Bob Probert ruin fighting?

[PistolPete]

Probert assaulted police officer's on at least one occasion and was known as a guy who could snap on occasion. He was generally considered to be a friendly drinker though. Tiger Williams is widely known as one of the nicest guys off the ice so not sure where you're getting this stuff from. Are you suggesting that John Ferguson used to fight opponents off the ice?

No. I wad referring to Ferguson being famous for hating opponents so much there are stories of him up and leaving a restaurant if an opponent walked in. Whereas a story by Stu Grimson is thr opposite; Crimson saw Probert enter and his first reaction was to get his back up because this was an enemy but Probert came over and was all buddy with him and Grimson said it changed his outlook.

I thought Williams was notorious for hating opponents as much as Ferguson but I may be misremembering.

 

[PistolPete]

Probert was no different, so i don't know how he would have "ruined" fighting. He felt the same feelings as everyone else, with the only difference being that he was considered one of the best to ever do it.

He brought a buddy-buddy attitude to it, where they all saw themselves as their own group who just had a job to do. How can fighting be taken seriously when they wish each other good luck, pat each other on the ass afterwards....

Their attitude became "We're all here doing the job; so let's take it easy on each other" while going through the charade of protecting the stars and sending a message to the opponents. That attitude is fine fir professional fighters such as MMA and boxing but hockey is hockey, not fighting

 

[PistolPete]

Not entirely true, he’s definitely in danger of being ostracized from civilized society for his reprehensible opinions

The same civilized society that makes multimillionaires of people involved in boxing and MMA? That padded Don Cherry's bank account? That made WSHH a financial success? That sees a dedicated forum to videos of hockey fights?

Did the death of Don Sanderson compel these civilized hockey fans to advocate for the abolishmen5 of fighting from hockey?

These civilized people may deny it, but the fact of the matter is they accept death as a consequence of their enjoyment.

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

You spent several posts defending yourself. Perhaps, you’re wrong.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Head injuries are the most obvious reason, but the secondary and also important reason is fighting became far too staged. An entirely separate class of player that had to be exempted from discussion on "worst players in the league" whose only job was to face punch another guy who was also in the same bucket. No real reason behind it. No "enforcement", or "intimidation", or anything that would effect anyone who directly influenced the outcome of the scoreboard. Just two guys doing what they were paid to do and taking up a roster spot. Eventually, it just made more sense to use that roster spot for something more productive towards goal scoring/goal suppression.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

The same civilized society that makes multimillionaires of people involved in boxing and MMA? That padded Don Cherry's bank account? That made WSHH a financial success? That sees a dedicated forum to videos of hockey fights?

Did the death of Don Sanderson compel these civilized hockey fans to advocate for the abolishmen5 of fighting from hockey?

These civilized people may deny it, but the fact of the matter is they accept death as a consequence of their enjoyment.

So let’s talk about something like concussion protocol. Where, unlike the old days, guys aren’t supposed to be allowed back on the ice if they show signs of significant head trauma. That’s a safety feature alongside fighting with the intention of at least somewhat reducing the risk of severe issues down the road.

You’re saying you’re against that just on principle because it’s not going “all out”? You’d rather a higher likelihood of future disability or death for the purpose of your own enjoyment?

You’re setting up this binary of “no fighting” or “fighting” as if it’s some “reality” that others’ opinions should be held to. Of course there’s risk involved if you fight ever at any point. As there is in playing a contact sport at virtually level. But to say that somehow trying to do things to mitigate that risk isn’t acceptable and you’d just rather death?

It’s pure crazy talk. Should goaltenders not wear masks? Should we eliminate padding?

 

[PistolPete]

So let’s talk about something like concussion protocol. Where, unlike the old days, guys aren’t supposed to be allowed back on the ice if they show signs of significant head trauma. That’s a safety feature alongside fighting with the intention of at least somewhat reducing the risk of severe issues down the road.

You’re saying you’re against that just on principle because it’s not going “all out”? You’d rather a higher likelihood of future disability or death for the purpose of your own enjoyment?

You’re setting up this binary of “no fighting” or “fighting” as if it’s some “reality” that others’ opinions should be held to. Of course there’s risk involved if you fight ever at any point. As there is in playing a contact sport at virtually level. But to say that somehow trying to do things to mitigate that risk isn’t acceptable and you’d just rather death?

It’s pure crazy talk. Should goaltenders not wear masks? Should we eliminate padding?

Accepting the risk of something happening and wanting it to happen are different things.

Do people watch boxing and MMA despite the risk of death? Yes. Do they hope for it? Likely not.

Fighting is not even necessary to the game of hockey, it's a mere sideshow, a remnant of a time where owners believed the game of hockey couldn't sell itself. So if it's going to be included, go all out despite any risks.

And the concussion protocol: shouldn't a true concern for concussions lead to the NHL banning all fighting? It is utter hypocrisy to be fine with contrived fighting that still runs the risks of long term problems, including suicide due to CTE and think that there is no acceptance of the risk of death. Again, Don Sanderson anyone?

Anyone who likes fighting in hockey and cheers during them, despite how contrived they are now, is OK with the death of an athlete for their entertainment purposes, you're all just in denial about it.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Accepting the risk of something happening and wanting it to happen are different things.

Do people watch boxing and MMA despite the risk of death? Yes. Do they hope for it? Likely not.

Fighting is not even necessary to the game of hockey, it's a mere sideshow, a remnant of a time where owners believed the game of hockey couldn't sell itself. So if it's going to be included, go all out despite any risks.

And the concussion protocol: shouldn't a true concern for concussions lead to the NHL banning all fighting? It is utter hypocrisy to be fine with contrived fighting that still runs the risks of long term problems, including suicide due to CTE and think that there is no acceptance of the risk of death. Again, Don Sanderson anyone?

Anyone who likes fighting in hockey and cheers during them, despite how contrived they are now, is OK with the death of an athlete for their entertainment purposes, you're all just in denial about it.

Again, you’re setting up a binary fallacy purely for the purpose of your argument.

Why do you have an inherent issue with safety measures when it comes to fighting “because it’s a side show”? You’re not actually naming a tangible reason for it. You’re just spinning around and telling everyone that if they support having fighting at all, in any way shape or form, “it’s the same thing” as accepting death with no effort to mitigate long-term issues.

You somehow are permitting yourself to make the argument that “it’s all the same” while the very act of opposing those who want to take steps to mitigate long term issues (while still allowing fighting) contradicts your assertion entirely.

It’s fascinating to me how you’re digging into such a flimsy mindset by creating givens/constants that don’t actually exist outside of your own mind.

 

[PistolPete]

Again, you’re setting up a binary fallacy purely for the purpose of your argument.

Why do you have an inherent issue with safety measures when it comes to fighting “because it’s a side show”? You’re not actually naming a tangible reason for it. You’re just spinning around and telling everyone that if they support having fighting at all, in any way shape or form, “it’s the same thing” as accepting death with no effort to mitigate long-term issues.

You somehow are permitting yourself to make the argument that “it’s all the same” while the very act of opposing those who want to take steps to mitigate long term issues (while still allowing fighting) contradicts your assertion entirely.

It’s fascinating to me how you’re digging into such a flimsy mindset by creating givens/constants that don’t actually exist outside of your own mind.

Your fascination with my flimsy mindset and view that I'm making a binary fallacy fascinates me.

Yes, measures can be taken to make an inherently dangerous activity safer, but the fact of the matter is it's still inherently dangerous and- in the case of hockey- utterly unnecessary. The NHL could say tomorrow, "We're banning fighting because it's too dangerous." But yet they don't, why? Because too many people will be up in arms arguing it's part 9f the game etc and are OK with accepting the inherent dangers for their entertainment.

I think you fail to appreciate your own bias in the matter. You think taking measures to make it safer is perfectly OK because.....you like fighting? You have to know that if safety is the concern, it can be done away with altogether. So where are left at? Hypocrisy? Fans care about the players safety only to the point that it doesn't eliminate the dangerous activity altogether.

And why do I myself have a problem with safety measures? As you stated, because it's just a sideshow and if you're going to keep it to entertain me than entertain me and give me greater inherent danger to anyone with the balls to drop the gloves rather than this contrived nonsense.