| Author |
 Topic  |
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
 Posted - 03/22/2011 : 21:32:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
So why is hockey the only sport where fighting is condoned??? And don't tell me any crap about the physicality of the game. Football, Rugby, Aussie Rules, even sports like basketball are physical. So why not let to rugby players stop the game and chuck fists for a while to settle a dispute???
Nothing relevant or logical can explain that piece.
At the time hockey was developing and growing in popularity it was basically a Canadian sport. The vast majority of Canada was populated by English, Scottish and Irish immigrants at that time. The Scots and Irish specifically like to fight when they lose their temper. This happens often. I know this as I am one. So the game developed with these types of people. We baby boomers came along and perpetuated what was accepted before us. Just a different time I guess. When I was a kid we all fought and not just on the ice. It was how we tested ourselves.
Later generations have evolved and are enlightened. Fighting just isn't pc. Only a neanderthal would fight. So strange how popular the UFC sport is.
I have no problem with fighting in hockey whatsoever if it is out of anger. I understand that. What I do not understand are the staged fights. Ridiculous. Taking your helmet off is just part of that silliness to me. If you have time to agree to take your helmets off you aren't fighting out of anger, you wouldn't have time. That type of fight does not belong in hockey.
By the way, who cares what other sports allow? Maybe the NBA wouldn't be full of sissies who can't play when they break a finger nail if they allowed fighting. One of the more entertaining things that happens in baseball are the blowups. Team brawls. That emotion is fantastic. |
 |
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 05:00:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
So why is hockey the only sport where fighting is condoned??? And don't tell me any crap about the physicality of the game. Football, Rugby, Aussie Rules, even sports like basketball are physical. So why not let to rugby players stop the game and chuck fists for a while to settle a dispute???
Nothing relevant or logical can explain that piece.
At the time hockey was developing and growing in popularity it was basically a Canadian sport. The vast majority of Canada was populated by English, Scottish and Irish immigrants at that time. The Scots and Irish specifically like to fight when they lose their temper. This happens often. I know this as I am one. So the game developed with these types of people. We baby boomers came along and perpetuated what was accepted before us. Just a different time I guess. When I was a kid we all fought and not just on the ice. It was how we tested ourselves.
Later generations have evolved and are enlightened. Fighting just isn't pc. Only a neanderthal would fight. So strange how popular the UFC sport is.
I have no problem with fighting in hockey whatsoever if it is out of anger. I understand that. What I do not understand are the staged fights. Ridiculous. Taking your helmet off is just part of that silliness to me. If you have time to agree to take your helmets off you aren't fighting out of anger, you wouldn't have time. That type of fight does not belong in hockey.
By the way, who cares what other sports allow? Maybe the NBA wouldn't be full of sissies who can't play when they break a finger nail if they allowed fighting. One of the more entertaining things that happens in baseball are the blowups. Team brawls. That emotion is fantastic.
Willus, I have spent some time in Australia, so I know of one of the sports referenced here - Aussie Rules Football. I have often stated to other sports fans, that in terms of all-around physicality, skill, strength, speed, the #1 sport with the best athletes is probably Aussie rules, followed by our beloved hockey.
Who do you think the first immigrants to Australia were - a bunch of ex-convicts, that's who. That country, and that sport, was built on the backs of some of the rougher dudes you will ever meet. Rugby players in general are tough buggers, but aussie rules guys are absolute nails.
You can utube for aussie rules fights, and suspensions, and you will note that punches are occasionally thrown, and elbows are common - but they get a very appropriate punishment, in my mind, for an extremely physical and rough sport. Hence, the punch-ups rarely happen. And they have had their instances of very skilled players being "walking time bombs", Bobby Clarke type guys who were immensely skilled . . . but ended their careers in banishment and shame.
So, the physicality . . . the history . . . the background . . . all just excuses for hooligan behaviour. And as much as some Aussies might be hooligans - much more than Canadians, I'll wager - on the playing field, rules are rules, and the governing body has a reponsibility to uphold them properly.
The NHL does not do its job, or its due diligence.
The NHL IS NOT the only rough, physical sport in the world, but it is the only one (including lacrosse here too) that condones fighting on a professional level, even though it is explicitly against the rules.
And that IS relevant in my mind.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 08:40:54
|
Who invented golf?? Why isn't there fighting on the links?? To Slozo's point, a bunch of convicts inhabiting and island create a sport that is one of the most physical in the world and there is no fighting.
There is no logical reason or excuse why there is fighting in a non-combat sport. Zero.
Now, I am in a tough spot as I don't think fighting would ever not be part of hockey in some form. However, I would say the majority from both sides of the argument can agree that the staged fighting if garbage and the Boogaards of the NHL with only one purpose do not enrich the quality of the game.
I still say that if a fight resulted in an automatic game misconduct it would bring down the number of fights significantly but would not remove them from the sport all together. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 10:58:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Who invented golf?? Why isn't there fighting on the links?? To Slozo's point, a bunch of convicts inhabiting and island create a sport that is one of the most physical in the world and there is no fighting.
There is no logical reason or excuse why there is fighting in a non-combat sport. Zero.
Now, I am in a tough spot as I don't think fighting would ever not be part of hockey in some form. However, I would say the majority from both sides of the argument can agree that the staged fighting if garbage and the Boogaards of the NHL with only one purpose do not enrich the quality of the game.
I still say that if a fight resulted in an automatic game misconduct it would bring down the number of fights significantly but would not remove them from the sport all together.
No fighting in golf? You've never golfed with me and my crew then! Lol, all kidding aside, i would love to see the Boogaards of the league gone! Imagine the value of a true tough power forward, ie Lucic, if this were the case? I mean, let's face it, he's already extremely valuable, but he'd prob be even moreso in a league without the true cro-magnon's running around!
Beans, are you implying a game misconduct as in you're out for THAT game? I think it'd almost need to be, the current game, plus one or else you might still see silly fights near the end of games, especially blowouts. Neither player would have to worry as the game is outta reach, but if you get one additional game, then the guy on the team who's leading would be crazy to drop the gloves! In the very least, an instigator would need to be further penalized to prevent the useless staged scraps at the end! |
|
|
|
The Duke
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1239 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 15:19:29
|
Alex there are 2 sides of your comment on players like Lucic. If not for players like C.Orr, the Boggyman and others....who would be able to control a Lucic type hockey player ?? Wouldn`t a Lucic type player then become the new Bully ??....throwing his weight around, intimidating opposing star forwards without any form of re-precussion what-so-ever ?
I think all player types have a place in the NHL. The biggest problem i see in the NHL is the never ending ...lets change the game syndrome...
I loved watching NHL hockey in the 70`s, 80`s and 90`s as well as today. I didn`t see ( as a fan ) any major issues during these older times but they always come up with changes.
Where as all these new rules and changes gotten us ?? More injuries than ever, ( so it seems ). Seems like every other guy as a concussion.
Does anyone here watch the NFL as an avid fan ?? I watch the superbowl, thats it. My question is....does the NFL change so many rules regularly as the NHL ?? |
|
|
|
Pushrod
Top Prospect
Canada
44 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 15:45:24
|
I don't have specific numbers but the nfl has been making changes to their rules regularly over the past season or so to try and address injuries, much like the nhl is talking about now.
Just recently they changed the whole dynamics of kickoffs to try and avoid the injuries coming from the often reckless free for all that ensues. And that is at the potential expense of the excitement that comes from a kick return touchdown. Whether or not we end up seeing these changes as a result of their lockout is another topic in and of itself, but not really relevant for a hockey forum. The nfl does seem to find it easier to make changes without the same uproar as a hockey rule change seems to cause though.
As far as fighting goes, I already made my point as Guest8136....got tired of appearing as guest so figured I'd better start a profile  |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 15:48:46
|
Except, do Colton Orr, Boogaard, and the likes, really control a Lucic?
He's a regular shift player, he has no need or business, getting involved with their ilk. They are marginal, defined-role players who never seem to actually have any bearing on any other player, except their opposing twin. They dress for 60 play for 4 and sit in the box for 5. Wash, rinse, repeat.
But it's okay, as long as the game doesn't change, these types can at least continue to make their millions, while another, more skilled player can toil in the minors and eventually make their fortune in free sticks and tape, playing for the (insert town name here)Senior Mens Hockey Club.
A Lucic type of player is rare, and even he has to stay within the confines of the rules. There are referees, who if given the leeway, and mandate, to do their jobs properly, can ensure any 'bullying', is kept within those rules. At the end of the day, it's still about playing hockey and putting a puck in the net.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 15:58:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Alex there are 2 sides of your comment on players like Lucic. If not for players like C.Orr, the Boggyman and others....who would be able to control a Lucic type hockey player ?? Wouldn`t a Lucic type player then become the new Bully ??....throwing his weight around, intimidating opposing star forwards without any form of re-precussion what-so-ever ?
Duke, that's kinda the point i was trying to make. Not that he'd become a "bully" but to what value his stock would rise? I've said for years, i'd love to see the goons outta the game and let the true tough power forwards, who can still take a regular shift, play the game!
If the Bruins got Lucic, then your team better go out and get someone who can still take a regular shift, and drop'em if/when necessary! |
|
|
|
The Duke
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1239 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 17:02:47
|
Its not the point of ...under someones thumb control...Elvis.
It doesn`t matter how many shifts Orr and Boggy play...its the point of being on the bench itself...having the capability of leaping over the boards when needed.....having the ability of influencing opposing players from hurting your stars. Wonder if teams without a true enforcer ( eg. Montreal ) have more player injuries then teams with one ?? i don`t really know...just wondering.
There is a certain element of player ( Sean Avery eg. ) in the league who would ( in my opinion ) do as much damage as possible if not for players like Orr and Boggy having a bench presence.
Anyway, if these players are only playing 2 - 4 minutes per game...really, how are they taking playing time away from more skilled players ?....whats a team going to do...replace Orr with a skilled player and give him Orr`s 3 minutes ? |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 17:50:06
|
But there is notinfluence when the super heavyweights just fight super heavyweights. It's like the old Cold War, you have a bomb so I have a bomb. It's not like Boogaard goes out there and mashes people up and fights everyone. He fights pretty much only super heavyweights.
So what influence is on a game whe Boogaard is sent on the ice to fight so Parros goes out there too? They fight, people clap, it's over. The game hasn't changes and there are 2-3 minutes of my life I can't get back. And Matt Cooke and Alex Burrows are still dirt bags. Nothing changes and no influence.
Complete waste of time. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 18:33:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
[quote]Originally posted by willus3
[quote]Originally posted by Beans15
Willus, I have spent some time in Australia, so I know of one of the sports referenced here - Aussie Rules Football. I have often stated to other sports fans, that in terms of all-around physicality, skill, strength, speed, the #1 sport with the best athletes is probably Aussie rules, followed by our beloved hockey.
Who do you think the first immigrants to Australia were - a bunch of ex-convicts, that's who. That country, and that sport, was built on the backs of some of the rougher dudes you will ever meet. Rugby players in general are tough buggers, but aussie rules guys are absolute nails.
You can utube for aussie rules fights, and suspensions, and you will note that punches are occasionally thrown, and elbows are common - but they get a very appropriate punishment, in my mind, for an extremely physical and rough sport. Hence, the punch-ups rarely happen. And they have had their instances of very skilled players being "walking time bombs", Bobby Clarke type guys who were immensely skilled . . . but ended their careers in banishment and shame.
So, the physicality . . . the history . . . the background . . . all just excuses for hooligan behaviour. And as much as some Aussies might be hooligans - much more than Canadians, I'll wager - on the playing field, rules are rules, and the governing body has a reponsibility to uphold them properly.
The NHL does not do its job, or its due diligence.
The NHL IS NOT the only rough, physical sport in the world, but it is the only one (including lacrosse here too) that condones fighting on a professional level, even though it is explicitly against the rules.
And that IS relevant in my mind.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
I'm aware of Autralia's history and Aussie rules players are indeed tough men. I was supplying context for the fighting in hockey.
The difference is Aussie Rules football somewhere along the way decided to not allow fighting to be a part of the game and use severe punishment to accomplish that. In hockey, though penalized with a penalty, it was deemed to be part of the game. There is a reason too. I think most of you don't realize just how tough and rough the sport was from the 60's and back. How many times do you think you'd take having the butt end of a stick run down the side of your ribs before you started swinging for teeth? Only took once for me and then it was  for the other guy.
I'm sure there's lots of dirty things the footballers do but none of them involve a stick. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 18:38:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Who invented golf?? Why isn't there fighting on the links?? To Slozo's point, a bunch of convicts inhabiting and island create a sport that is one of the most physical in the world and there is no fighting.
There is no logical reason or excuse why there is fighting in a non-combat sport. Zero.
Now, I am in a tough spot as I don't think fighting would ever not be part of hockey in some form. However, I would say the majority from both sides of the argument can agree that the staged fighting if garbage and the Boogaards of the NHL with only one purpose do not enrich the quality of the game.
I still say that if a fight resulted in an automatic game misconduct it would bring down the number of fights significantly but would not remove them from the sport all together.
Golf isn't a contact sport. It's a very very large difference. But the tempers are certainly there. Throw in a little contact and I could easily see fights happening.
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2011 : 21:53:00
|
quote:
Golf isn't a contact sport. It's a very very large difference. But the tempers are certainly there. Throw in a little contact and I could easily see fights happening
Golf fights, thats hilarious. Would they need fight straps sewn into their dress pants? |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 07:23:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Golf isn't a contact sport. It's a very very large difference. But the tempers are certainly there. Throw in a little contact and I could easily see fights happening
Golf fights, thats hilarious. Would they need fight straps sewn into their dress pants?
No, their caddys would just need to start carrying mouth guards for them! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 10:29:11
|
Just to continue on our discussion, Willus,
Lacrosse used to involve one or two deaths every match, when just the natives played it. Roughest sport ever, apparently . . . and they used a bloody rock to play with. And it probably was bloody!
My point is . . . times change, and we evolve. Even hockey, as pigheaded and slow as it is, has evolved. The equipment has gotten better, we care more about safety, and many of the rules have changed.
But hockey truly is a few decades behind in making these changes, when compared to progressive and extremely successful sports like football, with similar dynamics involved in terms of physical play.
I think that is the main point I would like proponents and supporters of hockey fights to realise . . . . we are neanderthals when it comes to rule changes and policing the game.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 10:49:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Just to continue on our discussion, Willus,
Lacrosse used to involve one or two deaths every match, when just the natives played it. Roughest sport ever, apparently . . . and they used a bloody rock to play with. And it probably was bloody!
My point is . . . times change, and we evolve. Even hockey, as pigheaded and slow as it is, has evolved. The equipment has gotten better, we care more about safety, and many of the rules have changed.
But hockey truly is a few decades behind in making these changes, when compared to progressive and extremely successful sports like football, with similar dynamics involved in terms of physical play.
I think that is the main point I would like proponents and supporters of hockey fights to realise . . . . we are neanderthals when it comes to rule changes and policing the game.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Another example of this is the history of basketball. Some time in the 1500 the Aztec's played a sport called Tlachtli. Basically, it was one on one with a 5 lb ball needing to be passed through a ring at the end of a field. However, the players could not use their hands.
The game normally went to one. First basket wins. The winner got riches. The loser was decapitated as an offering to the Gods.
Sports evolve. |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 12:13:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Just to continue on our discussion, Willus,
Lacrosse used to involve one or two deaths every match, when just the natives played it. Roughest sport ever, apparently . . . and they used a bloody rock to play with. And it probably was bloody!
My point is . . . times change, and we evolve. Even hockey, as pigheaded and slow as it is, has evolved. The equipment has gotten better, we care more about safety, and many of the rules have changed.
But hockey truly is a few decades behind in making these changes, when compared to progressive and extremely successful sports like football, with similar dynamics involved in terms of physical play.
I think that is the main point I would like proponents and supporters of hockey fights to realise . . . . we are neanderthals when it comes to rule changes and policing the game.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Another example of this is the history of basketball. Some time in the 1500 the Aztec's played a sport called Tlachtli. Basically, it was one on one with a 5 lb ball needing to be passed through a ring at the end of a field. However, the players could not use their hands.
The game normally went to one. First basket wins. The winner got riches. The loser was decapitated as an offering to the Gods.
Sports evolve.
And the Romans used to make people get in the coliseum and kill each other........just pointing out that your point is laughable!!! |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 12:29:45
|
I wouldn't say laughable. A touch to the extreme perhaps, but no less so than the extreme inability of the ardent supporters of fighting to listen to anything other than their unshakable belief that hockey shouldn't evolve to a direction of less, for lack of a better word, violence. There is a fine line, I realize, in that in a collision sport, it is all violence. Maybe I'm alone in this perception, but to me, a bodycheck is just that, while fighting and excessive force in dangerous situation, are just plain violence for the sake of violence.
Some fight supporters make it sound like a fight is a reasonable resolution to a problem. How does one debate that type of logic? A punch to the face is a statement about how it is not right to 'bother' our guy, or, you hit our guy too hard, with that clean check, I must punch you in the face. You are the other genetic freak, from the other team? I must punch you in the face.
Maybe anyone supporting these points has already had that done...repeatedly....damagingly. Then it makes sense!
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 14:15:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Just to continue on our discussion, Willus,
Lacrosse used to involve one or two deaths every match, when just the natives played it. Roughest sport ever, apparently . . . and they used a bloody rock to play with. And it probably was bloody!
My point is . . . times change, and we evolve. Even hockey, as pigheaded and slow as it is, has evolved. The equipment has gotten better, we care more about safety, and many of the rules have changed.
But hockey truly is a few decades behind in making these changes, when compared to progressive and extremely successful sports like football, with similar dynamics involved in terms of physical play.
I think that is the main point I would like proponents and supporters of hockey fights to realise . . . . we are neanderthals when it comes to rule changes and policing the game.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Another example of this is the history of basketball. Some time in the 1500 the Aztec's played a sport called Tlachtli. Basically, it was one on one with a 5 lb ball needing to be passed through a ring at the end of a field. However, the players could not use their hands.
The game normally went to one. First basket wins. The winner got riches. The loser was decapitated as an offering to the Gods.
Sports evolve.
And the Romans used to make people get in the coliseum and kill each other........just pointing out that your point is laughable!!!
But that was not a real sport. Those were duels and mock battles.
You missed it.
The point, that is.
|
Edited by - n/a on 03/24/2011 14:24:43 |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 14:40:29
|
| Slozo the point that things that happened 500 - 1000 - 1500 or so years ago can not be used to descibe or justify an argument for a sporting event today? No I think got that! |
Edited by - tbar on 03/24/2011 14:46:49 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 15:01:39
|
| Tbar, clearly you missed something. The point was not a comparison to the two sports. It's that as a society evolved, so do sports. Well, most sports. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 20:17:12
|
Look, I'll say again for the record that todays fights are nonsensical.
Goons fighting goons is ridiculous. No argument there.
Let's talk about fights born of anger. Yes they are "illegal" but should they be removed from the game? Fights are penalized just like every other infraction. Why no talk of eliminating slashing or tripping? They are also "illegal". What is this huge issue with fighting some of you have? Clearly it isn't fighting itself as I'm sure most of you follow the UFC where they beat the living snot out of one another.
Other than the staged fights I really don't get the issue with fighting in hockey. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 20:25:22
|
Willus, I am actually in 100% agreement with you. However, for the 'staged fights' to get resolved the punishment has to be more severe than needed. The heated, in the moment fights will still happen, but the staged fights will be gone quick.
At least that is how I see it. Fights happen in other sports too. But they are rare and highly emotional. Great entertainment.
But we very much agree, If we never see Parros or Boogaard fight(or play) again we are richer people.
Can we put this to bed soon and start talking about the playoff races going on?? |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 20:46:47
|
I would agree Willus, due to the nature of the game, fights born from heated competitiveness and intensity are a part of the game, and I see the validity of it, and have little problem with the act itself.
I do however wonder, what makes it acceptable at any other level of hockey? Not so much to get rid of it, but why is it only a 5 minute penalty in most cases, and not treated more severely at levels other than the pro level.
Is it because it is so accepted and in most cases promoted at the NHL level, that it still exits? I think so, and I simply wonder if it wouldn't be better to not have that be the standard, and it be exclusive to the NHL, then let it die a quiet death that way.
As I get older, I start to question the sanity of letting kids, teenagers, young adults, adults, fathers, bread winners, engage in this part of the game, outside of the NHL, where it is accepted and most fans including myself, can live with it.
I, and this my opinion only, question the legality of getting beaten up in beer league. If the confrontation were to take place anywhere but an ice surface, it's assault as far as I know, and I find that strange.
I'll simply put it this way. The best hockey I have ever watched in my 46 years, has been the 72 Canada/Russia series(I remember clearly, a gynasium full of elementary school kids being captivated), the 76, 84 and 87 Canada Cups, and the last 4 Winter Olympic tounaments, and they all one thing in common, no fighting and great skill hockey.
I realize that level of skill is possible only in the elite tournaments, but it, to me anyways, is a much better example f what hockey should be, than seeing Colton Orr every Saturday, which is unfortunately just what kids wanting to play hockey see. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 21:42:46
|
Willus, i know what you mean as i've had that thought for quite some time (that slashing, etc are "illegal" as well). Beans is right, to get rid of one type of fight (staged) means getting rid of all of it. It's not as easy as calling a slight hack at a guy 2 mins, but a Ron Hextall on Kent Nilsson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyp1tNasFvw) slash clearly needs more. MUCH MORE! Lol, that was beyond vicious!
FER....your beer league example i get, but wouldn't a guy crosschecking you or slashing you "anywhere but on an ice surface" result in an assault charge as well? Yeah, i know, not many dudes wonder around carrying a hockey stick, but you get what i mean, right? Same thing really, they're both "accepted" in hockey culture, right or wrong.
ETA.....Funny thing is, you don't really see it in that video but Glenn Anderson skates by and takes a little hack at the puck while it's loose at Hextall's feet and that's what got him mad!!! Unfortunately for Nilsson, he was the next one to come within psychotic stick swinging range of the madman known as Ron Hextall!!! What a nutbar!  |
Edited by - Alex116 on 03/24/2011 22:34:02 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2011 : 23:12:44
|
Alex, I hear you and I sort of agree, except that a simple slash and a simple cross check, the kind that happen 90 percent of the time, are dealt with as such, 2 minutes. Carry on.
As the slash or cross check get more severe the penalty does too. From the 5 minute major, to the multi game ban, ie; Simon.
Fighting is not treated the same. 5 for fighting whether it be a biotch slapping Semin, or a face crushing Boogaard. Weird.
Simon slashes Holleweg in the face and gets 25 games, Holleweg is not really hurt finishes the game and continues.
Steve McIntyre punches Raistis Ivanans into a different plane of existence.....5 minutes, adulation of the crowd. McIntyre finishes the game and continues, Ivanans never heard from again. Weird.
I don't mind the fighting at the NHL level really, those heat of the moments tussles do indeed add to the intensity of the game, but until the league finds some balance between those type of fights and the antics as of late, such as throwing off your helmet to save your knuckles(I figure someone better pull this back on topic after a page and half), fighting just seems........weird. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2011 : 08:25:52
|
Well stated FER, and i agree. As for getting back on topic, i think the topic is dead  . Any thread with the word "fight" in it seems to end up in a discussion like this one! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2011 : 10:55:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Look, I'll say again for the record that todays fights are nonsensical.
Goons fighting goons is ridiculous. No argument there.
Let's talk about fights born of anger. Yes they are "illegal" but should they be removed from the game? Fights are penalized just like every other infraction. Why no talk of eliminating slashing or tripping? They are also "illegal". What is this huge issue with fighting some of you have? Clearly it isn't fighting itself as I'm sure most of you follow the UFC where they beat the living snot out of one another.
Other than the staged fights I really don't get the issue with fighting in hockey.
I've said it once Willus, and I'll say it again: you can't take fighting out of any game, but if you penalise it appropriately, you can diminish it greatly.
Slashes and trips are, for the most part, dealt with appropriately (not always called as well as they should, but that's another topic!).
And if we are comparing things like slashes and trips to fighting as infractions . . . where are those fourth line players who specialise in slashing? The Slashers, hunh - is there a special player like that on the team? A guy who everyone respects, and says they are a great guy, and every second game, he starts slashing another slasher, and the game stopss, and they take their sticks and square up and slash each other until the other falls down, and the refs pick them up and they each take a 5 minute penalty. Each slasher plays only 4 minutes a game, but the fans love the brutality and threat of severe injury when they slash away like crazy at each other.
Sounds pretty crazy, eh?
Kind of puts the whole fighting penalty in perspective, when you imagine what a real "slashing fight" would result in in terms of suspension length.
'nuff said.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
Edited by - n/a on 03/25/2011 10:56:47 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 09:38:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Look, I'll say again for the record that todays fights are nonsensical.
Goons fighting goons is ridiculous. No argument there.
Let's talk about fights born of anger. Yes they are "illegal" but should they be removed from the game? Fights are penalized just like every other infraction. Why no talk of eliminating slashing or tripping? They are also "illegal". What is this huge issue with fighting some of you have? Clearly it isn't fighting itself as I'm sure most of you follow the UFC where they beat the living snot out of one another.
Other than the staged fights I really don't get the issue with fighting in hockey.
I've said it once Willus, and I'll say it again: you can't take fighting out of any game, but if you penalise it appropriately, you can diminish it greatly.
Slashes and trips are, for the most part, dealt with appropriately (not always called as well as they should, but that's another topic!).
And if we are comparing things like slashes and trips to fighting as infractions . . . where are those fourth line players who specialise in slashing? The Slashers, hunh - is there a special player like that on the team? A guy who everyone respects, and says they are a great guy, and every second game, he starts slashing another slasher, and the game stopss, and they take their sticks and square up and slash each other until the other falls down, and the refs pick them up and they each take a 5 minute penalty. Each slasher plays only 4 minutes a game, but the fans love the brutality and threat of severe injury when they slash away like crazy at each other.
Sounds pretty crazy, eh?
Kind of puts the whole fighting penalty in perspective, when you imagine what a real "slashing fight" would result in in terms of suspension length.
'nuff said.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
You're preaching to the choir Slozo. You're talking about goons. As I've already stated, I have no use for them.
In my day you took care of things yourself. So when someone slashed you, you addressed that in your own way. Slash back, hard check, fight whatever it may have been. If you weren't tough you didn't last , that simple. The Semins' and Tanguays' just wouldn't be playing in the league.
I still struggle with understanding the leagues logic of employing goons today. It doesn't make any sense to me. Complete waste of a roster spot. It at least made some sense back when the goon actually protected the star player. I don't understand why it's taking the GM's so long to realize this.
Which raises a question. Are there any teams that don't employ a goon now? |
Edited by - willus3 on 03/26/2011 09:38:53 |
|
|
|
Mario 66
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
360 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 12:02:46
|
Willus, 100% The Redwings the obvious dominant team of the last decade does not employ a tough guy little own a Goon (bertuzzi maybe ) Other teams that have guys who can fight, would be The Pens, Canucks, Sharks, Flyers, Sabres, & Blackhawks have team toughness but no real legit goons. So basically the trend appears that your elite level teams see no need for a side show that takes away from advancing their young talent. I am sure there are more teams. Typically, the Caps do not either only this yr they brought King in.
In youth we learn; in age we understand |
Edited by - Mario 66 on 03/26/2011 12:20:05 |
|
|
|
The Duke
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1239 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2011 : 15:55:14
|
Most teams now employ players who can skate and hit...beside their fighting abilities. I don`t think there are too many GOON type players lasting now, the like of G. Lar and Todd Worell i mean.
Mike Brown and Jay Rosehill for example can really skate and hit very hard, they are not just a GOON type player. As for C.Orr, well he can also skate with average ability and throws thunderous hits.
To me the true GOON has no hockey ability what-so-ever, can`t really skate fast enough to throw a body check, just a fighter. Not too many of these stero-types around these days like it was a few years back. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2011 : 08:28:02
|
Duke, your definition of goons is pretty funny INHO. Basically, you are saying literally every players in the AHL is an NHL caliber skater. As long as a guy can skate and hit he is of value?? I hope that was a joke. You talk about Jay Rosehill??? Rosehill plays less than 5 minutes a game, has 3 points, it -4, averages 3 PIMS a game and averages just one hit a game. Yep, that guys is a gamer!! It's embarassing to a guy like Mike Brown to use Rosehill in the same sentance. Brown is a legitimate 4th line player, with more than 2 hits a game, 8 points, a plus rating, and a guy who can play more than 10 minutes a game.
Run the penalty numbers in NHL.com and sort it by major penalties. The list is a who's who of goons and weak hockey players that serve really no purpose.
Most any player can skate and hit. |
|
|
|
The Duke
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1239 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2011 : 19:02:55
|
Yes Beans most players CAN skate and hit....but in my eyes most players DON`T hit.
I watch J.Rosehill, when he does play, which is not very often. If you see him play some he may change your opinion of him. Of course he is a 4th line player but he has the heart of a lion. Rosehill is a very effective skater who gives all he got every shift and is team first committed. Rosehill isn`t afraid to mix it up and delivers bone crushing hits...if given a chance i think he can be an effective Bill Berg type player.
Seems like R.Wilson doesn`t take to him...but then again he is the same coach who still keeps T.Bozak as 1st line center with 29 pts on the season with a +/-....of - 26. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2011 : 19:49:48
|
| The Canucks HAD and may yet have again, Rick Rypien. He's an example of a guy who can and will "throw'em", but is an effective 4th liner. Def wouldn't consider him in Orr or the Boogyman's category. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2011 : 21:01:33
|
| Duke, you talk like no one else can watch the Leafs. They are the most televised team in the NHL! I can watch more Leafs games than Calgary and Edmonton combined. Trust me, I have watched Rosehill play on multiple occasions. All 5 minutes a game. Let's put it this way, if he wasn't willing to fight he would not even get those 5 minutes. There are piles of guys like that in the NHL and in other leagues. There is a reason they they only play a few minutes a game and only play about 1/2 the games in the season and it's not because of their skating and hitting ability. |
|
|
|
The Duke
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1239 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 16:19:48
|
No Beans you are wrong...theres not piles of guys like Jay Rosehill.
There are piles of guys with little skilled, hockey ability like Jay Rosehill ( i agree ).but not exactly as tough like J.Rosehill.
Yes i comment on the leafs always...thats my favorite team and i know more about them than any other team. I`ve seen 30 - 40 4th line players go through the leafs over the last 10 - 12 years and most of them were crap who didn`t hit.
Rosehill hits like Bill Berg and Mark Osbourne did, crippling hits, i haven`t seen a leaf hit so hard and often as this guy in years.....but he doesn`t get to play. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 16:55:32
|
Duke, who are you trying to kid?? There are literally 119 guys as good or better than Jay Rosehill in the NHL today. They are called 4th line players. They all get 5-7 minutes a game. They all get paid to hit and skate and muck it up.
There are 119 other players in the NHL today just like Ray Rosehill and another 4-6 guys on ever NHL farm team that get called up on a regular basis that do the same job.
Who cares if he hits as hard as a couple of guys that were also marginal 4th line players. Jay Rosehill's grow on trees. They are a dime a dozen. They are proof that the NHL is watered down and if 3-4 teams were folded tomorrow, Jay Rosehill would be flipping burgers at your local Burger King as he would not be good enough to play.
(I thought I would arbitrarily bold a few words so people might think my point is more valid) |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 16:57:08
|
quote:
I watch J.Rosehill, when he does play, which is not very often. If you see him play some he may change your opinion of him. Of course he is a 4th line player but he has the heart of a lion. Rosehill is a very effective skater who gives all he got every shift and is team first committed. Rosehill isn`t afraid to mix it up and delivers bone crushing hits
The same could be said about Derek Booregard. If you play on the 4th line, that is your roll - skate hard, deliver hits, wear other team down, give your top 3 lines a little break.
Rosehill is a goon. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 05:27:20
|
Duke - Beans said ti best,
If Rosehill couldn't fight well - a pugilistic, non-hockey play, to put it in better terms - he would not be on the Leafs roster. In fact, he probably wouldn't have made the farm team.
Getting back on topic here, Phaneuf didn't take off his helmet in a second fight with Horton . . . does that mean a Boston goon will straighten him out on "The Code" next time they meet? It would be the perfect time this Thursday . . .
I will eagerly anticipate Orr/Rosehill straightening out Chara for liberties taken on Grabovski in the past; and will love watching Thornton straighten out Phaneuf.
Ooohh, the excitement those tough, non-skilled players bring! Stopping the game, taking the place of a more skilled player . . . wow man, that's the way hockey should be played!! *
* please note, for the literary disinclined: this is a form of humour called sarcasm 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
ToXXiK1
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
696 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 08:17:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Look, I'll say again for the record that todays fights are nonsensical.
Goons fighting goons is ridiculous. No argument there.
Let's talk about fights born of anger. Yes they are "illegal" but should they be removed from the game? Fights are penalized just like every other infraction. Why no talk of eliminating slashing or tripping? They are also "illegal". What is this huge issue with fighting some of you have? Clearly it isn't fighting itself as I'm sure most of you follow the UFC where they beat the living snot out of one another.
Other than the staged fights I really don't get the issue with fighting in hockey.
I've said it once Willus, and I'll say it again: you can't take fighting out of any game, but if you penalise it appropriately, you can diminish it greatly.
Slashes and trips are, for the most part, dealt with appropriately (not always called as well as they should, but that's another topic!).
And if we are comparing things like slashes and trips to fighting as infractions . . . where are those fourth line players who specialise in slashing? The Slashers, hunh - is there a special player like that on the team? A guy who everyone respects, and says they are a great guy, and every second game, he starts slashing another slasher, and the game stopss, and they take their sticks and square up and slash each other until the other falls down, and the refs pick them up and they each take a 5 minute penalty. Each slasher plays only 4 minutes a game, but the fans love the brutality and threat of severe injury when they slash away like crazy at each other.
Sounds pretty crazy, eh?
Kind of puts the whole fighting penalty in perspective, when you imagine what a real "slashing fight" would result in in terms of suspension length.
'nuff said.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
You're preaching to the choir Slozo. You're talking about goons. As I've already stated, I have no use for them.
In my day you took care of things yourself. So when someone slashed you, you addressed that in your own way. Slash back, hard check, fight whatever it may have been. If you weren't tough you didn't last , that simple. The Semins' and Tanguays' just wouldn't be playing in the league.
I still struggle with understanding the leagues logic of employing goons today. It doesn't make any sense to me. Complete waste of a roster spot. It at least made some sense back when the goon actually protected the star player. I don't understand why it's taking the GM's so long to realize this.
Which raises a question. Are there any teams that don't employ a goon now?
Detroit, Buffalo, New Jersey, San Jose........... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Phaneuf – Horton Fight 
