News Article: Why We Fight by Brandon Prust

[hototogisu]

The Players' Tribune has been doing a series of really cool articles by NHL players. They've previously featured Logan Couture, Sean Avery and Tyler Seguin. Brandon Prust contributed their newest piece titled "Why We Fight". Very good read regardless of your stance on fighting in the NHL:

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/why-we-fight/

Click to read more...

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Fun read, Prusty is a warrior.

 

[Stjonnypopo]

Best part of the article:

We only play them twice a year. I rarely fight in the third period of a close game, because I don’t want to be sitting in the penalty box, feeling shame.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Maybe Kriss E and the boys will better appreciate my words now that they're coming directly out of Prust's mouth. But then again, maybe (probably) not.

 

[Pompeius Magnus]

Fun read for me too, it's nice getting a player's perspective. Then again I'm definitely NOT an abolitionist so I'll admit that it helps to hear an opinion on the matter I happen to share

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Great article, and great insight.

Some people are gonna make this about Subban though, I know it.

 

[Tabarouette]

Best part of the article:

this is the first time i've watched a Slap Shot scene that wasn't in french canadian

it's not as funny

 

[Blind Gardien]

Well, I would like to see him go out there and throw a few hits and create some havoc more often, let's say. Finding opponents who live by this ancient code is getting harder and harder. Like he says about the Rangers, nobody on the team was going to give him a fight. Sooooo... what next?

Good read, but like he says he's biased.

 

[Jigger77]

Awesome.

"There’s nothing like that moment when a guy asks for a fight and a rat turns them down. It does something to the atmosphere of the entire building. If fighting didn’t exist, those guys could skate around all game trying to head-hunt the skill players on the other team with no repercussions. It’s not about the fight itself. Even just by turning down a fight, the rats lose momentum for their team."

 

[googlymoogly]

Great article, and great insight.

Some people are gonna make this about Subban though, I know it.

If it weren't for Subban, Prust would not have to fight.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The Paccioretty story was interesting and the Rinaldo story underlined everything that's wrong with fighting. I still don't think it's necessary in today's game.

"Street justice" only occurs when the refs miss something. And if the refs miss something it should be up to the league to correct it. I see absolutely no reason why the league couldn't start to crack down on stuff more than they do. Lucic spears a guy in the nuts (again) BANG! suspension. You do it again? You're suspended again. Just because the refs miss this crap it doesn't mean it has to be tolerated. You want to get rid of the rats? Punish them afterwards.

Anyways, fighting is there for now and I don't really care. I suppose in some cases it serves a purpose, but it's not an essential part of the game at all. That other stuff can be policed by the league.

 

[Godzilla]

If it weren't for Subban, Prust would not have to fight.

...and there it is.

 

[Mike8]

Awesome.

"There’s nothing like that moment when a guy asks for a fight and a rat turns them down. It does something to the atmosphere of the entire building. If fighting didn’t exist, those guys could skate around all game trying to head-hunt the skill players on the other team with no repercussions. It’s not about the fight itself. Even just by turning down a fight, the rats lose momentum for their team."

Probably explains why Claude Lemieux-teams never did well in the playoffs.

 

[Mike8]

Well, I would like to see him go out there and throw a few hits and create some havoc more often, let's say. Finding opponents who live by this ancient code is getting harder and harder. Like he says about the Rangers, nobody on the team was going to give him a fight. Sooooo... what next?

He answered the 'what next' in the article: time to make a dirty hit and get suspended.

 

[Godzilla]

Probably explains why Claude Lemieux-teams never did well in the playoffs.

tell that to his 4 Stanley cup rings...

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

tell that to his 4 Stanley cup rings...

I think that was his point...

 

[Godzilla]

I think that was his point...

Gotcha...

 

[hototogisu]

Probably explains why Claude Lemieux-teams never did well in the playoffs.

To be fair he does say that rats are almost always bad for their teams.

Not to say I agree with Prust necessarily but in the grand history of "rats" in the NHL, Lemieux is wayyyy closer to the exception than the rule.

 

[Mike8]

To be fair he does say that rats are almost always bad for their teams.

Not to say I agree with Prust necessarily but in the grand history of "rats" in the NHL, Lemieux is wayyyy closer to the exception than the rule.

Really? I'd guess that there are more rats on Cup winners than enforcers.

 

[Jigger77]

Yes it is the exception to the rule, but I have to admit it's a pretty telling exception and I never thought of that. You can also say a rat running at guys and not answering for it can piss off the other team and get them off their game.

But point is, you want to see tons more rats like Averys, Cookes etc? If so, get rid of fighting. They'll be all over the place.

 

[Jigger77]

Really? I'd guess that there are more rats on Cup winners than enforcers.

I don't know about that though...

 

[Ghetto Sangria]

Probably explains why Claude Lemieux-teams never did well in the playoffs.

Pretty much this. I respect Prust's point of view, but there are many aspects of this article that are bias and incorrect.

There were tons of rats when fighting was more prominent. There aren't more now and that's because suspensions and fines are being used more often.

That being said, I agree with Prust that there needs to be repercussions on the ice if the refs don't do their job.

 

[Mike8]

Yes it is the exception to the rule, but I have to admit it's a pretty telling exception and I never thought of that. You can also say a rat running at guys and not answering for it can piss off the other team and get them off their game.

But point is, you want to see tons more rats like Averys, Cookes etc? If so, get rid of fighting. They'll be all over the place.

I'm pretty sure they already are all over the place. Cooke even answered the bell and fought Thornton, yet that hasn't deterred him from continuing on.

What's peculiar about Prust bringing up the whole argument of deterrence is that he cites this case with Anaheim. So the Anaheim player knew Prust was there, and hit Pacioretty anyway. Prust claims that he needed to set the precedent; to let other teams in the league know that they can't hit Pacioretty and get away with it. Has he not had opportunity to set a precedent in the years he's been with the team? Or is it that the notion of a precedent is not particularly noteworthy?

He then discusses how a team like the Rangers didn't have anyone to deter him from making a dirty hit. And yet, Kreider must have thought the same if we're to view his play on Price as intentional and/or reckless. And so, in that scenario, either Prust concedes his point isn't all that realistic, or concedes that he himself isn't an adequate deterrent. Either way, there's a gap in the logic here.

 

[hototogisu]

Really? I'd guess that there are more rats on Cup winners than enforcers.

Not sure it's a question of tallying up rats vs. enforcers and declaring a winner. Nobody would call Prust a pure enforcer but he could certainly help a team win a Cup, for example.

 

[Kriss E]

Maybe Kriss E and the boys will better appreciate my words now that they're coming directly out of Prust's mouth. But then again, maybe (probably) not.

I and others have always made it a clear point to separate players like Prust to useless plug fighters. It's been repeated to you many times.
And Prust is simply giving out his opinion, just like other fighters or players have given theirs against fighting.