BruinsBtn
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 22,080
- 13,546
Stupid point to make, if Panarin got injured the ratings would be low.
We'll see who is stupid when the ratings are in.
Stupid point to make, if Panarin got injured the ratings would be low.
An enforcer occupies Tom Wilson. Kind of like Tom Wilson playing another Tom Wilson would. Two can play that game. Even if the other Tom Wilson has half the talent. The deterrent is that whatever you do, you get back double. And have a convincing character who is capable of it. If you get ejected body slamming Panarin, your team mates are free game. It really doesn't matter if it's Tom Wilson or one of his team mates at that point. So you kind of involve him in the decision of either a) fight this other less-talented Tom Wilson, b) have this other Tom Wilson do to your teammates what you do to his, c) keep cool and just play hockey.You think Tom Wilson is afraid that someone fights him? He's a big dude and fights plenty. This seems like fantasy to me. There were more dirty players when fighting was more prevalent.
More fights means a better product.Not really, we see players do dirty stuff and avoid fights anyway pretty regularly
didn’t dirty shit happen in the past anyway? They just fought after so okay you “answered for it”.. then it happens again, fight again... I feel like that just means more fights and not much else. It’s a really romanticized idea
The idea that people who say they don’t watch or like hockey because of fighting are going to turn into rabid fans if the NHL ever removes fighting is laughable at best.MMA is probably the fastest growing sport for young people today. And you people want to grow hockey by removing fighting?
Lol.
Purely subjective.More fights means a better product.
Have you played hockey? It's most likely the most frustrating sport to play out of all sports. There has to be some outlet for that frustration at the highest level.Fighting has been around in hockey forever and it's an also ran sport. And if you can't tell the difference between side shows in a sport and sport actually centered around fighting I don't know what to say. Boxing and MMA are sports where fighting IS the sport. Much different from it being a side show. And if someone watches hockey due to the fighting because they like MMA fighting then they're probably watching a couple of games a year. It must be boring hating goals but watching just in case someone drops the gloves once every 5 games.
An enforcer occupies Tom Wilson. Kind of like Tom Wilson playing another Tom Wilson would. Two can play that game. Even if the other Tom Wilson has half the talent. The deterrent is that whatever you do, you get back double. And have a convincing character who is capable of it. If you get ejected body slamming Panarin, your team mates are free game. It really doesn't matter if it's Tom Wilson or one of his team mates at that point. So you kind of involve him in the decision of either a) fight this other less-talented Tom Wilson, b) have this other Tom Wilson do to your teammates what you do to his, c) keep cool and just play hockey.
Purely subjective.
fighting has continually decreased the last decades, and the sport has grown. Not proof that fighting necessarily held the sport back but it is proof the fighting wasnt the main draw by any stretch, losing fighting likely hasn’t pissed off more fans than it attracted(/potential fans it didn’t push away)
Have you played hockey? It's most likely the most frustrating sport to play out of all sports. There has to be some outlet for that frustration at the highest level.
Who said anything about turning rabid? I'm talking about people losing interest in a sport that is already starting to look like floorball more and more for every year.The idea that people who say they don’t watch or like hockey because of fighting are going to turn into rabid fans if the NHL ever removes fighting is laughable at best.
Footy is the biggest sport in the world and will likely be for the next 100 years. No fights.MMA is probably the fastest growing sport for young people today. And you people want to grow hockey by removing fighting?
Lol.
Based on what? Genuinely asking, I haven’t studied people’s behaviorThe idea that people who say they don’t watch or like hockey because of fighting are going to turn into rabid fans if the NHL ever removes fighting is laughable at best.
I was agreeing with you, rabid fans doesn’t mean literally rabid. Hardcore fans.Who said anything about turning rabid? I'm talking about people losing interest in a sport that is already starting to look like floorball more and more for every year.
Have you played hockey? It's most likely the most frustrating sport to play out of all sports. There has to be some outlet for that frustration at the highest level.
And we hav seen it forever. This didn't just coincide with the instigator tule.Not really, we see players do dirty stuff and avoid fights anyway pretty regularly
didn’t dirty shit happen in the past anyway? They just fought after so okay you “answered for it”.. then it happens again, fight again... I feel like that just means more fights and not much else. It’s a really romanticized idea
The quality of the fights is so low and often the another one doesn’t even have a will to go, which makes it an assault. Pointless and dangerous stuff people haven’t even practiced to do, can lead to unnecessary injuries only.More fights means a better product.
Every sport is frustrating if you stink at it.Have you played hockey? It's most likely the most frustrating sport to play out of all sports. There has to be some outlet for that frustration at the highest level.
More tv channels, internet, social media exposure / ease of finding sports, free time since the early 20th century, that makes sense.Virtually every sport in the world has seen an enormous period of secular growth. We're in the era of sport-watching.
Who said anything about turning rabid? I'm talking about people losing interest in a sport that is already starting to look like floorball more and more for every year.
Rap battle. People LOVE rap and it'll get their frustration out.
We'll see who is stupid when the ratings are in.
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.
And extremely low scoring. Let's see how popular hockey is when there's no fighting, no hits and the majority of the games end 1-0 or 1-2. Especially in North America.Footy is the biggest sport in the world and will likely be for the next 100 years. No fights.