TSN: PJ Stock explores fighting and cheap shots

[TheRightWay]

Do you watch the NFL? If so, you're no less guilty. I feel no guilt, though. Over the years, there have been 1000s of tough guys in NHL, AHL, CHL, etc and you throw out 5 names. Typical.

While I keep up with the NFL for academic purposes, I can promise you I don't stand up and cheer every time players bash their skulls against each other. I think football is a ridiculously barbaric and dangerous sport and anyone who lets his child play it is an idiot.


Just because I threw out five names doesn't mean there aren't many, many more. Do you want me to sit here an recite every name from the NHL all the way down to the ECHL and junior leagues whose life was altered in some capacity from being repeatedly bashed in the face? Do I need to name every drug addict from the past 50 years who died before the age of 50 to make you believe that cocaine is debilitating?

If you truly believe deep down in your heart that Bob Probert's kids literally watching their 45-year old dad die right in front of their eyes was worth it because you got to watch him and Domi bash each other in the face for 90 seconds a bunch of times, then you really need to evaluate the priorities in your life.

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

IMO--it's not even 'lets say'. First off I think that whoever first stated it was a clean hit either has not recently looked at it clearly or has a very foggy memory of it--is blind or biased. And just because a hit is not penalized does not mean it's a 'good' or 'clean' hit.

Kerry Fraser said it was a clean hit. Is he blind or biased? And despite all the suspensions handed down this year there was no supplemental discipline on this one. Me, I don't like the word "clean," but I do think it was within the rules of hockey. The puck touched Erikkson's stick immediately prior to the hit. It was not interference. It was not a head shot, not boarding, not an elbow, etc. The fact is that hockey allows these hits, violent as they are.

 

[Thirty One]

Then you think the NFL should be abolished, right?

That's a very reasonable leap to make...

How many of the 200 claim the concussions came from fighting?

I don't believe the lawsuit asks them to pinpoint it.

 

[TankLarkin]

While I keep up with the NFL for academic purposes, I can promise you I don't stand up and cheer every time players bash their skulls against each other. I think football is a ridiculously barbaric and dangerous sport and anyone who lets his child play it is an idiot.


Just because I threw out five names doesn't mean there aren't many, many more. Do you want me to sit here an recite every name from the NHL all the way down to the ECHL and junior leagues whose life was altered in some capacity from being repeatedly bashed in the face? Do I need to name every drug addict from the past 50 years who died before the age of 50 to make you believe that cocaine is debilitating?

If you truly believe deep down in your heart that Bob Probert's kids literally watching their 45-year old dad die right in front of their eyes was worth it because you got to watch him and Domi bash each other in the face for 90 seconds a bunch of times, then you really need to evaluate the priorities in your life.

spare me the self-rightous lecture. Probert did mounds of cocaine in his 20s. Had more to do with his heart giving out then fighting. It's called free-will. Probert did what it took to make the show. It's his business, not yours.

 

[Ail]

I think football is a ridiculously barbaric and dangerous sport and anyone who lets his child play it is an idiot.

A strong sentiment, but I agree. It's hard to say as much though when you're a gigantic fan of a sport that employs fist fights.

 

[TheRightWay]

A strong sentiment, but I agree. It's hard to say as much though when you're a gigantic fan of a sport that employs fist fights.

Yes and no. Football is what it is. There's only so much cutting down you're going to do. For hockey, however, eliminate fighting 100% and the game itself doesn't change much. I can promise that if there is not a single fight in tonight's Rangers-Islanders game nobody will even blink.

 

[Ail]

Yes and no. Football is what it is. There's only so much cutting down you're going to do. For hockey, however, eliminate fighting 100% and the game itself doesn't change much. I can promise that if there is not a single fight in tonight's Rangers-Islanders game nobody will even blink.

Oh no, I am right there with you, I just mean the NHL as it currently stands. If they eliminated fighting, then yes it would be a much less hypocritical stance to take.

 

[TheRightWay]

spare me the self-rightous lecture. Probert did mounds of cocaine in his 20s. Had more to do with his heart giving out then fighting. It's called free-will. Probert did what it took to make the show. It's his business, not yours.

Free will, sure? It's also someone's free will to drink himself into a coma every day of his life. That doesn't mean we sit by watching and not do anything about it. We intervene and try to help the situation. That's called being human. Having empathy and not finding pleasure in watching other people destroy their lives.

Probert had all sorts of head issues but let's cast him aside. Wade Belak. Rick Rypien. Derek Boogaard. There are three guys who died before the age of 40 directly because of issues caused from fighting. And yes, that's only three, but again we could sit here and list everyone but it would take forever to so. If Wade Belak and Rick Rypien want to rent out a motel room and beat the **** out of each other in there then, yes, that's their own free-will. But if Tony Stewart decides to drive on the highway while wasted then that's his own will. That wouldn't therefore make NASCAR allowing its drivers to drive their events after taking 10 shots of tequila excusable. If the NHL stands by and watches guys ruin their lives just so people like you can channel their inner barbaric nature then it's culpable.

 

[KingStian]

Haven't read through the whole tread, but here is my take on this situation.

First of all; both should have had longer suspensions. 5 games to Neal for the knee to the head are about nothing in my book. This is one of the most obvious targeting of the head a have seen in a very long time. No doubt that he sticks his knee out on purpous. He should have been slapped with at least 10-15 games and I would have had no problem with 25 games. That's the only way you have a chance of getting things like this out of the game.

Tornthon should have gotten at least 20 games, and would have deserved 30 games on the sideline. Orpik should have stepped up and taken the fight. The hit on Eriksson was a borderline headshot and he got just enough of the body for it not to be one. But when you make contact to the head like that you should be prepeard for a reaction. But it is still no excuse for sleewfooting someone and punching them when they are down on the ice. That was just ***** move.

When it comes to the whole aspect of fighting and it's place, I agree that the instigator rule has made players more vulnereble. When you have to step up you gonna think twice times before you throw a stupid hit of some sort.

Of course the aspect of fighting someone for totally clean hits is there. You solve this by suspending players who challenge someone for a completley clean hit. Then you also has to take some responsability as the one who challenge someone.

 

[Unpredictable1]

You keep moving the goalposts here. First it was, "maybe it doesn't deter Ott game-to-game, but I bet he stopped every individual game after getting his ass kicked!" Then I provide evidence blatantly confirming that this is not the case. Now it's about "all the games." So what's your point here. Fighting didn't stop Ott from being a jackass for future games, and sometimes not even game-by-game, but I bet we can find a few examples where it did! Well done! A truly convincing argument that fighting deters stupidity.

I'm absolutely not moving goal posts here but you truly are just looking for a internet fight or something to fit your agenda. It's blatantly obvious with some of your responses here.

I said, go back and read for yourself, that it has more to do with the game it happens in and not the duration of the career of the guy going forward who likes to play that way. Twist whatever words you want in my posts to fit what you want to see but that is what I'm saying. You managed to pick a highly anticipated game where two well known pests were playing the Bruins, you live under a rock if you don't think there was hype around that game and Ott/Avery didn't know it - did both of them go out and concuss and injure players all game with blindside/late/intent to injure hits?

Again, this is what I'm talking about. Orpik's hit and plenty of similar hits from the likes of Kronwall, Stuart, Jansen etc etc.

If a player gets injured pretty bad on let's say a Kronwall hit that already looked suspect, maybe that will help, having it reviewed and dealt with quicker. Who knows. Not sure where you're going with the team thing (Avalanche) reviewing a play which is a ridiculous statement, but for the Refs, they take their time review goals, so why not after an illegal or borderline hit to determine proper penalty? That could possibly be a slippery slope, not exactly what I'm after though, but maybe it'll help.

I look back at my lackluster hockey career and the stuff you're saying just doesn't make sense to me for anyone whose been in those situations, playing a gritty game, and getting presented with split second decisions where a team mate is obliterated with a blindside, late, or just plain intent to injure hit. Which is what I've been talking about from the get-go, not smack-talk, or chippy/scrappy plays.

I think Orpik's hit was an intent to injure and he was successful in his delivery.

 

[Mikos87]

Hi everyone! After frequenting these forums for over eight years, I finally decided to join the fun, mostly because our team's current Golden Age sarcasm requires maximum participation from fans.

To business! The fighting subject is obviously controversial--otherwise commentators and fans alike wouldn't still be deliberating it. Some who call themselves "purists" (including a few friends of mine) argue that fighting is indispensable to the sport. That's totally understandable: fighting shows tremendous dedication to your teammates and your team's success. I think we can all agree on that. The argument that fighting deters the opposition from taking liberties against your teammates is equally understandable.

But, if hockey is to expand in the States, we need to find an alternative to fighting; I've met far too many people (male and female) turned off by hockey because fights are "barbaric" or "savage." Fortunately, though, we do have such an alternative: hitting/checking. You probably didn't take too many liberties against the Kings when Rob Blake played in LA, for example, or against the Devils during the Scott Stevens years. You knew that they'd go after you with a monstrous but (far more often than not) clean hit. All the better, checking can be preemptive, rather than reactive (which fighting often is). Most fights break out after a dirty hit or something dodgy.

Granted, if hitting replaces fighting, then officiating needs to be tighter when it comes to hits, which can become excessive or intend to injure. For my part, I wouldn't mind seeing:
-- More ten-minute misconducts--with an accompanying 2-minute power play--or game misconducts with a five-minute power play.
-- A multiple-game suspension (the first instance sans pay but without a fine) for a player after each time he accumulates at least 10 minutes in misconducts since the previous suspension
-- Increasing suspension durations and fines

Unfortunately, such a scheme might decrease hitting in the short-run, as players might think twice before laying out big hits. But let's look at the positives: clean hitters will continue to hit, dirty hitters will think twice before making a move, and up-and-coming players will have to learn to hit cleanly.

But seriously, before we introduce penalties for playing the puck with your hand off a face-off or shooting the puck into the crowd, let's focus on penalties for protecting our players.

Just my two cents ...

Atta boy Clausewitz, way to step up.

For the record what happened between Orpik and Thornton was not fighting. Orpik's a guy that plays on edge but doesn't answer the bell. PIT iced a lot of guys like him. James Neal, Matt Cooke before the "reformation", outside of Engylland there isn't anyone on PITS that will step up like that.

Didn't Chris Kunitz elbow the Ranger's franchise goalie in the head? Did he have to answer for that?

Watch the clip of Chara stepping in on the 1st episode of 24/7. Clarkson starts something with a Bruin. Chara goes right in and gets involved. The refs try to break it things up, and Clarkson says something like isn't between you or me.

Chara responds: I'm just stepping up for my guy. You can't do that.

Joffrey Lupul, non-"goon", some would call him a scorer, goes after top 4 defenseman Slava Voynov, some would call him a capable player. Why? Voynov slashed Lupul on his leg a couple of times as soon as Lupul was coming back from a leg injury. Guy stood up for himself before taking more whacks on his injured leg.

Derrick Brassard. Blocks one shot. Goes down like a duck that got shot by a .50 cal. Misses the next game with a bruised butt. What does that have anything to do with fighting or toughness? Absolutely nothing, nothing close to any signs of competing, resiliency, or paying a price to help his team win.

 

[eco's bones]

Kerry Fraser said it was a clean hit. Is he blind or biased? And despite all the suspensions handed down this year there was no supplemental discipline on this one. Me, I don't like the word "clean," but I do think it was within the rules of hockey. The puck touched Erikkson's stick immediately prior to the hit. It was not interference. It was not a head shot, not boarding, not an elbow, etc. The fact is that hockey allows these hits, violent as they are.

What is Kerry Fraser some kind of guru? The ex-refs in the Toronto war room seem to have very contradictory ideas about what are goals and non-goals. Maybe it has something to do with the positioning of the moon on any given night. Go back and look at the play--Eriksson never touches the puck--it's not really even close--almost as he turns up the ice Orpik moves in and crushes him. You think he was expecting the hit? He had no reason to. It's just too easy to take someone's word for it and not follow up?

 

[Clausewitz]

Atta boy Clausewitz, way to step up.

For the record what happened between Orpik and Thornton was not fighting. Orpik's a guy that plays on edge but doesn't answer the bell. PIT iced a lot of guys like him. James Neal, Matt Cooke before the "reformation", outside of Engylland there isn't anyone on PITS that will step up like that.

Didn't Chris Kunitz elbow the Ranger's franchise goalie in the head? Did he have to answer for that?

Watch the clip of Chara stepping in on the 1st episode of 24/7. Clarkson starts something with a Bruin. Chara goes right in and gets involved. The refs try to break it things up, and Clarkson says something like isn't between you or me.

Chara responds: I'm just stepping up for my guy. You can't do that.

Joffrey Lupul, non-"goon", some would call him a scorer, goes after top 4 defenseman Slava Voynov, some would call him a capable player. Why? Voynov slashed Lupul on his leg a couple of times as soon as Lupul was coming back from a leg injury. Guy stood up for himself before taking more whacks on his injured leg.

Derrick Brassard. Blocks one shot. Goes down like a duck that got shot by a .50 cal. Misses the next game with a bruised butt. What does that have anything to do with fighting or toughness? Absolutely nothing, nothing close to any signs of competing, resiliency, or paying a price to help his team win.

Thanks mate; some great examples there!

 

[NGgator60]

While I keep up with the NFL for academic purposes, I can promise you I don't stand up and cheer every time players bash their skulls against each other. I think football is a ridiculously barbaric and dangerous sport and anyone who lets his child play it is an idiot.
.

You clearly have a prerogative biased against most any form of unnecessary physical contact that can result in injury. Hockey and football, sports where physical superiority is critical to advancing your goals within the game are clearly are not the sports for you. For some reason you seem to think that humanity has evolved to the point in which a reasonable society should not entertain the ideas of physical violence for sport. The world's obsession with MMA, NFL, etc clearly run contrary to this belief. The more things change, the more they stay the same. You're losing the fight, my friend.

Btw, I'm not quite sure Mama Owens and Mama Oher would've been better served not allowing their children play football, ultimately leading them to rise above their socioeconomic purgatory. Well, that is if you could have found their mothers. But I digress. I'll allow you to continue to bask in your blissful ignorance that rejects any positive direct effects or externalities created by controlled violence within sport.

 

[Thirty One]

Btw, I'm not quite sure Mama Owens and Mama Oher would've been better served not allowing their children play football

Sandra Bullock?

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

You clearly have a prerogative biased against most any form of unnecessary physical contact that can result in injury.

Stopped reading here. I'm a fan of MMA, boxing and Football and can still realize how awful it is that the brain injuries suffered in these sports can end a young person's life, literally and metaphorically. I want to watch guys like GSP make an art form out of Brazillian Jiu Jitsu, not have his brain turned into mush and then get disrespected by ******** like Dana White.

The MAJOR difference between MMA, boxing. and hockey is that fighting in hockey isn't important. Nobody is suggesting getting rid of hard hits. Athletes get paid millions of dollars because of the risks they're putting themselves at-- however, fighting in hockey is different than fighting in MMA and boxing. Only one of the aforementioned sports would be negligibly impacted by having fighting made illegal, guess which one.

 

[TheRightWay]

You clearly have a prerogative biased against most any form of unnecessary physical contact that can result in injury. Hockey and football, sports where physical superiority is critical to advancing your goals within the game are clearly are not the sports for you.

Not at all. Would I be watching hockey and writing on the forum otherwise?

You know what else is an inherently dangerous activity? Driving. People get into accidents every day, many times resulting in some bad injuries or even death. Nonetheless, everyone still drives and accepts the danger. But what do we do to try to mitigate that? Well, we have speed limits. We have lanes. We have stop signs and traffic lights. We allow driving while taking out unnecessary and extreme dangers. Same should be for hockey. We understand that injuries are part of it, but we do what we can to limit that without destroying the game itself. We have helmets and other types of pads. We ban reckless hits to the head, high sticking, charging, elbowing, etc. I don't think hockey would be ruined if a bunch of Donald Brashear's and Trevor Gillies' weren't employed.

For some reason you seem to think that humanity has evolved to the point in which a reasonable society should not entertain the ideas of physical violence for sport. The world's obsession with MMA, NFL, etc clearly run contrary to this belief. The more things change, the more they stay the same. You're losing the fight, my friend.

Other violent acts the world has been seen as entertainment in history: Dogfighting. Slave fighting. Public hangings and guillotining. Just because a faction of society right now accepts something doesn't mean that it's objectively kosher or that future societies won't see it as grotesque.

Btw, I'm not quite sure Mama Owens and Mama Oher would've been better served not allowing their children play football, ultimately leading them to rise above their socioeconomic purgatory.

Way to cite two extreme examples. Quite frankly, I see it as pretty sad that the best way for poverty-stricken youth to move up the socioeconomic ladder is by engaging in a sport where they're putting themselves at a ridiculously high risk of some sort of brain trauma or other life altering injury. But even so, this is comparing apples to oranges. There is no fighting in football and the sport survives. Similarly, hockey would survive perfectly fine as well without fighting. I'm not calling for hits to be taken out. Nor am I calling for blocking shots or any sort of physical contact. Hell, I'm not even advocating a full-blown ban for fighting. All of this ******** you're spewing is just you trying to change the subject because you and nobody else has provided a single shred of evidence that fighting makes the game safer; which is what this thread has always been about.

But I digress. I'll allow you to continue to bask in your blissful ignorance that rejects any positive direct effects or externalities created by controlled violence within sport.

Or you could actually read the arguments I'm presenting instead of trying to oversimplify everything and make it a black-and-white issue. As I've said multiple times in this thread, I think fighting does have a place in hockey. I don't think I'm on record as saying that there is literally nothing positive that ever has come from the physical aspect of sports. What I HAVE said is that looking at a bunch of Wade Belak's and Derek Boogaard's destroy themselves is not worth you and other people getting an adrenaline rush from watching them constantly beat the brain cells out of each other. And again, that them doing so in no way actually makes the game safer. This is the main point of the thread. If you want fighting in the game then that is your opinion and you're allowed to have it. But stop trying to hide behind the guise of it being because the game is safer with it and start acknowledging that it's mostly because you enjoy watching fighting.

 

[Ail]

You clearly have a prerogative biased against most any form of unnecessary physical contact that can result in injury. Hockey and football, sports where physical superiority is critical to advancing your goals within the game are clearly are not the sports for you. For some reason you seem to think that humanity has evolved to the point in which a reasonable society should not entertain the ideas of physical violence for sport. The world's obsession with MMA, NFL, etc clearly run contrary to this belief. The more things change, the more they stay the same. You're losing the fight, my friend.

Btw, I'm not quite sure Mama Owens and Mama Oher would've been better served not allowing their children play football, ultimately leading them to rise above their socioeconomic purgatory. Well, that is if you could have found their mothers. But I digress. I'll allow you to continue to bask in your blissful ignorance that rejects any positive direct effects or externalities created by controlled violence within sport.

A reasonable society should not entertain violence for entertainment purposes. We obviously are not a reasonable society, for a laundry list of reasons. That point is irrelevant because history has quite clearly depicted times when the majority was very wrong. Just because something is almost universally accepted or desired does not make it correct. Remember when the world was flat? Remember when people were killed because they disagreed with what the majority believed to be true? Was that a wise or morally acceptable way to behave just because the majority at the time thought it was?

Most people being okay with something, or worse yet clamoring for it, is a horrible argument to make for why it should not be questioned.

 

[Mikos87]

You clearly have a prerogative biased against most any form of unnecessary physical contact that can result in injury. Hockey and football, sports where physical superiority is critical to advancing your goals within the game are clearly are not the sports for you. For some reason you seem to think that humanity has evolved to the point in which a reasonable society should not entertain the ideas of physical violence for sport. The world's obsession with MMA, NFL, etc clearly run contrary to this belief. The more things change, the more they stay the same. You're losing the fight, my friend.

Btw, I'm not quite sure Mama Owens and Mama Oher would've been better served not allowing their children play football, ultimately leading them to rise above their socioeconomic purgatory. Well, that is if you could have found their mothers. But I digress. I'll allow you to continue to bask in your blissful ignorance that rejects any positive direct effects or externalities created by controlled violence within sport.

Football, MMA, Hockey, Boxing all give their athletes the license to assault one another, and not just with fists, but rather with tackles, hits, kicks, etc etc. Outside of maybe boxing today, the other three sports are all Billion dollar markets. Some Multi-Billion. So the people have clearly spoken.

You succinctly express what things are, whilst others share what they wish to see. Like many things, there will be degrees of separation between "polar" perspectives, to be able to differ within those degrees seems to be an intangible in the vein on-ice toughness. You either got it, or you don't.

 

[NGgator60]

Not at all. Would I be watching hockey and writing on the forum otherwise?

You know what else is an inherently dangerous activity? Driving. People get into accidents every day, many times resulting in some bad injuries or even death. Nonetheless, everyone still drives and accepts the danger. But what do we do to try to mitigate that? Well, we have speed limits. We have lanes. We have stop signs and traffic lights. We allow driving while taking out unnecessary and extreme dangers. Same should be for hockey. We understand that injuries are part of it, but we do what we can to limit that without destroying the game itself. We have helmets and other types of pads. We ban reckless hits to the head, high sticking, charging, elbowing, etc. I don't think hockey would be ruined if a bunch of Donald Brashear's and Trevor Gillies' weren't employed.



Other violent acts the world has been seen as entertainment in history: Dogfighting. Slave fighting. Public hangings and guillotining. Just because a faction of society right now accepts something doesn't mean that it's objectively kosher or that future societies won't see it as grotesque.



Way to cite two extreme examples. Quite frankly, I see it as pretty sad that the best way for poverty-stricken youth to move up the socioeconomic ladder is by engaging in a sport where they're putting themselves at a ridiculously high risk of some sort of brain trauma or other life altering injury. But even so, this is comparing apples to oranges. There is no fighting in football and the sport survives. Similarly, hockey would survive perfectly fine as well without fighting. I'm not calling for hits to be taken out. Nor am I calling for blocking shots or any sort of physical contact. Hell, I'm not even advocating a full-blown ban for fighting. All of this ******** you're spewing is just you trying to change the subject because you and nobody else has provided a single shred of evidence that fighting makes the game safer; which is what this thread has always been about.




Or you could actually read the arguments I'm presenting instead of trying to oversimplify everything and make it a black-and-white issue. As I've said multiple times in this thread, I think fighting does have a place in hockey. I don't think I'm on record as saying that there is literally nothing positive that ever has come from the physical aspect of sports. What I HAVE said is that looking at a bunch of Wade Belak's and Derek Boogaard's destroy themselves is not worth you and other people getting an adrenaline rush from watching them constantly beat the brain cells out of each other. And again, that them doing so in no way actually makes the game safer. This is the main point of the thread. If you want fighting in the game then that is your opinion and you're allowed to have it. But stop trying to hide behind the guise of it being because the game is safer with it and start acknowledging that it's mostly because you enjoy watching fighting.

- If you have read my posts on the subject, in this exact thread and otherwise, you'd understand that I've made it explicitly clear that my basis for fighting's place in hockey is not revolved around player safety. I'll allow you to read through what I've written on the subject to gain an appreciation for my reasoning on the subject. Simply because you want this debate to center around "player safety" does not mean that everyone else does.

- You have failed to address my post in which I came forth with statements made by players that provide additional depth and context to the "98%" polling statistic. Clearly these are many players that not only voted to keep fighting in the NHL but also feel that fighting has a positive effect on the game. Your cute cigarette analogy was rebuffed.

- You cite driving as an inherently dangerous activity, and I completely agree with you. You also mention how you are in favor of mitigating risk and what I glean from your post you seem to feel that the abolishment of fighting offers the most efficient solution to do just that within the game of hockey, although you are clear not to call for the abolishment of hitting, checking, blocking shots, etc. I must ask, why are you not in favor of banning these additional carriers of risk? Are bone-jarring hits any more part of the rich history of hockey than fighting? Are they any more a part of the integrity of the game? And who are you or I to draw that distinct line? I'm sure you understand that there have been many more lives ruined by way of checks than by hockey fights. It really is not close in terms of the injury distribution of both forms of physical contact. I see quite a bit of hypocrisy with this logic in which you'd be quick to abolish one form of contact over another.

- While we're on the topic of hypocrisy, you cite slave-fighting and dog-fighting as examples of activities that society has thankfully evolved from (although in certain other cultures dog-fighting is still an accepted form of entertainment...wait, weren't you the one that told us that we could learn from other cultures?). In your next rebuttal you complain that I've selected two extreme examples to prove my point. Dog and slave fighting are acceptable topics of debate but NFL players are too extreme of examples for inclusion. Brilliant.

- While I'm at it, lets examine this idea that players have, as you put it, "a ridiculously high risk of brain trauma or life-altering injury." I'd be tickled to know just what you'd believe to be the collective percentage of professional, collegiate, and high school football players to have suffered any form of life-altering injury. If that number approached 1% I would be astonished. As it stands you have thousands of professionals being compensated in some form from the game on a global scale, with thousands of scholarship collegiate athletes graduating each year, and tens of thousands of high school athletes learning the concepts of team-building, integrity, dedication, determination, etc. Let's not pretend that its a rarity to find examples of athletes who's parents were in fact not "incredible idiots" to let their children play football.

 

[Ail]

So the people have clearly spoken.

They have also clearly shown historically they don't know what's good for them. It is human nature to irrationally and foolishly do things that are not beneficial to themselves or others.

People throw billions of dollars a year at fast food, drugs, and alcohol. Are these things all good for us? The people have spoken, because they are willing to spend money on a Big Mac, it is nutritious and good for our bodies.

Again, this is a poor argument for the justification of something. Humans are not infallible creatures of pure wisdom and logic. We have done a lot of things in our tenure here on planet Earth that were not in our best interest.

 

[NGgator60]

A reasonable society should not entertain violence for entertainment purposes.

You're an intelligent poster so I dont mean to sound gruff but with all due respect, says who? Where might I meet the judge and jury that decided a reasonable society should not entertain violence for entertainment purposes?

And perhaps a better question would be, do you ever envision a society which does not entertain violence in one form or another? I'd argue its impracticality.

 

[Mikos87]

They have also clearly shown historically they don't know what's good for them. It is human nature to irrationally and foolishly do things that are not beneficial to themselves or others.

People throw billions of dollars a year at fast food, drugs, and alcohol. Are these things all good for us? The people have spoken, because they are willing to spend money on a Big Mac, it is nutritious and good for our bodies.

Again, this is a poor argument for the justification of something. Humans are not infallible creatures of pure wisdom and logic. We have done a lot of things in our tenure here on planet Earth that were not in our best interest.

I don't fancy myself the sort of man who has a say in how others choose to live their lives.

 

[NGgator60]

We have done a lot of things in our tenure here on planet Earth that were not in our best interest.

Isn't that the fun of life? Show a world without sex, alcohol, and luxury and I'll tell you where you might as well bury me.

 

[TheRightWay]

- If you have read my posts on the subject, in this exact thread and otherwise, you'd understand that I've made it explicitly clear that my basis for fighting's place in hockey is not revolved around player safety. I'll allow you to read through what I've written on the subject to gain an appreciation for my reasoning on the subject. Simply because you want this debate to center around "player safety" does not mean that everyone else does.

- You have failed to address my post in which I came forth with statements made by players that provide additional depth and context to the "98%" polling statistic. Clearly these are many players that not only voted to keep fighting in the NHL but also feel that fighting has a positive effect on the game. Your cute cigarette analogy was rebuffed.

- You cite driving as an inherently dangerous activity, and I completely agree with you. You also mention how you are in favor of mitigating risk and what I glean from your post you seem to feel that the abolishment of fighting offers the most efficient solution to do just that within the game of hockey, although you are clear not to call for the abolishment of hitting, checking, blocking shots, etc. I must ask, why are you not in favor of banning these additional carriers of risk? Are bone-jarring hits any more part of the rich history of hockey than fighting? Are they any more a part of the integrity of the game? And who are you or I to draw that distinct line? I'm sure you understand that there have been many more lives ruined by way of checks than by hockey fights. It really is not close in terms of the injury distribution of both forms of physical contact. I see quite a bit of hypocrisy with this logic in which you'd be quick to abolish one form of contact over another.

- While we're on the topic of hypocrisy, you cite slave-fighting and dog-fighting as examples of activities that society has thankfully evolved from (although in certain other cultures dog-fighting is still an accepted form of entertainment...wait, weren't you the one that told us that we could learn from other cultures?). In your next rebuttal you complain that I've selected two extreme examples to prove my point. Dog and slave fighting are acceptable topics of debate but NFL players are too extreme of examples for inclusion. Brilliant.

- While I'm at it, lets examine this idea that players have, as you put it, "a ridiculously high risk of brain trauma or life-altering injury." I'd be tickled to know just what you'd believe to be the collective percentage of professional, collegiate, and high school football players to have suffered any form of life-altering injury. If that number approached 1% I would be astonished. As it stands you have thousands of professionals being compensated in some form from the game on a global scale, with thousands of scholarship collegiate athletes graduating each year, and tens of thousands of high school athletes learning the concepts of team-building, integrity, dedication, determination, etc. Let's not pretend that its a rarity to find examples of athletes who's parents were in fact not "incredible idiots" to let their children play football.

Don't care about to get into philosophical arguments about fighting and what not. I don't care, really. Please watch the PJ Stock video and tell me what anything you're saying has to do with this thread. The purpose of this thread was to discuss whether fighting makes the NHL safer. Any other thoughts should be put in a different thread.