What's dumber in fighting?

[NyQuil]

Do people really not understand the point of staged fighting? It’s trying to create a momentum swing, by bringing your guys into the game and raising their emotions. Players aren’t robots, they have emotions and watching your guy go beat the wheels off your opponent can get them fired up and swing the momentum in their favour.

I’m not defending it at all, and much prefer when fights are spur of the moment reactions, but people saying it does nothing other than the player trying to justify them having a spot in the league are way off. A good portion of stages fights when they were more common were actually the coach asking the player to do it.

I understand in terms of trying to shift momentum, but I used to roll my eyes when Zenon Konopka with Ottawa would get his fight out of the way on his first shift of the game about 5 minutes in.

There is no momentum to shift. Nothing has happened yet. He just wanted to get it on the books.

 

[Yepthatsme]

This sounds like a take from 1995. But here's the thing other trying to convince someone of a deeply held belief and challenge the world view of it by saying that it's nonsense when it's probably ingrained for decades I will ask this. Both players are fighting and since it's staged there's no instigator and it's mutually agreed to. Wouldn't the momentum swing cancel each other out?

…have you never played a hockey game where a fight has occurred? The momentum swing is from the boost in emotions watching your guy win, the bench is usually pretty electric after that and it’s what can cause the play to swing, not the hopes one guy got some extra PIMs so you get a powerplay?

I understand in terms of trying to shift momentum, but I used to roll my eyes when Zenon Konopka with Ottawa would get his fight out of the way on his first shift of the game about 5 minutes in.

There is no momentum to shift. Nothing has happened yet. He just wanted to get it on the books.

You rolled your eyes, because you weren’t the guy he was trying to motivate. Honest question, if it didn’t help the team in any way, shape, or form, why would he have a job?

Once again, I’m happy it’s happening less. But to pretend it has no impact is ignorant, or else it wouldn’t have ever been a thing.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

…have you never played a hockey game where a fight has occurred? The momentum swing is from the boost in emotions watching your guy win, the bench is usually pretty electric after that and it’s what can cause the play to swing, not the hopes one guy got some extra PIMs so you get a powerplay?


You rolled your eyes, because you weren’t the guy he was trying to motivate. Honest question, if it didn’t help the team in any way, shape, or form, why would he have a job?

Once again, I’m happy it’s happening less. But to pretend it has no impact is ignorant, or else it wouldn’t have ever been a thing.

Here's the thing momentum is needed by one team when they're playing worse than the other team. Because if they're even there's no momentum to swing. So if you're right and a fight swings momentum it's still stupid for the player whose team is winning to accept the fight. In the end all of this is hockey mythology. This is a professional sport and people treat it like a pickup hockey game where even there I question the validity of all of this, but at least pickup hockey games are not professional sports. Considering that the penalty for staged hockey has not changed since fighting was more popular it seems that even the dinosaur GMs and coaches value having real players on the ice over bums that can fight. Staged fighting makes the NHL look like a sideshow.

 

[NyQuil]

…have you never played a hockey game where a fight has occurred? The momentum swing is from the boost in emotions watching your guy win, the bench is usually pretty electric after that and it’s what can cause the play to swing, not the hopes one guy got some extra PIMs so you get a powerplay?


You rolled your eyes, because you weren’t the guy he was trying to motivate. Honest question, if it didn’t help the team in any way, shape, or form, why would he have a job?

Once again, I’m happy it’s happening less. But to pretend it has no impact is ignorant, or else it wouldn’t have ever been a thing.

It has no impact when it’s at the very beginning of a zero-zero game.

It was pointless and irrelevant.

They got it out of the way, patted each other on the shoulders and went to their respective boxes.

What is ignorant is assuming that every fight has some impact on momentum.

It was desultory and pointless and the only beneficiaries I assume were the combatants when their contracts came up for renewal.

The fact that those kinds of fights don’t exist anymore tells you everything you need to know about why those jobs also don’t exist anymore.

 

[Yepthatsme]

Here's the thing momentum is needed by one team when they're playing worse than the other team. Because if they're even there's no momentum to swing. So if you're right and a fight swings momentum it's still stupid for the player whose team is winning to accept the fight. In the end all of this is hockey mythology. This is a professional sport and people treat it like a pickup hockey game where even there I question the validity of all of this, but at least pickup hockey games are not professional sports. Considering that the penalty for staged hockey has not changed since fighting was more popular it seems that even the dinosaur GMs and coaches value having real players on the ice over bums that can fight. Staged fighting makes the NHL look like a sideshow.

If they’re even, that’s entirely the time to swing momentum to your team. It’s getting your team the extra advantage. The other time they’d usually happen is if you team is down 2-3 quick and you really need to give your team a shot. Those times I agree, the other guy really shouldn’t be accepting those fights yet it still did happen.

This isn’t mythology, this is an actual thing that happened for decades and decades, and still does happen in the game today? It mostly just sounds like something you don’t understand, and since you struggle to assign tangential value to it you’ve written it off instead of trying to rationalize it?

Also it’s dying off because the role of a strict face puncher is dying off with your 4th line expected to help keep up on offense now. The league figured out that more goals helps more for pretty straight forward reasons, but saying that means it never had any benefit because something else helps more is a weird jump. Teams who still have a true heavy weight use this tactic to this day still.

It has no impact when it’s at the very beginning of a zero-zero game.

It was pointless and irrelevant.

They got it out of the way, patted each other on the shoulders and went to their respective boxes.

What is ignorant is assuming that every fight has some impact on momentum.

It was desultory and pointless and the only beneficiaries I assume were the combatants when their contracts came up for renewal.

The fact that those kinds of fights don’t exist anymore tells you everything you need to know about why those jobs also don’t exist anymore.

Yes because when it’s an even game you don’t want your team to get a boost over the other team early? Same weird logic as the last guy “we found something that’s more useful, so obviously the previous method never had any use at all”.

Did nobody here play hockey past the age of like 16? Watching your teammate win a fight has the players amped.

 

[NyQuil]

Yes because when it’s an even game you don’t want your team to get a boost over the other team early? Same weird logic as the last guy “we found something that’s more useful, so obviously the previous method never had any use at all”.

Did nobody here play hockey past the age of like 16? Watching your teammate win a fight has the players amped.

No one is amped after the first shift of the game.

It's still during the initial feeling out process. Were you playing Rep B or what? Any seriously competitive league doesn't have guys fighting before anything has actually happened in the game.

Both guys punched a bunch of times and went to the box. There was no momentum at this point in the game to shift. No goals, virtually no hits, no shots.

Fighting on the very first shift of the game, barring some scandal in a previous game, is the most pointless exercise.

That's what was so hilarious about Konopka with the Senators. This wasn't in response to being down in a game, or a big hit, or a cheap shot. It was two guys whose job it was to fight, fighting each other, a bunch of stick taps against the boards, and then the game moved on.

He obviously engaged at more critical times at other parts of the game in other scenarios, but in this case, seeing two guys pummel each other whose job it is to exclusively pummel each other was so dumb it was hard to even explain to non-hockey fans.

"Why are those guys fighting each other?"

"Because it's their job."

"And the other guys, they just stand around watching? The refs too?"

"Yes. The game stops and everyone just stands around and watches."

"So it's allowed?"

"Well, no, not really, because they both get penalties. But they both get the same penalties, so it evens out."

"What does that have to do with the game?"

"Nothing, nothing at all."

Boost? What boost? It was a sideshow. There was no emotion. They were often chatting as they went to the box. No bad blood. Nothing. Stupid.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

If they’re even, that’s entirely the time to swing momentum to your team. It’s getting your team the extra advantage. The other time they’d usually happen is if you team is down 2-3 quick and you really need to give your team a shot. Those times I agree, the other guy really shouldn’t be accepting those fights yet it still did happen.

This isn’t mythology, this is an actual thing that happened for decades and decades, and still does happen in the game today? It mostly just sounds like something you don’t understand, and since you struggle to assign tangential value to it you’ve written it off instead of trying to rationalize it?

Also it’s dying off because the role of a strict face puncher is dying off with your 4th line expected to help keep up on offense now. The league figured out that more goals helps more for pretty straight forward reasons, but saying that means it never had any benefit because something else helps more is a weird jump. Teams who still have a true heavy weight use this tactic to this day still.


Yes because when it’s an even game you don’t want your team to get a boost over the other team early? Same weird logic as the last guy “we found something that’s more useful, so obviously the previous method never had any use at all”.

Did nobody here play hockey past the age of like 16? Watching your teammate win a fight has the players amped.

I'd like to see evidence it actually swings momentum other than hockey mythology or your men's league cheering fights. And yes I want to see tangible evidence. Saying "you don't understand it because there's nothing tangible" is like saying "you don't understand God because you don't see him". Until there's evidence it's mythology and superstition. And frankly in theory fights should swing momentum equally and cancel out, not one guy winning. If intangibles mean so much I'm pumped up by the effort of my teammate not just because he landed the last punch. And in that case there's no momentum as momentum is equal.

 

[NyQuil]

I'd like to see evidence it actually swings momentum other than hockey mythology or your men's league cheering fights. And yes I want to see tangible evidence. Saying "you don't understand it because there's nothing tangible" is like saying "you don't understand God because you don't see him". Until there's evidence it's mythology and superstition. And frankly in theory fights should swing momentum equally and cancel out, not one guy winning. If intangibles mean so much I'm pumped up by the effort of my teammate not just because he landed the last punch. And in that case there's no momentum as momentum is equal.

With the introduction of the instigator rule, enforcers could only really fight each other.

You'd see them chatting at the centre line during warm-ups.

Which made the whole exercise pointless, as is evidenced by their general extinction.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

With the introduction of the instigator rule, enforcers could only really fight each other.

You'd see them chatting at the centre line during warm-ups.

Which made the whole exercise pointless, as is evidenced by their general extinction.

Even though I generally think hockey coaches and management (more coaching) are more behind the times than any other sport I think the other aspect of enforcers' instinction is the fact that the depth of talent is the best it's been and coaches recognize that having an average NHL 4th liner than a player that wouldn't be in the AHL if it wasn't for fighting.

 

[Yepthatsme]

I'd like to see evidence it actually swings momentum other than hockey mythology or your men's league cheering fights. And yes I want to see tangible evidence. Saying "you don't understand it because there's nothing tangible" is like saying "you don't understand God because you don't see him". Until there's evidence it's mythology and superstition. And frankly in theory fights should swing momentum equally and cancel out, not one guy winning. If intangibles mean so much I'm pumped up by the effort of my teammate not just because he landed the last punch. And in that case there's no momentum as momentum is equal.

“Go do research or else I’m going to call it hocus pocus” lol. Watch any bench reaction ever after a big fight. Like any one of them. You can often even hear the players hollering over the TV broadcast. Also is your assertion that watching one of your best friends get beat up has the same emotional impact as watching them win a fight?

I am actually curious since you incorrectly assumed what level of hockey I played, what’s your playing background?

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Interesting that none of the neither is dumb people have commented.

We are smarter than everybody and don't need to prove it with paragraphs

 

[SnowblindNYR]

“Go do research or else I’m going to call it hocus pocus” lol. Watch any bench reaction ever after a big fight. Like any one of them. You can often even hear the players hollering over the TV broadcast. Also is your assertion that watching one of your best friends get beat up has the same emotional impact as watching them win a fight?

I am actually curious since you assumed what level of hockey I played, what’s your playing background?

Honestly, I really don't think it matters what level of hockey you play or anyone plays. Teammates celebrating doesn't equate to momentum. While I do think intangibles are a thing to certain extent like when the Capitals embarrassed the Rangers and clearly wanted it more. Like with Mika Zibanejad looking like he doesn't give a shit or maybe being in his own head for confidence issues. I think psychology is a thing. I don't think two plugs having a staged fight moves the needle in any direction. Staged fighting is acting, it's not even real fighting. I can be convinced the rare fight where players genuinely hate each other and defend their teammate from getting jumped leads to some momentum. Not actors getting together at center ice and fighting for no good reason other than some purposely trying to manufacture fake momentum. That's complete bullshit. It has nothing to do with defending players, it has nothing to do with on ice play. It's (bad) actors pretending to be boxers. And at the end of the day just like with everything in life tangible trumps intangible by a ton. Also, of momentum swings were a real thing in staged fights enforcers wouldn't be nearly extinct. Even dinosaur coaches saw the writing on the wall.

 

[Devilsfan2326]

Do people really not understand the point of staged fighting? It’s trying to create a momentum swing, by bringing your guys into the game and raising their emotions. Players aren’t robots, they have emotions and watching your guy go beat the wheels off your opponent can get them fired up and swing the momentum in their favour.

I’m not defending it at all, and much prefer when fights are spur of the moment reactions, but people saying it does nothing other than the player trying to justify them having a spot in the league are way off. A good portion of stages fights when they were more common were actually the coach asking the player to do it.

Bolded I agree with, but I appreciate that you give a lot of thought to the impact of staged fighting. Creates a nice discussion. I think a worthwhile addition would be examples of some games where staged fighting amplified the emotional state of the match. Like a boring match that became faster paced because of it. I like that you give those guys some credit, but it would help to see their handiwork.

 

[Yepthatsme]

Honestly, I really don't think it matters what level of hockey you play or anyone plays. Teammates celebrating doesn't equate to momentum. While I do think intangibles are a thing to certain extent like when the Capitals embarrassed the Rangers and clearly wanted it more. Like with Mika Zibanejad looking like he doesn't give a shit or maybe being in his own head for confidence issues. I think psychology is a thing. I don't think two plugs having a staged fight moves the needle in any direction. Staged fighting is acting, it's not even real fighting. I can be convinced the rare fight where players genuinely hate each other and defend their teammate from getting jumped leads to some momentum. Not actors getting together at center ice and fighting for no good reason other than some purposely trying to manufacture fake momentum. That's complete bullshit. It has nothing to do with defending players, it has nothing to do with on ice play. It's (bad) actors pretending to be boxers. And at the end of the day just like with everything in life tangible trumps intangible by a ton. Also, of momentum swings were a real thing in staged fights enforcers wouldn't be nearly extinct. Even dinosaur coaches saw the writing on the wall.

…so you didn’t play, and are now trying to tell me that emotions in a game aren’t much of a factor. That’s all I needed to hear, this is no longer a discussion worth having if you think what you can see from Zibanejad through your TV is equivalent to the emotion and momentum a bench has. I’m not going to answer regardless, but a topic for you to think about. What is it when a team has momentum then, because if nots emotion it really has no explanation for existing in hockey.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

…so you didn’t play, and are now trying to tell me that emotions in a game aren’t much of a factor. That’s all I needed to hear, this is no longer a discussion worth having if you think what you can see from Zibanejad through your TV is equivalent to the emotion and momentum a bench has. I’m not going to answer regardless, but a topic for you to think about. What is it when a team has momentum then, because if nots emotion it really has no explanation for existing in hockey.

Your evidence of playing is not evidence at all. And if you were right enforcers wouldn't be nearly extinct. A lot of GMs and coaches played.

 

[Yepthatsme]

Bolded I agree with, but I appreciate that you give a lot of thought to the impact of staged fighting. Creates a nice discussion. I think a worthwhile addition would be examples of some games where staged fighting amplified the emotional state of the match. Like a boring match that became faster paced because of it. I like that you give those guys some credit, but it would help to see their handiwork.

Unfortunately the Venn diagram of people who like to do statistical analysis and who give two thoughts to fighting are just two separate circles. As a Flames fan, I have two anecdotal answers on the season though. Calgarys opening game vs. Vancouver, where the team was playing pissed off after Miller injured a player. Calgary was getting speed bagged on the scoreboard to the tune of 4-1 until Mantha finally got to fight Miller. The team visibly unified around it, and outscored Vancouver 5-1 the rest of the game. It’s not even a point of contention, anyone who saw the game would say the fight changed the course of the game. The other was the Devils-Flames game from yesterday, where after the fight you can see the bench reaction and the guys are fired up.

 

[dirtydanglez]

i love a fight after a clean hit, shows passion and loyalty. i dont really care for staged fights.

 

[Bileur]

This sounds like a take from 1995. But here's the thing other trying to convince someone of a deeply held belief and challenge the world view of it by saying that it's nonsense when it's probably ingrained for decades I will ask this. Both players are fighting and since it's staged there's no instigator and it's mutually agreed to. Wouldn't the momentum swing cancel each other out?

Clearly it’s not the same as an « in the moment » fight, but even staged fights don’t seem to have the reaction you’re suggesting when you look at the benches and the stands.

Not all fights are the same, and I think painting them all with one brush is wrong.

 

[NyQuil]

Unfortunately the Venn diagram of people who like to do statistical analysis and who give two thoughts to fighting are just two separate circles. As a Flames fan, I have two anecdotal answers on the season though. Calgarys opening game vs. Vancouver, where the team was playing pissed off after Miller injured a player. Calgary was getting speed bagged on the scoreboard to the tune of 4-1 until Mantha finally got to fight Miller. The team visibly unified around it, and outscored Vancouver 5-1 the rest of the game. It’s not even a point of contention, anyone who saw the game would say the fight changed the course of the game.

It's not staged fighting if there is actual momentum to shift. That's the whole point of the discussion.

It's not staged if it's in reaction to something happening on the ice.

Your problem is that you don't actually understand what staged fighting is. Staged fighting is when the two enforcers fight each other for no real reason except for the fact that they are the two big guys on both teams.

In your example, there's an injury, a lopsided score and the two guys involved (Miller and Mantha) aren't even enforcers. How is that staged fighting?

Apparently the Venn diagram of people who understand the definition of what staged fighting actually is doesn't include you.

 

[Yepthatsme]

It's not staged fighting if there is actual momentum to shift. That's the whole point of the discussion.

It's not staged if it's in reaction to something happening on the ice.

Your problem is that you don't actually understand what staged fighting is. Staged fighting is when the two enforcers fight each other for no real reason except for the fact that they are the two big guys on both teams.

In your example, there's an injury, a lopsided score and the two guys involved (Miller and Mantha) aren't even enforcers. How is that staged fighting?

Apparently the Venn diagram of people who understand the definition of what staged fighting actually is doesn't include you.

I’m sorry man, but if you think it’s not staged fighting if there is momentum to shift, then I’m not the one here who doesn’t understand it. Like you have the very literal idea in your head, but can’t seem to understand the why. I’ll ask the same question I asked the other guy because I’m curious, what hockey did you play? It’d be interesting to see if there’s a trend here.

 

[NyQuil]

I’m sorry man, but if you think it’s not staged fighting if there is momentum to shift, then I’m not the one here who doesn’t understand it. Like you have the very literal idea in your head, but can’t seem to understand the why. I’ll ask the same question I asked the other guy because I’m curious, what hockey did you play? It’d be interesting to see if there’s a trend here.

What do you think staged fighting is?

 

[Yepthatsme]

What do you think staged fighting is?

Staged fighting is two guys actually discussing dropping the gloves, agreeing, then starting a fight while separated; in contrast to spur of the moment fights. Happens for a myriad of reasons (and none of them is just because they’re the two biggest guys on the team so they have to like you think), like trying to swing momentum for a team, old rivalry between the players or team, a previous play they didn’t like (like the hit almost 15 minutes prior in my example, but it can even be from previous meetings). Can be because a kid is trying to impress his coach, can just be to wake a team up, can be to settle things down ironically enough.

Funny you’re the second person to engage me who doesn’t understand it, and the second person to dodge the “what hockey did you play” question. There may actually be a trend forming. It kinda mirrors that poll a year or two ago that asked if face offs are actually important that was weirdly divicive, when any player, coach, or scout can tell you just how huge they can be.

 

[NyQuil]

Staged fighting is two guys actually discussing dropping the gloves, agreeing, then starting a fight while separated; in contrast to spur of the moment fights. Happens for a myriad of reasons (and none of them is just because they’re the two biggest guys on the team so they have to like you think), like trying to swing momentum for a team, old rivalry between the players or team, a previous play they didn’t like (like the hit almost 15 minutes prior in my example, but it can even be from previous meetings). Can be because a kid is trying to impress his coach, can just be to wake a team up, can be to settle things down ironically enough.

The staged fighting I was referring to is appointment fighting where the fight is arranged regardless of what actually took place on the ice.

Like in this case:

These are not fights that broke out in the natural rising of tensions that can occur during a game.

Staged fights are a sorry spectacle

By dropping their gloves at the opening face-off, the Devils and Rangers had an ugly start to an otherwise clean game. (Jim McIsaac/ZUMAPRESS.com) By Stu

www.si.com

Your Calgary example was the result of tensions during the game. Not two guys getting together during warm-ups and deciding to have a tilt once the puck gets dropped. There is nothing staged about Mantha and Miller facing off. Or Greig and Dach.

There's nothing wrong with fighting to swing momentum, or to avenge a cheap shot. I made that abundantly clear in my Konopka example.

Funny you’re the second person to engage me who doesn’t understand it, and the second person to dodge the “what hockey did you play” question. There may actually be a trend forming.

You spend a lot of time asking people what hockey they played without giving us your own hockeydb reference.

 

[Yepthatsme]

The staged fighting I was referring to is appointment fighting where the fight is arranged regardless of what actually took place on the ice.

Like in this case:

Staged fights are a sorry spectacle

By dropping their gloves at the opening face-off, the Devils and Rangers had an ugly start to an otherwise clean game. (Jim McIsaac/ZUMAPRESS.com) By Stu

www.si.com

Your Calgary example was the result of tensions during the game. Not two guys getting together during warm-ups and deciding to have a tilt once the puck gets dropped.



You spend a lot of time asking people what hockey they played without giving us your own hockeydb reference.

Ok well by your specific definition, you can cross off “because of a hit that game from the list.” Once again though, they still have purposes, which is mind blowing I have to keep saying this after saying I’m not a fan myself.

I really don’t have anything good, played my whole childhood, some junior B-A time then a bit in school. This isn’t meant to be a “who’s better at hockey is right”, I’m just generally curious, because the other guy didn’t really seem to have an understanding of someone who’s played the game so I’m trying to see if this is maybe the obstacle? You’ve avoided the question twice now though which kinda already answered it though.

 

[NyQuil]

Ok well by your specific definition, you can cross off “because of a hit that game from the list.” Once again though, they still have purposes, which is mind blowing I have to keep saying this after saying I’m not a fan myself.

I really don’t have anything special, played my whole childhood, some junior B-A time then a bit in school. This isn’t meant to be a “who’s better at hockey is right”, I’m just generally curious, because the other guy didn’t really seem to have an understanding of someone who’s played the game so I’m trying to see if this is maybe the obstacle? You’ve avoided the question twice now though which kinda already answered it though.

After playing in Canada, I actually played hockey overseas in West Germany if it really matters that much to you.