Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
Unless they want to attend North Dakota, then it's mandatory.
Unless they want to attend North Dakota, then it's mandatory.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
- Thread starter du78
- Start date
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
So has he quit head hunting and cheap shotting smaller players because the threat of fighting prevents him?
So has he quit head hunting and cheap shotting smaller players because the threat of fighting prevents him?
Dirty
#BanBiddy
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
Hell no. He's stop doing it because Kevin Wehrs stopped playing hockey.
Hell no. He's stop doing it because Kevin Wehrs stopped playing hockey.
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
Head hunters and cheap shot artists continue to cause more serious injuries -like concussions - than are caused by fisticuffs. Punching face masks is less dangerous than elbows, cross checks, hits from behind, or high sticks, so if the possibility of retaliation by fist discourages more dangerous infractions why the phobia over fighting?
Head hunters and cheap shot artists continue to cause more serious injuries -like concussions - than are caused by fisticuffs. Punching face masks is less dangerous than elbows, cross checks, hits from behind, or high sticks, so if the possibility of retaliation by fist discourages more dangerous infractions why the phobia over fighting?
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
So he can't find anyone small enough to head-hunt then?
So he can't find anyone small enough to head-hunt then?
Dirty
#BanBiddy
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
He could, but it just wouldn't be as much fun as smearing Wehrs all over the ice like jam on toast. So MMFF has given it up.
He could, but it just wouldn't be as much fun as smearing Wehrs all over the ice like jam on toast. So MMFF has given it up.
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
I lost my appetite for fighting in hockey back in the days when minimally-talented goons like Dave Schultz gained almost as much notoriety as artists like Bobby Orr. Now, more than 30 years later, influential leaders of amateur hockey in the US and Canada appear to have decided that fighting should be prohibited in their corner of the hockey world.
Leaving aside the debate over whether the NY Times is an elitist, liberal rag out of touch with real Americans, their series of articles on fighting and brain trauma in hockey has provided a welcome outsiders' view of what has become commonplace in hockey. What struck me about the most recent article in the Times was the description of hockey fights as "bare-knuckle". I immediately thought of 19th-century photos of John L. Sullivan beating on some opponent with his fists.
In my opinion, the accurate description of hockey fights as "bare-knuckle" events strips away all the excuses for why fighting is an integral part of the sport. At the most primitive level, hockey fights involve two guys using their bare fists to try and cause facial and brain trauma to the unprotected skull of their opponent. Every other sport in the civilized world - even boxing - has decided long ago that this behavior should be discouraged and punished. Maybe the NHL would benefit from a new leader who realizes this is the 21st century.
I lost my appetite for fighting in hockey back in the days when minimally-talented goons like Dave Schultz gained almost as much notoriety as artists like Bobby Orr. Now, more than 30 years later, influential leaders of amateur hockey in the US and Canada appear to have decided that fighting should be prohibited in their corner of the hockey world.
Leaving aside the debate over whether the NY Times is an elitist, liberal rag out of touch with real Americans, their series of articles on fighting and brain trauma in hockey has provided a welcome outsiders' view of what has become commonplace in hockey. What struck me about the most recent article in the Times was the description of hockey fights as "bare-knuckle". I immediately thought of 19th-century photos of John L. Sullivan beating on some opponent with his fists.
In my opinion, the accurate description of hockey fights as "bare-knuckle" events strips away all the excuses for why fighting is an integral part of the sport. At the most primitive level, hockey fights involve two guys using their bare fists to try and cause facial and brain trauma to the unprotected skull of their opponent. Every other sport in the civilized world - even boxing - has decided long ago that this behavior should be discouraged and punished. Maybe the NHL would benefit from a new leader who realizes this is the 21st century.
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
Allowing (or at least being lenient with) fighting is a lousy way of trying to enforce rules.
If leagues would hold referees accountable for calling games correctly, and then perform reviews of particular incidents to the end of handing out stiff suspensions/fines for egregious infractions, it would be far more effective than permitting vigilante enforcement.
The NHL is starting to do this, and these "cheap shots" have shown a decline.
You are kidding yourself if you think the NHL is reticent to take a stricter stance on fighting because they fear "losing control" of how players will conduct themselves on the ice.
That's some pretty ***-backwards logic. "To keep players from acting like thugs we need to have them act like thugs."
Allowing (or at least being lenient with) fighting is a lousy way of trying to enforce rules.
If leagues would hold referees accountable for calling games correctly, and then perform reviews of particular incidents to the end of handing out stiff suspensions/fines for egregious infractions, it would be far more effective than permitting vigilante enforcement.
The NHL is starting to do this, and these "cheap shots" have shown a decline.
You are kidding yourself if you think the NHL is reticent to take a stricter stance on fighting because they fear "losing control" of how players will conduct themselves on the ice.
That's some pretty ***-backwards logic. "To keep players from acting like thugs we need to have them act like thugs."
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
that is a really interesting idea! Bring out boxing gloves or the gloves they use in MMA and let the guys fight that way. many (far from all) of the "fights" seem just about as staged....
that is a really interesting idea! Bring out boxing gloves or the gloves they use in MMA and let the guys fight that way. many (far from all) of the "fights" seem just about as staged....
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
This x 1,000!!! Especially the bolded part! The Broad Street Bullies about soured me on hockey and certainly did sour me on NHL for quite a while.
This x 1,000!!! Especially the bolded part! The Broad Street Bullies about soured me on hockey and certainly did sour me on NHL for quite a while.
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
I never quite understood the argument that each hockey team needs a thug on its roster to act as police to keep the other team's players from being too rough.
Pro football has a lot more physical contact than hockey on every play. Yet if a football player gets frustrated and kicks out at another, he's ejected from the game and suspended for the next two as well (and in a 16-game season, that's like 15% of the entire year!). Meanwhile, in hockey, if a player gets frustrated and whacks another player across the shins with a long thin wooden club, he gets two minutes for slashing? I"m not saying one is right or the other is wrong, I am merely noticing that there is quite a disparity in standards and expectations.
I never quite understood the argument that each hockey team needs a thug on its roster to act as police to keep the other team's players from being too rough.
Pro football has a lot more physical contact than hockey on every play. Yet if a football player gets frustrated and kicks out at another, he's ejected from the game and suspended for the next two as well (and in a 16-game season, that's like 15% of the entire year!). Meanwhile, in hockey, if a player gets frustrated and whacks another player across the shins with a long thin wooden club, he gets two minutes for slashing? I"m not saying one is right or the other is wrong, I am merely noticing that there is quite a disparity in standards and expectations.
cross cheque
Make the playoffs, not war.
manurespreader
Still upright
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
This subject was brought up on the Bob Costas show last night on NBC Sports network, with Gary Bettman. Very interesting interview, and a lot of excuses.
This subject was brought up on the Bob Costas show last night on NBC Sports network, with Gary Bettman. Very interesting interview, and a lot of excuses.
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
Really? How many concussions are caused by each? And so what? Should the NHL allow any dangerous activity as long as the injuries it causes are fewer than those caused by head hunters and cheap shots?
More importantly, how many MORE injuries would there be if fighting were banned? If only there were people playing hockey in other parts of the world, and in other jurisdictions, where they didn't allow fighting. Those other players would have much higher rates of concussions and other debilitating injuries - and their leagues would be plagued by many more cheap shots and hits from behind - than NHL players, right? And I'm sure the NHL would conduct a comprehensive comparison between these leagues to determine the best way to protect the health of its players. Maybe someday they'll take up hockey in Europe. Then we'll know.
Because it doesn't, and because it's stupid. Guys fight all the time, and they've been fighting for a very long time. It hasn't stopped hits from behind, high sticks, or head injuries. And let's face it, that's not really what's behind most NHL fights. Fights are very often retaliation for perfectly clean hits (Zdeno Chara not only did this the other night against Ottawa, he came right out and said so after the game), and even more often staged events to give a "spark" to a team getting outplayed.
Think NBA players would fight after hard fouls if it were allowed, or even explicitly endorsed, by their league? Think NFL players would fight if it were allowed as retaliation for head shots and chop blocks? Of course they would. But it would be stupid. Those leagues control dangerous plays by making them illegal and enforcing the rules with significant penalties. What do you think would cause a hockey player to be more careful: the possibility of getting into a fight and taking a 5-minute penalty, or the possibility of losing 20 games worth of playing time and salary?
Really? How many concussions are caused by each? And so what? Should the NHL allow any dangerous activity as long as the injuries it causes are fewer than those caused by head hunters and cheap shots?
More importantly, how many MORE injuries would there be if fighting were banned? If only there were people playing hockey in other parts of the world, and in other jurisdictions, where they didn't allow fighting. Those other players would have much higher rates of concussions and other debilitating injuries - and their leagues would be plagued by many more cheap shots and hits from behind - than NHL players, right? And I'm sure the NHL would conduct a comprehensive comparison between these leagues to determine the best way to protect the health of its players. Maybe someday they'll take up hockey in Europe. Then we'll know.
Because it doesn't, and because it's stupid. Guys fight all the time, and they've been fighting for a very long time. It hasn't stopped hits from behind, high sticks, or head injuries. And let's face it, that's not really what's behind most NHL fights. Fights are very often retaliation for perfectly clean hits (Zdeno Chara not only did this the other night against Ottawa, he came right out and said so after the game), and even more often staged events to give a "spark" to a team getting outplayed.
Think NBA players would fight after hard fouls if it were allowed, or even explicitly endorsed, by their league? Think NFL players would fight if it were allowed as retaliation for head shots and chop blocks? Of course they would. But it would be stupid. Those leagues control dangerous plays by making them illegal and enforcing the rules with significant penalties. What do you think would cause a hockey player to be more careful: the possibility of getting into a fight and taking a 5-minute penalty, or the possibility of losing 20 games worth of playing time and salary?
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
Pro hockey rules are beyond the stated scope of this forum and this thread - "Fighting could be ELIMINATED in amateur hockey . . ." That's an absurd claim unless the players are to be sedated before each game. You can't name a single DI player who suffered a concussion this year as a result of fisticuffs. More than one DI player this year has suffered a concussion resulting from a penalized cheap shot. The injured player may never again play hockey, suffer permanent injury, or die. The cheap shot artist may be penalized for two minutes, less frequently five minutes, or infrequently be suspended for a couple of games. So long as the penalty for a cheap hit is potentially (and practically) so much less than a penalty for fighting there will be cheap shot weasels who take advantage of this inequity and use dirty hits or the threat of dirty hits to neutralize skilled players. BTW: Europe has a way of reducing cheap hits and thus fighting: Larger ice surfaces. You can't hit what you can't catch.
Pro hockey rules are beyond the stated scope of this forum and this thread - "Fighting could be ELIMINATED in amateur hockey . . ." That's an absurd claim unless the players are to be sedated before each game. You can't name a single DI player who suffered a concussion this year as a result of fisticuffs. More than one DI player this year has suffered a concussion resulting from a penalized cheap shot. The injured player may never again play hockey, suffer permanent injury, or die. The cheap shot artist may be penalized for two minutes, less frequently five minutes, or infrequently be suspended for a couple of games. So long as the penalty for a cheap hit is potentially (and practically) so much less than a penalty for fighting there will be cheap shot weasels who take advantage of this inequity and use dirty hits or the threat of dirty hits to neutralize skilled players. BTW: Europe has a way of reducing cheap hits and thus fighting: Larger ice surfaces. You can't hit what you can't catch.
Last edited:
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
Oh, please. You were claiming that fighting reduces injuries from cheap shots. I refuted that argument by comparing leagues with fighting to those without it. It's perfectly within the scope of this thread and you know it, even if you're now trying to back away from it.
Yeah, no kidding. Of course there are more non-fighting-related injuries than fighting-related injuries in college hockey: there IS NO FIGHTING in college hockey. And the issue is whether the threat of having to fight an enforcer would reduce the number of non-fighting-related injuries, as you claimed. There's no evidence that it would, and more importantly it's not necessary to allow fighting for this purpose when all you have to do is enforce the rules with significant penalties (thank you for making my point here, by the way). Fighting is stupid, dangerous, unnecessary, and unrelated to the point of the game. It should be taken out of the game, and it would not result in more injuries if the other rules were properly enforced.
OK, you're not really presenting this as a serious argument are you?
Oh, please. You were claiming that fighting reduces injuries from cheap shots. I refuted that argument by comparing leagues with fighting to those without it. It's perfectly within the scope of this thread and you know it, even if you're now trying to back away from it.
Yeah, no kidding. Of course there are more non-fighting-related injuries than fighting-related injuries in college hockey: there IS NO FIGHTING in college hockey. And the issue is whether the threat of having to fight an enforcer would reduce the number of non-fighting-related injuries, as you claimed. There's no evidence that it would, and more importantly it's not necessary to allow fighting for this purpose when all you have to do is enforce the rules with significant penalties (thank you for making my point here, by the way). Fighting is stupid, dangerous, unnecessary, and unrelated to the point of the game. It should be taken out of the game, and it would not result in more injuries if the other rules were properly enforced.
OK, you're not really presenting this as a serious argument are you?
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
!!
It is also childish and immature which are secondary considerations, I know....in theory however athletics in college are supposed to build character not debase it.
!!
It is also childish and immature which are secondary considerations, I know....in theory however athletics in college are supposed to build character not debase it.
TylerDurden
Banned
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
foil, coach.
where's Ned Braden when ya need him?
What do you expect them to do, fight with their gloves on? Or do prefer brass knuckles instead of bare knuckles?
foil, coach.
where's Ned Braden when ya need him?
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
Perfection!
Fighting serves no purpose at any level of hockey and should be eliminated in the NHL also.
Perfection!
Fighting serves no purpose at any level of hockey and should be eliminated in the NHL also.
Re: NY Times - Fighting Could Be Eliminated in Amateur Hockey in US and Canada
Posters purporting to be against fighting have waled the tar out of some straw men but carefully avoided addressing the inequality between amateur rules which punish fighting (which seldom results in serious injury) and rules punishing deliberate blows to the head and deliberate cross-checking, deliberate boarding, deliberate hitting from behind, deliberate elbows and similar cheap hits which all too often result in serious injury and end hockey careers. As long as this inequality in punishment is prolonged there will be an incentive to take cheap shots - particularly by lousy fighters. With current rules and their enforcement cheap hits are simply a cheaper way than fighting to deter skilled players. Take a look at the previous thread "Suspend Kyle Rau for as long as Jason Zucker is unable to play" for supporting arguments.
Posters purporting to be against fighting have waled the tar out of some straw men but carefully avoided addressing the inequality between amateur rules which punish fighting (which seldom results in serious injury) and rules punishing deliberate blows to the head and deliberate cross-checking, deliberate boarding, deliberate hitting from behind, deliberate elbows and similar cheap hits which all too often result in serious injury and end hockey careers. As long as this inequality in punishment is prolonged there will be an incentive to take cheap shots - particularly by lousy fighters. With current rules and their enforcement cheap hits are simply a cheaper way than fighting to deter skilled players. Take a look at the previous thread "Suspend Kyle Rau for as long as Jason Zucker is unable to play" for supporting arguments.
Last edited: