Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by SnowblindNYR, May 4, 2021.
I rather not look at handegg and boreball.
MLS is not that far behind the NHL. It might not be an issue.
Fighting will forever be a hotly contested subject. It is, was, and will continue to be a penalty, “not allowed”, not allowed any more than hooking, tripping, boarding, etc.
I’ve watched long enough to see the evolution of it...from bench clearers, leaving the bench, line brawls, the vitamin S/coke era enforcers...I’m looking at you Twister and Probert...and so on.
Also read, heard, talked with NHL players ( both fighters and non-fighters ), to know that physical intimidation, with and without fighting, is part of the game and many, many players reap benefits from that intimidation.
That being said I doubt it will ever be officially removed, but then again anything is possible. And, if the league really wanted to get rid of it they could, very easily. Just like they easily eliminated bench clearers and players leaving the bench to fight.
More tv channels, internet, social media exposure / ease of finding sports, free time since the early 20th century, that makes sense.
but did all sports grow at the same rate, or different rates? At whatever rate any sport grew, was consistent over decades or did any/all fluctuate equally or differently etc. There’s tons of potential influences on the growth of sports that can happen simultaneously or not.
plenty of people aren’t into violence, and since fighting is a small portion of hockey rather than a large portion, I would think it’s more likely fans who don’t appreciate fighting would flock to the sport with a decrease in fighting, than the chance that MMA fans or whoever would flock to the sport if there was a moderate increase in fighting
I and I know plenty of people have heard people who’ve not watched it say something along the lines of “oh, that’s the sport they can punch each other?” quite often in a dismissive tone.
People often oversimplify entertainment down to “add more features = attract more people” when it’s often more nuanced than that. The general concepts of skill and violence are very different. That someone is attracted to the sport for one doesn’t mean they’ll appreciate the other and if it’s different enough it might either push them away before they can ever even get into it, or at least annoy them and keep them at distance, not as intense a fan as they might of been. Don’t underestimate how much some people have a distaste for violence
It’s kinda like economics and trade.. maybe it’s less ideal for you to try and produce a bit of everything. Specialize in something or another and maximize your production (or whatever word, I haven’t studied economics in many years lol. You get it, or can quickly google this concept)
people who want both can get both; people who just want the skill can buy in all the way, and people who like both skill and violence, genuinely appreciate goals and checks and all that, can still buy in and also satisfy their “bloodlust” elsewhere too.
Why would you make a counterpoint and not follow through? I thought you were disagreeing with the idea that the changing image of the game, and changes of the game itself might affect who and how many watch
edit also I edited it, should re read I actually hadn’t realized I posted it already so I guess it’s a second post. I really really hate this website on mobile lol. Pop up adds, constant crashes mid-typing etc
right above this post
The NBA had fighting like the NHL does, teams carried enforcers; those days are long gone.
I barely mentioned Wilson and I'm talking about FIGHTING not dirty play only and my experience is that almost all fans that aren't Caps fans, including Islanders and Devils fans have come in support of the Rangers, reading the main boards, and reading our boards. Maybe you're off base. But as I said, this thread is only tangentially related to Wilson. It got me thinking about the broader implications of fighting how it's created a culture of violence and how in it of itself it's a ridiculous sideshow.
The NBA was better back then. More physical and intense.
I never got some people's appetite for hockey fights. You have a couple of guys awkwardly pulling each other's jersey, trying to maintain balance on their skates, more or less haphazardly throwing a couple of clumsy haymakers (maybe some land) none of which you can be sure connected, then they inevitably fall to the ice.
And then some people go, "Probert totally pummeled him!"
I'm like... what? It's like watching a couple of drunks push and shove one another into the line of trashcans.
Why don't you just read this whole stupid thread:
Half the people: The NHL is losing popularity because of fighting
The other half: The NHL is gaining popularity because fighting is going down
Nobody: Anything resembling a fact.
Me: Check Wednesday's NYR-Wash ratings and you'll get your answer.
I'm not talking about your preferences though.
Ok, do you know where you can find Nielsen ratings? I'm assuming you can just google them. I used to work in ad sales but we had systems for it. I'd LOVE to find ratings for Wednsday's game in NY and Washington and compare them to ratings for Monday's. I guarantee you they'll be similar if not identical. 0.1 on Monday and 0.2 on Wednesday is the best bump you'll get.
Enforcers went out in the 70s after fighting carried an automatic suspension in 1977, are you sure you aren't thinking of the 90s as the more physical and intense era?
because the rangers already get plenty of viewers, and because people love hate porn. If it wasn’t Tom Wilson, any other random scrub, and even journalists with tons of followers weren’t tweeting angrily about it and saying shit like he should be arrested, it wouldn’t have been the top trending item for a bit. Seriously, it was right bellow Bill and Melinda gates lol.
You know how once the outrage machine gets going, you can’t stop it. People can’t help themselves
You don’t want there to be a train wreck, but you’ll look
it wasn’t exactly a normal fight at all, or what this threads about and people weren’t admiring it
If the NHL wants to keep fighting as a non suspension than they're going to have to make some of the associated actions with it more seriously penalized. Suspensions for tossing someone to the ice, and punching a non-squared up willing combatant seem like obvious minimal improvements.
The bump will be insignificant if any at all, I guarantee you. Maybe the first 15 minutes of the game and then the non-fans will get bored by the fact that no one will fight and change the channel.
That's kind of my point. All the other fighting forums have disappeared (which is telling) so if anyone is looking for a fighting forum, this is where they'll end up. With that dynamic going on for years now, the Fights forum has dropped to like 1 post a day. And almost every thread is "classic fights" rather than talking about something current.
The culture just isn't there anymore. It was an important part of an older NHL, like ties and guys who chose to play without helmets. That league does not exist in 2021 and we're at a solid 10 years' distance from the last time it even kind of had a few last vestiges remaining.
Personally, I enjoyed fighting during its heyday. I still look at the occasional donneybrook as a part of the game which ought not to be completely eradicated. But I could say the same for baseball, where the occasional fight is still part of the game (and which has a bygone era of bat-fights that nobody wants to return to).
In this league, the idea of just grabbing a guy and dummying him is way out of place. The idea of a staged fight between guys who have 600 PIM and 5 goals between them is way out of place. What happened to Panarin yesterday was outright disgusting. What we expect/hope the Rangers to do in retaliation is idiotic. None of this stuff belongs. The game and culture has simply moved on, and the proportion of people who push back against that violence is evidence of a massive shift in values since 50 or even just 20 years ago.
So since I'm being fair I'll play Devil's advocate and going against my own position. Fighting has been strongly deemphasized in the league the last 10-15 years has there been any correlation with increased viewership? I do think the NHL has an imagine problem and maybe until it's completely eliminated and dirty plays are appropriately dealt with I feel like it'll always be an "old angry white guy" league. And baseball has a similar problem but it seems like they're actually trying to address it even though their fans dwarf the NHL's.
You're all over this thread, spouting all kinds of ideas but none of them are based in any kind of reality or facts. You know why? because you always ask someone to do the work for you. If you did the work, you might find answers you don't like.... so you don't look and just yell your opinions louder.
Bruins-Blues Game 7: 8.7m viewers
Highest rated MLS game in history: 1.6m viewers
The irony of this post...
This truly belongs in the HFBoards Hall of Fame
In 2020 UFC sold for $4 billion dollars. Which is seriously impressive growth over the last 20 years.
Then consider that the 4 most valuable teams in the NHL are worth more than that.
Without wading into the right or wrong of it, hockey almost certainly has a better chance at growth without fighting than it does with.
There's a real undercurrent of people who seem to fear that their masculinity will be affected if they can't watch other people brutalize one another without repercussion from a 'higher authority'.
IMO, it doesn't really matter whether fighting increases viewership or not. That was never a good excuse for it (note that the conversation shifts from "it's part of the game!" to "it's a real moneymaker!") but today it's simply beside the point.
Players who fight routinely are known to suffer severe brain damage because of the mechanism of doing that job. That alone is enough to end it, for the same reason that bare-knuckle brawling is illegal in every other context.
If the ethics of it are somehow not convincing, then the simple fact that it can and will cause the league to get sued out of existence should do the trick.
What fact is "watch what the ratings are going to be on Wednesday" based on? Complete conjecture. I asked you because it was your own damn argument, assuming you knew where to find the information, so there's no reason doing extra work to check to see if YOUR argument is correct. If you knew where you can find ratings for each game I would get the same information as if I found it myself, so that argument makes no sense at all. Also, speaking of facts, I worked in media for almost 6 years, specifically with Nielsen ratings for 2 years, you'll be sorely disappointed where you'll see that the Wednesday game won't have any significant jump in ratings.
Separate names with a comma.