Conquer Club

I really don't want to derail this thread any more, so I'll just leave you with this. Fighting in NHL hockey is about hurting other players. Players of any sport who get hit in the head are more likely to suffer concussions and brain damage. Fighting in ice hockey involves players getting hit in the head a lot. Teams in the NHL employ players to do exactly this kind of fighting.

It is not a necessary part of the sport. As can be seen by non-NHL competition.

"Watch some non-NHL ice-hockey"
"Boogaard forged a role with his fists in Prince George"

Prince George doesn't have an NHL team. They have a WHL team (Junior CHL hockey). The idea of a hockey enforcer is not exclusive to the NHL.

I officiate about 200 games of hockey a year. As high as Midget AAA, which is pretty good hockey. I am well aware of non-NHL hockey.

Off the top of my head, there are several reason the NHL is different:

- The players skate really fast. I don't think people realize how fast the NHL game is. Often the first comment by players that are called up from the AHL is "It's a lot faster!" Those guys are moving fast. Not college hockey fast; not CHL fast; not AHL fast. Way faster. And with the speed comes more forceful impacts. The NHL is the roughest hockey in the world because of the speed.

- The NHL uses smaller ice surfaces than international hockey and that means less room to avoid big hits.

- The NHL is for big bucks. It is the most serious hockey going. Everything is heightened because of the money involved.

- Suspensions aren't enough of a deterrent. They are in other levels of hockey, but not the NHL.

Symmetry wrote:I've read it, and respectfully disagree. Sorry, but there are plenty of examples of how to play the game within the rules. Seems like it's the culture of the NHL which is wrong- the idea that dirty hits should be punished by players who are on the team solely to fight.

This isn't rocket science. Watch some non-NHL ice-hockey, or a field hockey game. Dirty hits should be dealt with by the ref and the league. Harshly. Not by a guy who's only on the team to beat people up.

I've read it, and respectfully disagree.

What do you disagree with? That a good enforcer can deter players from taking liberties with their teammates? I've provided examples. How many guys hit Gretzky in the 1980's? Conversely, why do players think it is okay to take shots (whether within the rules or not) at a superstar like Sydney Crosby? If that shit happened to Gretsky, players knew they would be fuckin' killed by Semenko, McSorley, and the rest of the Oilers. So they didn't do it. Seriously, are you trolling me? This is not a new concept. Let's look at a great hockey dynasty. The New York Islander of the early 1980's. Two superstars - Mike Bossy and Bryan Trottier. Did anyone take liberties with them? Nope. Why not? Bob Nystrom and Clark Gilles would be two very good reasons. BTW, anyone interested in seeing why other players would want to avoid a scrap with Clark Gilles, just go to YouTube and check it out - possibly the best enforcer of all time.

Let's look at superstars that didn't have an enforcer to protect them. Mario Lemieux got roughed-up and it hurt his game. And his back. I bet Sydney Crosby wishes his team had an enforcer that would have put some fear into the other team's minds before they nearly took his head off.

Sorry, but there are plenty of examples of how to play the game within the rules....and severely injure opponents. Enforcers used to deter opponents from playing too rough with the best players of his team. Clean hits can be devastating and damaging too.

Seems like it's the culture of the NHL which is wrong- the idea that dirty hits should be punished by players who are on the team solely to fight.

I think you're really missing the point. With a good enforcer, there will not be dirty hits. There will not be crushing clean hits on your star players. The role of the enforcer is to prevent the stuff from happening in the first place!

Because of the instigator rule, the role of the enforcer has become a joke. The staged fights that you see are bullshit. They have nothing to do with being an enforcer.

You said something about field hockey?!?!!? I have no idea why you are even talking about field hockey. That's like comparing Flag Football to the NFL.

Symmetry wrote:I really don't want to derail this thread any more, so I'll just leave you with this. Fighting in NHL hockey is about hurting other players. Players of any sport who get hit in the head are more likely to suffer concussions and brain damage. Fighting in ice hockey involves players getting hit in the head a lot. Teams in the NHL employ players to do exactly this kind of fighting.

It is not a necessary part of the sport. As can be seen by non-NHL competition.

Yup, fighting is about hurting players. And very rarely does a fight end a player's career. But lots of careers are ended by huge hits.

Here's fighting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnCXBKZ4Q-Q

Here's the same two guys involved in a big hit (you'll have to wait for the last one):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U7jUbKQYdw


Ask Lindros what gave him his concussions; fights, or hits? Lindros needed an enforcer to protect him, but he didn't have one. BTW, Scott Stevens is from my city (just 2 years older than me) and I think he's a great player. But if I ran a team, I'd have my enforcer tell him before the game "You take a run at one of my guys, and I'll take a suspension putting you out." or something similar (probably a lot worse).


The whole idea of "Let the league punish dirty hits." is not proactive. It doesn't help when your star player is sitting out nursing an injury for 30 games. A good enforcer can be preventative.


Is this starting to sink in?

The enforcer should be the League and the Refs and not a goon on the ice. If suspensions and fines don't limit dirty play, then increase them until they do. The promise of a punch in the face isn't the best deterrent for cheap shots intended to knock a key player out of the game... or season.

Home ice suckage continues in Vancouver and Pittsburgh.

Symmetry wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:And personally I think fighting is very important to what hockey is. I'm not sure whether or not it's more dangerous with or without fighting, but fights can really change the momentum of a game.

When hockey is played without fighting, say at Olympic level, or within the bounds of field hockey, would you say it's more dangerous? No- fighting is used to hurt players and break up momentum. There really is no need for it. It's not part of the sport, as games outside the NHL show, and it's not a necessary part of ice hockey. It's part of the weird culture of the way the NHL plays the sport.

when modern hockey was played in montreal in the 19th century, students from mcgill university invented 7 rules for the game, a few years later, fighting was part of those rules ... so fighting is a part of hockey for more than 130 years, and if there was no more fighting there would be less fan base in the u.s.a.( last year in boston before the game on the big screen they were showin chara almost breaking the neck of paccioretty like if it was an ok move in hockey) they like fighting in the states ....

Prowler is correct

ben79 wrote:... so fighting is a part of hockey for more than 130 years

Have there been any changes that improved Hockey in the last 130 years?

Quick take on fighting. Staged fights are silly. Two meatheads dropping the gloves for no other reason then to hurt each other. I don't like those. I do like the spontaneous fights from a hard fought puck battle. I also don't like when a scrum breaks out over a clean hit. Dirty hit, yes. Clean hit, no.

Back to the playoffs. Kins have surprised me. So have the Flyers.

oVo wrote:

ben79 wrote:... so fighting is a part of hockey for more than 130 years

Have there been any changes that improved Hockey in the last 130 years?

i suppose you being sarcastic, if not tell me i give you the list of all the changes since the 1877 game at mcgill unversity

Real hockey players used to not wear helmets...
now visors are nearly required equipment.

Nothing quite like eating a slapshot.

oVo wrote:Real hockey players used to not wear helmets...
now visors are nearly required equipment.

Nothing quite like eating a slapshot.

even with a visor you can eat a slapshot ( too many to mention here )

gannable wrote:Prowler is correct

And now so are you.

Damn, Bruins lost in 2nd OT. thought they should have had that game.

IcePack

oVo wrote:Real hockey players used to not wear helmets...
now visors are nearly required equipment.

Nothing quite like eating a slapshot.

And they used to not wear helmets in the NFL and MLB. Catchers in baseball also didn't always wear masks. Things change...

TheProwler wrote:"Watch some non-NHL ice-hockey"
"Boogaard forged a role with his fists in Prince George"

Prince George doesn't have an NHL team. They have a WHL team (Junior CHL hockey). The idea of a hockey enforcer is not exclusive to the NHL.

I officiate about 200 games of hockey a year. As high as Midget AAA, which is pretty good hockey. I am well aware of non-NHL hockey.

Off the top of my head, there are several reason the NHL is different:

- The players skate really fast. I don't think people realize how fast the NHL game is. Often the first comment by players that are called up from the AHL is "It's a lot faster!" Those guys are moving fast. Not college hockey fast; not CHL fast; not AHL fast. Way faster. And with the speed comes more forceful impacts. The NHL is the roughest hockey in the world because of the speed.

- The NHL uses smaller ice surfaces than international hockey and that means less room to avoid big hits.

- The NHL is for big bucks. It is the most serious hockey going. Everything is heightened because of the money involved.

- Suspensions aren't enough of a deterrent. They are in other levels of hockey, but not the NHL.

Symmetry wrote:I've read it, and respectfully disagree. Sorry, but there are plenty of examples of how to play the game within the rules. Seems like it's the culture of the NHL which is wrong- the idea that dirty hits should be punished by players who are on the team solely to fight.

This isn't rocket science. Watch some non-NHL ice-hockey, or a field hockey game. Dirty hits should be dealt with by the ref and the league. Harshly. Not by a guy who's only on the team to beat people up.

I've read it, and respectfully disagree.

What do you disagree with? That a good enforcer can deter players from taking liberties with their teammates? I've provided examples. How many guys hit Gretzky in the 1980's? Conversely, why do players think it is okay to take shots (whether within the rules or not) at a superstar like Sydney Crosby? If that shit happened to Gretsky, players knew they would be fuckin' killed by Semenko, McSorley, and the rest of the Oilers. So they didn't do it. Seriously, are you trolling me? This is not a new concept. Let's look at a great hockey dynasty. The New York Islander of the early 1980's. Two superstars - Mike Bossy and Bryan Trottier. Did anyone take liberties with them? Nope. Why not? Bob Nystrom and Clark Gilles would be two very good reasons. BTW, anyone interested in seeing why other players would want to avoid a scrap with Clark Gilles, just go to YouTube and check it out - possibly the best enforcer of all time.

Let's look at superstars that didn't have an enforcer to protect them. Mario Lemieux got roughed-up and it hurt his game. And his back. I bet Sydney Crosby wishes his team had an enforcer that would have put some fear into the other team's minds before they nearly took his head off.

Sorry, but there are plenty of examples of how to play the game within the rules....and severely injure opponents. Enforcers used to deter opponents from playing too rough with the best players of his team. Clean hits can be devastating and damaging too.

Seems like it's the culture of the NHL which is wrong- the idea that dirty hits should be punished by players who are on the team solely to fight.

I think you're really missing the point. With a good enforcer, there will not be dirty hits. There will not be crushing clean hits on your star players. The role of the enforcer is to prevent the stuff from happening in the first place!

Because of the instigator rule, the role of the enforcer has become a joke. The staged fights that you see are bullshit. They have nothing to do with being an enforcer.

You said something about field hockey?!?!!? I have no idea why you are even talking about field hockey. That's like comparing Flag Football to the NFL.

Symmetry wrote:I really don't want to derail this thread any more, so I'll just leave you with this. Fighting in NHL hockey is about hurting other players. Players of any sport who get hit in the head are more likely to suffer concussions and brain damage. Fighting in ice hockey involves players getting hit in the head a lot. Teams in the NHL employ players to do exactly this kind of fighting.

It is not a necessary part of the sport. As can be seen by non-NHL competition.

Yup, fighting is about hurting players. And very rarely does a fight end a player's career. But lots of careers are ended by huge hits.

Here's fighting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnCXBKZ4Q-Q

Here's the same two guys involved in a big hit (you'll have to wait for the last one):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U7jUbKQYdw


Ask Lindros what gave him his concussions; fights, or hits? Lindros needed an enforcer to protect him, but he didn't have one. BTW, Scott Stevens is from my city (just 2 years older than me) and I think he's a great player. But if I ran a team, I'd have my enforcer tell him before the game "You take a run at one of my guys, and I'll take a suspension putting you out." or something similar (probably a lot worse).


The whole idea of "Let the league punish dirty hits." is not proactive. It doesn't help when your star player is sitting out nursing an injury for 30 games. A good enforcer can be preventative.


Is this starting to sink in?

Not really, you'll apparently have to hit me in the head a few more times. Now anyway, talking sense, you are aware roughly of the problems of head injuries in the long term? So not just your star player getting an injury for a few games, but the dude you hired to fight getting brain damage and dying a few years after his career is finished.

I'm baffled as to why you think it's necessary, when many games outside of the NHL play great games without the need for fights. Is it just because people find it interesting?

Your post seems to suggest that it's a failure on the part of the referees and league that makes fights necessary, or perhaps a deliberate way of making money as a sideline to actual competitive play.

Symmetry wrote:
Not really, you'll apparently have to hit me in the head a few more times. Now anyway, talking sense, you are aware roughly of the problems of head injuries in the long term? So not just your star player getting an injury for a few games, but the dude you hired to fight getting brain damage and dying a few years after his career is finished.

I'm baffled as to why you think it's necessary, when many games outside of the NHL play great games without the need for fights. Is it just because people find it interesting?

Your post seems to suggest that it's a failure on the part of the referees and league that makes fights necessary, or perhaps a deliberate way of making money as a sideline to actual competitive play.

I suppose there aren't any head injuries in rugby? Guess those tough blokes don't get concussed?

keiths31 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Not really, you'll apparently have to hit me in the head a few more times. Now anyway, talking sense, you are aware roughly of the problems of head injuries in the long term? So not just your star player getting an injury for a few games, but the dude you hired to fight getting brain damage and dying a few years after his career is finished.

I'm baffled as to why you think it's necessary, when many games outside of the NHL play great games without the need for fights. Is it just because people find it interesting?

Your post seems to suggest that it's a failure on the part of the referees and league that makes fights necessary, or perhaps a deliberate way of making money as a sideline to actual competitive play.

I suppose there aren't any head injuries in rugby? Guess those tough blokes don't get concussed?

Hell yes, people get concussed often. I had a couple of concussions playing rugby. Difference is that there isn't a designated player on a team who is specifically there to cause concussions/ start fights.

I had a team mate who would have gone pro but suffered too many concussions. I ain't pulling this concern out of nowhere. Guy was playing for England. Had to become a rower.

I mean seriously, you guys know this isn't rocket science. The sport can be played professionally without fights, that fights aren't necessary for the game to be played well, and that fights injure players, sometimes with serious long term consequences.

The best defence you can come up with is that it's interesting? Would you really stop watching if the refereeing was better?

Symmetry wrote:I mean seriously, you guys know this isn't rocket science. The sport can be played professionally without fights, that fights aren't necessary for the game to be played well, and that fights injure players, sometimes with serious long term consequences.

The best defence you can come up with is that it's interesting? Would you really stop watching if the refereeing was better?

No offense, but I'm not going to be told how to enjoy hockey by a person from Great Britain (yes I know you guys won a gold medal in hockey in 1936, but that team was filled with Canadians who held British passports). Yes hockey can be enjoyed with out the fights. As can basketball be enjoyed without dunks (which I find boring and lacking true skill) and soccer without the diving (which cheapens the game and makes it unbearable to watch for me) and football without the prima-donna showboating after a routine tackle or touchdown (that sort of celebration/taunting comes across as unsportsmanlike). Every sport is different. You don't like fighting in hockey, fine. I respect that. But there are millions and millions of people that enjoy hockey with fighting part of it.

keiths31 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I mean seriously, you guys know this isn't rocket science. The sport can be played professionally without fights, that fights aren't necessary for the game to be played well, and that fights injure players, sometimes with serious long term consequences.

The best defence you can come up with is that it's interesting? Would you really stop watching if the refereeing was better?

No offense, but I'm not going to be told how to enjoy hockey by a person from Great Britain (yes I know you guys won a gold medal in hockey in 1936, but that team was filled with Canadians who held British passports). Yes hockey can be enjoyed with out the fights. As can basketball be enjoyed without dunks (which I find boring and lacking true skill) and soccer without the diving (which cheapens the game and makes it unbearable to watch for me) and football without the prima-donna showboating after a routine tackle or touchdown (that sort of celebration/taunting comes across as unsportsmanlike). Every sport is different. You don't like fighting in hockey, fine. I respect that. But there are millions and millions of people that enjoy hockey with fighting part of it.

Why would where I come from affect my argument? I'm not telling you that you can't enjoy hockey in a certain way, I'm arguing with you, and criticising certain arguments.

You seem to dismiss my argument because of my nationality, rather than what I'm saying. I don't think I told you how to enjoy hockey at all.

If Holtby keeps this up, he'll probably find a starting job in the league next year.

not sure why anyone would be surprised by the Flyers beating Pittsburgh; its an even match up. There's no difference in overall talent.

Just because you have 2 great players doesn't mean you're the best team.

At forward the Flyers are probably deeper than anyone and JVR is coming back soon.

W/ that said, the series is not over but Id take the Flyers in a 7th game - home ice is irrelevant.

gannable wrote:not sure why anyone would be surprised by the Flyers beating Pittsburgh; its an even match up. There's no difference in overall talent.

Just because you have 2 great players doesn't mean you're the best team.

At forward the Flyers are probably deeper than anyone and JVR is coming back soon.

W/ that said, the series is not over but Id take the Flyers in a 7th game - home ice is irrelevant.

I'm not necessarily surprised, just disappointed in the lack of effort we have on defense.

And considering how the Flyers own the Penguins at Console Energy Center, I think it's a disadvantage to have home ice in this series.

Army of GOD wrote:If Holtby keeps this up, he'll probably find a starting job in the league next year.

Yeah, back in Hersey, or he and Neuvirth will split time like they're doing in St Louis.

Stoked about today's Caps win. Very nerve wracking. I dunno how IcePack said he thought it was the Bruins game. I'd say that both teams had lots of good chances. A tip here or there for either team could have made it a 3-0 game either way. Glad they pulled it out though, and fairly early in 2OT.

3 OTs yesterday... it's wide open eh? Penguins are up against the wall and I don't expect them to survive the Flyers series. Still stunned that they (and the Canucks) lost twice on home ice to start the playoffs.

keiths31 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I mean seriously, you guys know this isn't rocket science. The sport can be played professionally without fights, that fights aren't necessary for the game to be played well, and that fights injure players, sometimes with serious long term consequences.

The best defence you can come up with is that it's interesting? Would you really stop watching if the refereeing was better?

No offense, but I'm not going to be told how to enjoy hockey by a person from Great Britain (yes I know you guys won a gold medal in hockey in 1936, but that team was filled with Canadians who held British passports). Yes hockey can be enjoyed with out the fights. As can basketball be enjoyed without dunks (which I find boring and lacking true skill) and soccer without the diving (which cheapens the game and makes it unbearable to watch for me) and football without the prima-donna showboating after a routine tackle or touchdown (that sort of celebration/taunting comes across as unsportsmanlike). Every sport is different. You don't like fighting in hockey, fine. I respect that. But there are millions and millions of people that enjoy hockey with fighting part of it.

true !