Fighting has to go

[93gilmour93]

Fighting needs to stay and never be removed from the game.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

most of that was nonsense and i’m done with the discussion, but i will say you don’t have to be a moral expert to see that two guys bare knuckle boxing on ice serves no purpose and is inherently dangerous.

Not that I am necessarily agreeing but does it need to serve a purpose? Or what if the purpose lies outside the game itself?

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Body checking is a method in which to separate a player from the puck. This can be done in several ways, with varying degrees of severity in the impact.

Yes, no-contact leagues exist, but those are generally either youth sports or adult leagues in which extenuating circumstances exist.

I won't speak to women's hockey, as I don't know the specific rationale for why they do not allow it.

.....so not "necessary " ergo a pointless argument?

 

[MartyOwns]

Not that I am necessarily agreeing but does it need to serve a purpose? Or what if the purpose lies outside the game itself?

that’s deep, man lol. i don’t know about a purpose outside the game…my point was that if it’s dangerous, and it doesn’t serve a purpose, and it’s declining anyway, why keep it? what are we clinging to?

 

[Daz28]

Same thing happened to the guy who runs the DOPS.

 

[Saucechucker99]

I wish there were more fights.

 

[Score08]

Wrong again. When people post things they are clueless about that tells you nobody should listen to them. Fighting on the skates leads to some of the most devastating knockouts from single punches. It is all in the mechanics of it. Yes, falling on the ice after doesn't help but your statement is just WRONG. Go and watch some of the hockey knockouts, they are devastating.

Where are these statistics you using to back up your argument? If he’s wrong, then prove it!

 

[Coastal Kev]

Todays Youngsters want to change everything instead of creating......and never for the better.........

 

[tuozzi]

I think we should add weapons and wild animals into the mix. Give the people what they want! Panem et circenses!

In all seriousness, as the clever ones might have deciphered, I think it's a barbaric practice that will eventually be widely viewed as such.

 

[amigo]

No. Never. Stop ruining best game on earth. If you take emotions out of this game it will turn into exibition.

 

[ManWithNoName]

players very rarely get badly injured in a fight. And sorry, it’s literally in every sport. Hell NASCAR has fights sometimes, and they’re mostly in race cars the whole time.

not going anywhere. Nor should it. Period.

You might have answered this already but, what other sports allow bare-knuckle fighting?

I can’t think of any. Fighting during a game in other sports will most likely result in a suspension for the players involved.

Fighting will end eventually, but someone will have to die first. And it will happen sooner or later.

 

[Laus723]

You might have answered this already but, what other sports allow bare-knuckle fighting?

I can’t think of any. Fighting during a game in other sports will most likely result in a suspension for the players involved.

Fighting will end eventually, but someone will have to die first. And it will happen sooner or later.

this whole post is beyond dumb. Fighting isn’t allowed in hockey, either. It’s a 5 minute MAJOR penalty. It happens, as I said, in every other sport. Where it’s also not allowed

due to that, as I stated, it will never end. Men going all out like they do, hitting, pushing in front of the net, protecting their players will always have fights.

No one has died from a fight yet, been well over 120 years. Almost seems like the anti-fight community wants one. They always “it WILL happen…” thats morbid.

 

[ManWithNoName]

this whole post is beyond dumb. Fighting isn’t allowed in hockey, either. It’s a 5 minute MAJOR penalty. It happens, as I said, in every other sport. Where it’s also not allowed

due to that, as I stated, it will never end. Men going all out like they do, hitting, pushing in front of the net, protecting their players will always have fights.

No one has died from a fight yet, been well over 120 years. Almost seems like the anti-fight community wants one. They always “it WILL happen…” thats morbid.

Let me rephrase it:
In what other sports does bare-knuckle fighting happen on a daily basis? Or even monthly?

Allowed or not, the referees don’t interfere until someone is knocked down. In other sports, it would be stopped immediately and players tossed out of the game with a lengthy suspension waiting. Do you understand the difference?

I’m not completely against fighting so save your prayers. I do however understand the injuries that can happen when untrained (as in martial arts training) people decide to drop their gloves.

 

[PK Cronin]

not sure if you know what arbitrary means, because i'm not drawing any arbitrary lines. hitting is dangerous- you can argue more dangerous than fighting- but it serves a purpose. i'm not interested in eliminating hitting. on the other hand, i have yet to see one legitimate reason to keep fighting that would justify the potential harm.

You're randomly choosing what is acceptable based off your preference, that's arbitrary.

and smoking is a much worse comparison, actually. without even getting into the perversity of lobbying, there are tons of state and federal laws to regulate smoking. on top of that (speaking of arbitrary) i brought up speeding as something most people would like to show how flawed the 'popularity amongst the players' argument is. i doubt the majority of people want to keep cigarettes legal. for example, i'm a smoker and i think they should absolutely be illegal.

I totally understood the point you were trying to make, it wasn't a good analogy. You apparently missed the point of the smoking comparison. It wasn't being used to bolster any argument for keeping fighting, it was to strictly highlight the absurdity of using laws as a comparison. You highlight some of the reasons why in this very post.

----

Fighting is bad and dangerous.
Hitting is bad and likely more dangerous.
You're okay with hitting, because you think it serves a purpose within the game.
You're not okay with fighting because you don't think it serves a purpose within the game.
Players are okay with hitting, they think it serves a purpose.
Players are okay with fighting, they think it serves a purpose.

Why do you, a non-participant, get to decide what's best for the players actually participating in the game?
Why can't grown adults, voluntarily playing a sport, decide whether or not they want to allow fighting?

 

[Laus723]

Let me rephrase it:
In what other sports does bare-knuckle fighting happen on a daily basis? Or even monthly?

Allowed or not, the referees don’t interfere until someone is knocked down. In other sports, it would be stopped immediately and players tossed out of the game with a lengthy suspension waiting. Do you understand the difference?

I’m not completely against fighting so save your prayers. I do however understand the injuries that can happen when untrained (as in martial arts training) people decide to drop their gloves.

baseball players have full on brawls before the officials get there or jump in the middle. Basketball as well, most officials don’t want to get blasted. Both can happen monthly. Fighting is down in hockey, it’s part of the sport. It’s an attractive part.

a mixed martial artist just died last month from injuries in a fight, yeah injuries happen, but in over 120 years a death hasn’t happened from a fight. It’s a stupid argument.

 

[ManWithNoName]

baseball players have full on brawls before the officials get there or jump in the middle. Basketball as well, most officials don’t want to get blasted. Both can happen monthly. Fighting is down in hockey, it’s part of the sport. It’s an attractive part.

a mixed martial artist just died last month from injuries in a fight, yeah injuries happen, but in over 120 years a death hasn’t happened from a fight. It’s a stupid argument.

Come on man, you can’t be that ignorant. You can’t possibly compare a brawl with pushing and hugging (and occasionally one or two fists being thrown) where referees and teammates interfere immediately to a bare-knuckled man on man fight.

It’s such a huge difference it’s not even comparable.

 

[tuozzi]

baseball players have full on brawls before the officials get there or jump in the middle. Basketball as well, most officials don’t want to get blasted. Both can happen monthly. Fighting is down in hockey, it’s part of the sport. It’s an attractive part.

a mixed martial artist just died last month from injuries in a fight, yeah injuries happen, but in over 120 years a death hasn’t happened from a fight. It’s a stupid argument.

This is interesting. I've watched a lot of European sports and I've only ever seen fist fights in hockey, and even that's rare.

 

[Sheppy]

You might have answered this already but, what other sports allow bare-knuckle fighting?

I can’t think of any. Fighting during a game in other sports will most likely result in a suspension for the players involved.

Fighting will end eventually, but someone will have to die first. And it will happen sooner or later.

None, really. Which is what makes hockey unique, and it technically isn't allowed, it's a major penalty.

 

[NyQuil]

My opinion on fighting is shaped a little bit with bringing my Mexican sister-in-law to her first NHL game.

"What is happening? They are punching each other?"

"Yes, they are dealing with an on-ice conflict."

"And the referees just stand there and allow it to happen?"

"They do to avoid getting punched by accident. But both players will get penalized eventually."

"So, they just start boxing in the middle of the game and the game stops and everyone stands around watching it?"

"Yes, it is a bit odd."

"And they get to stay in the game?"

"Yes, they sit in the box for five minutes but they get to play again later."

"Do they train to be be boxers?"

"Some do I guess."

When you've grown up with the sport, fighting doesn't seem all that weird, but coming from the outside, it's bizarre to allow two players on the ice to essentially stop a team sport for the purposes of handling an individual dispute with no immediate interference from the officials.

Logically, I have no real issue with removing it from the sport. With more focus on the long-term impacts of concussion and studies of the brains of enforcers, it appears unnecessarily dangerous.

While I acknowledge the worry that this will allow cheap shots to perpetuate, other extremely physical sports like rugby and football do not allow fighting of any kind, so it's not as if it's a necessary outlet for aggression. They seem to do fine without it.

As a forty-something year old who grew up with fighting, of course I find them entertaining, particularly when they aren't show-fights between specialists who go around fighting each other in some bizarre heavyweight ultimate fighting league (thankfully much reduced now).

 

[dustybreaks]

Let me rephrase it:
In what other sports does bare-knuckle fighting happen on a daily basis? Or even monthly?

Allowed or not, the referees don’t interfere until someone is knocked down. In other sports, it would be stopped immediately and players tossed out of the game with a lengthy suspension waiting. Do you understand the difference?

I’m not completely against fighting so save your prayers. I do however understand the injuries that can happen when untrained (as in martial arts training) people decide to drop their gloves.

Lacrosse.

 

[MartyOwns]

You're randomly choosing what is acceptable based off your preference, that's arbitrary.



I totally understood the point you were trying to make, it wasn't a good analogy. You apparently missed the point of the smoking comparison. It wasn't being used to bolster any argument for keeping fighting, it was to strictly highlight the absurdity of using laws as a comparison. You highlight some of the reasons why in this very post.

----

Fighting is bad and dangerous.
Hitting is bad and likely more dangerous.
You're okay with hitting, because you think it serves a purpose within the game.
You're not okay with fighting because you don't think it serves a purpose within the game.
Players are okay with hitting, they think it serves a purpose.
Players are okay with fighting, they think it serves a purpose.

let's learn what arbitrary means. apply that same standard to players being forced to wear helmets. if the majority of players wanted helmets to be optional, would you support that? i'll pay you the compliment of assuming you wouldn't. why not? who is being arbitrary now?

it is exactly the same as laws. if we were smart enough to not speed because it's dangerous, we wouldn't need speed limits. if players were smart enough to not throw blindside hits to the head, we wouldn't need to make that a penalty. laws, government regulations, rules etc are there to protect people too stupid to protect themselves. are you really advocating some kind of lawless thunderdome?

Why do you, a non-participant, get to decide what's best for the players actually participating in the game?

weird logical fallacy, i don't get to decide anything and i didn't say otherwise. i'm voicing my opinion on a hockey message board.

Why can't grown adults, voluntarily playing a sport, decide whether or not they want to allow fighting?

why can't grown men, voluntarily driving a car, decide whether or not they want to go 100 mph in a 65?

 

[North Cole]

let's learn what arbitrary means. apply that same standard to players being forced to wear helmets. if the majority of players wanted helmets to be optional, would you support that? i'll pay you the compliment of assuming you wouldn't. why not? who is being arbitrary now?

it is exactly the same as laws. if we were smart enough to not speed because it's dangerous, we wouldn't need speed limits. if players were smart enough to not throw blindside hits to the head, we wouldn't need to make that a penalty. laws, government regulations, rules etc are there to protect people too stupid to protect themselves. are you really advocating some kind of lawless thunderdome?



weird logical fallacy, i don't get to decide anything and i didn't say otherwise. i'm voicing my opinion on a hockey message board.



why can't grown men, voluntarily driving a car, decide whether or not they want to go 100 mph in a 65?

I mean, you can voluntarily go 100 in a 65 (I doubt your car has a governor), the result is you lose demerits if caught and your license gets suspended (after a while). Drive without a license too many times and you go to jail. So based on your analogy, players can fight and be suspended for it like they do in IIHF. Banning fighting doesn't mean they have no choice, they can still fight, there is just higher consequences. Having a speed limit doesn't mean you can't physically put your foot on the pedal and go double, but when you get caught you probably expect some heavy repercussions. Laws don't stop people drunk driving, robbery, or murder.

 

[one2gamble]

It's pretty rare these days I'm not sure why people get in a huff about it

 

[MartyOwns]

I mean, you can voluntarily go 100 in a 65 (I doubt your car has a governor), the result is you lose demerits if caught and your license gets suspended (after a while). Drive without a license too many times and you go to jail. So based on your analogy, players can fight and be suspended for it like they do in IIHF. Banning fighting doesn't mean they have no choice, they can still fight, there is just higher consequences. Having a speed limit doesn't mean you can't physically put your foot on the pedal and go double, but when you get caught you probably expect some heavy repercussions. Laws don't stop people drunk driving, robbery, or murder.

i already said yesterday that i don't even want fighting banned. i think it should be an automatic game misconduct and a 1 game suspension. you're exactly right, i'm talking about bigger consequences.

 

[KlefDown]

Todays Youngsters want to change everything instead of creating......and never for the better.........

go back to sleep old man