Trettioåtta

I am reading The Game at the moment, and there is a section on fighting that has change my opinion on it, so i thought I would reply to this This is true, but has nothing to do with hockey. Fighting shouldn't be banned because it might influence children in negative ways. This idea is ridiculous and on par with the whole violent video games are damaging our children. It is just ######. I disagree, fighting by its nature is not part of hockey. The hockey game actually stops when this happens. It can act as a momentum boost, but it can also not (999.5% of Peters' fights for example). Furthermore, it is not the only way to change momentum, in fact, i would venture it is one of the weakest ways to change momentum. A big hit, a huge individual effort, hemming the other team in their defensive zone are all more powerful statements and are all hockey plays. How many more checks are there than fights? Most fights aren't even really fights. Neither player generally gets good hits in and neither player really gets hurt. Mainly because most guys are off balance when they make a hit connect. This means the fight isn't even a good fight to watch as it is often more of a grappling/wrestling match with both players stopping the other one land any punches 'The Code' - perhaps the most persuasive reason for allowing fighting. However, does it actually stop people from going after stars? I would say it doesn't. The Lucic incident may suggest that he went for Miller because there was no one on the team who would punish him. However, a few punches that barely connect or hurt doesn't really teach someone a lesson or deter them. What teaches them a lesson is having everyone start finishing their checks, trying to cause him pain in the game in legal ways. Suspensions will stop players from really going after stars. Look at the pens team. Who is there to really deter someone from hurting Crosby or Malkin? No-one. Are they targeted by every player trying to kill them? No. Why? Because 4th liners are replaceable very easily, you get suspended for going after a star there is a good chance you lose your spot when you come back (e.g. Kaleta to an extent). The league is now suspending people for elbows, late hits, head hits, slashings etc. the stars are protected. This is the argument the league used in the 70s. The league even told the players than in the Europe players finish games with far more bruises and pains because everyone is hitting each other with sticks. Firstly it simply isn't true about European hockey. But as Dryden points out, this also suggests that these are the only two ways to dissipate aggression. You either swing a fist or stick or you go home aggressively unsatisfied. But this isn't true. Another way would be to finish a big check, or to put that anger into skating harder or to clearing the front of the net, or to blocking the opposing goalies view. All of these actions require aggression, an they are all hockey plays and they all keep the game going. Tradition isn't a reason on its own to keep something. However, tradition does link into 'identity' and that may be a reason to keep it. Plenty of things make hockey unique from other games, e.g. the fact there is no out of bounds, or the speed, or the idolising of players pushing through pain and injury. Coming from a non-hockey country, when I talk of hockey with people, the impression everyone has is that fighting is centre stage and everyone plays the game waiting for an excuse to knock each others' teeth out. This, in my opinion, summaries why the game isn't as respected as other sports...because peoples' perception is that the sport takes second place and is there to serve the spectacle. Ad hominem attacks are not persuasive arguments. If a six-time Stanley cup winner doesn't understand i don't think anyone does The fighting in UFC is the sport. Fighting in hockey shouldn't be banned because it is brutal, because it often isn't worse than other plays that happen in the game, but because it interrupts the game, stops the action and doesn't achieve anything tangible. If during the fight they suddenly stopped and grabbed sticks and started having a shooting accuracy test how much would people enjoy this aspect of the sport? You've mentioned this exact point above (#3). The fact the injury late is so low despite people hitting each other in the head shows how poor these fights really are. These guys know how to throw a punch. The reason no-one connects with a solid hit is because of a combination of lack of balance and the wrestling match that dominates the fight Speculation. It could bring more fans in for all we know, who are simply not attending because they think that is the point of the game. Do you really go to games in case there is a fight? If so that is a little sad. Even if you enjoy the fighting aspect of the game surely that isn't what attracts you to the game and makes you enjoy it? If anything this attitude summaries why fighting should be banned. If people will not attend a game if they remove the part that stops the players playing then the idea that the game is second to the spectacle and people put up with the sport for the hope of a fight is apparently correct Exactly. You remove it and nothing changes for 85% of players. It is no longer a pervasive part of the game. How many of those 15% actually play the game? And how many are like Scott? If we swapped Scott for Kaleta, the game becomes more enjoyable with more hitting, our team improves and nothing is really lost. You could say fighting is there to sort out players like Kaleta who push limits and try and annoy other players, however, has Marchant, the king of pests and wankers, ever fought? No he just hides behind another player more willing to fight. So this argument doesn't even work. Plus we remove 'fights' like the Emery/Holtby one. How do you know it isn't? The games i enjoy the most are the tough hitting lots of battling in the corner and in front of the net. The games where players are putting a little more aggression into their general strides and play. I do agree that some hockey fights can be entertaining, but the vast majority simply aren't. Watching Peters spin at centre ice with another player his arm cocked back for 2 minutes isn't entertaining. Goon fighting is worse than normal hockey. When I think of the most entertaining games I have watched, I cannot remember a single fight in them - whether they were or not is irrelevant as they were either not as fun as the rest of the game and forgettable or simply not there and their absence was not a noticeable event. I have never thought at the end of a game that what was really missing was a fight Players play the game. The game makers decide the rules. By this logic the players can do anything they want, as it is their decision. If they agree to decide everything by duelling with their sticks should this be allowed because it is their decision? This really isn't an argument for anything. I don't think fighting will be banned in the near future. However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't. The interesting conversation is one of the 'philosophy' of hockey, not on what is likely to happen. Have you ever wacthed any Euro-league stuff? It is good. The wider ice means there is less hitting and contact, but the wider ice means some plays are made that simply can't on smaller ice. This is a ridiculous argument for banning fighting. If you are referring to stick swinging then that is a myth. That doesn't happen either. Euro-hockey is fun to watch Yes it would be sad. But this isn't a reason to ban it. Every seasons players lose their NHL jobs and are demoted to the minors or forced to retire. It is part of the game. You swap John Scott for Matt Ellis. That is the result. I know which player I have more fun watching on the ice. Whilst many players would lose their job, you are actually giving those jobs to players who can play better hockey, which is actually fairer. Rather than having a shaved monkey who got to his job by being tall and swinging his fists, you give the job to someone who has worked hard(er) their whole life to be good at the actual game of hockey, rather than a single spectacle/component of the game Again, you have already made this point. Without fighting hockey does not lose its physicality. Hitting is still allowed. The fact that the other sports are more successful and don't allow fighting suggests something. I am not saying they are more successful because of it, but it is a possibility/possible component of it This is pretty much the hockey players decision point again. Just because a person is an adult doesn't mean they should be able to do whatever they want (more of a social/political point so i'll leave it there). But again, the persuasive arguments for banning it aren't to do with player safety (as the punches don't do much damage) but with interrupting the game, creating a role for a man who can't play hockey to the acceptable standard and will make players channel their aggression into the actual game This is the third time you have made the same point. Most of these guys don't think of the future. They have the chance to get fame and fortune when they are 20/30..who cares if they get Alzheimer's in 30 years? Humans are bad at assessing detrimental effects in the future for short-term gain I agree. But as you said almost no-one is injured by fighting so removing it wouldn't effect anything. The players don't really get hurt in the fights, therefore the fights are more spectacle than 'violent' You have made this point already above about its tradition. I don't understand your rational for this? I presume it comes back to the idea that these 15% of fighters would be so angry at both the lack of fighting and their own ability to play the game they would be unable to control themselves and swing their sticks at others? Players can channel aggression. They are not beasts wrapped in clothes, they are humans. This is where most of your 30 points fall down. This is not the only, nor most convincing, reason for banning it. Fighting is more like wrestling and its lack of injuries show that it isn't violent/barbaric. Why? This is a stupid suggestion. Like mind numbingly stupid. Hockey is a game about putting a puck in the opposing teams net. Judo, UFC and wrestling are sports about beating up/suppressing the other player with your strength. In other words, the point of those sports is the 'fighting'. The point of hockey is not. I think most people do not want hockey banned because it is violent but because it isn't part of the game. The game stops for it. There have been many cases in recent seasons of this code being ignored. The idea that the player is personally responsible has already been addressed. Again, no-one thinks fighting is too dangerous to be allowed. It is because it doesn't matter to the game. It doesn't change the game in tangible way and the intangible ways it CAN change the game can be achieved in other ways. Barely anyone fights and barely anyone gets hurt from fighting. Nothing is achieved by it bar the game stopping and two non-hockey players move from warming the players bench to the penalty bench Fighting doesn't discourage cheap shots. A player doesn't have to fight if he doesn't want to (as you have pointed out three times). Therefore removing fighting doesn't increase the number of cheap shots that appear in a game. They are slowly taking action on cheap shots, but by their very nature they will never be removed, nor will the dangerous nature of hockey. Hockey will always be a fast, physical contact sport. Removing fighting won't change that There is a really easy way to enforce anti-fighting. 1) If a player fights they are thrown out of the game and the other team given a 5 minute powerplay 2) If a player fights again you impose an automatic 10-game suspension 3) If a player fights again you increase the suspension length 4) If a team has too many players fight then you simply start deducting point from them. That will get their attention quickly. See how the 85% of hockey players feel if their work winning the game gets undermined by the 15% trying to start a fight No that shouldn't be a reason. But why they are more successful, and if lack of fighting is a part of this, should be reviewed. There are plenty of other good reasons fighting should be banned that are not safety or other sports-based. However, it should be noted, why don't other sports allow it? What is their rational? Rugby is very violent and if fighting was allowed it would happen i'm sure. So why don't they allow it? The answer is because it has nothing to do with the game. Rugby is not a game about beating the opposition up. It is about scoring tries and kicks and stopping this to watch 2/30 guys beat each other up doesn't enhance the point of the game This has been addressed already. TL;DR - In short your arguments all presume that the only reasons for removing fighting are because either it is too violent or because other more popular sports don't have fighting. However, the reason it should be banned is because it is literally not part of the game. The game is put on hold and the clock is stopped. It is not part of the game and is just a spectacle. This turns the sport into a spectacle. It lowers the games respectability. Very few players even do it, showing that it is a specialised role with players who are specifically on the team for this 'mini-game' rather than help the team with the winning of the real game.

Rewatch the last 15 games.

Yes. Huge fan of his. But equally, I want to see him win a cup. So I think it will be bittersweet. I still hope he resigns.

What made him a nightmare?

No. Come on at least be fair. Hodgson sometimes gets to play with D'agostini on his wing

The Pens have two of the best centres of this generation and they have lost every year but one

Minnesota - Charlie Coyle Tampa Bay - Tyler Johnson Anaheim - Mathieu Perreault St Louis - Patrik Berglund Chicago - Bandon Pirri So 5 out of top 10 teams. The other five teams are rare, and possess unusually good centremen. Pens - Crosby and Malkin Boston - Krejci and Bergeron San Jose - Thornton and Marleau Colorado - Duchenne and Mackinnon LA - Kopitar and Richards It is also of note that 80% of those centres who are better than Hodgson are also older than him by a few years

I honestly don't know if you're playing along or being serious. I will, however, point out that CoHo is in the top 60 centres for points THIS year. On a team this bad he is still ranks as a top 2 centerman league-wide. For those who struggle at maths, there are 30 teams, therefore by definition there are 30 first line centres and another 30 second line centres. I appreciate that points doesn't show the whole story, but he has been much better in his own zone than people give him credit for. He has improved and historically he has possessed a two-way game.

Ah yes. This mythical team with a 60 point third line centre returns. As we all know, the first line centre should be putting up a 100 point campaign, the second an 80 pointer, Hodgson can then hold down the third line role and then we hope to sign someone for the fourth line. Perhaps Backes.

Scrivens is elite When I saw this, the thing i noticed more than his puck skills was his skates not touching the other pucks. Very impressive control

If Hecht is in your line-up, he must be a centre. It seems only fair seeing as his whipping boy status came largely from having to fill the centre position as a LW

10 points in last 9 games

Naivety really is quaint :P

That's where the real elite elite live, yes. DO I think Rask, Quick, Rinne, Bishop or whoever is a slam dunk for the HOF? No I don't. Ergo no goalies are elite

If a team's collective goal output drops below one, it isn't the goalies fault if they lose I agree, i don't think it is a good indicator. There are 18 other guys on the ice, any of whom can influence it one way or another.

I think that is a fairly arbitrary distinction. Forwards block shots for example or tie up a man. And what to defence count as? I think it is an offensive-centric view point of hockey

Why do you care si much about shutouts? They are meaningless. Most teams get shutouts by allowing around 20 shots in that game. They are a team stat. Brodeur, all-history leader in them described them as a team effort and not an individual one.

Miller + Environment = Enroth? (see how many get this joke :P)

The two goals we let in are unacceptable mistakes by the defence. It should be 0-0

Goal 1 - Backhand thrown on net. Soft goal Goal 2 - Straight shot on net from out high. Soft goal Goal 3 - Ott should have had his man. Saveable shot (as if he was a little taller it would hit his shoulder). But not his fault Goal 4 - Point shot that slid along the ice. Soft goal 3/4 goals were very preventable

Bennet reminds me of Toews

From TSN: Scouts do not believe this year's draft class has the same high-end sizzle and overall depth as last year's group that was headed by Nathan MacKinnon, Seth Jones, Jonathan Drouin and Aleksandr Barkov. And it would be fair to say there's more anticipation for the 2015 draft class, headed by highly-touted Connor McDavid and Jack Eichel, amongst others, than this year. But the scouts also cautioned that the top-end prospects this year are still excellent talents, just not necessarily potential stars.

My impression, having not listened or watched any of those things :P, was that Miller's point has been enough words, i want to see action. So rather than saying they will build up a young core and trade picks and prospects for young promising guys, go and do it. The fact is that the only trade in the last 11 months was getting rid of Vanek and bringing in Omark. We haven't done anything to make me think we won't be in last place next year. So I don't think Miller is more inclined to resign now than he was 11 months ago And for those wanting to tank next year. At best we have a 75% chance of not getting McDavid. There is no point hoping we suck as there is a very good chance we suck and don't get the next Crosby. I don't want a Taylor Hall, I want a Toews or Kane or Crosby.

Are you one of those low number purists? Or do you just dislike 84? Personally, I like it when players use the full range, it makes it more interesting, the numbers often have stories behind them and it is easier to identify players on the ice

Yeah probably not. To become a decent defensive player he would probably have to read the play really well and be able to intercept passes and generally use his stick to disrupt the game. But if he just backchecked a little harder and made sure not to lose his man in the defensive zone I think it would be surprisingly effective. Great defensive is a skill. Decent defence is a discipline