Bob Probert ruin fighting?

[DaaaaB's]

Bizarre thread where this guy states fighting loses its character if the players aren't actively trying to murder each other on and off the ice and then lambasts anyone for being OK with some form of consensual fighting that falls short of active on/off ice attempted murder.

He's either a troll, a complete moron or most likely both.

 

[Deebs]

I get the sense that his easygoing nature made fighting nothing personal but just a job and that led to the "unwritten code" around fighting where it was never anything personal so a player didn't attempt to do maximum damage to his opponent.

The fights after he was in the league for a while strike me as different from before. Players fell to the ice, the opponent kept punching, his well being be damned.

This is the dumbest thing I've read on here in quite some time......and I'm a Habs fan

 

[PistolPete]

This is the dumbest thing I've read on here in quite some time......and I'm a Habs fan

Weird thing to add on to the end of your statement. Are you saying Habs fans post dumb things on here?

 

[PistolPete]

Wow, you're such a clown lol. I enjoy all fights because I'm a fight fan not a sniveling baby who pretends he wants to see real violence but clearly has a problem with fighting. The points you say I keep repeating are facts that you won't address. Once again, if you think there hasn't been hundreds of great fights many of which were violent over the past 40 years then you've had your head up your ass that entire time.

Cue the "you only like staged fights, I like real fights" response lol. No, you like people throwing sucker punches and pulling hair not fighting.

Never said there were no great fights over the years. My point was to the culture of fighting today, not to every single fight that has ever happened. A rather ridiculous interpretation.

 

[BerthMania]

You the spectator in no danger whatsoever are willing to accept death of other people for your entertainment.

Oh what a bold, gutsy statement.

This dude (pistolpete) probably would have enjoyed gladiator fighting if he lived during the roman empire lol.

 

[PistolPete]

This dude (pistolpete) probably would have enjoyed gladiator fighting if he lived during the roman empire lol.

Nah. As I said before, risk of death- and small at that- isn't the same as wishing for it. Two different things.

 

[Garbageyuk]

Hell yeah.

The fighting today amounts to AEW. The punches hurt but gotta make sure you don't injure the guy in the name of the code or sportsmanship or some ridiculous mindset.

Fighting from the 80s ans earlier was a lot more entertaining

Go watch NHB, bare knuckle, or street fights on YouTube to get your fix of that shit then. There’s plenty of it if that’s what you’re into. This is hockey; sportsmanship is part of the deal, as is not wanting to intentionally injure your opponent. That’s why there are fines and suspensions for when players disregard the latter, as there should be.

 

[PistolPete]

Go watch NHB, bare knuckle, or street fights on YouTube to get your fix of that shit then. There’s plenty of it if that’s what you’re into. This is hockey; sportsmanship is part of the deal, as is not wanting to intentionally injure your opponent. That’s why there are fines and suspensions for when players disregard the latter, as there should be.

The sportsmanship ends the second they start chuckling knuckles. And not wanting to hurt each other? Todd Fedoruk? Jay Beagle?

Your logic is twisted up in trying to justify an entertainment you like but that you don't want to be too violent so you throw around sportsmanship (I.e. code) to rein in the violence because too much violence offends your sensibilities.

And that's OK. But just be honest about it.

 

[DaaaaB's]

Never said there were no great fights over the years. My point was to the culture of fighting today, not to every single fight that has ever happened. A rather ridiculous interpretation.

Everything you've said in this thread has been ridiculous.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

The sportsmanship ends the second they start chuckling knuckles. And not wanting to hurt each other? Todd Fedoruk? Jay Beagle?

Your logic is twisted up in trying to justify an entertainment you like but that you don't want to be too violent so you throw around sportsmanship (I.e. code) to rein in the violence because too much violence offends your sensibilities.

And that's OK. But just be honest about it.

The very concept of constructing rules and limits seems to evade you.

Even in actual warfare, throughout history, nations have attempted to enforce rules (with varying levels of success) on things like WMD’s and intentional targeting of civilians. Contrary to what is believed, it was the breakdown of these rules, and not simply technological advancement, that led to the unimaginable casualties experienced in World War II.

Now of course that’s “real life”. Not a game played on an indoor sheet of ice. Clearly if negotiation and limits are routinely pursued in military settings, it makes more than enough sense to try to put limits on actions that lead to unnecessary damage in the context of a game. Of course, you’ll never eliminate physical risk in a contact sport. But your insistence that hockey fights are somehow inherently no holds barred anarchy is based on little more than your own selfish demands for entertainment regardless of the cost (none of which you of course will ever need to bear).

 

[PistolPete]

The very concept of constructing rules and limits seems to evade you.

Even in actual warfare, throughout history, nations have attempted to enforce rules (with varying levels of success) on things like WMD’s and intentional targeting of civilians. Contrary to what is believed, it was the breakdown of these rules, and not simply technological advancement, that led to the unimaginable casualties experienced in World War II.

Now of course that’s “real life”. Not a game played on an indoor sheet of ice. Clearly if negotiation and limits are routinely pursued in military settings, it makes more than enough sense to try to put limits on actions that lead to unnecessary damage in the context of a game. Of course, you’ll never eliminate physical risk in a contact sport. But your insistence that hockey fights are somehow inherently no holds barred anarchy is based on little more than your own selfish demands for entertainment regardless of the cost (none of which you of course will ever need to bear).

I guess I should clarify and state it explicitly that I am not against any rules at all; my dislike is for the current parameters of the "code" which has rendered the current form of fighting very bland and boring despite their being the odd fight that is entertaining.

To my mind, if anyone is pissed off enough to fight someone they should want to pound them and make sure the opponent never wants to mess with them again. You and others may disagree and find that excessive or dishonorable but we are talking about preferences, not some platonic answer to the grand question of "What is (real) fighting?"

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I guess I should clarify and state it explicitly that I am not against any rules at all; my dislike is for the current parameters of the "code" which has rendered the current form of fighting very bland and boring despite their being the odd fight that is entertaining.

To my mind, if anyone is pissed off enough to fight someone they should want to pound them and make sure the opponent never wants to mess with them again. You and others may disagree and find that excessive or dishonorable but we are talking about preferences, not some platonic answer to the grand question of "What is (real) fighting?"

You said you’re willing to “accept death”. You shouldn’t need to be convinced of how ridiculous a standard that is.

 

[PistolPete]

You said you’re willing to “accept death”. You shouldn’t need to be convinced of how ridiculous a standard that is.

Death isn't my standard per se. It's the risk I'm willing, as a viewer, to have happen for the sake of more brutal fighting. Ideally a player would be at most "beagled" or "fedoruked" .

And as I previously stated, I am merely being honest about it all. Any8je who enjoys fighting of any kind accepts the risk of death because death can happen at any time from fighting- remmeber Don Sanderson? The immediate response wasn't a call for self-reflecfion, it was an immediate defense of fighting, led by Don Cherry.

So you and others can pat yourselves on the back and think what wholesome, moral people you are, but our views aren't categorically different, merely a matter of demarcation.

 

[DaaaaB's]

I guess I should clarify and state it explicitly that I am not against any rules at all; my dislike is for the current parameters of the "code" which has rendered the current form of fighting very bland and boring despite their being the odd fight that is entertaining.

To my mind, if anyone is pissed off enough to fight someone they should want to pound them and make sure the opponent never wants to mess with them again. You and others may disagree and find that excessive or dishonorable but we are talking about preferences, not some platonic answer to the grand question of "What is (real) fighting?"

Even if I did agree with your point, Probert is a bad example as he had many fights where he punched opponents on the ground or as the linesmen tried to break it up. Georges Laraque would fit your argument much better.