Ken Dryden on fighting in the NHL

[auxlepli 17]

Reading The Game I found this:

The NHL theory of violence goes something like this: Hockey is by its nature a violent game. Played in a an area confined by boards and unbreakable glass, by players carrying sticks travelling at speeds approaching thirty miles per hour, collisions occur, and because they occur, the rules specifically permit them, with only some exceptions. But whether legal or illegal, accidental or not, such collisions can cause violent feelings, and violent feelings with a stick in your hands are dangerous, potentially lethal feelings. It is crucial, therefore, that those feelings be vented quickly before anger and frustration explode into savage overreaction, channeled towards, if not desirable, at least most tolerable, directions. In essence, this is Freud's "drive -discharge" theory of human aggression.

The NHL offers two possible channels for this discharge: fighting, which on ice is little more than a harmless burlesque of threats, sweater-pulling, and off-balance punches, leaving the loser often unmarked, the winner's hands cut and swollen; and stick swinging. Neither is desirable, one is necessary, so it is a matter of choice. With its worst abuses - mass brawling, goonery - now largely eliminated, fighting becomes the tolerated channel; stick swinging, infinitely more dangerous, is more severely dealt with, by expulsions, fines and suspensions. And for those who cite European hockey as evidence disproving the inevitability of hockey fighting, in fact European hockey only reinforces the point. For playing in the same (albeit slightly larger) confined areas, also carrying sticks and travelling nearly thirty miles per hour, colliding (though less often), and not permitted to fight, its players resort instead to dangerous stick-swinging. The result, as related to NHL President John Ziegler by his scouts and by Ziegler to us, is that at game's end their bodies are covered in welts.

The NHL is wrong. The reports of Ziegler's scouts notwithstanding, there is much visual evidence to the contrary. But more to the point, the NHL is wrong because if Freud was right, anthropologist Desmond Morris is also right. As Morris believes, anger released, though sometimes therapeutic, is sometimes inflammatory; that is, by fighting, two players may get violent feelings out of their systems, or by fighting they may create new violent feelings to make further release (more fighting) necessary. If Freud was right, the NHL is also wrong believing as it does that fighting and stick-swinging represent the only channels by which violent feelings can be released. Anger and frustration can be released within the rules, by skating faster, by shooting harder, by doing relentless, dogged violence on an opponent's mind as Bjorn Borg, Pete Rose, and Bob Gainey do. If Freud was right and anger released is anger spent, then a right hook given is a body-check missed, and by permitting fighting, the NHL discourages determined, inspired play as retaliation.

But Freud might be wrong. Anthropologist Richard Sipes thinks so. He has written that violence, instead of being a human potential requiring release, once released is learned and repeated, not cathartically purged away - in other words, violence feeds violence, fighting encourages more fighting. If Freud was wrong and Sipes right, the NHL is still wrong.

The NHL theory of violence is nothing more than original violence tolerated and accepted, in time turned into custom, into spectacle, into tactic, and finally into theory. For years the league has argued the wrong-headedness of its critics, and for years it has missed the point. Surely it matters little any more whether hockey fighting is violence or vaudeville, release or just good practice. What matters is that fighting degrades, turning sport to dubious spectacle, bringing into hockey's very legitimacy, confining it forever to the fringes of sports respectability.In a TV interview, Dick Cavett once asked John Cleese of England's Monty Python's Flying Circus the connection between his training as a lawyer and the group's outrageous nonsensical humor. It was intended only as a set-up for a quick, witty reply; but Cleese answered that there was a connection, indeed a close one.

For though appearing random and nonsensical, he said, the group's humor in fact derived from an outrageous initial premise, but a premise then logically followed, step by step as a lawyer might, to its outrageous but logical end. So if, as in Monty Python and then Holy Grail, a knight, both arms cut off in a duel, continues to duel, it follows he must do so by either kicking or biting his opponent. The result, if nonsensical, is only because the original premise made it so.

Often criticized for lenience in dealing with league violence, Ziegler and NHL executive vice-president Brian O'Neill in fact have acted entirely consistently with the league's own understanding of violence. Unfortunately, trapped in their own myth and intending no humor, they too begin with an outrageous premise.

Emphasis mine.

I think what the Wings try to do now is what Dryden describes in the italicized part. I know I'd rather see that than fights.

Edited October 13, 2009 by auxlepli

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Reading The Game I found this:

Emphasis mine.

I think what the Wings try to do now is what Dryden describes in the italicized part. I know I'd rather see that than fights.

lol... *News Flash*... Brad May was just signed to our team. May have to start rooting for a new team, since you may see some of that 'disturbing violence'. Lol at your thread.

[Guest micah]

I think what the Wings try to do now is what Dryden describes in the italicized part. I know I'd rather see that than fights.

I totally agree. When one of our guys gets cheapshotted, I don't want a response in kind, we're better than that. Like Dryden says, we can work out our anger by skating faster. We'll skate so fast that nobody will ever f*** with us again! Maybe we could make our powerplay our enforcer?

Oh wait, what's that? Dryden is a politician, farremoved from the game and Mike Babcock one of the greatest coaches in the league says that it's clear that without tough guys willing to do violence in order to protect their teamates, his guys get run? I wonder who is more familiar with today's game, Babs or Dryden? Maybe when our guys were getting run it was their fault, they just didn't skate fast enough in response to keep it from happening again.

[P. Marlowe 748]

Reading The Game I found this:

Emphasis mine.

I think what the Wings try to do now is what Dryden describes in the italicized part. I know I'd rather see that than fights.

That's a very interesting text. I enjoyed reading it as it brings many interesting points by going deeper under the surface of things. Thanks for posting it here.

By the way, you just happened to open a can of worms.

[Doc Holiday 0]

Floyd Mayweather.

without tough guys willing to do violence in order to protect their teamates, his guys get run?

Didn't Babs also say "our powerplay is our enforcer", or was that Holland?

Edited October 13, 2009 by Doc Holiday

[egroen 384]

Mike Bossy was also a vocal opponent of fighting in the NHL - did not make him very popular.

I do think it will be a sad day if it is ever completely removed from the sport.

[Guest micah]

I'm tearing up a bit right now, thinking of all the unnecessary violence in that Aves/Wings game years back. Shame on Darren McCarty for going after Claude Lemieux. He could have sent the same message by just skating a bit faster. He's a jerk and that game is proof that the Red wings suck, Scotty Bowman sucks, Steve Yzerman is dumb (he's on record saying that the brawl was a good thing - some leader!).

Edited October 13, 2009 by micah

[Guest micah]

Floyd Mayweather.

Didn't Babs also say "our powerplay is our enforcer", or was that Holland?

That's the old thinking. Obsolete. Times change.

[Doc Holiday 0]

That's the old thinking. Obsolete. Times change.

Would you be defending Babs the same way one year ago?

[Guest micah]

Would you be defending Babs the same way one year ago?

The only way to defend anyone is with speedskating. Kris Draper can defend Babs just fine, he doesn't need my help.

[Doc Holiday 0]

The only way to defend anyone is with speedskating. Kris Draper can defend Babs just fine, he doesn't need my help.

[Guest micah]

That chick has her fist cocked back, ready to ball-punch George Parros. Ken Dryden would not aprove.

[P. Marlowe 748]

I'm tearing up a bit right now, thinking of all the unnecessary violence in that Aves/Wings game years back. Shame on Darren McCarty for going after Claude Lemieux. He could have sent the same message by just skating a bit faster. He's a jerk and that game is proof that the Red wings suck, Scotty Bowman sucks, Steve Yzerman is dumb (he's on record saying that the brawl was a good thing - some leader!).

You're silly. What Dryden criticized was that fighting is often defended by saying that it's a way for players to vent their aggressions and by allowing it the players won't have to do something really dangerous. He criticized the way that fighting is often defended. While there are other legal ways for players to vent their aggressions they choose fighting. So that is not an explanation to why players fight.

I'm not sure if it even needs to explained.

[Guest micah]

You're silly. What Dryden criticized was that fighting is often defended by saying that it's a way for players to vent their aggressions and by allowing it the players won't have to do something really dangerous. He criticized the way that fighting is often defended. While there are other legal ways for players to vent their aggressions they choose fighting. So that is not an explanation to why players fight.

I'm not sure if it even needs to explained.

I think we agree! Fighting shouldn't be in the game because players need to vent, fighting should be in the game because hockey fights are rad!!!

[P. Marlowe 748]

I think we agree! Fighting shouldn't be in the game because players need to vent, fighting should be in the game because hockey fights are rad!!!

Wow. I think we agree.

[kook_10 1,705]

Floyd Mayweather.

Didn't Babs also say "our powerplay is our enforcer", or was that Holland?

wasn't that Brad May himself talking to John Keating in the first intermission Thursday night? Or was that "they don't need me when they're scoring"?

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

What can of worms? What thread? All I see and sense is another onslaught of four trillion words on the same tired, worn-out, pummeled-to-death topic that not one of us has any control over whatsoever except to vent about s*** most of us have never experienced first-hand. Other than that, I can hardly wait to read the next post here.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

^ This unfortuantely.

Fighting has its place in the game, I like a good one-on-one scrap like anybody else, but I don't get overly gaga about it like some seem to do in here. I like it just as much as a breakway goal, awesome glove save, whatever else.

I forgot the exact game/matchup, but it happened a few seasons ago with Buffalo, basically just sending a full line of 5 goons to just completely throw down with the other team. I don't remember the exact situation of the game, but that result itself looked like it was pretty unnecessary. Fighting resulting from that, I do not like.

It'd be a shame though if fighting went away.

[Inultus 12]

I wish I could choose to vent at my job by fighting and only getting 5 minutes penalty. That would be awesome.

Fighting is part of hockey.

[esteef 2,679]

I wish I could choose to vent at my job by fighting and only getting 5 minutes penalty. That would be awesome.

I'd be fine if we could just ragdoll the s*** out of somebody!

esteef

[Buppy 1,720]

There is a culture of violence in hockey that would take time to change. Many players have the mindset that violence is the appropriate response to almost any negative situation. Losing the game; Beat them up. Star player gets hit; beat them up. Other team gets too close to your goalie while trying to score; beat them up. Etc.

Take away fighting and those same players are just going to look for other violent ways to respond. Sticks and elbows kind of stuff. The culture could be changed, but it would be a painful process. And would the game really be better? More popular perhaps, but does that really matter? Hockey is fine as a niche sport, we don't need NFL popularity.

That said, the argument that fighting prevents cheap shots and players getting run is a bit silly. There was no difference between the St.Louis games and the Chicago/Washington games. At least nothing major. A few less face washes...big deal.

If you think about logically, the premise is ridiculous. You have a bunch of big, tough guys. Skating around at 20-30 mph, purposely hitting each other. Swinging sticks, knives strapped to their feet. Purposely diving in front of 90 mph slap shots. But they're supposed to be afraid of some guy on the other team throwing an off-balance punch at them.

Furthermore, fighting to prevent goonery from the other team supposedly increases your chance to win. Which means, from the perspective of the goon team, goonery must increase your chances of winning, or stated differently; not being a goon decreases your chance of winning. Therefore, for fighting to have a deterrent effect you must believe that the other team is SO afraid of you, that they purposely decrease their chances of winning in order to avoid a fight. Preposterous.

[Doc Holiday 0]

wasn't that Brad May himself talking to John Keating in the first intermission Thursday night? Or was that "they don't need me when they're scoring"?

Thank you for missing my point entirely.

[kook_10 1,705]

i didn't miss it. it's right there on top of your head.

[P. Marlowe 748]

There is a culture of violence in hockey that would take time to change. Many players have the mindset that violence is the appropriate response to almost any negative situation. Losing the game; Beat them up. Star player gets hit; beat them up. Other team gets too close to your goalie while trying to score; beat them up. Etc.

Take away fighting and those same players are just going to look for other violent ways to respond. Sticks and elbows kind of stuff. The culture could be changed, but it would be a painful process. And would the game really be better? More popular perhaps, but does that really matter? Hockey is fine as a niche sport, we don't need NFL popularity.

That said, the argument that fighting prevents cheap shots and players getting run is a bit silly. There was no difference between the St.Louis games and the Chicago/Washington games. At least nothing major. A few less face washes...big deal.

If you think about logically, the premise is ridiculous. You have a bunch of big, tough guys. Skating around at 20-30 mph, purposely hitting each other. Swinging sticks, knives strapped to their feet. Purposely diving in front of 90 mph slap shots. But they're supposed to be afraid of some guy on the other team throwing an off-balance punch at them.

Furthermore, fighting to prevent goonery from the other team supposedly increases your chance to win. Which means, from the perspective of the goon team, goonery must increase your chances of winning, or stated differently; not being a goon decreases your chance of winning. Therefore, for fighting to have a deterrent effect you must believe that the other team is SO afraid of you, that they purposely decrease their chances of winning in order to avoid a fight. Preposterous.

I like the way you write. It's refreshing after all the usual fighting sucks/Red Wings suck debate.

[Seraph 240]

Furthermore, fighting to prevent goonery from the other team supposedly increases your chance to win. Which means, from the perspective of the goon team, goonery must increase your chances of winning, or stated differently; not being a goon decreases your chance of winning. Therefore, for fighting to have a deterrent effect you must believe that the other team is SO afraid of you, that they purposely decrease their chances of winning in order to avoid a fight. Preposterous.

You can't deny that if a goon sees one of his linemates get the living daylights beat out of him, he will be less likely to go out there and cause trouble. You also can't deny that if the same goons play another team who are absolute pushovers, then cheap shots will happen more. The players aren't one dimensional thinkers. They will adapt to each team they play and try to take advantage of their weaknesses. Having an enforcer addresses one of these weaknesses. Your argument is philosophical and not very practical.

Edited October 13, 2009 by The Nephilim

[RyanK 1]

This is retarded. If I knew for certain that I would never see another fight in hockey I am pretty sure I'd stop watching. I like listening to Mickey Redmond and I'm pretty sure he'd either quit his job or have a heart attack and die if fighting was banned. It's part of the game, people who disagree need to pull out their "front wedgies".