The paranoia and the myth the media creates about fighting

[Big Phil]

Don't worry about fighting. This whole anti-fighting agenda is just a product of the media. Michael Lansberg - who wears more make up than a grown man should - among other media types are always behind this bandwagon. Fighting isn't going anywhere. Relax guys. How do I know? Look at the stats of fights per game.

2012-'13 - 0.52
2013-'14 - 0.53

Despite the media screaming about it like a 4 year old girl, it isn't dropping at all. Did you really think it would? Players care about what happens on the ice, not off of it.

Do you want a comparison? There are more fights per game than any season from the original 6. 1963-'64 had 0.43 fights per game which was the highest. 1974-'75 had 0.50. That's right, the era of the Broad Street Bullies had less fights. 2013-'14 is consistent with what we've seen post lockout. In fact it isn't even close to being the lowest point since 2005. It is stagnant just like it usually has been. Fighting in the 2010s is consistent on a per game basis with what we saw in the 1970s.

Yes but they aren't fighting in the junior leagues anymore right? Pretty soon we'll get to the point where no junior players will even know how to drop the gloves and fight. You think so? Hmmmm.

OHL fights per game in 2013-'14 - 0.76. More than last year, about the same as 2006-'07. Really.

WHL fights per game this year - 0.94. More than last year, more than 2006-'07 which had 0.87.

QMJHL fights per game this year - 0.84. More than last year. Pretty stagnant over the last decade or so. More than a couple years in the 1980s. It dropped after the 1990s but as I said, stagnant for about a decade. A decade.

So the David Branches of the CHL want to eliminate fighting but when there is a will there is a way and the players keep doing it because it is an emotional game and a tough game, played by men - or young men - who like to settle the score face to face.

Why am I doing this thread? Because you can't go two days in the NHL without some bleeding heart telling you fighting is on its way "out". The stats aren't lying. Players will always adjust and find a way to drop the mitts when the situation calls for it. So relax, our game isn't changing.

Click to read more...

 

[BillP]

I've always loved a good tilt for the sake of passion and energy being injected in to the game. And I think it should be solely up to the players whether it stays in or not, it's their lives, their contracts so nobody else should be making that decision but them. But I've finally found myself questioning it, just for the sake of evolution in the game. These guys have absolute hammers for fists, and although they're accustomed to the physicality of the big league, I don't think they realize the damage that ensues whether they're punching or getting punched. And it's not just the heavies anymore, glass absolutely destroyed nystrom last night and you could tell he wasn't exactly happy about it. Some fights that end in ko's nowadays are just sad, the players and fans sitting in silence while a guy struggles to stand up and figure out what arena he's in. That's actually a good way to take the energy OUT of the game. I'm also interested to see the long term effects, watching someone like rechlichz (SP?) eating fists night after night makes you wonder how his brain will function when he's done playing hockey. Like I said, it's up to them....if gsp can be glorified for beating people up then these guys should be able to put food on their plate in their own way. For now I support it, but there's some thing that just disturbs me when one person is unnecessarily knocked unconscious, and I'd feel down right sick if I saw one of my nephews laying there on the ice. Anyway....just happy to see it's still up for debate.

-cheers

 

[Ryp37]

Iggy said it better than I could-
Does fighting still have a place in today's NHL? My answer is a qualified yes," Iginla wrote in this week's issue. "I temper my response because I don't know of any player who truly loves fighting. Ideally it would not be a part of the game. But the nature of our sport is such that fighting actually curtails many dirty plays that could result in injuries."

"If [fighting] was taken out of the game, I believe there would be more illegal stickwork, most of it done out of sight of the referees; more slashes to the ankles or wrists, and in between pads; and more cross checks to the tailbone," he wrote. "Incidents of players taking such liberties are rare in today's game because fighting gives us the ability to hold each other accountable. If you play dirty, you're going to have to answer for it."

http://espn.go.com/boston/nhl/story/_/id/9981354/jarome-iginla-fighting-makes-hockey-safer

**** Landsberg

 

[smoke meat pete*]

The miniority always has the loudest voice, and in America, we strive to satisfy the small groups. Eventually fighting will be gone from the NHL, unless the economy implodes and business cant afford to sponsor leagues anymore.

 

[canadiancreed]

These stats help to answer why I enjoy CHL games mroe (well one reason anyways). I wonder if a shift in viewership would occur if the hypothetical NHL fighting ban that some folks seem to think will be the silver bullet that will make hockey the #1 sport.

 

[Hoser]

Don't worry about fighting. This whole anti-fighting agenda is just a product of the media. Michael Lansberg - who wears more make up than a grown man should - among other media types are always behind this bandwagon. Fighting isn't going anywhere. Relax guys. How do I know? Look at the stats of fights per game.

2012-'13 - 0.52
2013-'14 - 0.53

Despite the media screaming about it like a 4 year old girl, it isn't dropping at all. Did you really think it would? Players care about what happens on the ice, not off of it.

Do you want a comparison? There are more fights per game than any season from the original 6. 1963-'64 had 0.43 fights per game which was the highest. 1974-'75 had 0.50. That's right, the era of the Broad Street Bullies had less fights. 2013-'14 is consistent with what we've seen post lockout. In fact it isn't even close to being the lowest point since 2005. It is stagnant just like it usually has been. Fighting in the 2010s is consistent on a per game basis with what we saw in the 1970s.

...

Why am I doing this thread? Because you can't go two days in the NHL without some bleeding heart telling you fighting is on its way "out". The stats aren't lying. Players will always adjust and find a way to drop the mitts when the situation calls for it. So relax, our game isn't changing.

If anything the stats support the idea that fighting should be moderated; it's happening more than it was before.

"Bleeding hearts" are telling you that fighting is on its way 'out' in popularity with the audience, which seems to be the case otherwise a reactionary thread like this probably wouldn't have been posted in the first place. They are saying that it should be on its way out on the ice, not that it is.

 

[BoHorvatFan]

uhhh I'm pretty sure Landsberg, Cox and Dreger know a little bit more about hockey than Iginla, they've been watching it for years.

 

[ghjkfdhgfd]

uhhh I'm pretty sure Landsberg, Cox and Dreger know a little bit more about hockey than Iginla, they've been watching it for years.

ahahaha!!!!!

 

[Steve]

I think you can/should cut it back a bit.

Personally, I like fighting and I hope that it stays. I love a good tilt where someone pisses off someone else and away they go. I don't care for the predictable fight where 2 barely skilled tough guys throw punches. I never understood why if I run a skilled player, my tough guy fights their tough guy, it makes no sense to me.

I much preferred it when if I were to run a player, someone on the ice at that time would come over and have a go. ie McSorley hit Gilmour and Clark came over.

IMO, pull the staged fights and pull the instigator and I think we can keep fighting around while limiting the serious injuries. Or maybe only call the instigator when someone starts a fight after what the refs deem to be a clean hit.

 

[Big Phil]

I think you can/should cut it back a bit.

Personally, I like fighting and I hope that it stays. I love a good tilt where someone pisses off someone else and away they go. I don't care for the predictable fight where 2 barely skilled tough guys throw punches. I never understood why if I run a skilled player, my tough guy fights their tough guy, it makes no sense to me.

I much preferred it when if I were to run a player, someone on the ice at that time would come over and have a go. ie McSorley hit Gilmour and Clark came over.

IMO, pull the staged fights and pull the instigator and I think we can keep fighting around while limiting the serious injuries. Or maybe only call the instigator when someone starts a fight after what the refs deem to be a clean hit.

Those are way too much of grey areas when it comes to things in your last paragraph. Who decides when it is a staged fight? The refs? We want to give them MORE say in things?

 

[Mike Martin]

You can call this weird of whatever but I think that there's more to the media's anti-fighting obsession than exists on the surface. I think it is a coded anti-gun message. You have to remember that this is the exact same media that promotes banning guns, they are using hockey fights as a metaphor for gun violence.

 

[Big Phil]

You can call this weird of whatever but I think that there's more to the media's anti-fighting obsession than exists on the surface. I think it is a coded anti-gun message. You have to remember that this is the exact same media that promotes banning guns, they are using hockey fights as a metaphor for gun violence.

Not bad, and I agree that it does seem politically driven. I liken it more to a nanny state mentality. I'm not sure I would go as far as guns (although the same people would be anti-gun as well) but I always have thought the anti-fighting crowd is similar to the ones horrified with children getting spanked. In other words, they can't see the "discipline" factor with either one of them.