Can someone explain this to me...

[killgod]

fighting is a part of hockey and most hockey fans enjoy it. it's part of the game and should always be there..

 

[leaffan]

Fighting in hockey is such a fairly big topic its hard to go over everything.

Quite honestly if there was no fighting in hockey you would be sinking down to the retarded levels that are baseball and basketball when it comes to people getting heated. Bench clearing brawls (although they do happen in hockey, allbeit rarely) are the most retarded thing I sit there say the same thing as you when I see. "They still do this".

BTW its about time they lifted those blackouts on the blackhawk games. Allthough it will help towards the hype its friggen stupid as hell in the overall sense.

 

[FirstTimer]

Quite honestly if there was no fighting in hockey you would be sinking down to the retarded levels that are baseball and basketball when it comes to people getting heated.
.

I don't buy this simply because of the fact that in sports like football it's not an issue and football is much more of a contact sport than hockey is and IMO have a lot more chances to get "heated" about things.

Fighting in hockey is the lamez. I watch games to see players like Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Kane, Toews, etc....not to see some oaf start shit.

 

[leaffan]

I don't buy this simply because of the fact that in sports like football it's not an issue and football is much more of a contact sport than hockey is and IMO have a lot more chances to get "heated" about things.

Fighting in hockey is the lamez. I watch games to see players like Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Kane, Toews, etc....not to see some oaf start shit.

You wouldn't be able to watch them because players would be taking runs at them all the time.

Comparing football and hockey isn't even worth comparing. Hockey players are skating and moving a lot faster then football players move. Hockey players also are caring around sticks and their equipment they wear isn't as protective as football players. The one thing I found in football was that it was a lot easier to take a hit then it was in hockey. I was a punt/kick returner using the CFL rules so I know how it feels.

Quite honestly at the slow pace football is at there is a reason why you don't see fights break out. Taking cheap shots in football also isn't as easy as in hockey. They do happen in football but way less then hockey.

 

[FirstTimer]

You wouldn't be able to watch them because players would be taking runs at them all the time.

In a way I doubt that as with no fighting you wouldn't have the oafs on the teams to take runs at them.

Comparing football and hockey isn't even worth comparing.

But comparing hokey to baseball or basketball is?


Fighting in hockey is just lame as hell to me and I see no reason why it really has to exist. You can clean up the game pretty easily if you wanted and eliminate cheap shots simply by tightening up penalties and punishments from the league. It's a problem that's fixable and doesn't need Goons on Ice acting as rent a cops at the rink IMO.

But whatever I guess....

Off to bed I go..

 

[leaffan]

In a way I doubt that as with no fighting you wouldn't have the oafs on the teams to take runs at them.



But comparing hokey to baseball or basketball is?


Fighting in hockey is just lame as hell to me and I see no reason why it really has to exist. You can clean up the game pretty easily if you wanted and eliminate cheap shots simply by tightening up penalties and punishments from the league. It's a problem that's fixable and doesn't need Goons on Ice acting as rent a cops at the rink IMO.

But whatever I guess....

Off to bed I go..

Baseball and Basketball almost always result in bench clearing brawls which sometimes can get out of hand. This is what I was comparing to obviously.

If you see no reason then you don't know the game. Pretty easy right there. No point in debating anything with someone who doesn't want to have an open mind.

Thanks for trying though.

 

[Ravin]

People do not just go to the games to watch the fights. You may know the jist of the game, but you clearly do not understand the culture of the game. Fighting has been in the game for so long that removing it would change the culture of the game. Players like Wayne Gretzky would not have scored as many goals as he scored if it were not for fighting.

Wait wuuuuut?

It is true. People talk of the "unwritten code' that you did not hit the great one because he always had an enforcer to back him up. I'm telling you now, without fighting, you would see more cheap shots and more injuries to major stars then before. Sure they could fine them more, but that isn't going to stop guys from taking a run at the big names. What stops them is knowing that the 'big goon' is on the bench protecting their player.

You may not think it is needed, but ask the majority of NHL players and they would probably say yes. It isn't just to meat heads out there pounding each other. Their is respect and honour in fighting in hockey.

And as leaf said, you clearly don't have a good grasp of the game. Most sport's purpose is to win the game and score points. That is obvious. What you are talking about is a part of the culture of the game, and a part of the game which I am telling you does more good then harm.

Besides, a fight lasts like a minute in a 3 hour hockey broadcast. Surely this isn't ruining the game, as I would say the mass amount of commericals in the NFL ruin it for me. And if you are seeing mass fighting between teams, you are probably looking at a blow out and the team fighting is looking to just get some respect back. That is an old hockey tradition. And if the game is a blow out, who cares, it is basically over anywa. Switch channels and find a new game.

 

[leaffan]

I love how when this topic comes up you have guys like first timer come in post a couple times (obviously trolling) then just get up and leave. So fuckin useless.

 

[leaffan]

Also i'll let others do the talking since whatever motive lefty had for starting this is lost. Sounds like he's more interested in starting an arguement then sitting down and reading.

 

[Ravin]

I love how when this topic comes up you have guys like first timer come in post a couple times (obviously trolling) then just get up and leave. So fuckin useless.

I'd never expect a guy from Iowa to understand hockey.

 

[killgod]

I guess I just don't understand why people say it is "needed" or "necessary" or refuse to discuss the topic (not necessarily you guys) because "it's a part of the game". Isn't the point of the game to WIN? And don't you win by scoring more goals than the other team? I really just don't see why something as archaic and stupid as fighting still needs to be in the game of hockey.

a) it's entertainment. you'd be lying if you tried to argue fighting wasn't entertaining because surely boxing and now MMA (hell sift through history if you want to go that far) have been quite popular things to people.

b) saying it should be gone because it doesn't have to do with "winning' is absurd. the concept is no different than when a pitcher in baseball throws a "warning" shot or something to that effect, it's a tone setting moment that can fire up a team.

take fighting away from the sport and you'll see bottom end players trying to take out top end talent without fear of reprecussion. if someone tries to take our your top scorers, captain, whatever. you kick the fucking shit out of that guy, which gets your team amped up and can result in some offence.

sometimes the flow of the game just isn't going your team's way, a fight can certainly change that momentum. don't tell me you've never seen in a football game, where one team is rolling along until the other team makes a huge hit/play/whatever that changes the flow of the game. that's what fighting in hockey can do. don't tell me you've never seen a baseball pitcher throw a warning shot (which sometimes leads to fighting...) like c'mon, the concept lives in every sport it's just a matter of the form it's displayed in.


so yeah, you are correct, fighting doesn't make you win but it certainly is a component to the sport that can contribute to what's happening on the ice. there's more to football than touchdowns, there's more to baseball than home runs and there's more to hockey than goals. sports aren't as simple as you suggest.

just because you feel your own human intelligence is beyond the "archaic" concept of fisticuffs doesn't make it stupid/lamez or unneccesary. you simply don't understand it's purpose and you've already admitted you barely watch the sport so it does makes sense that you don't get it.

there's certain things me and my fellow canadians simply couldn't understand about what it's like to grow up in the football crazed america. there's also things I'm sure you and most other americans will never understand about hockey because you didn't grow up in the highly competitive and combative world of junior hockey up here.

there's no love in this sport and it starts at the grass roots level pretty much.

you just won't get it ever.

 

[wr50l]

It is difficult as hell for the officials to enforce a hockey game. You've got ten skaters going at full pace up and down the ice. Referees will have their backs turned and won't even know there's two guys jawing at each other, slashing each other. You go too far and you get your ass kicked, outlaw fighting and that balance is destroyed entirely. Fighting keeps the potential violence from unseen activity to a manageable level better than officiating could.

And sure you could argue that in this day and age with all the cameras it could be eradicated by fines and suspensions. Except you still get boneheads in the NFL for example. Let's take that fucking idiot who jumped into the defenseless Clifton Smith on the punt return last week. What was his punishment? A fine and one game suspension. Isn't that a little easy to take as opposed to a black eye and a swollen face?

 

[Apocalypse]

Get over it.
Fighting is a part of the game and always will be.

 

[leaffan]

This is an absolutely ridiculous sentiment. If you actually think that the total of Gretzky's goals would have been altered in any significant way by the presence or absence of fighting, then I don't know what to say other than take a second and think about what you just said.

Right here shows lack of knowledge.

Fact: Gretzky, hell even the rest of the early oilers Kurri, Messier and even Coffey would of never put up the numbers they did without the help of a guy by the name of Dave Semenko. A guy often referred to as Gretzky's bodyguard. This is over 20 years ago.

For today look at Crosby. His first year he had over 100 points. He was also in the box for 110mins. Over the next 3 years his PIMs went down and his TOI (time on ice) went up a ton thanks to a guy by the name of Jarkko Ruutu. An agitator who took the focus of peoples rage of Crosby and was put soley on him. Another guy by the name of Georges Laraque was brought in late 2006-2007 to add a fighter to deal with the extra star power that the team had (malkin, stall ect ect).

In the first season I'm actually surprised crosby didn't get seriously hurt. He had so many people gunning for him and he only had himself to defend. He was easily rattled and was taken off his game a lot. Even though he managed to score so many points it was easy to see they needed him to stay out of the box and keep on scoring (the pens missed the playoffs that year btw).

Hell even your boys in chicago kane and toews have ben eager to thank. He had 18 fights last year and let them stay out on the ice to score instead of watching for cheap shots everywhere.

 

[leaffan]

You still lack proof to back up any part of what you are saying. Sure, teams have brought in "enforcers" or "bodyguards", but that doesn't equate to more or less goals, or at least you haven't shown it to. There are plenty of other variables that more than likely had a bigger affect on the number of goals/time on ice any of the guys you mentioned had. You are taking some HUGE leaps of faith in your logic and expect me to believe it as fact. Please.

I just stated a bunch of facts.... It showed more or less goals fairly clearly. You could honestly go and look for youself. I wasn't lying about the crosby stuff. It was that obvious.

Let me get all the gay ass stats.

 

[killgod]

dude is never gonna understand it.

it can't make the connection and hardly knows the sport. sports should be simplified to the point where if you aren't trying to score then what you are doing shouldn't be part of the game. :runaway:

 

[leaffan]

Yes, you did post statistics, but they in no way proved anything about the correlation between "enforcers" or "bodyguards" and the increase/decrease in time on ice, penalty minutes or goals scored. Like I said, there are probably many other things that went into Crosby's stats (and had more of an impact on said stats) than what you are trying to prove.

Here's what you are saying, in a nutshell:

Crosby's stats were X in his first year

Crosby's stats increased (or got better) in the next three years

Jarkko Ruutu was signed by the Penguins in 2006

Conclusion: Ruutu allowed for the increase in Crosby's stats

That is a huge leap in logic on your part, and the stats you provided do not prove any point of your conclusion, other than Crosby's stats did increase, or get better.

I wasn't saying anything like that at all. Please read my post.

I stated in the first year crosby was brought in he had over 100pims and his TOI was fairly low.

I'm pretty sure we can agree the more time on ice means more chances to score.

Once Ruutu was brought in his TOI was brought up. Hell if the first year Ruutu was brought in Crosby had 120 points and missed a couple games whereas the year before he he had 102 points and over 100pims. His plus/minus was shit. Mainly because his ass was in the box for so many goals against.

Yzerman had Probert
Gretzky usually always had someone watching over him.

The only people that break this rule are guys like Ovechkin, Ignla, Lecavalier who tend to stand up for themselves. But even then Ovey has Brashear watching him.

 

[killgod]

Fine then, what is the minimum number of hockey games one must watch or attend before any point or observation they make about the game of hockey is considered legitimate. This "doesn't know the game and culture" crap is so utterly stupid it shouldn't even be responded to. Give me a break.

You've never played the sport at any legitmate level correct?

You live in a country that overall has zero respect or care for the sport, correct?

You just started a passing interest in something you haven't paid attention to in years, correct?

You are a bigger idiot that I first figured if you can't realize why what I'm saying isn't utterly stupid and that you are a whack ass peice of shit that doesn't deserve to be answered any longer.

You are someone inexperienced who's asking the questions in the first place, then disputing with people who would be much more qualified to understand the answer to which you are seeking.

Seriously, you just said I don't know the game and culture of hockey yet I can dispute someone who does when I ask for advice on hockey?

You are american, your argument is invalid. Stop wasting people's fucking time if you're going to act like that.


Ignore listed. I'll let Ravin and Leaf argue with you until the end of time since they enjoy doing that so much.

 

[wr50l]

The question was more rhetorical than anything, as it is absolutely stupid to have multi-million dollar investments in a business such as the NHL throwing down on the ice when doing so does not help your team score goals, and may in fact hinder that quest in the form of penalties, injuries etc.

This is a rarity, there are few exceptions. The only superstar players who regularly fight are the ones who are renowned for being tough as nails anyway. The multi-million dollar investments are the players being protected by the fights. Of course this idea is archaic, to you. I would challenge you to come up with one of these multi-million dollar investments who has been injured fighting. You may bring up someone such as Milan Lucic or Ryan Getzlaf, but should take note that many of these guys are multi-million dollar investments partly because of their intimidating presence. The skill players such as Malkin and Ovechkin get injured either by legal check or hockey play, or rarely by an illegal play such as as a slash or roughing. Be under no illusion that these illegal plays would not be more common without fighting.

It should also be considered that the NHL is a multi-million dollar business, and fighting is a part of its success. Why change something that works? Purely to please the naysayers who can't accept the phenomenal sport of hockey as it is ... no thanks.

 

[Ravin]

Lefty so you know, the Gretzky thing is a widely suggested thing among hockey fans. Because of the enforcers he had, people didn't touch him. That is a fact. Sorry I don't have a stat to show you on that because there isn't one, but most serious hockey fans know that is the case with Wayne. You didn't touch him because if you did, you were going to get beat. Now because of that, Wayne had so much time to himself. There is a reason behind the net is called his "office" because he would go behind the net and sit there and wait and wait till something happened. No one would go around and touch him because they just knew "you do not hit Wayne Gretzky".

As I said, I can't provide you a stat for all this because there is no way I could. But using logic, one would figure had he been hammered all the time, and roughed up as badly as any other player, he wouldn't have had nearly as many points as he would have. That is just something hockey fans know. Leaf and killgod will probably agree with this because it is a generally accepted theory among hockey fans and broadcasters.

The Crosby example is a new example of it. Crosby is basically the next Gretzky in terms of marketing value and you just do not touch him. In the first season EVERYONE went after him and as leaf pointed out, his TOI was low and PIM was high for a star first line centre. But now with guys like Letang, Orpik, Talbot, Kennedy, and so on, he and Malkin both have protection from getting ran over all the time.

Do I think every fight in the NHL is ok? No, some of them are pointless and worthless to have. But they are entertainment and apart of the game. Any person who has played hockey seriously in the past knows of the code of conduct on the ice.

Let me give you a real life example. Leaf and myself. When we played hockey on the same team, we generally were on the same line. Out of us two, I normally had more goals and points then he did. And yes, you could say it was "older brother looking out for the younger brother" but it is also an enforcer, looking out for a goal scorer. It basically got known that if you hit #8, #7 was going to be right behind you. So here you see a real life example of the value of the enforcer. If players were just allowed to teeoff on me all game, what value do I have as a player anymore? I'm a goal scorer, and if I can't score goals, what is the point of me being on the ice? Put someone out there to protect me, and I get more chances because yeah, players do take a second guess before hitting certain guys. Granted this is minor hockey, but the premise is still the exact same.