Fighting is NOT a necessary part of hockey...

[CJV123]

XploD-
You understand there are fans of hockey outside Canada, and you also understand what a "censored smaple" is, right- namely people who don't follow a sport because of, say, fighting then do not get called a "fan" of it.

 

[XploD]

XploD-
You understand there are fans of hockey outside Canada, and you also understand what a "censored smaple" is, right- namely people who don't follow a sport because of, say, fighting then do not get called a "fan" of it.

Excuses, excuses. I backed my **** up with numbers, now please go find a poll that says the majority of hockey fans think the NHL should ban fighting.

You know what, to make it easier, just link me any fighting clip where the audience doesn't stand up and cheer.

 

[CJV123]

I apologize if this has already been linked to:

http://www.phillysportsforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56705

 

[XploD]

I apologize if this has already been linked to:

http://www.phillysportsforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56705

Did you even read the article? If anything it's even more evidence for my argument.

If the NHL bosses actually delude themselves on the topic, it leads to a spate of new teams in places they should never be and, sometimes, to rule changes designed to lure new fans and, at the same time, drive the old fans crazy.

...

There isn't much fighting in international hockey, for a very good reason. If you are whistled for fighting in the NHL, you get five minutes. In the international game, you go to the locker room and stay there.

Now, to a lot of people this seems reasonable. To the NHL and a large percentage of its fans, it would be intolerable. Darn it. They like the fights. If that makes all of them seem like troglodytes to outsiders, so what?

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Did you even read the article? If anything it's even more evidence for my argument.

Agreed, all this proves is that the NHL will not be able to expand as successfully with fighting part of the game, which I don't believe. It won't expand much more because it isn't American tradition, they have the sports that they will watch. Hockey has always been there and simply doesn't appeal to a large group of Americans, fighting or no fighting.

 

[Dirk316]

I think hockey is actually losing more fans due to the decline of rivalries and fights. Last season i took a couple friends to a hockey game (non NHL fans btw) it was a 2-1 game going into the 3rd with no fights, only a few hits and a decent amount of scoring chances. They were bored out of their minds and wanted to leave after the 2nd period.
I can almost guarantee had that game been intense and there had been some bad blood theres no way they would have left and a good chance they would have become fans.
Lets face it rivalries between teams sold the game and we havent had a real one since Detroit/Colorado. The NHL will kill off Pitts/Boston as well
Staged fights are pretty bad as well and it is because of the rules and style of reffing we have right now. You have to almost beg someone to drop the gloves

 

[XploD]

I think hockey is actually losing more fans due to the decline of rivalries and fights. Last season i took a couple friends to a hockey game (non NHL fans btw) it was a 2-1 game going into the 3rd with no fights, only a few hits and a decent amount of scoring chances. They were bored out of their minds and wanted to leave after the 2nd period.
I can almost guarantee had that game been intense and there had been some bad blood theres no way they would have left and a good chance they would have become fans.
Lets face it rivalries between teams sold the game and we havent had a real one since Detroit/Colorado. The NHL will kill off Pitts/Boston as well
Staged fights are pretty bad as well and it is because of the rules and style of reffing we have right now. You have to almost beg someone to drop the gloves

Well put.

 

[Henry1515]

Do you play hockey or have you ever played competitive hockey?

 

[CJV123]

Did you even read the article? If anything it's even more evidence for my argument.

I'm going to try this again. When you talk about fans of the current NHL, you are selecting in your sample for those who are not turned off by the fighting. Hockey is much larger than the NHL. Hockey is a sport played competitively by 6-year olds. The reason the NHL is a fringe league outside Canada is the discordant introduction of brawling as a part of the sport. It would be like requiring women's soccer players to play topless- cretins would then also love women's soccer, but the sport would have cemented itself as an absurd fringe.

I'm talking here to people who think it is "wussie" for parents to make their kids wear a helmet while riding a bike. Trust me, we have almost nothing in common.

 

[XploD]

I'm going to try this again. When you talk about fans of the current NHL, you are selecting in your sample for those who are not turned off by the fighting. Hockey is much larger than the NHL. Hockey is a sport played competitively by 6-year olds. The reason the NHL is a fringe league outside Canada is the discordant introduction of brawling as a part of the sport. It would be like requiring women's soccer players to play topless- cretins would then also love women's soccer, but the sport would have cemented itself as an absurd fringe.

I'm talking here to people who think it is "wussie" for parents to make their kids wear a helmet while riding a bike. Trust me, we have almost nothing in common.

Then I'm going to ask you to read the article I posted again. They first asked if people were avid fans/occasional fans/non-fans then they asked if they would support banning fighting or not. Among the avid fans 76% are opposed to the idea of eliminating fighting. Among the occasional fans 52% were against the idea.

24% of the respondents described themselves as avid fans and 28% as occasional fans.

How exactly am I in my sample selecting the fans that are not turned off by fighting?

So now we've established that the fans wanting to eliminate fights in hockey are in the minority. Which is exactly what you said isn't true. Now please would you back that up with numbers?

The GM's and owners know this, they see the crowds reaction to fighting every game. That's why the NHL will have a hard time eliminating fighting.

 

[TheFinalWord]

I'm going to try this again. When you talk about fans of the current NHL, you are selecting in your sample for those who are not turned off by the fighting. Hockey is much larger than the NHL. Hockey is a sport played competitively by 6-year olds. The reason the NHL is a fringe league outside Canada is the discordant introduction of brawling as a part of the sport. It would be like requiring women's soccer players to play topless- cretins would then also love women's soccer, but the sport would have cemented itself as an absurd fringe.

Is it a fringe sport in the mostly northern states? Not really. It may not be as popular as football and baseball and in some markets basketball, but do people in Ma, or Pa, or Mn or Mi not like hockey? Is it fringe to them? And if not, then what is so different from them and fans in Ga, Fl, and the south? Could it be that those people in the south have never skated on ice, have never held a puck, have never played the game and haven't grown up with teams in their area? Why is hockey popular in Finland, Sweden, Russia and not so much in Greece, Turkey and Iran?

Non-fans of the sport can go ahead and say they oppose fighting, but you're assuming they would watch if there was no fighting. That's an awfully big assumption.

At the end of the day, however, I could care less if it is a fringe sport in the US. If the NHL had to contract and lose a few teams in non-traditional markets that aren't supporting it, then oh well...life goes on. I happen to enjoy the NHL as it is now...at least in terms of the fundamental parts of the game and I would prefer it be left that way. If American fans (and I'm referring to those who aren't actually avid fans) want to watch something different, then have at it. Leave my game alone.

 

[c-carp]

Fighting is a part of hockey plain and simple this whole thread is ********.

 

[CaptBrannigan]

I'm not sure what you're basing that on. But I do know that the NHLPA has been trying to get rid of it for years. At the end of the lockout Mike Gartner (iirc a member of the NHLPA board at the time) gave an interview about the the newly formed rules committee. In that interview he mentioned why they wanted to get rid of it and had been trying to so for awhile.

It is my understanding that the players pushed for its advent to help curtail the lawlessness on the game. I would definitely agree that the prevailing attitude among them has changed but I'm just as sure they also initiated it. I'll go back and try to find some of the literature/discussions I read on it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The reason the NHL is a fringe league outside Canada is the discordant introduction of brawling as a part of the sport.

I have seen no evidence of this from my corner. If anything, my experience in "new" (to the NHL, anyway) hockey markets has been just the opposite. Fighting clearly defines the emotion of the game, identifies the role-players and distinguishes them from the softies, and usually boosts the level of passion and excitement in the building.

The demographics of the NHL fanbase prove you wrong in the assumption that fighting attracts bloodthirsty Neanderthals. Just the opposite, in fact -- NHL fans are younger, better-educated, and wealthier than their counterparts in the NFL, NBA and MLB.

I agree that fighting is not a fundamental part of hockey. Neither are body checks, offsides, or indoor arenas. This comes down to a matter of opinion regarding what is entertaining, and as far as I know the majority opinion comes clearly down on the side of having a reasonable, managed amount of fighting in the game.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

I'm talking here to people who think it is "wussie" for parents to make their kids wear a helmet while riding a bike. Trust me, we have almost nothing in common.

I recommend gloves for kids while handling Play Doh, hearing protection when they're listening to "Wheels On The Bus", and no birthday candles on cakes because their hair may catch on fire. You can never be too safe. Anyone not doing these things are bad, bad parents...not smart and caring like me.

 

[c-carp]

MoreOrr, how many times have you said you were going to leave this thread, starting by the OP?

I was wondering that myself. I think the answer is clear now. All he wanted to do with this thread was come into an area that is set aside to discuss fighting and start as much **** as he could.

The sad thing is it worked. All of us who like fights should exit this thread. I am going to do so.

 

[NJDEVILS17*]

You have to think that fighting brings more fans in than it turn off. I figure most males ages 15-30 probably enjoy hockey fights and general violence. I haven't heard any of my male friends in that age group be turned off from the sport just because they saw a fight.

People tend to like rivalries and fights like Dirk said. My friend who doesn't follow hockey much got free tickets to Rangers-Avalanche last year and there were a number of fights and scrums and mini brawls. He loved it and now he became more interested in the sport.

 

[XploD]

You have to think that fighting brings more fans in than it turn off. I figure most males ages 15-30 probably enjoy hockey fights and general violence. I haven't heard any of my male friends in that age group be turned off from the sport just because they saw a fight.

People tend to like rivalries and fights like Dirk said. My friend who doesn't follow hockey much got free tickets to Rangers-Avalanche last year and there were a number of fights and scrums and mini brawls. He loved it and now he became more interested in the sport.

Yeah, it's too bad the NHL's main targeted audience lately has shifted to women, age 30-50, with 2 gay sons.

And yet people are wondering why the NHL is getting bad TV-ratings in the US.


Not that I think it would be a good idea but I bet you that the NHL would get a lot better TV-ratings by increasing the brutality level x10 than decreasing it by the same amount. Not to mention how many less fans they'd lose by doing the same.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Simply because several idiots make the statement that those who oppose fighting are a "minority" of hockey fans does not make it true.

The NHL is a business. It is selling entertainment.

If the majority of hockey fans opposed fighting completely then it would not make business sense to permit fighting without a very high penalty. It would be like a TV station broadcasting shows it knows the viewers don't like.

The entertainment/sports industry gives people what they want to see, for the most part. If the majority of ticket buying NHL fans did not want to see fighting....and fighting threatened to make them stop buying tickets...you would see heavey suspensions for fights in an attempt to rid the game of it.

I don't see empty buildings, I don't see fans getting up and leaving during fights...

If the majority opposed it the league would remove it for business reasons. Since that hasn't and isn't going to happen...it is a safe assumption that the majority of people aren't opposed to fighting in hockey, so from a business point of view it makes sense to leave it as is.

 

[MoreOrr]

The NHL is a business. It is selling entertainment.

If the majority of hockey fans opposed fighting completely then it would not make business sense to permit fighting without a very high penalty. It would be like a TV station broadcasting shows it knows the viewers don't like.

The entertainment/sports industry gives people what they want to see, for the most part. If the majority of ticket buying NHL fans did not want to see fighting....and fighting threatened to make them stop buying tickets...you would see heavey suspensions for fights in an attempt to rid the game of it.

I don't see empty buildings, I don't see fans getting up and leaving during fights...

If the majority opposed it the league would remove it for business reasons. Since that hasn't and isn't going to happen...it is a safe assumption that the majority of people aren't opposed to fighting in hockey, so from a business point of view it makes sense to leave it as is.

I almost totally agree with the general idea of your post. Where I differ is in the perspective that I see the NHL as gradually moving away from what had been the 'old time' fighting and brawling as being a regular element in the game. Gradually the NHL has been expanding the interest in hockey and discovering that many people truly can be attracted to the sport even without the fighting sideshows. Of course, many or even a majority of established fans still like and want the fights, but there may well be a believe within the hockey ranks that those established fans will stay as fans even if the fighting is gradually reduced to a minimum.

It's always been unfortunate that this sport has ever believed that it required fighting sideshows in order to have a loyal fanbase. And what seems unfortunate now is that the League may be moving away from one form of sideshow but has been introducing other types of sideshows such as the Shootout. I cannot understand why this sport apparently has such an inferiority complex and those in charge feel that it needs these sideshows just to survive. Other sports don't need this stuff, and pure hockey is better than all of them.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I I cannot understand why this sport apparently has such an inferiority complex and those in charge feel that it needs these sideshows just to survive.

Did you notice which game got the most press since the Olympic break? Hint: it was played last night in Boston.

I'm willing to bet that more mainstream sports fans remember McCarty/Lemieux than can tell you who won the Stanley Cup last year.

The feeling that fighting is necessary to survive, is borne out by the reality that it is sensationalized by the mainstream press. Not saying it's good or right, but that is a reality.

 

[MoreOrr]

Did you notice which game got the most press since the Olympic break? Hint: it was played last night in Boston.

I'm willing to bet that more mainstream sports fans remember McCarty/Lemieux than can tell you who won the Stanley Cup last year.

The feeling that fighting is necessary to survive, is borne out by the reality that it is sensationalized by the mainstream press. Not saying it's good or right, but that is a reality.

It's sensationalized by the press because for almost all of the NHL's history it had been known for that type thing. Tyson biting opponents ears became something sensationalized by the press as well, but that didn't mean that boxing got a good image from it as a result. It's almost the definition of a sideshow, something to draw even greater numbers of people to see what might happen. They're not necessarily all watching with the integrity of the sport in mind. Many of them couldn't care less about the integrity of the sport, it's just momentary entertainment for them.

 

[Jacksonbobson]

If you need any more proof at how wrong you are, just look at Cooke and Thornton's interviews after last nights game and just because other sports league work without fighting dosen't mean NHL can or will.
Lets look at MMA for example, its the fastest growing sport in the world, why can't NHL do the same? if there is really that much hate towards the NHL for fighting why not towards MMA? Why was boxing so popular? I don't buy people saying that fans are staying away from hockey because of the fighting.

 

[MoreOrr]

If you need any more proof at how wrong you are, just look at Cooke and Thornton's interviews after last nights game and just because other sports league work without fighting dosen't mean NHL can or will.
Lets look at MMA for example, its the fastest growing sport in the world, why can't NHL do the same? if there is really that much hate towards the NHL for fighting why not towards MMA? Why was boxing so popular? I don't buy people saying that fans are staying away from hockey because of the fighting.

To XploD, I can try to eventually abandon this thread, but some of the arguments offered up by some people just beg to be criticized...

Comparing the MMA and boxing to hockey is simply nonsensical. If people are attracted to the MMA and boxing it's precisely because those sports are centrally focused on fighting. I said myself earlier in this thread that I used to be a boxing fan, and only abandoned the sport because of all the scandals surrounding it and the lack of appealing personalities as it used to have. I've got absolutely nothing against "fighting sports" as such, I simply don't categorize hockey as a sport that's about fighting, not in any way.

And I've never once said that people "hate" hockey because of the fighting. I've said that many don't respect it as a team sport on the same level as football, basketball, baseball, or soccer because hockey appears to condone fighting within a sport which is not specifically about fighting.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I almost totally agree with the general idea of your post. Where I differ is in the perspective that I see the NHL as gradually moving away from what had been the 'old time' fighting and brawling as being a regular element in the game. Gradually the NHL has been expanding the interest in hockey and discovering that many people truly can be attracted to the sport even without the fighting sideshows. Of course, many or even a majority of established fans still like and want the fights, but there may well be a believe within the hockey ranks that those established fans will stay as fans even if the fighting is gradually reduced to a minimum.

It has been reduced to a minimum...that is where we are at right now. Gone are the days of bench clearing brawls. The league has been trying to, I believe, find a middle ground that keeps the aspect in the game for sports related reasons and also keeps it in the game enough for business related reasons. The NHL doesn't want to alienate the few fans that don't like fighting...but they also don't want to remove fighting for, as I said, the sport reason and because of the majority of fans that do enjoy the odd fight. So, what they have done is made fighting occur less often and reduced the scale of the fights. Even line brawls are rare now.
If you are arguing the NHL should minimize fighting in the sport....you should stop, because they already have.

It's always been unfortunate that this sport has ever believed that it required fighting sideshows in order to have a loyal fanbase. And what seems unfortunate now is that the League may be moving away from one form of sideshow but has been introducing other types of sideshows such as the Shootout. I cannot understand why this sport apparently has such an inferiority complex and those in charge feel that it needs these sideshows just to survive. Other sports don't need this stuff, and pure hockey is better than all of them.

I don't think anyone believes it is a required "sideshow" to win fans. It's always happened in hockey....it happens in every sport. There are reasons why it happens more often in hockey than other sports. Let's face it...if you can have bench clearing brawls in baseball....you should expect fights to occur in hockey far far far more frequently.
I agree about the shootout...it is a sideshow and isn't/wasn't necessary.

Let me ask you this...if the "staged fights" between the typical "goons" didn't ever happen....but there ended up being more spur of the moment fights...is that better? I'd think it would be. I don't like the typical Laraque vs. Boogard stuff....I do like the Iginla, Tucker, Phaneuf, Burrows, etc. fights.

Darcy Tucker might be the best example of the fights that should be happening in the NHL. He plays with lots of emotion and gets angry. Very rarely have I seen him participate in a "staged fight". Watching non-fighters fight is always far more entertaining anyway. If Rick Nash dropped the gloves with Jonathan Toews it would be all the talk of hockey for several days....if Carcillo fights Orr...it probably won't get talked about at all.

If the staged fights were removed....I'd be fine if there were 8 spontaneous fights a game. The "tough guys" are what lends to the argument of this being a sideshow and serving no real purpose. I don't think anyone...correction...very few people....have a problem with sticking up for your teammate or dropping the gloves in lieu of swinging your stick, throwing an elbow, spearing, etc.

So...I got a bit carried away...I'll ask it again. If the staged fights (Neil vs. Orr) were removed but the spontaneous fights between "non-fighters" (Iginla, Tucker, Richards, etc.) increased....would that be better in your opinion?