Oh man. Let's begin.
So one of your two arguments for why fighting is problematic for marketing hockey is that many people find fighting integral to hockey, but that the league doesn't look "serious" because of it.
This is ridiculous. Many people currently that watch hockey like fighting and big hits. As you even point out. These things are a boon for marketing hockey.
You're kind of doing the same thing that that other guy did. Throw in something that is true that is irrelevant to this thread and mix it in with fighting to fortify your argument. I'm not sure what big hits have anything to do with anything. If I brought them up it was mostly to say that we shouldn't conflate "physical play" and "fighting" and I defended hits and checking. I'm sure many people like fighting but I posit that that's mostly the older generation. This a younger board, has fans of fighting of course but every poll I've ever seen on the issue has people overwhelmingly saying they'll watch the same amount if fighting was treated like it was in other sports. And sure you can say that they're die hards, but who are these casual fans watching games hoping for a 15% chance of a fight (that's a stat I found in 2018-19, 15% of games had fights, since you want evidence:
'The new normal': Why fighting in the NHL has dropped to historic lows What kind of evidence do you want beyond that? Here's an article that has evidence that people prefer the skill over fighting. The central point is that fighting isn't going away from the minor leagues which I can agree with. But in the NHL fans prefer skill period:
Sorry, NHL fans: fighting is here to stay
In the end this is my opinion, I'm not writing a PhD dissertation on hockey fighting, nor do I work for Harris or Ipsos. That said my opinion beyond that article is that fighting makes the league look like a joke to enough people. I might not have a study to confirm this but since when has that been a standard to post on this board? And where exactly is your evidence about anything that you've stated?
You've equated fighting in hockey with a person who says "silly things" to prove it means they're not taken seriously. This isn't an argument. Is this what you think marketing is? Saying silly things is obviously silly, but fighting in hockey is not obviously unpopular.
Maybe it wasn't the greatest analogy. The example I'd give is third parties in the US how they have quirky candidates that no one takes seriously and don't know what Aleppo is. So maybe not quite saying "silly things" but fighting is a side show that doesn't exist in any other sport and makes the league look like a joke. Oh and once again I did not write a PhD dissertation on that, it's my OPINION. Since you need evidence show me evidence about this great popularity of hockey fighting in 2021.
This is another assumption on your part without any evidence. There are plenty of players who fight regularly or even infrequently but would never be considered dirty.
I never claimed otherwise. However, MY OPINION is that fighting contributes to a culture of violence in hockey that spills over to dirty play. As I've mentioned just like any culture or ideology ends up quite often going into the extreme. But no I don't have a PhD dissertation on this. I'm still waiting on any evidence from your side about anything.
Where dirty plays are being overlooked, that is the issue. Trying to throw fighting in as the reason the DoPS didn't give Wilson proper discipline is disingenuous and incoherent.
Basically responded to above.
This is your entire argument - without zero evidence or reason supporting it, just assumptions. This could have been the entire post.
"And, in summary, I have provided no evidence or logic, but feel very strongly that fighting needs to go"
Many hockey fans feel fighting is integral to the sport. That's not going to change with any new generation or demographic.
See the article I shared and see repeated polls on HF. People might think it's integral to the sport but the data shows that they prefer the skill. And being integral to the sport doesn't mean that these people will go away if it disappears. The die hards will stay (see repeated HF polls) and the casual fans already have an 85% chance of not catching a game with a fight in it, so they likely won't watch games just for that. And finally, I used "part of its core identity" as a pejorative. Because it makes the sport look bush league to many people that reduce it to fighting. I will say that since fighting has gone down there are probably fewer people like that think that way now.
I've tried not to "flame" but I think you've not really provided any sound reason that fighting is limiting the NHL's marketability.
You're fine, you didn't flame but you didn't make one compelling argument just a lot of demands for evidence on a hockey message board without providing any yourself. Show me the evidence that fighting is as popular as you say and would drive away fans if it did away with it. I can make demands too.
