I have never ever heard anyone say "i would watch hockey if there wasn't the occasional fight". Not a single person. I've never even heard the notion mentioned not in jest.
I have heard "The only interesting thing about hockey is fighting, it's the only reason I watch it from time to time" from many, though.
Plus no less than 50 NHL players whose sole job is to fight to try and work the momentum to their favor would more or less lose their jobs if they scrapped fighting.
So no, would be a monumentally horrid idea to get rid of fighting and thankfully I have the utmost confidence that they will never ever actually do it. Would be like ditching tackling in football. Someone might get hurt from it from time to time, but they know the risks before they engage in the sport.
Besides, if your argument for altering the status quo is 'there are some people who avoid the sport because of fighting' then the burdon of proof is on you and your claim.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Jan 20th, 2009 at 04:50 AM
You can play a hockey game without fights. Tackling in football is integral.
If you take out tackling in football then your game-play drastically changes. Players that have the ability to make plays defensively would be all be leveled out to a mediocre level, assuming if they were to remove tackling from football, then it would be something like flag football which requires considerably less skill.
If you remove fights from hockey then it just becomes less entertaining. Which for the most part, is.
Making a great play can also re-energize a team/crowd. I.e. scoring a goal or checking an opponent. Fights are more of a barbaric tradition. It's human nature to gawk at savagery, and that's why it sells.
Personally, I could care less if they remove fighting from the NHL.
Football can be played without tackles, just would be stupid. Just as hockey can be played without fights, would also be stupid.
For a comparison to be valid the two things don't have to be identical, just similar. Fights in hockey serve a strategic purpose and often change the momentum of the game for one side from the other when scoring simply isn't happening. A big hit in football can do something similar, getting the fans into the game moreso than they were before. Thus the comparison is factually valid, whether you like it or not. Take fighting out of the hockey and you take out a key strategic element out of the sport for no logical reason.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Gender: Unspecified Location: Your mom's basement.
a big reason people watch football is for the brutality of it do people cheer more when a defenseman gets a big hit or when he just stands there and does nothing? in hockey, whats the point of having defensemen period when they arent allowed to hit someone and provoke the oposing team
fights arent just endorsed by fans for the entertainment value but like BackFire said, theyre more for getting not only the team into the game more but the crowd. when a crowd is cheering you on, you feel that adrenaline and it makes you wanna play better
Odd that in some sports like Football (soccer) if you do anything a bit violent you get send of for good and banned for a while, and others like Rugby and Ice hockey people beat the crapm out of each other and nothing happens.
Usually for a fight in hockey you get 5 mins and a 10 min misconduct penalty. There's actually less fighting now than there was like 10 years ago, you get penalized more now.
This is the most ridiculous fukin thing i've heard since the banning of victory dances in football but thats another topic because football and it's rules is ridiculous in general. I honestly hope that the inflation of this topic as of late is nothing more than an attempt to bring attention to the game. I'm not even going to justify the suggestion of removing fights from Hockey with an argument.
I will say, however, most of the fights that occur in hockey are mutual in willingness. You will rarely see a fight where one of the combatants are not willing or wanting of a fight. As backfire said, it is a very important strategic element of the game and is more about honor than anything else. It is a release of aggression as well an outlet to gain confidence and momentum. This fukin bullshit just pisses me off and reminds me of our democracy. The old fat men in suits decide everything where the states (players and coaches) should be the one's who decide. Look, if the players said they supported the removal of fighting i would then have to support it. I wouldnt agree with it but i would support it. If you are against Hockey fights you are not a hockey fan and are most likely horrified by any and all physical sports because you are a sissy cuck boy pansy.
Take away fights and you know what you get? An increase in penalties. Penalties is what the sport is trying to avoid. That is one of the reasons they revamped the sport, recently. Jesus christ, i mean the Refs rarely let the players fight anymore as it is. Ten years ago a fight used to drag on until one of the players were done or both players were physically spent and then it was only broken up to avoid injury or rioting.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Last edited by jinXed by JaNx on Jan 21st, 2009 at 04:32 AM
The difference is if you remove fighting in hockey it's still hockey. Whereas if you remove tackling from football it's no longer football.
Fighting is merely permitted in hockey and isn't tolerated in other sports (aside from combat sports, naturally).
I'm not disagreeing that it can be a strategic move but, it's a far comparison to tackling in football.
Why are you restating what I said?
I get the impression that you think I'm for or opposed to the ban.
You don't need fights but, removing them would hurt the sport. If the argument is that without it, the game loses an aspect where as you can use a fight to shift momentum and set up strategies, and you're assuming that I disagree, you'd be wrong. My point is that there are other ways to change momentum. Bringing up valid points on why fights should stay are inconsequential to me, because I don't care.
Backfire stated that fights are the same as tackles in football. And frankly, they're not. One is a necessity the other technically, is not. And you can argue that till the day is long but, as the rules are laid, it's an unwritten rule with fighting in hockey and a written one with tackling in football, and so long as that is the case their is no point in arguing it.
And just to weigh in, I think it's tradition to keep the fights in, because there is strategy to it and because it's expected by the fans. As I've said before, it's a draw. If you remove it, you lose a part of your audience. And because of it's draw, in it's right, it is necessary (although technically it's not). The sport would suffer without it.
You can remove tacking from football, can't you. Flag football, tag football, so on. It's still football. It doesn't become something else. The comparison comes because both are important to the sport and the heritage of it, and both involve people occasionally getting injured. I didn't say they're exactly the same, simply similar in the ways I've mentioned. Tackling is obviously more important to football than fighting is to hockey, fighting is still important, though, and I've yet to hear a single logic based reason as to why it should be removed.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 19th, 2009 11:55 PM
