Fighting has to go

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pitter Patter

Registered User
May 20, 2020
289
304
I see fighting progressively petering out over time. I don’t think the league will have to mandate its end. I could, however, see the league having to further mandate checking to the point of its effective obsolescence. We will probably start seeing regular female-NHLers at that point.

Or maybe Tom DeLonge is right and the aliens will takeover. I don’t know how to predict their affinity for or affect on the future of the game.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pandemonia

BlueDream

Registered User
Aug 30, 2011
26,237
15,141
Speaking of being 'soft', hockey is probably the softest and less physical of the main heavy hitting physical sports (football, rugby). None of the others allow fighting, unless fighting is the main objective (boxing, MMA).
Seriously, compared to NFL guys, NHLers are wimpy as heck. The statement that "fighting = manliness" is a false premise.
NHL players aren’t wimpy. If you think they are, you should walk into a locker room and look at the injuries they play through.

Also, nobody in NA cares about rugby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GiveYouABagOfPucks

golfortennis

Registered User
Oct 25, 2007
1,878
291
Lucic was indeed on the ice. He actually passed the puck to Savard right as Cooke was lining him up. And nothing really came of it on the ice. Some hugging and facewashes, bu that was more or less it.




And why didn't anything happen? I'm sure the instigator rule had nothing to do with that. That is the problem. A rat like Cooke can go do something like that, but Lucic making him answer for it ends up costing the team again, because the penalties are misguided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dread Clawz

Hanji

Registered User
Oct 14, 2009
3,369
3,031
Wisconsin
Fans who want fighting to go need to go...go watch soccer if you don't like it.

People and society in general are getting softer and softer so fighting is going to die a natural death anyways.

It's just the opposite. Everyday life is becoming more violent. With 24/7 media, the internet, etc., the average person is inundated with more violence, more death, more destruction than ever before. It's literally everywhere. Compare that to the 1960s when the most violent thing anybody ever saw was Rowdy Yates shooting somebody on Rawhide.
It makes sense that people of yesteryear turned to sports to get their 'violence fix'. That isn't needed in todays atmosphere. Just the opposite. Sports is entertainment, an escape from everyday life. As such, people are turning away from violence (fighting) in sports.
 

Dave92

Registered User
Sponsor
Oct 9, 2019
4,104
5,048
I'm sure fighters would rather be out of a job so that you don't feel uncomfortable. Fighting isn't even one of the more dangerous aspects of hockey.

Are there any other sports other than martial arts and hockey where it is considered normal to have fist fights during a game? This is not a rhetorical question, I am trying to think of one.

Of course not that would be crazy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bondurant

Registered User
Jul 4, 2012
6,613
6,129
Phoenix, Arizona
It's just the opposite. Everyday life is becoming more violent. With 24/7 media, the internet, etc., the average person is inundated with more violence, more death, more destruction than ever before. It's literally everywhere. Compare that to the 1960s when the most violent thing anybody ever saw was Rowdy Yates shooting somebody on Rawhide.
It makes sense that people of yesteryear turned to sports to get their 'violence fix'. That isn't needed in todays atmosphere. Just the opposite. Sports is entertainment, an escape from everyday life. As such, people are turning away from violence (fighting) in sports.
1967 disagrees with you.
 

kilowatt

the vibes are not immaculate
Jan 1, 2009
18,684
21,757
I see fighting progressively petering out over time. I don’t think the league will have to mandate its end. I could, however, see the league having to further mandate checking to the point of its effective obsolescence. We will probably start seeing regular female-NHLers at that point.

Or maybe Tom DeLonge is right and the aliens will takeover. I don’t know how to predict their affinity for or affect on the future of the game.

Don't drag Tom's good name through the mud. Aliens exist.
 

BruinsFan37

Registered User
Jun 26, 2015
1,678
1,928
And why didn't anything happen? I'm sure the instigator rule had nothing to do with that. That is the problem. A rat like Cooke can go do something like that, but Lucic making him answer for it ends up costing the team again, because the penalties are misguided.

Even if Lucic had pummeled Cooke, he (Cooke) wouldn't have changed his behavior. Cooke got zero games suspended for the Savard hit (when even his own teammates thought he should have been suspended). The hit was technically legal at the time (if reprehensible) and the league changed the rules as a result.

So Cooke didn't even try to change his behavior until the McDonagh hit earned him a lengthy suspension. No amount of face-punching was going to change his behavior, it was the suspension that finally did it.

Again if the Refs/DOPS do their respective jobs then intentionally dirty hits/plays would be extremely rare because no player wants to cost their team the game, or themselves a paycheck. They (dirty hits/plays) are in fact rarer than they used to be, but then a lot of those plays were committed by fourth line goons trying to justify their existence beyond just punching the face of the other teams goon. There's definitely room for improvement though with the calling of penalties/DOPS enforcement.

With no dirty play there's no reason for fighting. But dirty play stubbornly persists and as long as it persists without adequate penalties/enforcement by the league I'm ok with players having some measure of defending themselves/their team with fighting.

Could easily do without it though.
 

bossram

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
16,774
17,283
Victoria
Such "violent" sports like football don't even tolerate fighting.

Hockey is just still in the dark ages. How is letting guys intentionally scramble their brains good for the game? Good for the kids watching? 90% of fights aren't about any perceived "score-settling". It's just each team's designated guy-who-gets-in-fights going at it because they think it'll keep them in the lineup. Look at the Kassian-MacEwen fight. What was there to fight about? Well, they're each team's fight-y guy, so time to do your job?

Nope. Take your soft ass somewhere else.

Exactly! Go watch those other notoriously soft sports like football and rugby! Those no-fighting sports are perfect for all these girly-men, amirite?

Like, c'mon. Get real. Is your masculinity so fragile that you'll worry you'll "go soft" if you don't see a fight in a hockey game?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Perennial

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
6,027
6,192
Wisconsin
Such "violent" sports like football don't even tolerate fighting.

Hockey is just still in the dark ages. How is letting guys intentionally scramble their brains good for the game? Good for the kids watching? 90% of fights aren't about any perceived "score-settling". It's just each team's designated guy-who-gets-in-fights going at it because they think it'll keep them in the lineup. Look at the Kassian-MacEwen fight. What was there to fight about? Well, they're each team's fight-y guy, so time to do your job?
So fighting does not exist in football? Ok - but how many sports out there allow you to vent your frustrations by lining up across from your opponent and hitting them as hard as you can? Why fight and get tossed outta the game when in the next play you can try to remove your opponents head from his shoulders?

As for the Kassian/MacEwen fight - I believe it was for retribution when MacEwen knocked Smith's mask off while there was a scrum in the crease...Sorta payback - only it was Kassian who ended up on the receiving end...Shit happens.
 
Last edited:

Howboutthempanthers

Thread killer.
Sponsor
Sep 11, 2012
16,723
4,827
Brow. County, Fl.
OK, this is an argument I disagree with.

"They know the risks, therefore, we have no obligation to take any kind of action to reduce the chance of injury." Nah.

There are a lot of people complaining that football has become too soft these days because they give cheap penalties for accidental contact with the helmet, or for hitting a quarterback just slightly too rough. But while that can be aggravating at times, ultimately the overall product is better because the best players are on the field, and not in the x-ray machine.

Obviously, you can't make hockey completely safe. Any measure you take, you have to strike the balance between too dangerous and too soft. And we can debate them ad nauseum forever. But morally, I can't get with the "eff 'em, they signed up for it" take. There are plenty of reasons to keep fighting in the game, but that ain't one of 'em. They're still human beings, and I'm not a heartless bastard with no soul.
That's not the point. They are grown adults. They decided they wanted to do this. They can live their live however they feel.
If you think this is bad. Things can get infinitely worse if we say a random group of people can't decide for themselves, and another random group of people get to decide for everyone else.
 

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,162
849
I'm for the NHL organizations to dress special fighter teams that don't do anything but throw awkward haymakers at the opposing scrubs on skates in a parallel league. There would be different rules, different insurance, different prize, but they would still wear hockey equipment and their teams' jersey.

Would they? No. This nonsense is only justifiable as a parasitic organism hosted by hockey. It would never work in itself. Pure no-fighting hockey would though. Because hockey does not need fighting. It's the nonsense on-skate fighting that needs hockey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pandemonia

sparxx87

Don Quixote
Jan 5, 2010
13,834
4,704
Toronto
It's just the opposite. Everyday life is becoming more violent. With 24/7 media, the internet, etc., the average person is inundated with more violence, more death, more destruction than ever before. It's literally everywhere. Compare that to the 1960s when the most violent thing anybody ever saw was Rowdy Yates shooting somebody on Rawhide.
It makes sense that people of yesteryear turned to sports to get their 'violence fix'. That isn't needed in todays atmosphere. Just the opposite. Sports is entertainment, an escape from everyday life. As such, people are turning away from violence (fighting) in sports.
You mean based on what you see on TV?

What about the people that aren’t in the media and on the internet 24/7 as you describe?

What about the people who recognize fighting is part of the game and aren’t trying to tell a pro sports league what to do?

What a world we live in where someone can have nothing to do with a game but have the internet as a platform to cry and lobby for changes… That’s an incredible sense of entitlement. People in hockey want fighting. 99% in the player poll.

If you don’t like it, this isn’t the sport for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howboutthempanthers

Leafslet

Registered User
Oct 19, 2011
1,278
799
TO
Meh, I dont care either way. I grew up watching wendel, domi, corson & tucker, and on and on fight.

Now I see very few fights outside of preseason, and the lack of fighting doesnt bother me. Ban it, allow it, whatever. Is it really an issue at this point with how infrequent it happens?
 

Gaylord Q Tinkledink

Registered User
Apr 29, 2018
33,912
37,242
After watching Sabourin "pummel" Holl and Simmondd "pummel" Sabourin, fighting needs to go..

Especially when in other fights people say one player got "rekt" because the other player got the takedown.

I don't think I can deal with that level of stupidity anymore, so yes, let's get rid of it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad