103 replies to this topic

[GMRwings1983]

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

Bullcrap.

NHL teams wouldn't sacrifice winning and losing just for entertainment and sideshow antics. This isn't the bush leagues.

I've yet to hear a person here on LGW give me a good response to what I posted. Yours was a common one, but it doesn't hold much weight. Coaches and GM's aren't going to make training camp roster decisions just for show.

Edited by GMRwings1983, 03 October 2011 - 10:34 PM.

[Carman]

Bullcrap.

NHL teams wouldn't sacrifice winning and losing just for entertainment and sideshow antics. This isn't the bush leagues.

I've yet to hear a person here on LGW give me a good response to what I posted. Yours was a common one, but it doesn't hold much weight. Coaches and GM's aren't going to make training camp roster decisions just for show.

Fighting just isn't important anymore. If they* take out the stupid instigator penalty I can see the point of an enforcer with it's impact. But that's just not the case anymore.

Edited by Carman, 03 October 2011 - 10:41 PM.

[esteef]

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

Then his deterrence worked then right? Fighter in the post season = Cup.

esteef

[Rikadyn]

Just make the rules for fighting the same as international hockey.

[F.Michael]

Just make the rules for fighting the same as international hockey.

[Doc Holliday]

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.

I'm sorry, but didn't Moore fight Cooke in that game?

[Konnan511]

I'm sorry, but didn't Moore fight Cooke in that game?

Yes, 6 minutes into the game.

There were 5 fights prior to the incident as well. Enforcers prevent nothing.

[eva unit zero]

I'm sorry, but didn't Moore fight Cooke in that game?

Don't you know? It wasn't enough. He was required to man up and fight Bertuzzi, late in the game after it was well out of hand, when Bertuzzi was stalking him around the ice trying to get him to fight. When Moore refused, Bertuzzi had every right to puch him in the back of the head and follow that up by driving him face-first into the ice, causing severe injuries that would end his career.

I wonder this with regards to that incident but... why don't people defend McSorley for doing essentially the same thing, but less? He chased Brashear around the ice looking for a fight. He tried to tap him with his stick on the shoulder, and bounced it off his helmet. Brashear dropped to the ice.

McSorley was effectively given a lifetime ban by the NHL, and also was sentenced to 18 months probation for assault.

Can someone, someone who loves enforcers, tell me which incident was more worthy of a lifetime ban and an assault charge? Why?

I'd love to hear the logic.

[Konnan511]

Bullcrap.

NHL teams wouldn't sacrifice winning and losing just for entertainment and sideshow antics. This isn't the bush leagues.

I've yet to hear a person here on LGW give me a good response to what I posted. Yours was a common one, but it doesn't hold much weight. Coaches and GM's aren't going to make training camp roster decisions just for show.

If the team sucks and they need to draw in fans, in the end, the team owner has final say on who plays and if he wants a few extra bucks, you'll see a goon out there at the expense of a skilled forward.

Don't you know? It wasn't enough. He was required to man up and fight Bertuzzi, late in the game after it was well out of hand, when Bertuzzi was stalking him around the ice trying to get him to fight. When Moore refused, Bertuzzi had every right to puch him in the back of the head and follow that up by driving him face-first into the ice, causing severe injuries that would end his career.

I wonder this with regards to that incident but... why don't people defend McSorley for doing essentially the same thing, but less? He chased Brashear around the ice looking for a fight. He tried to tap him with his stick on the shoulder, and bounced it off his helmet. Brashear dropped to the ice.

McSorley was effectively given a lifetime ban by the NHL, and also was sentenced to 18 months probation for assault.

Can someone, someone who loves enforcers, tell me which incident was more worthy of a lifetime ban and an assault charge? Why?

I'd love to hear the logic.

McSorley did not try to tap Brasher's shoulder, he swung at a guys head with a heavy wooden stick. The injury to Brashear was directly related to McSorley and his stick. Moore's injury can not be proven to have been by Bertuzzi when a gaggle of hockey players decided it would be a good idea to jump on top of an unconscious Moore. Plus, it didn't end Moore's career, Moore decided on his own to take himself out of hockey after that for hsi impending lawsuit. He was offered multiple NHL contracts and he turned them all down.

Edited by Konnan511, 04 October 2011 - 01:28 AM.

[haroldsnepsts]

I'm sorry, but didn't Moore fight Cooke in that game?

Yup. But apparently Vancouver wasn't satisfied because Cooke didn't lay much of a beatdown on Moore, so when they were getting blownout late in the game Todd was sent out for more revenge.

Many people also don't know or forget that the two teams had played each other once already after the Naslund hit. But it was a tight game late in the season, in Colorado, and Bettman and Campbell were in attendance. Strange how there was not retribution from Vancouver that game.

[haroldsnepsts]

Sorley did not try to tap Brasher's shoulder, he swung at a guys head with a heavy wooden stick. The injury to Brashear was directly related to McSorley and his stick. Moore's injury can not be proven to have been by Bertuzzi when a gaggle of hockey players decided it would be a good idea to jump on top of an unconscious Moore. Plus, it didn't end Moore's career, Moore decided on his own to take himself out of hockey after that for hsi impending lawsuit. He was offered multiple NHL contracts and he turned them all down.

Have some links to back up this claim?

Three years after the incident he still suffered from symptoms and couldn't train fully.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2791699

That put him at 28 years old. So we're talking about a 3rd or 4th liner who didn't get much NHL experience before the injury, is now 28, and has a medical history of a broken neck and severe concussion. Not exactly an attractive candidate for most teams, even if he was healthy.

Burke offered him a minor league contract, but Moore was apparently still medically unfit to play. And that was more of Burke being an ******* and positioning himself for lawsuits than any actual offer.

There's no way of knowing how long Moore's NHL career could have been. But what's clear is that Bertuzzi is the one who erased that opportunity.

Edited by haroldsnepsts, 04 October 2011 - 09:17 AM.

[newfy]

Except for the ones who aren't willing participants. Just like Gillies absolutely disgusting cheapshots on Tangradi last season. You still have the goons that don't care if you want to fight or not, they're still going to come after you because they literally offer nothing else to the team.

You mean when Gillies did a headshot to Tangradi and didnt fight him? And got a huge suspension as well... I think youre in the wrong thread on that one

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...

Mccaarty on Lemiuex

Downey on Laperriere

May on Boll

Downey beating the crap out of Matt Walker (mightve been DJ King) for beating up Franzen

Theres lots of times if people really wanna stop and think about it instad of just typing oh it never happens. Not saying you specifically but in general

Can someone, someone who loves enforcers, tell me which incident was more worthy of a lifetime ban and an assault charge? Why?

I'd love to hear the logic.

Both of those situations werent even fights lol

Bertuzzi was a 90 point superstar player at the time he did that, did the definition of enforcer change since I last posted on here?

[haroldsnepsts]

Don't you know? It wasn't enough. He was required to man up and fight Bertuzzi, late in the game after it was well out of hand, when Bertuzzi was stalking him around the ice trying to get him to fight. When Moore refused, Bertuzzi had every right to puch him in the back of the head and follow that up by driving him face-first into the ice, causing severe injuries that would end his career.

I wonder this with regards to that incident but... why don't people defend McSorley for doing essentially the same thing, but less? He chased Brashear around the ice looking for a fight. He tried to tap him with his stick on the shoulder, and bounced it off his helmet. Brashear dropped to the ice.

McSorley was effectively given a lifetime ban by the NHL, and also was sentenced to 18 months probation for assault.

Can someone, someone who loves enforcers, tell me which incident was more worthy of a lifetime ban and an assault charge? Why?

I'd love to hear the logic.

There isn't any.

McSorley was giving more than a tap, but I do believe it was intended for Brashear's shoulder. He clipped him in the head, knocking him unconscious, then Brashear fell to the ice. McSorley still deserved a stiff suspension, but because Brashear hit his head on the ice when his helmet came off and I think may have had a seizure, I can't remember for sure, it looked even worse than the Bert's suckerpunch on Moore.

And honestly McSorley was at the end of his career, so the lifetime ban is worse than it sounds. It would have likely been more like a year or so, but that was about all he had left in his playing career.

Between the two, Bert's is clearly worse. Even if you don't think he was swinging at the head, this was McSorley trying to goad Brashear into the fight at that moment. Bertuzzi's suckerpunch was calculated revenge that had been brewing for days, with threats being made in the media.

[GMRwings1983]

Fighting just isn't important anymore. If they* take out the stupid instigator penalty I can see the point of an enforcer with it's impact. But that's just not the case anymore.

Like I said, tell that to all the GM's in the NHL who have enforcers on their roster. For that matter, tell it to Babcock, who dressed guys like Brad May and Aaron Downey, in favor of more talented players in the minors. I'm sure Babcock did it for ratings, though.

If the team sucks and they need to draw in fans, in the end, the team owner has final say on who plays and if he wants a few extra bucks, you'll see a goon out there at the expense of a skilled forward.

That doesn't explain anything. Most teams in the league have some kind of tough guy. Are they all having trouble filling seats?

For instance, I don't think the Pens are having trouble drawing fans, and they dressed Godard a lot in the past, and recently signed MacIntyre. Chicago dresses John Scott on their blueline, who skates as well as I do. Are they struggling to fill the United Center? Those teams certainly don't suck. Neither do the Bruins, who dress Thornton a lot, or the Capitals, who frequently play Erskine.

I've never heard of a team owner telling the GM and coach to sign a tough guy just to put people in the seats. Not at the NHL level and certainly not nowadays. Are you making this stuff up? I just don't believe it.

Edited by GMRwings1983, 04 October 2011 - 11:56 AM.

[WorkingOvertime]

Fighting just isn't important anymore. If they* take out the stupid instigator penalty I can see the point of an enforcer with it's impact. But that's just not the case anymore.

If it isn't important then why do GM's sign fighters? Why do coaches play fighters? Why do players fight (all players that fight, not just enforcers)?

[Doc Holliday]

The biggest issue with fighting debates is how much you can attribute things to "deterrence" when you cannot truly see it in the majority of cases. The May fight against Boll was one of the few times you see a player's actions basically stopped completely due to the actions of an enforcer.

Regarding the other fights normally mentioned, like the Lappy fight against Downey, there is simply a response to a cheap shot or a run at a star player. Those aren't really evidence of deterrence because none of us have any idea what Lappy would have done if he didn't fight Downey (and based on his actions later, he is still steaming and ready to run someone over). The flip side is it can be argued that Downey was the lightning rod that kept Lappy going for him and none of the other Wings players.

This is why enforcer debates go nowhere. It is all about opinions based on past recollections of select events, and not based on concrete numbers or statistics.

[NGKEIB]

On a slightly different tack - I wouldn't be unhappy if there was less fighting in the NHL.  I subscribe to NHLfights.com on youtube, and frankly find most of the fights that come up to be dull and boring.  All of this bobbing and weaving and jabbing with the hand used to tie up the opponents jersey is plain boring, especially when it is staged (i.e. not the result of a controversial hit etc.).  For every ten recent fights I watch on youtube, I consider about one or two to have entertainment value.  You rarely see people stick their chin out and engage in a punch-in-the-face contest anymore.  Where am I going with this?  Nowhere else than a joking suggestion to Brendan Shanahan to suspend people for not engaging in entertaining fights.

P.S.  If you're looking for 'entertainment', check out some of the videos uploaded onto youtube by one 'Humpzilla'.  He has some classics.

[number9]

toughness, fighting skill, whatever you want to call it, is an aspect of hockey. and it always has been. its an aspect just like speed in an aspect, just like shooting and passing are aspects of the game. lets just remove passing. lets remove penalties. lets not let homer stand in front of the net. lets take out hitting, i mean all it does is cause players to get hurt. we should just make mccarty play sober. i kno this argument is a slippery slope, but come on, fighting has its place. just like hitting has its place. its what makes hockey hockey.

i respect big rough canadians, but i also respect soft euros. they all have their place in the game, making hockey an incredibly multidimensional sport.

why r we trying to drastically change the game we love? i pray american football doesnt become 2 hand touch...

Edited by number9, 04 October 2011 - 01:18 PM.

[F.Michael]

The biggest issue with fighting debates is how much you can attribute things to "deterrence" when you cannot truly see it in the majority of cases. The May fight against Boll was one of the few times you see a player's actions basically stopped completely due to the actions of an enforcer.

If the instigator pen was removed I bet many players like Cooke would think twice if someone like Shawn Thornton could just come along, and punch his lights out.

This comment isn't directed at you Doc, but there are some here who will chime in: "sense when is a guy like {insert tuff guy here} ever on the ice when {insert cheap shot artist here} is on the ice?"...That comment always makes me giggle; as if there cannot be a quick change where the player closest to the bench hops off, and the tuff guy gets on, and goes after the guilty party...That just can't happen now - can it

EDIT - sounding like a broken record here, but with Gretzky making a comment about the removal of the instigator pen this past spring - I wonder if the league would ever consider it?.....I won't hold my breath.

Edited by F.Michael, 04 October 2011 - 02:40 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

If the instigator pen was removed I bet many players like Cooke would think twice if someone like Shawn Thornton could just come along, and punch his lights out.

It's possible. Of course like I said, it is just about impossible to accurately gauge the amount of deterrence a guy like Shawn Thornton would be to a Matt Cooke. And with Shanahan trying to show the players they aren't kidding around with suspensions, it may not be as big of an issue as it used to be. The one question is whether you want the league to be the ones to deter cheap play, or the players. Or if a little of both makes the most sense.

Personally, I have no problem with having a fighter in the lineup just to provide entertainment. Even if the Joe is always sold out there is nothing wrong with more jersey sales and TV revenue.