TSN: PJ Stock explores fighting and cheap shots
- Thread starter Dagoon44
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
eco's bones
Registered User
Could argue all day long about what a reasonable society would look like or the things such a thing would do--and not get anywhere. You'd never get enough agreement over a whole bunch of issues so one can only conclude that a generally acceptable definition of what a reasonable society is or would be does not exist and is not likely to come into existence anytime in the near future.
Contact sports have much in common with war--the biggest difference hardly anyone ever really dies so it's not like the Roman sponsored Christians vs. lions spectacles. But even other games like the non-violent board game Chess are about conquest. I don't know what hockey would look like without the hitting, the fighting but I do suspect it would be a lot less interesting as a spectator sport.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
At this stage in our evolution it is not only impractical, but impossible to envision a society where violence is not part of our culture. It has been since the dawn of man. I'm not saying violence is 100% with all authority a bad thing, because truthfully I don't know, and I don't have all of the answers. With that being said, given the nature of violence and what it does to people, I'm going to have to say in the grand scheme it is probably something that is not good for us as a species, at the very least in terms of our evolution. That is of course, my opinion, but from my perspective violence has gotten us nowhere, then and now.
Nor do I, and never will be, but that doesn't mean I am not willing to point out to someone (especially those you care about) when they are doing things at the expense of their well-being. Not to mention look at the big picture and say, "Hey, I know we're all doing this because we like it, and it feels good now, but maybe we should examine whether or not it is really good for us in the long run."
Yes, and no. Not all vices are bad taken in stride. I drink, have done drugs, have sex, and eat garbage food, but given what we know about the world and ourselves, are these always the best choices for us? I can tell you with certainty I have done things in my life that were not in my best interest. We all do at some point. Appetites are not everything in life, and again that is just my opinion.
Concerning all points, I digress however because we are getting off-topic a bit.
Professional sports often involve measured violence with assumable risks, hopefully mitigated as efficiently as possible without ruining the integrity of the game, with willing participants that are compensated, often quite handsomely, for their involvement. That's the breaks. Some players play because they "have" to while others play because they legitimately "want" to. The same goes for the way in which they play. In the NHL, 98% of players clearly want to continue to play hockey with the included element of fighting. Who are we to argue? Well, as the paying customer of course. However we clearly continue to buy the product the way it is, as the NHL continues to bring in considerable revenue. The NFL is a further and more obvious extrapolation of the concept of the global consumer thirsting for constrained physical violence intersecting with exceeding skill.
In a free-market society what happens if fighting or hitting is outlawed? Perhaps the NHL remains but is there any doubt that there will continue to be leagues, or new leagues propped up, to support the fans and the players that choose to consume that brand of the sport? Of course not.
At this stage in our evolution it is not only impractical, but impossible to envision a society where violence is not part of our culture. It has been since the dawn of man. I'm not saying violence is 100% with all authority a bad thing, because truthfully I don't know, and I don't have all of the answers. With that being said, given the nature of violence and what it does to people, I'm going to have to say in the grand scheme it is probably something that is not good for us as a species, at the very least in terms of our evolution. That is of course, my opinion, but from my perspective violence has gotten us nowhere, then and now.
Nor do I, and never will be, but that doesn't mean I am not willing to point out to someone (especially those you care about) when they are doing things at the expense of their well-being. Not to mention look at the big picture and say, "Hey, I know we're all doing this because we like it, and it feels good now, but maybe we should examine whether or not it is really good for us in the long run."
Yes, and no. Not all vices are bad taken in stride. I drink, have done drugs, have sex, and eat garbage food, but given what we know about the world and ourselves, are these always the best choices for us? I can tell you with certainty I have done things in my life that were not in my best interest. We all do at some point. Appetites are not everything in life, and again that is just my opinion.
Concerning all points, I digress however because we are getting off-topic a bit.
Good post. I think we agree on a lot of the concepts and philosophy, but yes...starting to get off topic.
eco's bones
Registered User
This is not a free market society. We have more than less what is called a free market economy. There's a difference. A society and an economy are not the same thing. A free market economy is not the choice of the mass of the population. It's the choice of Wall St. traders, large corporative interests, banks and politicians--the elite of the investing class. Despite how some might choose to vote--most will not want to lose the benefits of policies and programs provided by the more socially progressives politicians of years past--things like social security--medicaid/medicare. Most want some kind of national health system despite the failures of Obama's recently implemented and hugely compromised plan. Most Americans are not just out to enrich themselves and save their own *****--they worry as well about their family, friends, co-workers and neighbors. Those who push the free market idea are basically in it for themselves--to become part of a small clique of 'success stories'.
Anyway I don't see what this has to do with hitting/fighting in hockey. TheRightWay basically envisions making hockey simply into a game of skill that's been emasculated to the point that it's something akin to tennis. If he doesn't like physical sports then IMO he should find some other sports to watch. There are plenty of them.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
Ex Officer Friendly
Got Nothin To Say
Haha this is funny...
I enjoy watching hitting and all however, when it comes to watching fights if I want to see that I'll watch MMA. Every big hit shouldn't lead to a fight, there shouldn't be players like John Scott in the league, I'd rather watch the likes of Crosby, Ovi, the Sedins, and Datsyuk than John Scott or the fighters in the league.
Please justify this assertion while also accounting for the numerous times in this thread that I claimed that fighting still has a place in hockey. I'm dying to see how you can make that logically work.
We've certainly had our disagreements on this thread and clearly differ on what role fighting and/or physical contact should have in the game but I agree that the extreme accusations one way or another dont add much to the debate. It doesn't do us much good to claim that every fan against fighting wants to see Disney on Ice and it doesn't help fans against fighting to claim that every proponent of fighting is a barbarian that should tune into MMA. There exists plenty of middle ground and at the end of the day we all want whats best for the integrity of the sport we love.
Fighting now isn't what fighting was in the 60's & 70's.
Now, if a team has 40 fights a year two guys have 35 of them.
Enforcers are only as useful as who they beat up. And beating up the other team's goon is pretty pointless.
Now, if a team has 40 fights a year two guys have 35 of them.
Enforcers are only as useful as who they beat up. And beating up the other team's goon is pretty pointless.
eco's bones
Registered User
If I've misconstrued, misappropriated or mistaken your remarks for those of another I'll apologize for that. There is no single right way IMO to build a contender of a hockey team--there are a mixture of different elements however that are needed and multiple paths to contenderhood that can be taken. A team being able to defend it against the aggression of other teams is IMO a key element--a lot less theory about how things should be and more fact about how things are in reality. When AV suggests we're going to be like the Red Wings he seems to have made his mind up. But the original Wings team that fought it's way to being a contender had Probert, Kocur and later McCarty amongst others. The Wings team that toned all that down burned other teams for being too aggressive with a lethal pwp which had Yzerman, Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterberg among others. The current Rangers don't have the horses to defend themselves physically or by making other teams afraid or their pwp. It's a problem and I expect it's going to continue to be a problem for some time.
BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
This is great.
This is not.
One of the above is integral to the sport and should stay.
The other one is superfluous.
This is not.
One of the above is integral to the sport and should stay.
The other one is superfluous.
ponzu4u
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2013
- 525
- 269
See, the problem with the previous post, is you've chosen an outlier as your example of why fights are bad, while choosing an ideal example of a good hit.
But I think we all remember his:
Sauer in all likelihood will never play hockey again, while Parros has already played again this season. But Phaneuf's hit was considered "clean" and he was neither penalized or suspended on the play. Or, for a more recent example, see Orpik's hit on Erikkson, or Nash's concussion at the start of the year. And this is all without even considering the amount of charges and dirty hits that also take place in the game.
Like it or not, it is a fact that the majority of injuries in an NHL season come from unfortunate hockey plays and hits as opposed to fights. For me, some of the anti-fighting arguments in this thread tread very close to a slippery slope down which it's not too hard to see hockey eventually becoming a "no contact" sport. And for me, that's not a sport I'd want to watch.
I could be wrong, but has the amount of fighting in the NHL not gone up post-lockout? And has overall viewership not been going up as well? NHL owners are seeing large profits, both in attendance and viewership. And yet people are portraying the NHL as if it has this growing tumor that needs to be removed if we have any hope of saving the game, while in reality the game seems to be growing at a very healthy rate with fighting being a fairly fundamental part of that game. Are there any numbers that show large numbers of American or Canadian viewers no longer watching the NHL and instead tuning into any of the Euro leagues?
What sucks is that because hockey is a niche sport, the only time it gets any attention is when something "sensational" happens, and as far as our modern news culture goes, VIOLENCE SELLS BEST. As a result, an inordinate amount of attention gets put on certain violent incidents in the game. But to portray the game of hockey as just waiting to burst onto the mainstream and seize the attention of the masses but for the black and blue fist of the enforcer holding it down, is wrong. Just watch a regular night of Sportscenter when there isn't a hockey "incident" to debate, we're lucky to get about 5mins out of the 30min program.
But I think we all remember his:
Sauer in all likelihood will never play hockey again, while Parros has already played again this season. But Phaneuf's hit was considered "clean" and he was neither penalized or suspended on the play. Or, for a more recent example, see Orpik's hit on Erikkson, or Nash's concussion at the start of the year. And this is all without even considering the amount of charges and dirty hits that also take place in the game.
Like it or not, it is a fact that the majority of injuries in an NHL season come from unfortunate hockey plays and hits as opposed to fights. For me, some of the anti-fighting arguments in this thread tread very close to a slippery slope down which it's not too hard to see hockey eventually becoming a "no contact" sport. And for me, that's not a sport I'd want to watch.
I could be wrong, but has the amount of fighting in the NHL not gone up post-lockout? And has overall viewership not been going up as well? NHL owners are seeing large profits, both in attendance and viewership. And yet people are portraying the NHL as if it has this growing tumor that needs to be removed if we have any hope of saving the game, while in reality the game seems to be growing at a very healthy rate with fighting being a fairly fundamental part of that game. Are there any numbers that show large numbers of American or Canadian viewers no longer watching the NHL and instead tuning into any of the Euro leagues?
What sucks is that because hockey is a niche sport, the only time it gets any attention is when something "sensational" happens, and as far as our modern news culture goes, VIOLENCE SELLS BEST. As a result, an inordinate amount of attention gets put on certain violent incidents in the game. But to portray the game of hockey as just waiting to burst onto the mainstream and seize the attention of the masses but for the black and blue fist of the enforcer holding it down, is wrong. Just watch a regular night of Sportscenter when there isn't a hockey "incident" to debate, we're lucky to get about 5mins out of the 30min program.
Blah blah blah I still don't see a single word in there about how fighting makes the game of hockey safer.
I can care less if fighting gets banned in hockey or not. I like to see players step up to protect each other but I really hate the staged fights like what the Rangers used to do, especially against the devils. Staged fights turn the NHL into a joke similar to the WWF imo.
What i do care about is dirty hits and hits with intent to injure being removed from the game. I dont care what anyone says but that hit Orpik made on Erikson was wrong, especially considering the kid just came back from a concussion. I dont feel bad for Orpik at all.
What i do care about is dirty hits and hits with intent to injure being removed from the game. I dont care what anyone says but that hit Orpik made on Erikson was wrong, especially considering the kid just came back from a concussion. I dont feel bad for Orpik at all.
Oh and as far as hockey making the game safer, maybe at one time it did but I really dont think it has any effect any more. I'd be fine with it gone but before anything changes the NHL needs to get their act together and figure out what they are going to do about dirty hits.
