Sportsnet's Agenda Against Fighting

[Mynameismark*]

That's not the point. The point is that the lack of fighting didn't detract from the entertainment value of those aforementioned games.

True, and you dont always need a fight to have a good quality Hockey game. But you also wont be watching 82 games of the absolute best on best like you do at the olympics.

When you're watching the Leafs vs Sabres...I'm sorry, but sometimes you will be wishing for the days when Leafs and Sabres might get a little nasty.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Unnecessary? Then you do not understand the game.

Because the only 2 options are to agree with you or not understand the game.

 

[Mynameismark*]

Because the only 2 options are to agree with you or not understand the game.

No it's just a fact. It's like trying to argue that the Earth is not round.

Why argue something that is so obviously factual?

 

[RandV]

It's a sad state of affairs these days.

I remember in 2002 how TSN HYPED in a huge way the return game of Darcy Tucker to Long Island after their playoff series where he injured Peca and Peca claimed he was going to seek revenge, as well as everyone else. Pat Quinn said who was Dave Scatchard, even I'm not afraid of him. They showed all the fights and scrums in that series etc...they pumped everyone up to watch, and what did the fans want? Blood. They had a reason, besides winning, to watch this game. It was really a great bit of promo and I was amped to watch what might go down, besides just the score.

This is how rivalries are built, it's why sometimes other guys or other teams get your blood boiling, and sometimes you are gonna get rewarded with absolute wars on ice. Nothing wrong with that, because what that is you're going to be watching is Hockey, the way it has always been played and always should be.

Anyone who says otherwise is saying so because they have a talking piece in their ear. They are towing the company line.

Just like how the Canucks finally got Moore for injuring Naslund eh? I don't really care one way or the other on the whole issue but sometimes when you go in demanding blood you end up with a guy laying on the ice in a pool of it getting carted off in a stretcher and you realize maybe it wasn't such a good idea. This isn't professional wrestling, in reality you just want to see the other guy get beat up a little so you can feel better but when you have guys out for revenge/blood sometimes things can go very wrong and a punch to the head or a heavy hit can be devastating.

Anyways for the original topic, is fighting something that should even be part of a highlight package? They usually keep these things under two minutes, and in the game in question you have Edmonton going up a pair early and Calgary scoring 4 unanswered goals to win in the 3rd. With the limited time available do you really want to see an early scrap between Engelland and Gadzic? Fights can take up a good chunk of time as well not leaving you much room for the more important things like Calgary's big comeback keeping themselves alive in the playoff race.

 

[Patmac40]

Unnecessary? Then you do not understand the game.

http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/8/4/winning-a-fight-has-impact-on-future-outcomes

Here's an interesting study done on how a fight impacts the game. It is shown that winning a fight leads to conceding the next goal rather than scoring it. This conclusion leads me to believe that the fight itself doesn't result in a better chance of success so the idea that it has a positive impact on the final outcome isn't supported. In that sense, no it apparently isn't necessary.

There are obviously other reasons to fight like defending someone, or simply having emotions boil over. That's fine and dandy but they aren't overly necessary sometimes either but I'd never begrudge a player stepping up for a teammate. So from a quantitative and qualitative perspective, there isn't much to prove that it is a necessary part of the game.

 

[Mike Martin]

http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/8/4/winning-a-fight-has-impact-on-future-outcomes

Here's an interesting study done on how a fight impacts the game. It is shown that winning a fight leads to conceding the next goal rather than scoring it. This conclusion leads me to believe that the fight itself doesn't result in a better chance of success so the idea that it has a positive impact on the final outcome isn't supported. In that sense, no it apparently isn't necessary.

There are obviously other reasons to fight like defending someone, or simply having emotions boil over. That's fine and dandy but they aren't overly necessary sometimes either but I'd never begrudge a player stepping up for a teammate. So from a quantitative and qualitative perspective, there isn't much to prove that it is a necessary part of the game.

A very odd and subjective study considering that the players on the benches don't always have a clear idea of who "won" the fight from their vantage point unless the fight is very one-sided. You (or the media) can look at a video clip of a fight and declare a fight winner but don't assume that this is known by the players themselves during the game and thus the findings of this study are easily thrown out as invalid.

 

[Garbage Goal]

While I respect your opinion, I see things differently. Hockey has always had an accepted level of violence that includes fighting, hitting is responsible for far more concussions and injuries, I'd argue. Hockey has an accepted level of violence, just like MMA, Boxing or any combat sport, there is inherent risk. In hockey you have the option to fight, it's not compulsory, the combatants are willing participants who know the penalties, the risk and are rewarded with fortune and fame. No different than any other sports with violence, it's risk vs reward and players can make decisions for themselves.

It is not the players or the fans who are leading the charge against fighting, yes there are some against it, but they are the minority. This is what bother me most, our game is being hijacked by the minority.

Except hockey isn't a combat sport. Fighting has literally no concrete result to a game's outcome and the game also literally stops when it happens and penalties are issued thereafter.

There is legal hitting and hitting serves a direct purpose in the flow of play whereas fighting is never legal and actually stops the play mid-action. If you want to ignore those differences, that's your bias showing.

If the only way you can defend fighting is to compare hockey to various combat sports then you're on shaky ground.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

A very odd and subjective study considering that the players on the benches don't always have a clear idea of who "won" the fight from their vantage point unless the fight is very one-sided. You (or the media) can look at a video clip of a fight and declare a fight winner but don't assume that this is known by the players themselves during the game and thus the findings of this study are easily thrown out as invalid.

"It's a fact that fighting is essential to the game"

"Here are facts that say otherwise"

"Your facts are subjective; here, have more anecdotal evidence about the things I'm calling facts"

 

[Garbage Goal]

A very odd and subjective study considering that the players on the benches don't always have a clear idea of who "won" the fight from their vantage point unless the fight is very one-sided. You (or the media) can look at a video clip of a fight and declare a fight winner but don't assume that this is known by the players themselves during the game and thus the findings of this study are easily thrown out as invalid.

In a way you're just furthering the fact that any impact fighting has on the game is baseless speculation.

The only way to tell if fighting actually does impact a game's outcome is a study such as that one, but if that's also impossible to do then literally any claim that fighting changes the momentum of games significantly is impossible to prove. Using a non-defense as a defense, really. In other words, baseless speculation and the only way to argue in favor of fighting.

 

[MastuhNinks]

"It's a fact that fighting is essential to the game"

"Here are facts that say otherwise"

"Your facts are subjective; here, have more anecdotal evidence about the things I'm calling facts"

No facts were really posted that say otherwise though. To suggest that is a misinterpretation of the data. People on the internet love drawing conclusions from really incomplete studies.

 

[Dr Quincy]

"It's a fact that fighting is essential to the game"

"Here are facts that say otherwise"

"Your facts are subjective; here, have more anecdotal evidence about the things I'm calling facts"

You just don't understand that the necessity of fighting in hockey is like observing that the Earth is round!

 

[TheSituation]

While I respect your opinion, I see things differently. Hockey has always had an accepted level of violence that includes fighting, hitting is responsible for far more concussions and injuries, I'd argue. Hockey has an accepted level of violence, just like MMA, Boxing or any combat sport, there is inherent risk. In hockey you have the option to fight, it's not compulsory, the combatants are willing participants who know the penalties, the risk and are rewarded with fortune and fame. No different than any other sports with violence, it's risk vs reward and players can make decisions for themselves.

It is not the players or the fans who are leading the charge against fighting, yes there are some against it, but they are the minority. This is what bother me most, our game is being hijacked by the minority.

Absurd. Combat sports are heavily regulated and actually requires you to be licensed to participate in. I'm tired of seeing this false equivalence.

 

[habdynasty]

Hockey fights.com will have what you are looking for mitts.