103 replies to this topic

[sleepwalker]

I loved seeing Abby get up and try to fight MacArthur.

The staged fights I don't like on the surface, but I am okay with them when a game is getting out of hand, or when an enforcer steps in so a skill player doesn't have to fight unwillingly. Similarly, I don't generally like fights after clean hits, but when the clean hit is dangerous I don't mind. An example is below.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=y6HX0Ze4O64

Shanny should look into that stuff too.

How many times now have we seen some dips*** ref tie up one guys arms like that, rendering him defenseless, while the other guy punches him in the head over and over.

[Vladifan]

I haven't had a chance to read all of this but I'd like to throw in some thoughts - especially about the statement from some of you that "they don't have to fight if they don't want to". I can't remember what goon or ex-goon said it, or whether he's still alive or dead, but I recently read that at least one of them said that if they didn't go out and fight, they wouldn't get to play. I know it goes with the territory of not being skilled at other parts of the game, but it is still a fact that if they didn't fight they're out of the game. So it ain't like they have a choice.

The other part of the fallacy of that statement is that when guys - especially ours - don't fight or choose not to defend themselves, they're called chickens***s and whatever else is available for name-calling. So it's not cut and dried no matter how it's looked at..

And I too, find myself bellowing at the screen when a good/deserved fight is going on. I'm still hoarse from when Mac took out theTurtle. However - bottom line is, I'm not exactly at my best when I'm doing that, am I? And yes, I'm talking to myself on that one.

[number9]

2 points...

1. The NHL should be more relaxed about fighting. Theyre giving out all these crazy suspensions to try and curb dirty hits, when the way to curb dirty hits is with fear. Not fear of missing a few games, but fear that your going to have your face pounded in if u make that dirty play. Reality is hockey is a fast high impact sport. Players are going to leave their feet, use their size (especially if they dont have the skill), and lose their cool.

2. If shanny has anything to do with fighting leaving the game gordie will kill him. plain and simple. i kno shanny is a tough guy but he should legitimately fear for his life if gordie comes looking for him. so its in his best interest not to get rid of fighting.

[RedBengals]

I don't think they're trying to get rid of it completely. But there hasn't really been more information on it except he's going to LOOK INTO fighting. Shanny played hockey, I think if anyone he's not going to say it needs to be suspension worthy. Let's just see what happens.

[sibiriak]

For a guy who didn't grow up in North America, would someone please explain a few things about hockey fighting to me?
I don't have any objection against fighting in hockey, but except for being entertaining and traditional, I don't see any useful function for it.
The way I see it, a cheap shot artist (like Cooke, Casparaitis) can always avoid being beat up by turtling (and does if the odds are unfavorable). So as a deterrent, I don't see fighting working.
Or if an agitator A(very) does something bad, and as a result heavyweight from the other team challenges an enforcer from A(very)'s team, then how is A(very) punished? He is not the one with the black eye.
Or if the two heavyweights line up for a faceoff and drop'em right away, what's that but a sideshow?
I understand when a spontaneous fight, especially by a scorer/team leader who doesn't normally fight, can change the momentum of the game, but that situation does not arise often, and the existing rules can deal with such adequately.

So my question is, what do we want fighting in hockey for, and why would heavy suspensions for fighting be bad?

[number9]

For a guy who didn't grow up in North America, would someone please explain a few things about hockey fighting to me?
I don't have any objection against fighting in hockey, but except for being entertaining and traditional, I don't see any useful function for it.
The way I see it, a cheap shot artist (like Cooke, Casparaitis) can always avoid being beat up by turtling (and does if the odds are unfavorable). So as a deterrent, I don't see fighting working.
Or if an agitator A(very) does something bad, and as a result heavyweight from the other team challenges an enforcer from A(very)'s team, then how is A(very) punished? He is not the one with the black eye.
Or if the two heavyweights line up for a faceoff and drop'em right away, what's that but a sideshow?
I understand when a spontaneous fight, especially by a scorer/team leader who doesn't normally fight, can change the momentum of the game, but that situation does not arise often, and the existing rules can deal with such adequately.

So my question is, what do we want fighting in hockey for, and why would heavy suspensions for fighting be bad?

Entertainment: fans want to see fights. it's one of the things that hockey has that no other sport has (besides boxing/UFC). it makes hockey unique and it often intensifies rivalries and puts fans in seats.
Traditional: getting rid of fighting in hockey is like making american football 2 hand touch
Protection: turtling rarely happens, and when it does it's seen as quite shameful. at least in pre-lockout hockey you usually had to answer for dirty plays one way or another. heavyweight bouts are more of a sideshow, but do bring in fans and thus money. a win in a fight often boosts the energy and attitude of a team as well, occasionally changing the course of a game.

heavy suspensions for fighting is bad because it would change many dynamics of the game. i believe refs should return to their pre-lockout attitude of allowing enforcers to make dirty players "pay" thus curtailing many dirty plays.

now the nhl is suspending players instead of letting enforcers do their jobs. as a result the number of dives r increasing because players kno they can get others suspended for long periods of time. if enforcers were allowed to perform their jobs, the only thing a dive would accomplish is maybe a pp, and the one not diving getting his butt kicked. personally i think they should allow enforcers to beat on divers.

fighting is very much a sideshow but also very functional

Edited by number9, 03 October 2011 - 02:47 PM.

[sibiriak]

Entertainment: fans want to see fights. it's one of the things that hockey has that no other sport has (besides boxing/UFC). it makes hockey unique and it often intensifies rivalries and puts fans in seats.
Traditional: getting rid of fighting in hockey is like making american football 2 hand touch
Protection: turtling rarely happens, and when it does it's seen as quite shameful. at least in pre-lockout hockey you usually had to answer for dirty plays one way or another. heavyweight bouts are more of a sideshow, but do bring in fans and thus money. a win in a fight often boosts the energy and attitude of a team as well, occasionally changing the course of a game.

heavy suspensions for fighting is bad because it would change many dynamics of the game. i believe refs should return to their pre-lockout attitude of allowing enforcers to make dirty players "pay" thus curtailing many dirty plays.

fighting is very much a sideshow but also very functional

I'm trying to recall an instance where someone got beat up by an enforcer for something he did in the game, and I draw a blank. Could you give me an example?
But I remember quite well Cooke and Tootoo antics, and how they never concede to fight anyone bigger then them.
So I'm not convinced that fighting deters anything.
It does please many fans, but as for being functional...

[Konnan511]

For a guy who didn't grow up in North America, would someone please explain a few things about hockey fighting to me?
I don't have any objection against fighting in hockey, but except for being entertaining and traditional, I don't see any useful function for it.
The way I see it, a cheap shot artist (like Cooke, Casparaitis) can always avoid being beat up by turtling (and does if the odds are unfavorable). So as a deterrent, I don't see fighting working.
Or if an agitator A(very) does something bad, and as a result heavyweight from the other team challenges an enforcer from A(very)'s team, then how is A(very) punished? He is not the one with the black eye.
Or if the two heavyweights line up for a faceoff and drop'em right away, what's that but a sideshow?
I understand when a spontaneous fight, especially by a scorer/team leader who doesn't normally fight, can change the momentum of the game, but that situation does not arise often, and the existing rules can deal with such adequately.

So my question is, what do we want fighting in hockey for, and why would heavy suspensions for fighting be bad?

Back a couple decades ago it had a purpose. You'd put a goon with skill on a stars line and they'd protect that start with their fighting while not completely hampering things. Fighting doesn't really serve a purpose these days besides an entertainment value. Fight slappies will protest that it curbs dirty plays, which it doesn't, well not anymore at least. They'll bring up "the brawl" of almost 15 years ago and talk about how it changed our team to what it is now. It did change the dynamic of the team, but that is a one instance thing. A one instance sample size is a terrible sample size.

Other players and fans from other teams contend that Kronwall's hits are all dirty, how many fights has he been in? Look at the dirty hits from this past season and this pre-season, really looks like goons and fighters really curbed those. Having Downey in the line-up really stopped Lappy from elbowing our star DMan in the head. Fighting doesn't prevent anything.

With that said, i like when players stand up for themselves and want to throw down ala Abby trying to go after Mac. Or when people went after Cooke for cheapshotting Savard and Savard couldn't do anything. It's purpose is to stick up for temmates after an injustice, but today scrums happen after clean hits, and those need to go.

[number9]

fights after clean hits are dumb. fighting is less functional now, but still functional. if it wasnt fucntional at all ppl wouldnt do it. if we returned to pre-lockout attiudes it would be much more functional. i dont like where hockey is heading. less fighting and more diving.

[wings1110]

fighting isf****** fun 2 watch thats a good enough reason in itself! but it also helps police the game, but the NHL f***ed that up with the instigator rule.

dont tell me to watch the ufc cuz that completely different.

[Doc Holliday]

fighting isf****** fun 2 watch thats a good enough reason in itself! but it also helps police the game, but the NHL f***ed that up with the instigator rule.

dont tell me to watch the ufc cuz that completely different.

Hey.

Watch the UFC.

It's a growing sport and I think you would definitely enjoy it.

[wings1110]

Hey.

Watch the UFC.

It's a growing sport and I think you would definitely enjoy it.

[GMRwings1983]

Back a couple decades ago it had a purpose. You'd put a goon with skill on a stars line and they'd protect that start with their fighting while not completely hampering things. Fighting doesn't really serve a purpose these days besides an entertainment value. Fight slappies will protest that it curbs dirty plays, which it doesn't, well not anymore at least. They'll bring up "the brawl" of almost 15 years ago and talk about how it changed our team to what it is now. It did change the dynamic of the team, but that is a one instance thing. A one instance sample size is a terrible sample size.

Other players and fans from other teams contend that Kronwall's hits are all dirty, how many fights has he been in? Look at the dirty hits from this past season and this pre-season, really looks like goons and fighters really curbed those. Having Downey in the line-up really stopped Lappy from elbowing our star DMan in the head. Fighting doesn't prevent anything.

With that said, i like when players stand up for themselves and want to throw down ala Abby trying to go after Mac. Or when people went after Cooke for cheapshotting Savard and Savard couldn't do anything. It's purpose is to stick up for temmates after an injustice, but today scrums happen after clean hits, and those need to go.

Enforcers help toughen up soft Euros over the course of a season.

[esteef]

Ice Basketball.

esteef

[Scott Stevens]

Fighting has its place in the NHL.

I like to compare what happens without fighting:



to what happens with fighting:




In both instances, a player did something he shouldn't have by extending his knee/elbow/etc. at a player when he shouldn't have.

In one instance, a player refused to pony up for his misdeed and ended up getting socked in the side of the head and we all know the rest.

In the other instance, the player manned up and fought when called out.

Everyone put all the blame on Bertuzzi and made him out to be Satan, but the reality is that Moore was responsible for everything that happened to himself. If he would have turned around, dropped the gloves, and taken a few lefts from Bertuzzi, everything would have cleared itself up and been forgotten by everybody in a week's time.

[RedBengals]

Fighting is a good way for a team to show that they are unhappy with the other. Alot of fights are spontanious, most fighters have hair triggers. A slash, crosscheck, hard knock at a whistle is enough to make them go. Other times its just two guys who don't like each other.

Hockey fights serve two real purposes(besides entertainment) and are a traditional part of hockey.
1. Fighting cuts down on cheap shots. Not just "If I run the goalie i'm gonna get my ass kicked" but in a highly passionate, rough, intense game like hockey it let's players mutually take out anger on one another. This means instead of taking a guys number and cracking him across the ankle later you can drop your gloves and have at it.
2. Fighting can serve your team. An enforcer doesn't always just protect a goalie or star player. In most nonspontanious fights, the enforcer is fighting the other teams enforcer. They can both serve a mutual five and not affect the team's performance. However, winning a fight can be a huge morale boost. If you're down by one goal in the third and looking tired, a good fight can get the blood flowing (metaphorically as well as on the ice) and pump up. Hockey is one of the most moment to moment passionate games, and dropping the gloves has long been a way of showing that passion.

Hockey condones fighting because simply put it's going to happen. In a rough game tension is going to run high. However, in hockey this tension can be let out in very ritualistic fights instead of sucker punches and brawls. So fans get entertainment and the players can defend their honor in a way that is traditional and relatively harmless.

[GMRwings1983]

People are quick to point out incidents where fighting didn't deter something cheap, but ignore the many situations where a cheapshot may have been averted because of having a tough guy in the lineup.

I don't think every GM in the league who signs and dresses a tough guy is a dumb ass, while the anti-enforcer people here on LGW are hockey geniuses.

Don't forget that most teams have some sort of tough guy in the lineup, who's taking a roster spot away from a more talented player.

[Carman]

People are quick to point out incidents where fighting didn't deter something cheap, but ignore the many situations where a cheapshot may have been averted because of having a tough guy in the lineup.

I don't think every GM in the league who signs and dresses a tough guy is a dumb ass, while the anti-enforcer people here on LGW are hockey geniuses.

Don't forget that most teams have some sort of tough guy in the lineup, who's taking a roster spot away from a more talented player.

It's a purely entertainment decision. It has zero impact on making the team better on the ice.

[Detroit # 1 Fan]

It's a purely entertainment decision. It has zero impact on making the team better on the ice.

So Shawn Thornton played on the Bruins in the playoffs for entertainment? Really? In the Stanley Cup finals.. for entertainment? Come on.

[Carman]

So Shawn Thornton played on the Bruins in the playoffs for entertainment? Really? In the Stanley Cup finals.. for entertainment? Come on.

Because he had all those fights in the post season that helped them win that cup right?