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.

 

[DaaaaB's]

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.

You can keep repeating that last paragraph all you want but it won't change how stupid of an opinion it is. You're clearly a pacifist who has a burr in his saddle over fighting in hockey and you're using a completely idiotic argument to try and prove your point.

 

[PistolPete]

You can keep repeating that last paragraph all you want but it won't change how stupid of an opinion it is. You're clearly a pacifist who has a burr in his saddle over fighting in hockey and you're using a completely idiotic argument to try and prove your point.

Pacifist? OK then

I just stated my issue with fighting I'd it's not violent enough, it's too damn boring

And your personal attacks make it apparent that you're a lover of the fights but you like them contrived and safe for the players, the good ol' code way, but you're unable to counter my points so....

 

[DaaaaB's]

Pacifist? OK then

I just stated my issue with fighting I'd it's not violent enough, it's too damn boring

And your personal attacks make it apparent that you're a lover of the fights but you like them contrived and safe for the players, the good ol' code way, but you're unable to counter my points so....

Your points were countered by others and you just keep repeating the same thing. Your argument also doesn't make any sense. Some of the best and most violent fights in the history of the league happened in the 90s/2000's but you're mad because they didn't throw punches at each other on the ground. If you think fighting Derek Boogaard was safe for players then we can end this discussion right now.

 

[Beendair Donedat]

Bob Probert “ruined” fighting?

That’s like saying Colt ruined the pistol. Or Mozart ruined the piano.

There’s so many examples of Probie literally trying to kill guys that I don’t know where to start with the “easy going” comment. He was a mean mean man on the ice. When Kevin Maguire went after Yzerman, Probert did everything he could to get at him. Watch Phil Housley nearly shit himself to get as far away from an enraged Probert as possible. How many goalies did Probie run over? How many times did he provoke the other team just to cause chaos? There’s hours and hours of Probert fights out there, and there’s a reason he was the consensus number one of all time. He was the best.

 

[57special]

Probert was an addict. "Easygoing" hardly sums up his off ice persona. Once you are an addict, you're personality is unpredictable from day to day.

This is a really stupid thread.

 

[Sheppy]

For those who are curious about Probert, read his book (It's really good) and the documentary is well done as well.

 

[Golden_Jet]

What a strange thread lol.

 

[PistolPete]

Your points were countered by others and you just keep repeating the same thing. Your argument also doesn't make any sense. Some of the best and most violent fights in the history of the league happened in the 90s/2000's but you're mad because they didn't throw punches at each other on the ground. If you think fighting Derek Boogaard was safe for players then we can end this discussion right now.

Your idea of a counterpoint and mine are apparently different.

And the reference to punching on the ground is an oversimplification of my point- intentional no doubt to avoid the fact that the fights of the past 25-30 years or longer have been sideshow entertainment rather than true manifestations of outright rage given the care taken to minimize injury to an opponent. Yeah Todd Fedoruk can say something about the risks even of the past 20 years, but wrestlers can get injured too.

 

[PistolPete]

Bob Probert “ruined” fighting?

That’s like saying Colt ruined the pistol. Or Mozart ruined the piano.

There’s so many examples of Probie literally trying to kill guys that I don’t know where to start with the “easy going” comment. He was a mean mean man on the ice. When Kevin Maguire went after Yzerman, Probert did everything he could to get at him. Watch Phil Housley nearly shit himself to get as far away from an enraged Probert as possible. How many goalies did Probie run over? How many times did he provoke the other team just to cause chaos? There’s hours and hours of Probert fights out there, and there’s a reason he was the consensus number one of all time. He was the best.

Yet many goons tell stories of how he held no personal animosity off the ice, unlike John Ferguson

 

[PistolPete]

Probert was an addict. "Easygoing" hardly sums up his off ice persona. Once you are an addict, you're personality is unpredictable from day to day.

This is a really stupid thread.

You're aware that personality isn't a 24/7 thing? People's behaviour, moods etc change throughout even a given day.

Was a drug addicted, alcoholic easygoing 24/7? Obviously not. Even Link Gaetz refrained himself from being an a-hole to kids.

 

[Beendair Donedat]

Yet many goons tell stories of how he held no personal animosity off the ice, unlike John Ferguson

Okay?

Last time I checked, we weren’t talking about his off ice fighting exploits? How many NHL tough guys were actually fighting each other off the ice?

You said in your original post that “you got the sense that his easygoing nature made fighting not personal” which lead to an unwritten code not to hurt anyone.

If you don’t think Probert wasn’t trying to hurt guys, I don’t know what to tell you. You need only watch his fight with Dave Brown, where Brown jumped him, and Probie tried to
take his head off… there’s the aforementioned incident with Maguire, the Coxe fights, the Crowder and Domi rematches, and these are literally off the top of my head. You could toss in the Primeau practice fight, and the Bob McGill beating as well.

I’m not sure why you’re trying to move the goalposts away from your original premise to some off ice nonsense, but on the ice, where the game was played, Probert was a mean SOB. This is universally acknowledged by anyone that played with or against him.

But if you want to talk off ice stuff, the story goes that while he was a great guy, he didn’t take shit from anybody either. During one of his rehab stints, Dexter Manley of the Washington Redskins (at the time) was also there. Apparently one of the rules of the facility was that food could be withheld for rule violations and this happened to Manley. The story goes that Manley helped himself to Probert’s roommates’ food and Probert wasn’t having it and ended up beating the supreme shit out of him at the rehab facility.