Was Scott Stevens a dirty hitter

[Hobnobs]

It was a clean body check. I am not sure how else to categorize it or how I can debate something that was clean as dirty. Revisionism is making it a dirty hit. And people are throwing in "intent to injure" too.

Are you still talking about the Kozlov hit? Cuz in that case

And no I dont think the Kozlov hit is dirty Im mainly talking about other hits like Stevens and his much lesser counterparts dished out.

Which player has gotten hit by Stevens that was my favorite?

 

[MadArcand]

Of course he could control how he played. It's the "deliberately injure" nonsense that I take issue with.

So just how many of his hits on lesser players in unimportant situations resulted in serious injuries?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So just how many of his hits on lesser players in unimportant situations resulted in serious injuries?

I believe I asked earlier in the thread (or at least meant to) - how many of his hits on any players resulted in serious injuries? Shane Willis and Eric Lindros are the only two I can think of, and Lindros was already damaged goods so to speak. Was there an otherwise healthy player other than Shane Willis who was majorly injured on a Scott Stevens open ice hit?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I believe I asked earlier in the thread (or at least meant to) - how many of his hits on any players resulted in serious injuries? Shane Willis and Eric Lindros are the only two I can think of, and Lindros was already damaged goods so to speak. Was there an otherwise healthy player other than Shane Willis who was majorly injured on a Scott Stevens open ice hit?

Kariya and Francis obviously were.

Concussions just weren't taken as seriously at the time.

 

[Hobnobs]

Kariya and Francis obviously were.

Concussions just weren't taken as seriously at the time.

Langkow, King, Errey and Recchi too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Kariya and Francis obviously were.

Concussions just weren't taken as seriously at the time.

So the "logic" then is that Stevens deliberately injured players by giving them things that weren't considered serious injuries at the time.

 

[BraveCanadian]

So the "logic" then is that Stevens deliberately injured players by giving them things that weren't considered serious injuries at the time.

Whether or not he injured them badly enough to end their career or *only* gave them a concussion has nothing to do with whether or not he was attempting to injure them.

In my opinion, and that is all it is because we can't prove either way, Stevens was attempting to injure other players with those big hits.

Almost all his well known hits are clearly to the head and his shoulder zeroes in right for their head as he approaches and then he blasts through them. On some of them he is even springing up from bent knees or even jumping up to make certain he gets the head.

IMO He was a head hunter on those hits specifically, even if he was clean the majority of the time. He knew that, even if he didn't injure a player by your definition, a guy with a concussion wasn't going to be playing as well as he was before getting rocked on the chin.

Obviously you and others in the thread disagree but whatever.. I'd rather err on the side of caution and not have people suffering brain damage the rest of their lives from playing a game.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Whether or not he injured them badly enough to end their career or *only* gave them a concussion has nothing to do with whether or not he was attempting to injure them.

In my opinion, and that is all it is because we can't prove either way, Stevens was attempting to injure other players with those big hits.

Almost all his well known hits are clearly to the head and his shoulder zeroes in right for their head as he approaches and then he blasts through them. On some of them he is even springing up from bent knees or even jumping up to make certain he gets the head.

IMO He was a head hunter on those hits specifically, even if he was clean the majority of the time. He knew that, even if he didn't injure a player by your definition, a guy with a concussion wasn't going to be playing as well as he was before getting rocked on the chin.

Obviously you and others in the thread disagree but whatever.. I'd rather err on the side of caution and not have people suffering brain damage the rest of their lives from playing a game.

I'm going to ignore the nonsense about how he "zeroed in on the head" other than to say I disagree.

Focusing on the bold - you are applying 2014 standards to the 1990s. Again, nobody knew about the long term effects of "getting your bell rung" back then, so even if Stevens was intentionally "ringing players bells" (which he very well might have been), to say it was intentionally causing serious injury is absurd.

And it doesn't escape me that it seems to be only fans of teams that were owned by Stevens in the playoffs who seem to be complaining still

 

[Hobnobs]

I'm going to ignore the nonsense about how he "zeroed in on the head" other than to say I disagree.

Focusing on the bold - you are applying 2014 standards to the 1990s. Again, nobody knew about the long term effects of "getting your bell rung" back then, so even if Stevens was intentionally "ringing players bells" (which he very well might have been), to say it was intentionally causing serious injury is absurd.

And it doesn't except me that it seems to be only fans of teams that were owned by Stevens in the playoffs who seem to be complaining still

Yea, ppl thought everyone would be fine and dandy after "getting their bell rung". I played sports in the 90s everyone knew about head trauma. Its not like medical science was pioneered after 2006.

And yes he intentionally tried to injure players by hitting them in the head, which we even by 90s standards knew could lead to serious problems. Boxers dementia has been know for a long time. What they didnt know were some other diagnoses.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm going to ignore the nonsense about how he "zeroed in on the head" other than to say I disagree.

Focusing on the bold - you are applying 2014 standards to the 1990s. Again, nobody knew about the long term effects of "getting your bell rung" back then, so even if Stevens was intentionally "ringing players bells" (which he very well might have been), to say it was intentionally causing serious injury is absurd.

I am not debating whether or not the checks were legal. The NHL has always been terrible about protecting their players. Even with the newer standards they still make head-scratching-worthy calls all the time. By the standards of the time they were obviously ok since I don't think he was penalized on them. My issue has always been him obviously (to me) targeting the head.

However, everyone knew the short and long term effects of getting nailed in the head in the 90s. Don't be silly now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yea, ppl thought everyone would be fine and dandy after "getting their bell rung". I played sports in the 90s everyone knew about head trauma. Its not like medical science was pioneered after 2006.

And yet everyone (fans, announcers) cheered for big hits. Well, everyone except fans of the other team. Some of whom still seem to be a bit sore.

And yes he intentionally tried to injure players by hitting them in the head, which we even by 90s standards knew could lead to serious problems.

With your ability to get inside a player's head and figure out his intentions, you should have a lucrative career ahead of you in criminal trials. Seriously though, it's pretty ridiculous to claim that a player who went out of his way to do everything by the book was intentionally injuring people. Especially considering how upset he was after realizing the damage he had done to Lindros.

If you wanted to call Stevens reckless, perhaps you'd have a case, but the "intentional" bit is laughable.

Boxers dementia has been know for a long time. What they didnt know were some other diagnoses.

Yes, from getting punched thousands of times in the head, not hit once.

 

[Barnum]

Yea, ppl thought everyone would be fine and dandy after "getting their bell rung". I played sports in the 90s everyone knew about head trauma. Its not like medical science was pioneered after 2006.

And yes he intentionally tried to injure players by hitting them in the head, which we even by 90s standards knew could lead to serious problems. Boxers dementia has been know for a long time. What they didnt know were some other diagnoses.

So now you know what was going through his mind at the time of the hit. It's that statement that has me going. You should use those mind reading powers for truth and justice instead of rewriting hockey history.

It's so cliche to say what I am about to say, I regret it and I know later I will think that it was stupid. But here it goes: hockey is not for you, it's a tough sport, it was meant to be played tough. No one wants an injury and I do not think there are many players (if any) that intentionally try to ruin other players for life.

I don't know when you started watching but you would have fainted if you watched the 70s.

I was a smallish player, and got cracked hard into the boards by Roenick around 16 years old, that was it, I was never the same player again. You can't play fancy pants hockey when there are players out there that will hit you for doing it. My game completely changed, I played more heads up, and smarter, and stayed aware of what I was doing on the ice. I became a better player because of it.

 

[Hobnobs]

And yet everyone (fans, announcers) cheered for big hits. Well, everyone except fans of the other team. Some of whom still seem to be a bit sore.

Why would I be sore? I say the same thing about Kronwall and what team do I cheer for again?

With your ability to get inside a player's head and figure out his intentions, you should have a lucrative career ahead of you in criminal trials. Seriously though, it's pretty ridiculous to claim that a player who went out of his way to do everything by the book was intentionally injuring people. Especially considering how upset he was after realizing the damage he had done to Lindros.

If you wanted to call Stevens reckless, perhaps you'd have a case, but the "intentional" bit is laughable.

If I go for the head, Im intentionally trying to injure you. Players knows what they do on the ice. Sometimes accidents happens yes but you sure as hell can avoid driving your shoulder into opposing players head.

Yes, from getting punched thousands of times in the head, not hit once.

If you are seriously denying that people in the 90s didnt know about head trauma then this conversation should be over. I mean Stevens himself suffered from a delayed concussion in 94.

Snip

Ill answer anything you have to say when you answer my question.

 

[Barnum]

Ill answer anything you have to say when you answer my question.

I don't even know what you are talking about. I can't read minds.

 

[Hobnobs]

I don't even know what you are talking about. I can't read minds.

Asked it twice in the thread now. You dont have to be a mind reader.

 

[Barnum]

Asked it twice in the thread now. You dont have to be a mind reader.

Favorite player?

Wasn't talking about you, it was a general statement. You seriously held up discussion over a dumb thing like that, that I said. Thanks......

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

 

[Hobnobs]

Favorite player?

Wasn't talking about you, it was a general statement. You seriously held up discussion over a dumb thing like that, that I said. Thanks......

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

So now that youve been caught with ad honomin argument it suddenly became a generalization. lol

and for your 70s comment. I havehundreds games dating from the 50s, 60s and 70s (rather its my gramps) and Ive been watching as many as I can. Just because you loved the goon hockey of the age of shallow talent doesnt mean thats real manly hockey. Watch some O6 games. I think that would be good for you. Thats real hockey.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you are seriously denying that people in the 90s didnt know about head trauma then this conversation should be over. I mean Stevens himself suffered from a delayed concussion in 94.
.

I'm not interested with arguing semantics with you; it's clear to anyone who has been following the sport since the 90s (or sports in general) that concussions are taken far more seriously today - back then, taking out a player's knees was considered far more serious.

 

[Hobnobs]

I'm not interested with arguing semantics with you; it's clear to anyone who has been following the sport since the 90s (or sports in general) that concussions are taken far more seriously today - back then, taking out a player's knees was considered far more serious.

So what if something was seen as more serious? That doesnt dismiss that players knew that head injuries were a serious thing now does it?

 

[Killion]

So what if something was seen as more serious? That doesnt dismiss that players knew that head injuries were a serious thing now does it?

No. But whats' your point Hobnobs? High or low, dirties dirty. And in pro, junior, even elite amateur be aware or your done.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Knee Injuries

I'm not interested with arguing semantics with you; it's clear to anyone who has been following the sport since the 90s (or sports in general) that concussions are taken far more seriously today - back then, taking out a player's knees was considered far more serious.

Well into the seventies, even early eighties. Knee injuries were serious threats to end careers.

Players did bounce back from concussions - 1950 Gordie Howe being the prime example. Though the medical world did not appreciate the long term effects of concussions.

 

[Barnum]

So now that youve been caught with ad honomin argument it suddenly became a generalization. lol

and for your 70s comment. I havehundreds games dating from the 50s, 60s and 70s (rather its my gramps) and Ive been watching as many as I can. Just because you loved the goon hockey of the age of shallow talent doesnt mean thats real manly hockey. Watch some O6 games. I think that would be good for you. Thats real hockey.

When do you think I started watching? Ummmm? Or can you read my mind too?

See, what you don't understand is, it's not what you think, it's what you are saying. You can read minds, you can tell us what Stevens's intent was and carry on like it's a fact. I have a problem with that, as should anyone that deals in fact based arguments. You have zero shred of truth or fact in what you say. It's all revisionism.

 

[Barnum]

Well into the seventies, even early eighties. Knee injuries were serious threats to end careers.

Players did bounce back from concussions - 1950 Gordie Howe being the prime example. Though the medical world did not appreciate the long term effects of concussions.

Mostly, because we didn't fully understand long term effects and to some degree will still don't.

I honestly think, all the armor the NHL is forcing players to use, is a big factor. Now with mandatory face shields, everyone is a walking tank. Get away from these skill-less speedsters, quick shifts, take off some of the armor, bring back obstructionism and bring in players that have more talent than just skating fast and bench pressing 400 LBS. Concussions will come way down.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Mostly, because we didn't fully understand long term effects and to some degree will still don't.

I honestly think, all the armor the NHL is forcing players to use, is a big factor. Now with mandatory face shields, everyone is a walking tank. Get away from these skill-less speedsters, quick shifts, take off some of the armor, bring back obstructionism and bring in players that have more talent than just skating fast and bench pressing 400 LBS. Concussions will come way down.

Got to agree: That hard-shell body-armor everyone uses today in the name of safety seems to me to be a bigger hazard to safety that what it's meant to protect against. It's been turned into a weapon.

 

[Killion]

..It's been turned into a weapon.

Wow. Who'd a ever thought equipment designed to protect wouldve been weaponized amongst the yoots of society huh? Frikin Red Kelly, demands that helmets be mandatory & standardized despite the fact that while he was breathlessly exclaiming such in Parliament circa early 60's did not wear helmet as much as he did. Took it off as a matter of convenience. On Defence, Red Kelly in a Helmet; as a Centre? No helmet. Cute trick & why Brainzoid?... but say as I speak, not as I do. Hypocrite. And in demanding it, got his way. Now look what its wrought. Nice jawb Red.