The Great Fight Debate thread

[Tbrady12]

Top hits leaders for NHL forwards, penalty minutes on all of these guys are extremely low, almost all except Lucic are below 1 minute per game who is also -8. Shows just how much fighting has left the game. The teams aren't any more successful with bruisers, Vegas has the top two physical forwards in the league by hits, they are 7th in the Pacific right now.

Carrier - Vegas- 21 GP-98 Hits -10 PIMS -2 7th in the Pacific -725,000 / 3G 1A
Reaves- Vegas- 21 GP- 82 Hit - 16 PIMS +2 7th in Pacific- 2,725,000 / 4 G 1A
Paquette- Tampa- 20 Gp-71 Hits - 21 PIMS -2 1st in East 1,000,000 / 3G 1A
Lucic- Edomton-21 GP-64 Hits - 30 PIMS -8 6th in Pacific 6,000,000 / 1G 4A
Foligno- Minn- 20GP-64 Hits - 21 PIMS 0 2nd in Central 2,875,000/ 1G 3A
Ferland- Carolina- 20Gp-64 Hits - 13 PIMS +5 6th in Metro 1,750,000 / 10G 4A
Wagner- Boston 18GP-57 Hits -6 PIMS -2 4th in East 1,250,000/ 1G 1A

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

Gotta love the great fight debate!

What really bugs me about the debate, is those who equate physical play with fighting. To me, they're 2 different things.

And I've come to grips with the fact that anyone who even hints at the fact that fighting is on the decline, clearly yearns for the day when all players are wrapped in pillows and bubble-wrap.

As far as fighting goes, I think it's ridiculous when a player goes after a guy for throwing a clean hit.

But, I would have loved to see someone punch the crap out of Raksa after he hurt Bergy, or Polak after he suckered Krug.

But, I have no illusions that it would prevent anyone from doing something in the future. It would be me speaking emotionally, not logically.

Logically this team lacks secondary scoring, and if we're talking physicality, it lacks intensity with fore-checking and finishing their checks in general. I've been saying this for many years.

 

[Dr Hook]

Logically this team lacks secondary scoring, and if we're talking physicality, it lacks intensity with fore-checking and finishing their checks in general. I've been saying this for many years.

This is exactly where I am with the team as well. I don't care about fighting that much and never have. I am not closed to the possibility that there is a role for the "enforcer" in the game, but I am indifferent as to whether the Bruins employ one. I also don't believe that the Bruins are a soft team, but you hit the nail right on the head. It is intensity, energy, forechecking pressure, grinding. This is how TB killed us in the playoffs. Some might call it physicality or toughness, and if is this what we mean, then yeah, the team needs more of it. I think it exists in the group- but it isn't consistent.

 

[Chief Nine]

Gotta love the great fight debate!

What really bugs me about the debate, is those who equate physical play with fighting. To me, they're 2 different things.

And I've come to grips with the fact that anyone who even hints at the fact that fighting is on the decline, clearly yearns for the day when all players are wrapped in pillows and bubble-wrap.

As far as fighting goes, I think it's ridiculous when a player goes after a guy for throwing a clean hit.

But, I would have loved to see someone punch the crap out of Raksa after he hurt Bergy, or Polak after he suckered Krug.

But, I have no illusions that it would prevent anyone from doing something in the future. It would be me speaking emotionally, not logically.

Logically this team lacks secondary scoring, and if we're talking physicality, it lacks intensity with fore-checking and finishing their checks in general. I've been saying this for many years.

I agree with your first, fourth, fifth and sixth points.

I don't understand point #2 though. The fact is whether we like it or not fighting is on the decline. So how can you equate someone stating a known fact with a desire to see players wrapped in pillows and bubble wrap? Those too, as you pointed out in point #1 are two different things.

As for point #3 - I have no issue with a guy going after what we see on TV as a clean hit if they think it wasn't on the ice. They don't have the luxury of seeing it as we do. If a guy thinks in that split second that a teammate was cheap shotted and it needs an answer in their mind, I'm fine with it.

 

[Dr Hook]

I don't understand point #2 though. The fact is whether we like it or not fighting is on the decline. So how can you equate someone stating a known fact with a desire to see players wrapped in pillows and bubble wrap? Those too, as you pointed out in point #1 are two different things.

He can speak for himself, but I took it as meaning that if you suggest that, then someone in here will equate that with you wanting a baby-poo soft NHL.

 

[Chief Nine]

This is exactly where I am with the team as well. I don't care about fighting that much and never have. I am not closed to the possibility that there is a role for the "enforcer" in the game, but I am indifferent as to whether the Bruins employ one. I also don't believe that the Bruins are a soft team, but you hit the nail right on the head. It is intensity, energy, forechecking pressure, grinding. This is how TB killed us in the playoffs. Some might call it physicality or toughness, and if is this what we mean, then yeah, the team needs more of it. I think it exists in the group- but it isn't consistent.

I know a lot of posters here don't follow the NBA but former Boston Celtic Jae Crowder said this about the current Boston Celtics and it applies to the Bruins

Bulpett: Jae Crowder can see Celtics missing the grit

Ironically, the article refers to grit, but what they mean is diving for loose balls, playing tough D, pretty much the basketball version of grinding

From the article:

“Obviously they have a lot of offensive players that can really score the ball. But you have to have guys that do their dirty work. Marcus can’t do it all by himself,” he said of former teammate and still friend Marcus Smart. “You’ve all got to buy into it, I feel like. And that’s one of the problems they’re going through right now.”

“When you’ve got so many guys that can score the ball, you really don’t want to get down and defend,” he said. “You really don’t want to get down and dive for balls. You really don’t want to fight through screens every play.
“But championship teams do that. Look at the Warriors. They have guys that can do that. They have guys that want to do that. They understand their roles, and they do it at a high level.”

 

[Chief Nine]

He can speak for himself, but I took it as meaning that if you suggest that, then someone in here will equate that with you wanting a baby-poo soft NHL.

Ah ok, that makes sense when you look at it from that angle! That right there to me is a big issue with this whole discussion, the drawing the line in the sand with absolutes is ridiculous

 

[Glove Malfunction]

For me, the biggest reason guys run around without fear of retribution is not the reduction in the number of tough guys/goons/fighters/enforcers (take your pick on wording) is the implementation of the instigator penalty which now prevents tough guys (or anyone for that matter) from making a guy pay for a dirty of cheap hit. I don't have any data to back it up, but I believe that bad hits have increased since the instigator was introduced, since guys don't have to fear getting their face smashed in. Get rid of the instigator and I think things would normalize.

 

[LSCII]

You wouldn't have to wonder if you read my posts - I used Junior B as a somewhat arbitrary threshold for the point I was making.

Because you don't agree that it's valid doesn't make it any less so - if someone can only apply an intellectual view to their stance, that's all well and good - but yeah, if you've dressed on a club where the element we're discussing is actively employed, and you feel and hear its impact in real time, it's a different lens. Sorry, it just is.

I'm sorry, but these guys are all professionals at the highest level. By the pure fact that they've made it this far in their playing careers, I'd have to say they're all pretty tough and not afraid of most of the things they're going to see on the ice. So a team dressing a fighter doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything.

Do you think Tom Wilson gives a flying f*** who the other team has on it's roster before he throws a cheap shot? What about Raffi Torres? You think he's lining someone up for a blind side head shot only to peel off because Shawn Thornton is on the bench? You think Brad Marchand gives a shit that the other team has a known tough guy before he low bridges a guy?

Point is, those guys will do whatever they want whenever they want and their track records show that. So what does an enforcer really prevent? Some of the Spezzas of the world throwing a marginal hit every once in a while? Well yeah, but they weren't the problem. It's the perpetual offenders that are the issue with cheap shots, and you and I both know those guys won't stop just because because of who the other team dresses. Your junior B level experience aside, of course.

 

[LSCII]

For me, the biggest reason guys run around without fear of retribution is not the reduction in the number of tough guys/goons/fighters/enforcers (take your pick on wording) is the implementation of the instigator penalty which now prevents tough guys (or anyone for that matter) from making a guy pay for a dirty of cheap hit. I don't have any data to back it up, but I believe that bad hits have increased since the instigator was introduced, since guys don't have to fear getting their face smashed in. Get rid of the instigator and I think things would normalize.

Bingo, we got bingo here!! This is a far bigger deterrent than any player.

 

[KrejciMVP]

Coaches like Claude know exactly where the Bruins are headed and they are celebrating. Expecting teams to come in a completely demoralize these new Bruins especially with no chara. Might be the only way to come to our senses though. How can you not instruct your players to finish every check

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Coaches like Claude know exactly where the Bruins are headed and they are celebrating. Expecting teams to come in a completely demoralize these new Bruins especially with no chara. Might be the only way to come to our senses though. How can you not instruct your players to finish every check

Is that because coaches weren't telling players to finish checks before?

 

[LouJersey]

Coaches like Claude know exactly where the Bruins are headed and they are celebrating. Expecting teams to come in a completely demoralize these new Bruins especially with no chara. Might be the only way to come to our senses though. How can you not instruct your players to finish every check

Getting back on defense is far more important to todays coaches than finishing your checks. Everyone peels off these days.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Coaches like Claude know exactly where the Bruins are headed and they are celebrating. Expecting teams to come in a completely demoralize these new Bruins especially with no chara. Might be the only way to come to our senses though. How can you not instruct your players to finish every check

Just when I thought there was nothing more to be brought to the table...

The hottest of hot takes.

 

[Sheppy]

Again, not asking for a fighter in specific. Just want some size and physicality up front is all. Someone who will hold guys accountable, not be afraid to get his nose dirty and be a hammer instead of a nail. That's all. I don't get why that's so hard for people to understand.

Not asking for a Trevor Gillies, Asking for a guy who can slot into a 3rd line, and maybe move up on some occasions a la Tom Wilson. Are those players hard to find? Yeah, probably. Impossible? No.

 

[NeelyDan]

I'm sorry, but these guys are all professionals at the highest level. By the pure fact that they've made it this far in their playing careers, I'd have to say they're all pretty tough and not afraid of most of the things they're going to see on the ice. So a team dressing a fighter doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything.

Do you think Tom Wilson gives a flying **** who the other team has on it's roster before he throws a cheap shot? What about Raffi Torres? You think he's lining someone up for a blind side head shot only to peel off because Shawn Thornton is on the bench? You think Brad Marchand gives a **** that the other team has a known tough guy before he low bridges a guy?

Point is, those guys will do whatever they want whenever they want and their track records show that. So what does an enforcer really prevent? Some of the Spezzas of the world throwing a marginal hit every once in a while? Well yeah, but they weren't the problem. It's the perpetual offenders that are the issue with cheap shots, and you and I both know those guys won't stop just because because of who the other team dresses. Your junior B level experience aside, of course.

That was a lot of asterisks. Unlikely you’d have used so many if there were a known enforcer on the boards.

 

[LouJersey]

47 suspensions in 13-14

29 suspensions in 17-18

Also with the Savard, thing, people forget Cooke wasn't even suspended. Different times indeed

 

[LouJersey]

Coaches like Claude know exactly where the Bruins are headed and they are celebrating. Expecting teams to come in a completely demoralize these new Bruins especially with no chara. Might be the only way to come to our senses though. How can you not instruct your players to finish every check

Claude will be the first to bench you when you don't get back on defense, especially when out of position trying to hit someone.

 

[BNHL]

Claude will be the first to bench you when you don't get back on defense, especially when out of position trying to hit someone.

Must have learned that from Larry Robinson who always preached against following through on many hits.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

He can speak for himself, but I took it as meaning that if you suggest that, then someone in here will equate that with you wanting a baby-poo soft NHL.

That's precisely what I meant. Trying to inject a bit of levity, but I forgot to add a sarcasm thingy!

 

[NeelyDan]

Anyway, I’m at a point of diminishing return in this thread and am not convinced everyone involved is actually interested in a discussion - ironically I’ve seen the same sentiment expressed from the “other side”.

I’ve watched the Bruins and hockey in general for over thirty years. I played up until tier two junior A and the only reason I was able to was I could fight. Now, mind you, I scored 88 goals in my final season to pair with 398 minutes in penalties, but that was more a reflection of them, not me

Humble brag aside, it’s a brand of hockey I enjoyed playing and have always enjoyed watching. To me, hockey is best served with a healthy dose of hate, and that hate is nearly gone if not completely gone. I miss it.

I don’t miss staged fights, the Peter Worrell’s of the world were an abomination. But I dearly miss putting the fear of god(s) into opposing teams. I dearly miss the 2011 Dallas and Montreal season defining games and more importantly the character those teams had to even enable those responses. That’s not solved through a “goon”, which is why it’s laughable when someone summarily dismisses my stance that way.

Hell, now, it’s not even solved by way of team makeup at all because the rest of the league has gone the way of video game hockey that relatively speaking is void of that hate I mentioned.

I’m looking only to maintain some semblance of what the game once was, and what my beloved team were once kings of.

It’s heartbreaking to me to see them having to resort to guys like Bergeron and Marchand - who, in isolation a la Bergy Malkin can be game changing - but as your general solution is pitiful.

Enjoy the rinse and repeat in this thread. Time to wave the white flag.

 

[Chief Nine]

For me, the biggest reason guys run around without fear of retribution is not the reduction in the number of tough guys/goons/fighters/enforcers (take your pick on wording) is the implementation of the instigator penalty which now prevents tough guys (or anyone for that matter) from making a guy pay for a dirty of cheap hit. I don't have any data to back it up, but I believe that bad hits have increased since the instigator was introduced, since guys don't have to fear getting their face smashed in. Get rid of the instigator and I think things would normalize.

I made this point last night too

 

[Chief Nine]

That's precisely what I meant. Trying to inject a bit of levity, but I forgot to add a sarcasm thingy!

Yeah sorry @roll4lines ! In this thread you have to read carefully and I was guilty on that one!

 

[Dr Hook]

Anyway, I’m at a point of diminishing return in this thread and am not convinced everyone involved is actually interested in a discussion - ironically I’ve seen the same sentiment expressed from the “other side”.

Enjoy the rinse and repeat in this thread. Time to wave the white flag.

I think the problem really is that there isn't a meaningful discussion to be had at this point. I think most everyone in this thread would agree that the Bruins could use more energy, grit, physicality, whatever, throughout the lineup whether that comes from existing personnel or needs to be brought in. The fighting issue is pretty much over. The league has steadily diminished its role to the point where it doesn't look like the "good old days" are ever coming back. When I first started watching hockey in the 70s (and played a bit too in the 80s at a low, crap level) it was in so many ways a completely different sport. We now have helmets, face shields, instigator penalties, linesmen and refs breaking guys up often before they get started, etc. It was the league and its leadership that wanted to change the image of the sport to make more money. It is what it is now. All we seem to get for the most part is the staged fights because that is what the league has decided to keep (for now) as part of a nod to the old days of donnybrooks, line brawls, 300 PIM guys etc. It's cheesy and it sucks.

For a number of years I was a close follower of the Central Hockey League which attracted rowdy crowds in large part because of the fights. It was a lot like the old WHL where every team carried at least two good brawlers and several more who could throw. The problem was that it limited the appeal of the sport in markets that didn't grow up with the game as part of sporting or community life. That league folded and before it did, had teams shifting around all the time. I knew people who wouldn't take their kids because of the crowds and because of the violence that was normal in the games. It had some really good hockey too, but that was the kind of league the NHL no longer wanted to be. Anyway, for whatever it is worth, fighting is not really up for much debate any more as a significant part of hockey. In another generation, maybe less, I expect it will be gone entirely.

What is left is people in threads like this arguing over whether it is a useful thing or not, and arguing in circles when it really doesn't matter because it's almost a done and over with thing. It would be better for us that want to talk meaningful hockey to just go around on whether we need a tougher team or not, or need to be more physical or heavy, rather than whether we need someone that can fight and go after another guy with his knuckles.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Anyway, I’m at a point of diminishing return in this thread and am not convinced everyone involved is actually interested in a discussion - ironically I’ve seen the same sentiment expressed from the “other side”.

I’ve watched the Bruins and hockey in general for over thirty years. I played up until tier two junior A and the only reason I was able to was I could fight. Now, mind you, I scored 88 goals in my final season to pair with 398 minutes in penalties, but that was more a reflection of them, not me

Humble brag aside, it’s a brand of hockey I enjoyed playing and have always enjoyed watching. To me, hockey is best served with a healthy dose of hate, and that hate is nearly gone if not completely gone. I miss it.

I don’t miss staged fights, the Peter Worrell’s of the world were an abomination. But I dearly miss putting the fear of god(s) into opposing teams. I dearly miss the 2011 Dallas and Montreal season defining games and more importantly the character those teams had to even enable those responses. That’s not solved through a “goon”, which is why it’s laughable when someone summarily dismisses my stance that way.

Hell, now, it’s not even solved by way of team makeup at all because the rest of the league has gone the way of video game hockey that relatively speaking is void of that hate I mentioned.

I’m looking only to maintain some semblance of what the game once was, and what my beloved team were once kings of.

It’s heartbreaking to me to see them having to resort to guys like Bergeron and Marchand - who, in isolation a la Bergy Malkin can be game changing - but as your general solution is pitiful.

Enjoy the rinse and repeat in this thread. Time to wave the white flag.

I don’t think people summarily dismissed your stance because it revolved around your theory about goons. I think it was dismissed because you were implying that you playing Junior A hockey X amount of years ago when times were different somehow made you more qualified to expound on the subject than other people?

The whole “team toughness” thing and it being about an attitude or mentality and not because of goons was discussed awhile back in this thread (before you showed up).