brawl.

[Lou_Siffer 1]

I agree with NN's post, not surprisingly. Frankly, the argument that a person can't talk about a thing unless they've done it is patently absurd. If that was true most people wouldn't be doing a whole lot of talking about anything would they?

I'm still waiting for a logical reason why the fighting is necessary. I don't hate it with a passion but I don't see why it should be necessary. I wouldn't miss it if it was gone and you can't deny that it would be a heck of a lot easier to market a game where the players didn't periodically stop to brawl.

To who? Soccer moms? Please. They need to market the fighting, that and hitting is the only thing that gets people outside of the hardcore NHL fans interested. Guys i know are the perfect example, the only time they come to me to talk about hockey is when theres a brawl that makes the news.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Lou_Siffer

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I agree with NN's post, not surprisingly. Frankly, the argument that a person can't talk about a thing unless they've done it is patently absurd. If that was true most people wouldn't be doing a whole lot of talking about anything would they?

I'm still waiting for a logical reason why the fighting is necessary. I don't hate it with a passion but I don't see why it should be necessary. I wouldn't miss it if it was gone and you can't deny that it would be a heck of a lot easier to market a game where the players didn't periodically stop to brawl.

Honestly fighting in hockey means less to me the older I get and longer I've watched it.

If there were no fighting in hockey, I would probably still watch it as long as there was still hitting, and there weren't spineless players cheapshotting guys because there's no real repercussions. The refs catch a lot, but there's still a lot that guys get away with in the game.

I feel like the mutual respect among players has already eroded at the NHL level. My fear would be that removing fighting would only make it worse.

The way the game is played today, I want it in the game. And I want more guys on the Wings dropping the gloves after they get run at it. It was frustrating as a fan last season watching them get cheapshotted with no repercussion, other than the occasional penalty.

EDIT: oh, and the argument that you can't talk about something unless you've done it is crap. If that were true it would pretty much invalidate this whole forums. I don't see a lot of NHL players in here. And lord knows that pickup games and beer leagues are a world away from what goes on in the NHL, so I guess no one would be able to talk about it.

Edited October 5, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Most folks who never played the game of hockey have no clue as to how easy it is to get frustrated/lose your temper due to it's fast pace, & physical nature...IMHO for those who haven't played the game, & feel fighting doesn't belong in the game have no clue as to what they're talking about.

BTW I not once said fighting was a neccessity, but it's part of the game, & it should continue to be so.

Football has fast pace and physical nature. As does Lacrosse, and plenty of other sports. Somehow players manage to avoid fighting. And it's not because they don't have boards around the field. It's because it's not tolerated as part of the game.

All sports are frustrating and can cause you to lose your temper. Any adult athlete should be mature enough to contain that temper, especially at the pro level.

There is fighting in hockey simply because it is accepted in the game and has been for a long time. Simple as that.

I'm not for getting rid of fighting in hockey, but your reasoning as to why it's there is weak.

And your statement about having the to play the game to "get" fighting is a crock of sh*t. I've played hockey, basketball, tennis, hell even track. And it's easy to get frustrated and lose your temper in all of them. Because they're all competitive sports.

If anything you could argue that it's easier to control your temper in hockey because of the physical nature. you can vent it by throwing a clean check on your opponent. Most sports you can't even touch the guy, so there's no legal way to vent that frustration.

Sounds like you've got an anger management issue. That doesn't make you more qualified to talk about fighting in hockey.

Edited October 5, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[Turkey 0]

People who resort to fighting when they "get frustrated and lose their temper" often find society remarkably unwilling to accept that as an excuse. Just saying. That's really not a defense. Lots of sports are fast. Lots of sports (all) can be frustrating for the players. Hockey is not special in that regard. There is fighting in hockey because there has been for a long time and for no other reason.

Doing something just because it's always been done isn't really a very rational thing.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

In football you don't need to fight when you can run into your opponent, & do your best to injure him/get payback - within the rules.

How many players in other sports are cheapshotted from behind along the boards? It's a known fact that it's a s***ty thing to do to an opponent, & you'd better be prepared for a scrap.

Basketball/tennis/track - not contact sports - enough said.

You can check your opponent, but there's limitations ie - cannot take more than a few strides (charging), and you gotta keep your elbows down/can't lead with your knee/cannot hit from behind/cannot hipcheck too low etc etc. In other words there's limitations as to how you can get payback (unlike football) in hockey which is why dropping the mitts is 1 way for some of the players the best way "to get it outta their system".

Anger mgt issues? Are you a psychologist?.....Never claimed any qualifications/degrees/certificates are needed to understand the sport of hockey - although playing the game allows 1 to have some insight as to the nature of the beast that others may not have.

Actually tennis is the only one that's no contact, so it's not enough said.

You've apparently never played basketball if you think it's no contact. Track I wouldn't classify as a contact sport, but watch the guys running any distance greater than 800m. There's jostling for lane position, some elbowing, fighting for position.

As for cheapshotting from behind into the boars, obviously the boards part can only really happen in hockey. but the cheapshots from behind happen often in football to wide receivers. or a late hit on a QB. Soccer has elbows, head butts, intentional kicks, slide tackles with the cleats up to injure. Thrown elbows in basketball. hacks to the arms and face. knocking the legs out from under a guy on a layup or dunk.

There's cheapshots in about every sport. It's just that most sports don't allow fighting in any capacity. It's not a function of how aggressive the sport is. Football is about as agro as it gets. It's because other sports don't tolerate it.

In your football example of how you can get payback, you're ignoring that football also has rules on how you can hit a guy, just like hockey does. There are limitations. Can't hit with the helmet. no hands to the face, no chop blocks, etc. It's the same thing. Oh, and you have to actually have a reason to block him or tackle him. It's not like in football you can just clock any guy on the field any way you want because you're mad.

And again, I like fighting in hockey. I think it's a part of the game. When someone cheapshots a Wings player, I want that guy to get a beatdown.

But it's got nothing to do with playing the game or hockey being more intense than all other sports. Hockey just allows fighting to happen and other sports don't.

And I was joking about the anger management. I should've added a smiley or something.

If anything it sounds like hockey is your sport. The one you love and play the most, so it's also gonna be the most intense and frustrating too. But that's how it is for competitive people in every sport.

[Avalanche Warning 0]

Why does it matter on this board? The wings had like 9 fights last seaosn.

[Hiei 192]

Can still kick Colorado's ass though.

[Avalanche Warning 0]

Can still kick Colorado's ass though.

Oh yeah, old man Chelios might hit us with his cane!

[Skiing - Puck 0]

Soccer

Football 1

Football 2

Basketball 1

Basketball 2

Basketball 3

Baseball 2

Laccrose 1

Laccrose 2

What do all of these sport clips have in common?

I thought these sports didn't have fights.

[Avalanche Warning 0]

Interesting fact :

Bob Probert called the Red Wings an embarrassment to the league when it comes to fighting

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Thats nice.

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

Interesting fact :

Bob Probert called the Red Wings an embarrassment to the league when it comes to fighting

I believe that's also what he said about Scott Parker after their infamous fight.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Why does it matter on this board? The wings had like 9 fights last seaosn.

That's like saying, why does it matter to avs fans if they make the playoffs or not? They didnt make it last year