The Great Fight Debate thread

[Sheppy]

Not really. I answered your question.... You asked who is calling for goons. I showed you.

It’s not even from this season, Jesus Christ.

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

It’s not even from this season, Jesus Christ.

It was last season. THE f***ING HORROR!!!

 

[Dr Quincy]

Vegas isn’t the playoffs because they don’t really have any high end talent. Ryan Reaves isn’t the reason they’re not in a playoff spot.

Would you agree that the garden isn’t a tough place to play these days? Sure doesn’t seem like it.

I never said it was his fault. I'm saying "Soft team at top of standings shows that toughness is not needed if the team is good, Tough team that is middle of pack shows that while teams might be afraid of being stomped, they aren't afraid of actually playing the game against them".

The team is bad right now because of injuries and because the players they counted on being adequate 2nd and 3rd line players- whether that is secondary scoring, checking, physicality, defense or whatever.... have been bad.

Hope guys get healthy.
Hope these guys start scoring.
Add another scorer.

Absent those things adding toughness does nothing to make this team appreciably better.

 

[Sheppy]

It was last season. THE ****ING HORROR!!!

Well, I mean it’s not exactly relevant to today’s team, and it’s just odd that you keep bringing it up in this thread where no one has said it. That’s all.

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

Well, I mean it’s not exactly relevant to today’s team, and it’s just odd that you keep bringing it up in this thread where no one has said it. That’s all.

Except it has been said in the recent past. I don't know... A season ago doesn't really seem like a long time to me. Especially when the pining was for the same players; Peluso/Gazdic.

 

[Sheppy]

I never said it was his fault. I'm saying "Soft team at top of standings shows that toughness is not needed if the team is good, Tough team that is middle of pack shows that while teams might be afraid of being stomped, they aren't afraid of actually playing the game against them".

The team is bad right now because of injuries and because the players they counted on being adequate 2nd and 3rd line players- whether that is secondary scoring, checking, physicality, defense or whatever.... have been bad.

Hope guys get healthy.
Hope these guys start scoring.
Add another scorer.

Absent those things adding toughness does nothing to make this team appreciably better.

I wholeheartedly agree that this team needs to get healthy, and adding a scorer should be the top priority. However, I also think adding a guy in the bottom 6 who has some nasty to his game would be beneficial to keep guys like Marchand, Krug and Hell, even Nordstrom from getting their head kicked in should be addressed too. I think adding a scorer should be the top priority for sure and I think adding a guy to the bottom 6 to relieve the pressure off of non fighters should be taken a bit more serious, too.

 

[Sheppy]

Except it has been said in the recent past. I don't know... A season ago doesn't really seem like a long time to me. Especially when the pining was for the same players; Peluso/Gazdic.

You bring it up like people are continuously saying these things. It’s just not true.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

I don’t want to either....I’ve just never been given a good reason as to why you’re right and the myriad NHL players and coaches that disagree with you are wrong.

Dave answered this already. I would add that I’m “right” because I hear coaches and players saying one thing (and they may believe it), then I watch the games and see something different.

Rierden and Ovi can talk all they want about how Wilson brings an intimidation factor that helps them...but then when I watch them play WPG and they lose two star players to cheapshots by “non-goons” with players like Wilson, DSP, Orpik in the lineup, I don’t believe it’s true (and there is evidence to support it).

 

[sarge88]

Because actual evidence indicates they are. Opinions, even "expert ones" can be wrong. There are a number of reasons for this. I don't completely discount their feelings, but I weigh it against observable facts and draw my own conclusions.

Maybe, but it is impossible to prove that toughness isn’t a deterrent.

In fact, GloryDaze4877 himself has admitted a few weeks ago that given the amount of games played and people involved that it’s reasonable to assume that it has happened and is a factor.

So the real question becomes how much of a factor it is and not whether or not it exists.

Given that those in the game talk about it relatively often, I’m comfortable saying that it’s a bigger factor than a lot here make it out to be.

If my doctor tells me something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s one thing. But if I ask 100 doctors and they all say the same thing, I start to rethink my initial opinion.

 

[sarge88]

Dave answered this already. I would add that I’m “right” because I hear coaches and players saying one thing (and they may believe it), then I watch the games and see something different.

Rierden and Ovi can talk all they want about how Wilson brings an intimidation factor that helps them...but then when I watch them play WPG and they lose two star players to cheapshots by “non-goons” with players like Wilson, DSP, Orpik in the lineup, I don’t believe it’s true (and there is evidence to support it).

Why didn’t Washington lose 4 players and Winnipeg 3?

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

You bring it up like people are continuously saying these things. It’s just not true.

And yet, still more examples in the past year than the narrative that fans don't want tough hockey and want "Disney On Ice" out there.

 

[KrejciMVP]

Why didn’t Washington lose 4 players and Winnipeg 3?

Ovi is an all time great and his opinion matters

 

[Dr Quincy]

Maybe, but it is impossible to prove that toughness isn’t a deterrent.

In fact, GloryDaze4877 himself has admitted a few weeks ago that given the amount of games played and people involved that it’s reasonable to assume that it has happened and is a factor.

So the real question becomes how much of a factor it is and not whether or not it exists.

Given that those in the game talk about it relatively often, I’m comfortable saying that it’s a bigger factor than a lot here make it out to be.

If my doctor tells me something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s one thing. But if I ask 100 doctors and they all say the same thing, I start to rethink my initial opinion.

A couple things. Sure maybe it is a factor. But maybe it's a very small factor and the harm done to the team by playing a not good player outweighs the minor deterrent (if one exists). I mean having a great wrist shot is something you would think would be a great asset to have....it's probably a better trait for a hockey player to have than the ability to fight. But if that wrist shot belongs to Brandon Bochesnki then the lack of ability in the rest of his game outweighs whatever benefit you'd get from the shot.

And the difference between your 100 doctors and players talking about their teammates is that one is basing their opinions on science, on data that is measured and tested and constantly reassessed. Doctors and the medical community didn't stop their thinking in 1800 and say "Leeches have been part of our treatment for a long time! All the doctors say it's good!" They questioned and tested and learned. It's why we have the NE Journal of Medicine and why things published are peer-reviewed.

Of course players are going to say magnanimous things about their teammates. They probably even believe what they are saying, but just like our doctors, just going on their feelings isn't enough if there is observable, measurable data that contradicts it.

 

[KrejciMVP]

A couple things. Sure maybe it is a factor. But maybe it's a very small factor and the harm done to the team by playing a not good player outweighs the minor deterrent (if one exists). I mean having a great wrist shot is something you would think would be a great asset to have....it's probably a better trait for a hockey player to have than the ability to fight. But if that wrist shot belongs to Brandon Bochesnki then the lack of ability in the rest of his game outweighs whatever benefit you'd get from the shot.

And the difference between your 100 doctors and players talking about their teammates is that one is basing their opinions on science, on data that is measured and tested and constantly reassessed. Doctors and the medical community didn't stop their thinking in 1800 and say "Leeches have been part of our treatment for a long time! All the doctors say it's good!" They questioned and tested and learned. It's why we have the NE Journal of Medicine and why things published are peer-reviewed.

Of course players are going to say magnanimous things about their teammates. They probably even believe what they are saying, but just like our doctors, just going on their feelings isn't enough if there is observable, measurable data that contradicts it.

What do the players know anyway. They only play the game right.

This logic is like a non ski racer telling me how to make turns on the hill

 

[sarge88]

A couple things. Sure maybe it is a factor. But maybe it's a very small factor and the harm done to the team by playing a not good player outweighs the minor deterrent (if one exists). I mean having a great wrist shot is something you would think would be a great asset to have....it's probably a better trait for a hockey player to have than the ability to fight. But if that wrist shot belongs to Brandon Bochesnki then the lack of ability in the rest of his game outweighs whatever benefit you'd get from the shot.

And the difference between your 100 doctors and players talking about their teammates is that one is basing their opinions on science, on data that is measured and tested and constantly reassessed. Doctors and the medical community didn't stop their thinking in 1800 and say "Leeches have been part of our treatment for a long time! All the doctors say it's good!" They questioned and tested and learned. It's why we have the NE Journal of Medicine and why things published are peer-reviewed.

Of course players are going to say magnanimous things about their teammates. They probably even believe what they are saying, but just like our doctors, just going on their feelings isn't enough if there is observable, measurable data that contradicts it.

Fair enough. Similar to the rest of us here, I can only speak from the perspective of my experience and my interpretation of what I see.

I can say with 100% certainly that I played entirely differently based in who was on my team.

With one particular team, I did and said things that were so far removed from how I typically played that it was comical, even to me.

That team....not exaggerating...had 3-4 guys who had served time in their lives and included a bunch of the guys they hung with.

They were my teammates and I was truly afraid of a couple of them. Luckily the guys that recruited me for the team were cousins, and were the leaders and toughest guys there.

Now...my rec league experience may mean nothing, but there are select few here who played as high as college, less in the minors and obviously far fewer professionally.

So, I can’t say that I’m at the bottom of the totem pole in regard to the legitimacy of my opinion.

I see the other side....dirty hits happen all the time, regardless of who is dressed or not.

But to me, the existence of dirty hits doesn’t guarantee the absence of intimidation, especially when those in the know attribute legitimacy to it.

 

[Chief Nine]

What do the players know anyway. They only play the game right.

This logic is like a non ski racer telling me how to make turns on the hill

Funny, hockey players and skiiers still have coaches. Don’t they?

 

[Dr Quincy]

What do the players know anyway. They only play the game right.

This logic is like a non ski racer telling me how to make turns on the hill

It's actually not like that even a little bit. I'll listen to players if they tell me the best way to grip my stick or how to get more power in my skating.

But if they tell me that it really matters if someone touches a line when they skate during warm-ups and it can cause bad luck, should I just follow your lead and say "They know more than me."

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

The big pain on this is proving someone didn’t push someone around because of intimating players

 

[Mainehockey33]

No response here with Lucic ON THE ICE.




Again, the toughest guy in the league is on the ice, possibly Chara too, Thornton on the bench, yet Oshie isn’t afraid to flatten Krejci.

This post is more relevant in this thread. I think we should get players that will fight and stick up for teammates, and players with size that can drive puck possession, but let’s not pretend that it will stop guys from throwing cheap shots on our players.

 

[Dr Quincy]

But to me, the existence of dirty hits doesn’t guarantee the absence of intimidation, especially when those in the know attribute legitimacy to it.

I think that is a fair statement. I think intimidation can exist, but that it can exist in other forms. A defenseman can be intimidated by an opponent's speed and it can affect how he plays that guy. Some goalies absolutely intimidate the other team. Situations can be intimidating (see Luongo, Roberto during the Cup finals).

When you get to the NHL level of achievement you are talking about the .01% of players in the world. They've played tough guys, they've played big guys, they've played fast guys, etc. The amount of intimidation goes down just because these guys have lived it for their whole lives.

I wouldn't say that players never get intimidated. Of course they do (I said earlier that a great forechecker is a good thing to have). But in the heat of the moment if a guy sees a vulnerable player he's going to hit him if that's the kind of player he is, and he's going to lay up if that's the kind of player that he is.

We are talking about situations where the amygdalla is working more than the frontal lobe, and their abilities to say "Hmm, what are the ramifications of making this hit." They are going to react according to their nature, their habits and other factors. I just don't think in that heat of them moment they are thinking "Hmm, who is over on the other bench". And if they do, the benefit of having that player on your bench has to be weighed against that player's actual ability to do something other than punch.

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

Only bc opposition to your opinion annoys you. However Bruins fans won't heel and accept being bullied on the ice ever

My opinion on everything. Oppose it, please!

Having tough players on your roster doesn't prevent cheap shots and players getting targeted. I have zero issue with any player on the Bruins standing up for a teammate when needed. I don't care who does it and when it happens. I think the Bruins could use some toughness in the lineup, but only because it provides a nice blend in the lineup and it is entertaining. That toughness needs to be able to play. I love fighting in the game, and I love big hits. The NHL's rules in regards to getting fighting out of the game are utter garbage. I'm not happy with the way the game is going, but have accepted that it will eventually be phased out.

 

[Dr Hook]

Wow 40 pages of constant bickering. Outstanding.

 

[Chief Nine]

Wow 40 pages of constant bickering. Outstanding.

I just watched the scene where you got your avatar. The movie never gets old

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Maybe, but it is impossible to prove that toughness isn’t a deterrent.

In fact, GloryDaze4877 himself has admitted a few weeks ago that given the amount of games played and people involved that it’s reasonable to assume that it has happened and is a factor.

So the real question becomes how much of a factor it is and not whether or not it exists.

Given that those in the game talk about it relatively often, I’m comfortable saying that it’s a bigger factor than a lot here make it out to be.

If my doctor tells me something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s one thing. But if I ask 100 doctors and they all say the same thing, I start to rethink my initial opinion.

In fact, that was not me that admitted that, unless I was drunk posting at 2am

What this always boils down to is that I can show you concrete examples of instances where having tough guys means nothing in regards to preventing cheap shots. You say to me there is no evidence to prove that tough guys don’t prevent EVEN MORE cheapshots.

I think my side has the high ground in this discussion.

 

[Dr Hook]

I just watched the scene where you got your avatar. The movie never gets old

He can carve out a man's eye