Why do enforcer need to be in hockey ?

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I can't remember the last time a pitcher through at someone's head.

Well, you're obviously just not familiar enough with either game, then.

 

[canucksfan]

Well, you're obviously just not familiar enough with either game, then.

So when was it? Last one was Ian Kennedy I believe.

Fights happen .40 times a game. A pitcher throwing at someone's head on purpose might happen once a season if not less.

 

[Sheppy]

So when was it? Last one was Ian Kennedy I believe.

Fights happen .40 times a game. A pitcher throwing at someone's head on purpose might happen once a season if not less.

It happens quite a bit, bud.

 

[canucksfan]

It happens quite a bit, bud.

Examples?

 

[Sheppy]

Examples?

Stroman was suspended 6 games this year.
Stanton was hit in the head this year (whether pitcher was trying, you'll never know)
Headley was hit too.
Wright was hit in the melon.
David Price hit two Sox players then Workman threw at Longoria's head.

Just off the top of my head...

 

[Big Phil]

Again, what is the point of fighting? It does not protect star players, intimidation isn't there anymore and retribution is mostly done by the league.

Intimidation does not work in the NHL? This isn't women's Olympic hockey, son. Sorry we're just watching two different games here. You don't think hockey has a level of intimidation? Since when? News to me. The best thing you can do is watch a game, preferably at ice level. Cover your ears though.

One example so far. Good for you!

Among a million others. Have you ever watched the benches after players have a fight? It pumps the other team up. How often it has a direct impact on the game is very hard to tell other than some obvious times (the beginning of the Wings mini-dynasty). It is because we are not on the bench or in the dressing room or at ice level. Ask the players, 98% of them disagree with you that there isn't a purpose. What you are basically saying is that you know better than the guys on the ice actually playing the game, because it is pretty overwhelming what they think.

Or like this



or



or

None of those were fights, not even the Bertuzzi incident. The Bertuzzi incident was a cheap shot. Moore wasn't even looking at him. Moore had already fought in that game.

Even with fights, cheap shots will happen, it is impossible to eliminate completely. But I'll tell you, there would be more of them, and there HAVE been more of them in the last 20 years would you agree? I would. No coincidence the instigator rule came out at that time.

 

[canucksfan]

Stroman was suspended 6 games this year.
Stanton was hit in the head this year (whether pitcher was trying, you'll never know)
Headley was hit too.
Wright was hit in the melon.
David Price hit two Sox players then Workman threw at Longoria's head.

Just off the top of my head...

Stanton, pitcher was not trying.

Forgot about Stroman.

Wright, not attempt at the head.

Price no head, Workman it was behind Evan.

Pitchers do intentionally throw at players but it is extremely rare for them to target the head. I defnitely overstated how rare it happens but it might happen 1-3 times a year.

 

[canucksfan]

Intimidation does not work in the NHL? This isn't women's Olympic hockey, son. Sorry we're just watching two different games here. You don't think hockey has a level of intimidation? Since when? News to me. The best thing you can do is watch a game, preferably at ice level. Cover your ears though.

Fighting does not intimidate. No one is scared of Tom Sestito and other enforcers like him.

Among a million others. Have you ever watched the benches after players have a fight? It pumps the other team up. How often it has a direct impact on the game is very hard to tell other than some obvious times (the beginning of the Wings mini-dynasty). It is because we are not on the bench or in the dressing room or at ice level. Ask the players, 98% of them disagree with you that there isn't a purpose. What you are basically saying is that you know better than the guys on the ice actually playing the game, because it is pretty overwhelming what they think.

Players believed visors should not be mandatory. I believe visors should be mandatory. Guess what, visors are getting grandfathered in. I do know more in some cases than players playing the game. Players hold onto tradition that is why they want fighting in. They adapt quite poorly. If there are millions of recent examples, they should be easy to find. You have found one.

None of those were fights, not even the Bertuzzi incident. The Bertuzzi incident was a cheap shot. Moore wasn't even looking at him. Moore had already fought in that game.

You stated that baseball solves their differences by throwing fastballs by batters' ears. That is not true. It is very rare for that to happen and players get suspended. Just like it is rare for cheapshots like I showed.

Even with fights, cheap shots will happen, it is impossible to eliminate completely. But I'll tell you, there would be more of them, and there HAVE been more of them in the last 20 years would you agree? I would. No coincidence the instigator rule came out at that time.

The league right now is the cleanest it has ever been. The reason being, the goons are gone and the league is cracking down on cheapshots. The league is policing the game not the players.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Fighting does not intimidate.

Okay... I'm just gonna compose myself a second here, lol...

Players believed visors should not be mandatory. I believe visors should be mandatory. Guess what, visors are getting grandfathered in.

See, it's not that players didn't believe in the protective properties or the functionality of the visor (though "impaired" vision is a common complaint). They just wanted the right to choose whether or not they could take the risk (any player who has gone through the years of mandatory full shields in minor hockey and graduated to a level where you could choose knows what it's like). If the speeding up of the game hadn't begun to result in more and more incidents with scary optics (pun not intended), the league may not have put it on their agenda by now. With fighting, the players (and the league, mind you) aren't just expressing their want to choose whether or not they take that responsibility/risk, they also pretty much unanimously agree that it serves any one or many potential purposes, depending on the team, the circumstances, whatever.

But it's apples and oranges. The real danger posed by sticks, pucks, what have you, to the eyes is constantly present. Shall we do the same list comparison of fighting-related, body contact-related, and now stick/puck to the face-related injuries? Surely you see how that one plays out, given the injury history we can look back on (shall we start with, well, any playoffs?). The risks from fighting aren't even in the same ballpark. The consequences aren't even in the same ball park... maybe somewhere in the extremely long term, after learning how to cope with blindness, you might be thankful for "at least I never got a concussion that eventually led to a degenerative brain condition". Maybe all those guys who have had bones shattered by pucks will pine for the days they "finally" go to foam/soft rubber pucks?

You stated that baseball solves their differences by throwing fastballs by batters' ears. That is not true. It is very rare for that to happen and players get suspended. Just like it is rare for cheapshots like I showed.

Pitchers "protect the inside of the plate" on a nightly basis, and rarely make it many times through the rotation without facing someone they think needs a bit of a high and inside "statement". But I think you're taking the expression "by batters' ears" a bit too literally to begin with, considering this is some pretty tangential corollary to begin with.

The league right now is the cleanest it has ever been. The reason being, the goons are gone and the league is cracking down on cheapshots. The league is policing the game not the players.

It's the cleanest it's ever been, as evidenced by having to crack down on blindside hits and more recently establishing a "divers" list... Interesting assessment.

 

[Big Phil]

Fighting does not intimidate. No one is scared of Tom Sestito and other enforcers like him.

Alright then. Why did everyone straighten up as soon as Larry Robinson skated up to a little skirmish? There have always been players that keep the others honest. Always will.

Players believed visors should not be mandatory. I believe visors should be mandatory. Guess what, visors are getting grandfathered in. I do know more in some cases than players playing the game. Players hold onto tradition that is why they want fighting in. They adapt quite poorly. If there are millions of recent examples, they should be easy to find. You have found one.

A lot of the players at the time wore visors. I can say with great confidence that 98% of them were not against the idea of visors. Apples and Oranges here.

And I've tried to give examples but was told that even 1997 is from a "different time". I've given examples in the postseason where a fight struck fear into the other team, or woke up the other team. These are just the ones we see. I'm not in the locker room in between games or periods to tell you the rest of them, but there is a reason there are staged fights. They serve a purpose. Just because you don't outright see it doesn't mean it didn't serve a purpose on the bench. That's all that matters. And you don't know more than the players, they are the ones playing the game, risking their health and safety. They know better than you. You're comfortably behind a computer. Guess whose word I prefer?

You stated that baseball solves their differences by throwing fastballs by batters' ears. That is not true. It is very rare for that to happen and players get suspended. Just like it is rare for cheapshots like I showed.

Or pitching inside. Or pitching high. Or hitting a batter (not necessarily in the head). A player was killed in 1920 in MLB by a pitch. Of course the odd time there are bench clearing brawls. I know this isn't your cup of tea but again, even in sports where they don't allow it they fight.

The league right now is the cleanest it has ever been. The reason being, the goons are gone and the league is cracking down on cheapshots. The league is policing the game not the players

Marc Savard disagrees with you there. Even early on in this NHL season there has been lots of suspensions here and there. If the league wanted to run the entire show and not let players protect themselves they would outlaw fighting. Guess which one they are doing?

 

[canucksfan]

Alright then. Why did everyone straighten up as soon as Larry Robinson skated up to a little skirmish? There have always been players that keep the others honest. Always will.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I am talking about today's game. Not what happened 20+ years ago. The game has evolved. I think this is my fifth time saying it but at one point fighting was an important piece of the game, it isn't anymore.

A lot of the players at the time wore visors. I can say with great confidence that 98% of them were not against the idea of visors. Apples and Oranges here.

And I've tried to give examples but was told that even 1997 is from a "different time". I've given examples in the postseason where a fight struck fear into the other team, or woke up the other team. These are just the ones we see. I'm not in the locker room in between games or periods to tell you the rest of them, but there is a reason there are staged fights. They serve a purpose. Just because you don't outright see it doesn't mean it didn't serve a purpose on the bench. That's all that matters. And you don't know more than the players, they are the ones playing the game, risking their health and safety. They know better than you. You're comfortably behind a computer. Guess whose word I prefer?

Because you say it has a purpose doesn't mean it has a purpose. There might be the boost it could give a team but that is it. Fighting does not intimidate and doesn't 'clean' up the game. It is a sideshow that needs to go. Again, fighting is declining. In the CHL it has declined a lot and will continue to do so with the news rules in place. At one time most teams had an enforcer. Even 5+ years ago that was the case. Now, most teams do not have an enforcer. If fighting was as important as you say, most teams would have an enforcer. GMs are realizing that dressing an enforcer is a waste of space. Steve Yzerman has called a fighting ban in the NHL. Does his opinion count?

Or pitching inside. Or pitching high. Or hitting a batter (not necessarily in the head). A player was killed in 1920 in MLB by a pitch. Of course the odd time there are bench clearing brawls. I know this isn't your cup of tea but again, even in sports where they don't allow it they fight.

Bench clearing brawls and fights in the NBA are embarrassing. They can't fight. The best recent brawl was the Canada vs Mexico one. Again, I would rather watch trained pros fight then guys who never fight.

Marc Savard disagrees with you there. Even early on in this NHL season there has been lots of suspensions here and there. If the league wanted to run the entire show and not let players protect themselves they would outlaw fighting. Guess which one they are doing?

Do you have a source for Savard or are just assuming? Blindside hits were legal a few years ago. Now they aren't. The suspensions are mostly for hits that would be 'clean' 10+ years ago. Burrows on Emelin and Ference on Kassian would not have been suspended 10+ years ago.

 

[canucksfan]

Okay... I'm just gonna compose myself a second here, lol...

Fighting does not intimidate anymore. Once it did.

See, it's not that players didn't believe in the protective properties or the functionality of the visor (though "impaired" vision is a common complaint). They just wanted the right to choose whether or not they could take the risk (any player who has gone through the years of mandatory full shields in minor hockey and graduated to a level where you could choose knows what it's like). If the speeding up of the game hadn't begun to result in more and more incidents with scary optics (pun not intended), the league may not have put it on their agenda by now. With fighting, the players (and the league, mind you) aren't just expressing their want to choose whether or not they take that responsibility/risk, they also pretty much unanimously agree that it serves any one or many potential purposes, depending on the team, the circumstances, whatever.

I can see your POV on visors. Lawsuits when it comes to fighting could be a real threat. That would be the game changer.

But it's apples and oranges. The real danger posed by sticks, pucks, what have you, to the eyes is constantly present. Shall we do the same list comparison of fighting-related, body contact-related, and now stick/puck to the face-related injuries? Surely you see how that one plays out, given the injury history we can look back on (shall we start with, well, any playoffs?). The risks from fighting aren't even in the same ballpark. The consequences aren't even in the same ball park... maybe somewhere in the extremely long term, after learning how to cope with blindness, you might be thankful for "at least I never got a concussion that eventually led to a degenerative brain condition". Maybe all those guys who have had bones shattered by pucks will pine for the days they "finally" go to foam/soft rubber pucks?

Again, fighting is not needed. Easy to get rid of it.

Pitchers "protect the inside of the plate" on a nightly basis, and rarely make it many times through the rotation without facing someone they think needs a bit of a high and inside "statement". But I think you're taking the expression "by batters' ears" a bit too literally to begin with, considering this is some pretty tangential corollary to begin with.

Getting hit in the elbow is a lot different than getting hit in the head. We are talking about hockey, not baseball.

It's the cleanest it's ever been, as evidenced by having to crack down on blindside hits and more recently establishing a "divers" list... Interesting assessment.

Diving is embarrassing but it affects no one. The NHL is the cleanest it has ever been. I credit the league for cracking down on blindside hits. Hits that are getting suspensions now would have been clean 10+ years ago.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Fighting does not intimidate anymore. Once it did.

Sorry... just...

I can see your POV on visors. Lawsuits when it comes to fighting could be a real threat. That would be the game changer.

And again, what would the legal grounds be? Can't play the safety as a priority card, because there are far unsafer aspects of the game that result in far more serious injury, lost salary, etc. than fighting. The professional game has never been without fairly clear guidelines on how fighting fits within the bounds of the game, so every player (and the vast majority of "combatants") has always been consenting. The NHLPA, in fact, has factored heavily in rule configuring in recent years, and they're supposed to represent/protect the players, aren't they?

Again, fighting is not needed. Easy to get rid of it.

Again, neither is hitting. It's outlawed in the female pro and almost all recreational development levels, and isn't even added to the game until a couple of years before professional draft eligibility. It's also responsible for far more injuries than fighting - probably even puck/stick-related injuries, too. But it's an untouchable element for you, right?

Getting hit in the elbow is a lot different than getting hit in the head. We are talking about hockey, not baseball.

Well, if we're still trying to get towards the litigious level, which one costs the attorneys' clients the most money, and what's their cut in the end? The money is what it's all about, after all.

Diving is embarrassing but it affects no one. The NHL is the cleanest it has ever been. I credit the league for cracking down on blindside hits. Hits that are getting suspensions now would have been clean 10+ years ago.

I don't actually disagree with you, for the most part. I mean, the attempts to institute some sort of transparent oversight when it comes to player safety and supplemental discipline are commendable, and the crackdown/awareness wrt head shots is a step in the right direction for sure. When I watch the games, though, I'm not as sure. I don't think the old expression "if you're not cheating, you're not trying" has ever been more true, to be honest - or at least before they finally started going a bit overboard cracking down on obstruction of level/degree that could have taken us into another DPE and headhunting that started to happen just a bit too frequently. There aren't any tolerated blatantly loose cannons out there these days, though, I'll give you that.

 

[canucksfan]

Sorry... just...

Your response is the same yet you have provided no examples.

And again, what would the legal grounds be? Can't play the safety as a priority card, because there are far unsafer aspects of the game that result in far more serious injury, lost salary, etc. than fighting. The professional game has never been without fairly clear guidelines on how fighting fits within the bounds of the game, so every player (and the vast majority of "combatants") has always been consenting. The NHLPA, in fact, has factored heavily in rule configuring in recent years, and they're supposed to represent/protect the players, aren't they?

Not sure, I am not a lawyer. It would be a lot harder to defend fighting that it would bodychecking.

Again, neither is hitting. It's outlawed in the female pro and almost all recreational development levels, and isn't even added to the game until a couple of years before professional draft eligibility. It's also responsible for far more injuries than fighting - probably even puck/stick-related injuries, too. But it's an untouchable element for you, right?

Yes. Clean hits are part of the game. They are essential. Fighting is not.

There aren't any tolerated blatantly loose cannons out there these days, though, I'll give you that.

Instead of having an enforcer teams are putting a guy that can actually play hockey on their fourth line. Compare teams now to about 20 years ago. Teams 20 years ago usually had 3-4 guys that could really fight. Now, a team may only have one. Teams would want a guy like Trevor Gillies on their team in the 90's. I would have wanted him on my team. He is a nutcase. He would intimidate the other team. However, in today's game, he is considered a joke.

Honestly, I believe there is a better chance fighting remains if enforcers go. A spirited scrap between two star players, Getzlaf/Thornton is cool to see. A fight just to fight is not really cool to see. No emotion.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Your response is the same yet you have provided no examples.

You want me to prove to you that fighting intimidates? Good luck with that, and stay tuned for my explanation of why water is wet.

Not sure, I am not a lawyer. It would be a lot harder to defend fighting that it would bodychecking.

Why, because you don't like fighting? It's "regulated" by the league, and consented to by the players, so I'm not as pessimistic as you.

Yes. Clean hits are part of the game. They are essential.

They aren't in minor hockey, they aren't in women's hockey, QED they aren't essential.

Fighting is not.

As "necessary" as body checking. Great thing is, the combination of both has amused generations, and continued to attract more and more fans and participants. Oh, and embraced by the players.

Instead of having an enforcer teams are putting a guy that can actually play hockey on their fourth line. Compare teams now to about 20 years ago. Teams 20 years ago usually had 3-4 guys that could really fight. Now, a team may only have one. Teams would want a guy like Trevor Gillies on their team in the 90's. I would have wanted him on my team. He is a nutcase. He would intimidate the other team. However, in today's game, he is considered a joke.

Trevor Gillies has trouble keeping his weight down, and has problems keeping up with his responsibilities in NHL systems. THAT's why he's a "joke".

Honestly, I believe there is a better chance fighting remains if enforcers go. A spirited scrap between two star players, Getzlaf/Thornton is cool to see. A fight just to fight is not really cool to see. No emotion.

Maybe. I don't care that much about whether "specialists" exist or not, as long as the players figure out amongst themselves how they're going to handle the responsibilities between them. Every team is going to be different, but the sport has always been spectacular at the pro level for the intensity level that occasionally boils over with this breed of athlete, and every team still actively seeks to maintain at least a minimum fighting "competency" among their troops - not always in the form of a "goon".

 

[On-the-Fly]

From a safety standpoint, shouldn't every instance of potential harm be investigated and regulated in and of itself? There is no need to state that body checks, or blind side head hits, getting hit with a puck, or getting in a fight have the higher rate of occurrence, or result in a greater number of injuries. That they happen is enough for each instance to be examined, and then regulated or not. They don't leave fighting alone because it doesn't meet some sum of injured players. The fact that it belongs to a group of incidents that could cause injury is enough to merit a legitimate discussion of how to eliminate the harm without significantly altering the nature of the game as a fast, highly skilled, hard hitting, and entertaining sport.
Body checking and fighting are on different planets when it comes to altering the nature of the game. I have a hard time thinking anyone would state the removal of either would yield similar results on the nature of the game.
Take fighting out and you lose all the things it brings with it, including the intimidation, peer accountability and entertainment value of the fight itself, but you also lose the stoppage of play, a potential roster spot given to a specialized 'enforcer', and most importantly an inconsistent form of justice that can't penalize 'code' or rule infractions universally. The act itself is already against the rules of the game, it is a tolerated infraction against the game. The role intimidation plays as a deterrent can be replaced by a more effective system.

 

[Sheppy]

Your response is the same yet you have provided no examples.

Provide examples on how it doesn't intimidate. The Bruins always bullied the Sabres, they went out and got John Scott after Lucic dusted Miller and then beat up Paul Gaustad. Scott then beat the piss out of Thornton and the Bruins changed their tone when they played Buffalo after that.

It's bad enough every hard hit warrants a suspension, and people piss and cry about it like it's the end of the world.

 

[mygameworn]

The league right now is the cleanest it has ever been. The reason being, the goons are gone and the league is cracking down on cheapshots. The league is policing the game not the players.

You lost all credibility with this comment. If you honestly believe that the "goons" are the ones responsible for the dirty play then are really reaching and showing your biased agenda. Last I checked in the last seven suspensions only one was a goon. It was John Scott and his suspension was only because of reputation. Chris Kreider did the same exact thing and didn't hear a peep from the league.

You really need to get off this high horse that you are on.

 

[BlackNgold 84]

I honestly don't get how people can hate fighting and watch Hockey. Yes there are games where there is no fighting. And some show great talent 4-3 games with back and forth play is awesome. But when you have Bruins/Flyers.. Flyers/Rangers.. Bruins/Habs (depending on the habs line up) and you know that one hit/slash/cheapshot will explode into a donnybrook.. there isn't anything like that. If you say you're for player safety and want fighting out of the game than you should want hitting out of the game since more concussions happen from hits (clean or otherwise). Yes.. there are former players that are going to sue the NHL. Great, I usually side with players, but come one. Its not rocket science. You play a tough sport, and you make quite a bit of money for it.

 

[Big Phil]

I honestly don't get how people can hate fighting and watch Hockey. Yes there are games where there is no fighting. And some show great talent 4-3 games with back and forth play is awesome. But when you have Bruins/Flyers.. Flyers/Rangers.. Bruins/Habs (depending on the habs line up) and you know that one hit/slash/cheapshot will explode into a donnybrook.. there isn't anything like that. If you say you're for player safety and want fighting out of the game than you should want hitting out of the game since more concussions happen from hits (clean or otherwise). Yes.. there are former players that are going to sue the NHL. Great, I usually side with players, but come one. Its not rocket science. You play a tough sport, and you make quite a bit of money for it.

Pretty much.

Hey canucksfan, you might remember in 2013 when the Sens just obliterated the Habs in a line brawl in a series that the Habs got eliminated pretty easily. PK Subban saved face that game by winning a fight later, but I don't know if I have seen a line brawl since the 1997 one with Detroit/Colorado where every fighter on the one team lost their fights. It was embarrassing I have to admit. This was the playoffs. So it's still out there, and I think we don't even hear the half of it. We don't know how close a fight actually comes on the ice other times. But this is an example - a recent example you were seeking. They still have their purpose, or else it would be gone by now if it was useless.

Harry Neale made the best quote about having a fighter on your team, comparing it to having a smoke alarm, you don't always need them, but you are glad when you do.

Plus, so many rivalries in the game today were built on fighting, or they at least hate each other so bad that if they look at each other the wrong way it could explode. Pens/Philly. Man, you do not want to hold the players back with that. Look at the 2012 playoffs. That was entertaining and hockey the way we love it. Lots of passion, fights, scoring, hatred, etc.

I honestly don't know how you got involved in watching hockey.

 

[SatanwasaSlovak]

Fighting does not intimidate anymore. Once it did.

So suddenly no one is scared about getting the **** kicked out of them? Since when did this change occur and how did this happen? How do you achieve that level of coolness?

Fighting always intimidates people, it's part of being human. The adrenaline goes through the roof. Of course it intimidates people from doing disrespectful things on the ice, otherwise you would see a whole lot more **** going on.

 

[Sheppy]

I remember the game in Boston after the Bruins beat the Canucks in the finals. The night Weise fought Horton and turned down basically every Bruin after that.

Kevin Bieksa was one of the guys in the scrum when the Canucks jumped on Thornton he came in like a bat out of hell but when he saw Lucic and Chara he immediately tuned his tough guy act down. Why? In fear of getting his head punched in.

 

[canucksfan]

Provide examples on how it doesn't intimidate. The Bruins always bullied the Sabres, they went out and got John Scott after Lucic dusted Miller and then beat up Paul Gaustad. Scott then beat the piss out of Thornton and the Bruins changed their tone when they played Buffalo after that.

It's bad enough every hard hit warrants a suspension, and people piss and cry about it like it's the end of the world.

Because a player doesn't have to fight anymore. Fights aren't common. Scot won't intimidate a player that never fights. He might intimidate them through a bodycheck but not a fight.

 

[canucksfan]

Pretty much.

Hey canucksfan, you might remember in 2013 when the Sens just obliterated the Habs in a line brawl in a series that the Habs got eliminated pretty easily. PK Subban saved face that game by winning a fight later, but I don't know if I have seen a line brawl since the 1997 one with Detroit/Colorado where every fighter on the one team lost their fights. It was embarrassing I have to admit. This was the playoffs. So it's still out there, and I think we don't even hear the half of it. We don't know how close a fight actually comes on the ice other times. But this is an example - a recent example you were seeking. They still have their purpose, or else it would be gone by now if it was useless.

The Sens were up 2-1 in the series when that happened. The brawl had nothing to do with who won.

Harry Neale made the best quote about having a fighter on your team, comparing it to having a smoke alarm, you don't always need them, but you are glad when you do.

At one time yes. However, not anymore. Teams are not dressing enforcers.

Plus, so many rivalries in the game today were built on fighting, or they at least hate each other so bad that if they look at each other the wrong way it could explode. Pens/Philly. Man, you do not want to hold the players back with that. Look at the 2012 playoffs. That was entertaining and hockey the way we love it. Lots of passion, fights, scoring, hatred, etc.

Rivalries can start in other ways besides fighting.

I honestly don't know how you got involved in watching hockey.

What does this have to do with anything? Fights happen .40 times a game. On average now, a fight make take up 20 seconds of the game.

I have said before, I like fighting. I just believe it is not necessary anymore.

 

[canucksfan]

I remember the game in Boston after the Bruins beat the Canucks in the finals. The night Weise fought Horton and turned down basically every Bruin after that.

Kevin Bieksa was one of the guys in the scrum when the Canucks jumped on Thornton he came in like a bat out of hell but when he saw Lucic and Chara he immediately tuned his tough guy act down. Why? In fear of getting his head punched in.

Weise never turned down anyone. Weise was supposed to fight McQaid and Thornton jumped in.



That never happened regarding Bieska.