Mike boone against fighting

[sandysan]

I have a hard believing you like hockey after the comments you've made. There are a lot of people that want to keep fighting in the game but none mocked hockey.
And nobody ever spoke about health benefits.


It's to create awareness and prevent any injuries to the neck and up. It's not because you have a helmet that players cant swing their sticks at it. It's still dangerous.


That's dumb. If people are intentionally swinging their sticks closer to a guy's face because he isn't wearing a cage, then it's unsportsmanlike or even intent to injure.
But were people swinging their sticks more at Lafleur or MacTavish when they were part of the last ones to play without any helmet??



If the guy swings a stick at someone's head, he should be suspended regardless.
Well spearing is just as bad, and you will get suspended. Using your sticks as a means to inflict revenge is punishable, and depending on the severity, even suspendable.
And all of those things already are happening anyways, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The point is some people believe fighting keeps players level headed, but that's just not true. There is no data at all to back this up. Dirty hits still happen, so how can anybody claim they help maintain some peace? It's nothing more than an old belief people cling on to. Maybe they're right, I just don't see it. When I watch older classic games, I see it more, but today?? No way.

However, I've said it a million times. If you remove fighting, you need to fix the disciplinary committee along with it.

No, not based on just me saying it. Based on the data. Heck, based on your eyes.
Did having Parros change anything to the way Toronto played against us?
Did you notice a change in Emelin's game after he got beat down by Chara?? I didn't.
Did you see a change in Gallagher's or PK's game despite being targets and facing tougher teams filled with bigger guys?? I didn't/don't.
Did you see a decrease in dirty hits because you have an enforcer on your team?? I didn't.

So how can anybody claim that it actually is a deterrent? Would things be worse? I don't think so. I think players would play the exact same way because most of the players in this league don't have as a goal to completely wreck and injure you. I don't think MaxPac would suddenly try to decapitate a player or that PK would try to slice some people up. We're not talking about a bunch of brutes that are out to hunt some head here.
There are some that are dirty, like the Otts and Kaletas, but those guys are already running wild and fighting is allowed. They also never changed their game. So, how is it a deterrent?? Nothing proves that it is. We'd be better off having harsher suspensions than fights.

so you pick individual events and use these, you might want to look up what anecdotal evidence means.

And only an idiot would think that fighting is an absolute deterrant, no one has EVER said this. The players believe that it makes them SAFER in the long run, there isnt a player anywhere who thinks that anything can be done to prevent another player from ever getting hurt aside from banning the game completely.

I would love to see this "evidence" of which you speak, because methinks you are confusing evidence and supposition. What you are arguing, unbelievably, is that if my house burns down and the fire department cant stop it, then the fire department is useless and there is no need for it so we should get rid of the fire department.

I'm just wondering if fighting in hockey is the only think you hold to 100% effective as the metric of whether it works or not.

unfreaking beleivable.

 

[Kriss E]

so you pick individual events and use these, you might want to look up what anecdotal evidence means.

And only an idiot would think that fighting is an absolute deterrant, no one has EVER said this. The players believe that it makes them SAFER in the long run, there isnt a player anywhere who thinks that anything can be done to prevent another player from ever getting hurt aside from banning the game completely.

I would love to see this "evidence" of which you speak, because methinks you are confusing evidence and supposition. What you are arguing, unbelievably, is that if my house burns down and the fire department cant stop it, then the fire department is useless and there is no need for it so we should get rid of the fire department.

I'm just wondering if fighting in hockey is the only think you hold to 100% effective as the metric of whether it works or not.

unfreaking beleivable.

See, this isn't the first you've used this ridiculous example, and I had already countered it but I guess you forgot, or maybe it was someone else.

The difference between the firefighters and NHL fighters is that we know for a fact that Firefighters put out fires and save lives. This isn't a speculation, it's a fact.
Do you have any evidence as to how a NHL fighter saves any harm from happening??
Is there any player that has ever said they changed their ways because enforcer one went after enforcer 2, or even them??

And I'm not even talking about safety. I think that's all BS. If you want to make the games safer then there's a lot more things to do before cutting fighting.

What I'm arguing against is the idea that somehow fighting is necessary for the well being of others. You're the one saying that, not me, and you have absolulety 0 proof to back it up.

Just look at our game versus Toronto, do you think they played any different versus us??

Let's stop pretending like fighting is this important piece of the game where everything will collapse if we remove it and it'll turn into a mosh pit on ice. It's freaking ridiculous.
Remove the instigator rule, and yes, I can see PK hesitating a bit if he wants to lay Marchand out because he knows nothing saves him from Chara rushing him and going to town. But that's not the case right now. So stop living in the past and start realizing fighting isn't that big piece of the game anymore.

 

[habsfanatics*]

As opposed to Savard forced to retire? Or Crosby missing how many games?
It's not like the NHL isn't losing stars already for significant time because of head shots.

I disagree that it would water down the play. They believed the same thing in football with hitting from the helmet and it's all BS.

As for Shanny, no idea what happened but he enforced his rules during preseason. But you can't have someone running the league that will take orders from owners. It's an obvious conflict of interest.

And at this point, the NHL may not have a choice after seeing the settlement to players from NFL.

Accidents still happen, should we remove street lights and stop signs? The fact that there were unfortunate injuries to key star players doesn't prove that it wouldn't happen more if things were different.

The fact that injuries happen is a cold hard fact that will never go away. It doesn't prove anything either way. The lawsuit angle doesn't fly with me. There is no fighting in football, players are suing based on injuries that happen regardless of the rules, it's the nature of playing contact sports. The prime objective in football is to tackle the opponent, a play can't end without physical contact. If you want to remove the risk of getting hurt or your loved ones/children getting hurt, enrollment into football is probably not a good idea, however, if you weigh the risks and accept your millions of dollars to play contact sports, you assume the risk.

Injuries are happening in hockey largely from incidental hockey plays. Fighting is close to last on the list of causes for significant injuries. It'd be mighty hard for any attorney to prove injuries were a result of fighting and not the result of the game itself. This is fear mongering at its finest. If someone comes along and proves this and wins significant damages, you'll be right, but I don't think that case can be made at this point.

 

[habsfanatics*]

...and if you take a penality and cost your team the game(see White-Ott) he will be seen as a hero and will try and do it again.

In the old days fighting used to be a very good deterrent, nowadays all that happens is the Marchants Otts and Kaletta's get a Scott to protect them so they can play their chippy bordering on dirty game and not get beat up all the time.

I used to be a fan of fighting, but as players get bigger and we find out more about concussions...I'm more on the side that it has to go. I enjoy a good fight but not seeing some guy kill himself at 40 because he got his brains scrambled being an NHL fighter.

Zero cases of this have actually been proven, Rypien, Boogaard ad plenty of problems prior to becoming NHL fighters. Depression is no more prevalent in fighters than it is in the general population. Suicidal thoughts can happen to anyone, clinical depression is real for many people in all walks of life. I agree that getting hit in the head repeatedly is probably not going to work in their favor, however, I'm a fan of personal choice, and don't believe in protecting people from themselves. No one forced these guys into being NHL enforcers, it's a career path they chose to take.

 

[habsfanatics*]

It's called strict reglementation with proper punishment. Give 20 games worth of suspension with no salary to the goons running around trying to injure people and you'll see a rapid decrease of the practice.

Give what to the non-goons/stars who do this?

Most need to agree that no one cares about the goons health, it's pure bs, no one does, they're better off running around hurting each other than stars doing it to each other. If a few of these guys get hurt, the league, and the fans don't give a ****.

 

[Hoople]

No, not based on just me saying it. Based on the data. Heck, based on your eyes.
Did having Parros change anything to the way Toronto played against us?

Kriss, you are making a false argument because there is no way to dispute your false argument.

There is not a single player on the Leafs that would admit that they changed the way that they played because Montreal had a little more toughness in the opening game.

So its easy to make the claims that you are making.

But based upon our eyes, we can look back to last season when Orr went after Pleks, then Gionta and finally cold-cocked Bourque.

In the first game, Orr did not go after our skill players. He did, however, react to Subban and was willing to go with Subban until Parros stepped in.

Imagine Parros not in the lineup and Orr knocking out Subban. Would you think differently?

 

[habsfanatics*]

The players say it's a deterrant. In the sense that they want a Parros on their team to "protect" them and make sure no one cheap shots them. But ask any player if they are intimidated or have to make any changes to their game because now Montreal has Parros in its lineup, and the answer is absolutely no.

Seriously, poll the entire league. Ask if they're now more afraid of Montreal or if they'll throw fewer hits or be scared on the ice because Montreal has Parros in the lineup. No one will say they are afraid. So if 0% of the players are now more scared of Montreal, I think that answers the question about whether fighting really is a deterrant.

I think it can act as a deterrent, but it can also make the team as whole tougher to paly against, ie, Travis Moen becomes more effective. Moen in game 1 looked like a man possessed, something we didn't see in the previous 48 games, did Parros assist in this, or is pure coincidence, or was this the same moen we've always seen, I don't think you could argue that was the same moen as last year. A better moen is good for the habs imo.

I like the added element even if doesn't necessarily attribute directly to the win column, which we don't know if it does or doesn't one way or the other, moen playing better hockey should be good for a win or two over the year though, and him playing tough should alleviate prust as well perhaps adding another win or two over the course. I don't see a one size fits all approach to roster making and I think intimidation is still very much a factor and something we as a team sorely lacked. I'd be all for another tough guy tbh.

 

[Kriss E]

Accidents still happen, should we remove street lights and stop signs? The fact that there were unfortunate injuries to key star players doesn't prove that it wouldn't happen more if things were different.

The fact that injuries happen is a cold hard fact that will never go away. It doesn't prove anything either way. The lawsuit angle doesn't fly with me. There is no fighting in football, players are suing based on injuries that happen regardless of the rules, it's the nature of playing contact sports. The prime objective in football is to tackle the opponent, a play can't end without physical contact. If you want to remove the risk of getting hurt or your loved ones/children getting hurt, enrollment into football is probably not a good idea, however, if you weigh the risks and accept your millions of dollars to play contact sports, you assume the risk.

Injuries are happening in hockey largely from incidental hockey plays. Fighting is close to last on the list of causes for significant injuries. It'd be mighty hard for any attorney to prove injuries were a result of fighting and not the result of the game itself. This is fear mongering at its finest. If someone comes along and proves this and wins significant damages, you'll be right, but I don't think that case can be made at this point.

Accidents? Sure. But those weren't accidents.

As for the relation with football, pretty sure the NFL thought the players were assuming the risk when they were engaging the game, but that wasn't the point.
The question was more whether or not the league did everything in its power to make the player safer, or as safe as possible. I don't think you can argue that the NHL is when they're allowing two big heavy guys to swing at each other while on skate.

But as I said, I don't really care about the safety issue. I just think fighting has lost its usefulness. So either change the rules and make it useful again, or if they want to get rid of it, so be it. Couldn't care less. I just can't agree with anybody trying to argue that it's a necessity to the game for safety or momentum reasons.

Kriss, you are making a false argument because there is no way to dispute your false argument.

There is not a single player on the Leafs that would admit that they changed the way that they played because Montreal had a little more toughness in the opening game.

So its easy to make the claims that you are making.

But based upon our eyes, we can look back to last season when Orr went after Pleks, then Gionta and finally cold-cocked Bourque.

In the first game, Orr did not go after our skill players. He did, however, react to Subban and was willing to go with Subban until Parros stepped in.

Imagine Parros not in the lineup and Orr knocking out Subban. Would you think differently?

Well the reason why they would say no is probably because they didn't.
Did you notice a difference? In the way they played.

And I think you don't realize the irony of your post. You're saying we need guys like Parros because you have morons like Orr going after Gionta-Plek-Bourque-PK (he also was the one that injured MaxPac last game no?) except that if fighting was banned, Orr wouldn't even be playing in the first place.

You cannot make an argument that fighting is a necessity for the game or safety of players. You just can't. If we were in the 60s, I would totally agree, but we're in 2013. The game has changed.

 

[Kriss E]

I think it can act as a deterrent, but it can also make the team as whole tougher to paly against, ie, Travis Moen becomes more effective. Moen in game 1 looked like a man possessed, something we didn't see in the previous 48 games, did Parros assist in this, or is pure coincidence, or was this the same moen we've always seen, I don't think you could argue that was the same moen as last year. A better moen is good for the habs imo.

I like the added element even if doesn't necessarily attribute directly to the win column, which we don't know if it does or doesn't one way or the other, moen playing better hockey should be good for a win or two over the year though, and him playing tough should alleviate prust as well perhaps adding another win or two over the course. I don't see a one size fits all approach to roster making and I think intimidation is still very much a factor and something we as a team sorely lacked. I'd be all for another tough guy tbh.

For sure you can look at Parros and say, hey that's why Moen played better. If you're trying to reach for arguments to support fighting, you'll likely believe that.
However, if you come back to a neutral position, Moen is only 31, he's looking to bounce back from a bad season where training camp was non-existent, he's on his 2nd year out of 4 from his new deal, he has youngsters that could easily push him off the roster, so I'm guessing that probably has a whole lot more to do with it.

Not to mention, he was having a career year until he got injured with us two seasons ago without anybody enforcing him. Heck, we didn't even have Prust.
So my bet isn't that Parros makes him raise his game up at all. He's been around long enough to realize he's being pressured by youngsters and needs to have a comeback season.

 

[Hoople]

Well the reason why they would say no is probably because they didn't.
Did you notice a difference? In the way they played.

And I think you don't realize the irony of your post. You're saying we need guys like Parros because you have morons like Orr going after Gionta-Plek-Bourque-PK (he also was the one that injured MaxPac last game no?) except that if fighting was banned, Orr wouldn't even be playing in the first place.

You cannot make an argument that fighting is a necessity for the game or safety of players. You just can't. If we were in the 60s, I would totally agree, but we're in 2013. The game has changed.

There is no irony in my post. Fighting has not been banned. Orr is still on the Leafs roster.

The game has changed, but not as much as you are implying. The Atlantic Division has stocked up on fighters. With the bad blood between the Habs and the Leafs/Bruins/Senators, it would be at our peril to not have a player like Parros on the roster.

 

[Kriss E]

There is no irony in my post. Fighting has not been banned. Orr is still on the Leafs roster.

The game has changed, but not as much as you are implying. The Atlantic Division has stocked up on fighters. With the bad blood between the Habs and the Leafs/Bruins/Senators, it would be at our peril to not have a player like Parros on the roster.

You didn't understand.

The debate is whether or not fighting should remain in hockey.

If your argument is that it should because we need protection from guys like Orr, then there is no argument seeing how Orr would not be in the league if fighting wasn't part of it.

Remove fighting, and say goodbye to Orr and all the other goons that the Atlantic division stocked up on.
If you're scared that cheapshots will increase, then raise the suspensions. It's a very simple and logical idea.

 

[habsfanatics*]

For sure you can look at Parros and say, hey that's why Moen played better. If you're trying to reach for arguments to support fighting, you'll likely believe that.
However, if you come back to a neutral position, Moen is only 31, he's looking to bounce back from a bad season where training camp was non-existent, he's on his 2nd year out of 4 from his new deal, he has youngsters that could easily push him off the roster, so I'm guessing that probably has a whole lot more to do with it.

Not to mention, he was having a career year until he got injured with us two seasons ago without anybody enforcing him. Heck, we didn't even have Prust.
So my bet isn't that Parros makes him raise his game up at all. He's been around long enough to realize he's being pressured by youngsters and needs to have a comeback season.

Hey, I have no idea if Parros makes moen better, I openly admitted that it could be any combination of things, but he certainly looked like a different player. Why, we don't know. I don't think these things are nearly as black and white. From my experience playing hockey or any competitive sport, when you have team mates supporting you, you create a better atmosphere. Even if it's mostly psychological, if the players feel their getting a lift, then that is likely to breed confidence and lead to better results whether the impact is true or not.

I prefer standing up to the teams who have them and wouldn't trade Parros for Colby Armstrong, ever.

 

[Kriss E]

Hey, I have no idea if Parros makes moen better, I openly admitted that it could be any combination of things, but he certainly looked like a different player. Why, we don't know. I don't think these things are nearly as black and white. From my experience playing hockey or any competitive sport, when you have team mates supporting you, you create a better atmosphere. Even if it's mostly psychological, if the players feel their getting a lift, then that is likely to breed confidence and lead to better results whether the impact is true or not.

I prefer standing up to the teams who have them and wouldn't trade Parros for Colby Armstrong, ever.

Sure you can believe that. I think it seriously changes nothing. Having not had an enforcer over the past years, I can tell you I see no difference in when we had Murray or Downie. Players stick to their game whether they have fighters on their team.
That's what I see and believe.

What I do agree on though is that I rather have Parros than useless plugs. If you're gonna play someone 5-8 minutes, might as well be an enforcer. You can dress him versus tougher teams and scratch him versus more skilled ones.

 

[Corncob]

But based upon our eyes, we can look back to last season when Orr went after Pleks, then Gionta and finally cold-cocked Bourque.

In the first game, Orr did not go after our skill players. He did, however, react to Subban and was willing to go with Subban until Parros stepped in.

Err, what? Is Subban not a skill player? And Pacioretty?

The only difference is that last season you would have been getting all emotional about Orr daring to hit Pacioretty and saying that it proved we needed a heavyweight in the team.

 

[Hockey Joe]

How did u fall in love with hockey ...ppens all the time. Hockey fights are boring.

 

[Hoople]

Err, what? Is Subban not a skill player? And Pacioretty?

The only difference is that last season you would have been getting all emotional about Orr daring to hit Pacioretty and saying that it proved we needed a heavyweight in the team.

He checked Pacioretty into the boards. That is not going after him.

If you read my post, I said that he "reacted" to Subban. And that was after Subban put him in a headlock. He was not targeting Subban.

Nice try though.

 

[DAChampion]

I prefer the fighting in hockey to the passive-agressive BS in soccer, and I say that as a soccer fan.

 

[Kriss E]

He checked Pacioretty into the boards. That is not going after him.

If you read my post, I said that he "reacted" to Subban. And that was after Subban put him in a headlock. He was not targeting Subban.

Nice try though.

Funny the way you keep trying to find excuses.

Listen, nobody here is arguing that Parros isn't a welcomed addition here. The debate is fighting vs no fighting. If there is a ban on fighting, Orr isn't even on the Toronto roster.

 

[Corncob]

He checked Pacioretty into the boards. That is not going after him.

If you read my post, I said that he "reacted" to Subban. And that was after Subban put him in a headlock. He was not targeting Subban.

Nice try though.

So last year when you were using Subban getting checked into the boards by Thornton as a justification for getting an enforcer, that was what?

Not to mention the 'OMG poor little Gallagher got pushed over in a scrum in front of the net' justifications. Happened at least two or three times against Toronto with Parros dressed.

The problem for your argument, as I pointed out at the time, is that when teams have an enforcer that stuff still happens.

 

[Istvan]

He was being sarcastic.
That's what this smiley '''' means.

My mistake. I "missed" the smiley face.

 

[izzy75]

that when teams have an enforcer that stuff still happens.

Jesus - there should be a requirement that only people who have played competitive hockey are allowed to have an opinion in this matter.

The reason to have a guy who breaks skulls is that it makes everyone on the team play bigger, meaner, and with more courage and resolve.

 

[No fan fiction]

He checked Pacioretty into the boards. That is not going after him.

If you read my post, I said that he "reacted" to Subban. And that was after Subban put him in a headlock. He was not targeting Subban.

Nice try though.

Please. Did you even watch the game. You are one of the worst complainers that the Canadiens need a goon over the last I don't know how long. So, they got a goon and a couple tough guys. We won the fights. The game -- you know, the part that counts in the standings -- came down to two (2) things: scoring and goaltending.

In the first case, we had 37 shots on goal and only got 3 goals. In the second case, Carey Price is yet to bring his A-game to play against Toronto--ever. The latter is a bigger concern to me, but the former is an ongoing problem.

Iirc, they had 50 shots--50 freaking shots--in the game against Ottawa during which Eller was hurt. Sorry, but 50 shots--50 freaking shots in 60 minutes--is an incredible effort and shows exemplary hard work and determination. In fact, it shows nothing of the sort of folding from "intimidation" that the goon squad posters claim is going on.

Fact is the NFL has nearly 100 major collision involving at least a dozen players every Sunday. They regularly eject, fine, and suspend for anything even remotely hinting of cheap shot violence. Suh was docked hundreds of thousands for a block from behind a couple weeks ago. Do not say they don't punish or penalize stars. Also, the level of contact, the severity of contact, the frequency of contact in the NFL is far greater--far, far greater. Yes, they only play 16 games, but there is nothing in the NHL that compares to the overall violence of two lines hitting 100 times in 60 minutes. The opportunity for cheap shots in the scrums is incredible. It used to be (60s, 70s) awful. They started fining, ejecting, suspending and it has come way down. The difference here is empowered officials--NHL refs are terrified to make calls--and a league-wide will to rid itself of guys being carried off unnecessarily. Say what you want about frequency, but Parros being carried off was unnecessary.

Also, stop talking about deterrence. I can go back to Maurice Richard/Hal Laycoe, Teeder Kennedy/Gordie Howe if you like, but there is no deterrence. Sidney Crosby? Marc Savard? Patrice Bergeron? Erik Karlsson? All surrounded by goons. Deterrence, really? Pat Boutette kneed Guy Lafleur with Nilan, Robinson, et al around. Sure Nilan pounded him, pulled his hair, took extra penalties and what happened?

Let's see: a) You can't un-ring a bell. That is a sylogism intended to indicate that an event cannot be undone no matter what the action taken. In other words, pounding Orr for hitting Pacioretty does nothing to fix Pacioretty's wrist. Likewise, b) deterrence is a myth. In fact, the evidence indicates that goons only increase the likelihood of players being targetted b/c, as in the case of Nilan going after Boutette (and I really recall one time he went after Keith Crowder for hitting Svoboda with the effect of getting a double minor--hurray), it results in penalties. Hello Kevin Maguire going after Yzerman with Probert ON THE ICE and Kocur occupying his usual spot where the door man sits.

Oh, and as for evidence, there are plenty of qualitative and quantitative studies done by sports sociologists--including interviews--that negate the retribution/deterrence nexus. In fact, some of the best evidence was done by a particular researcher who did her grad work in the field whilst she was married to a member of the Leafs during the heyday of the Clark/Probert era rivalry of Leafs/Red Wings.

 

[Corncob]

Jesus - there should be a requirement that only people who have played competitive hockey are allowed to have an opinion in this matter.

The reason to have a guy who breaks skulls is that it makes everyone on the team play bigger, meaner, and with more courage and resolve.

Tell it to SouthernHab, he was the one making the argument.