Let's just get it out there...Fighting in Hockey

[Nasty_Magician]

I have no problem with guys that have skill and can fight, but it's the useless 4th line goons I wouldn't mind seeing out of the game. Guys like David Clarkson, Avery, etc. I don't mind seeing fight because it's not their only purpose. I said it in the concussion thread, if we were able to switch to a bigger ice surface a lot of these issues wouldn't be issues.

 

[evolver115]

I chose option 2.

The game needs to have players on the ice, and I use the word player loosely, who can force an opponent to answer for a cheap shot. As long as guys like Avery, Cooke, J Ruutu, Downie, Carcillo and Ott have a place in the game, then so do guys like Godard, Orr, Parros etc.

However, the instances of players retaliating for good, clean and hard checks needs to stop. That shit pisses me off.

 

[SLY]

I chose option 2.

The game needs to have players on the ice, and I use the word player loosely, who can force an opponent to answer for a cheap shot. As long as guys like Avery, Cooke, J Ruutu, Downie, Carcillo and Ott have a place in the game, then so do guys like Godard, Orr, Parros etc.

However, the instances of players retaliating for good, clean and hard checks needs to stop. That shit pisses me off.

Agreed.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

I had a co-worker and friend who was a Wings fan from the UP (Marquette). According to him the UP was better than heaven.

It's closer.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

The U.P. is awesome, but far from Heaven when winter rolls around.

 

[dare2be]

I chose option 2.

The game needs to have players on the ice, and I use the word player loosely, who can force an opponent to answer for a cheap shot. As long as guys like Avery, Cooke, J Ruutu, Downie, Carcillo and Ott have a place in the game, then so do guys like Godard, Orr, Parros etc.

However, the instances of players retaliating for good, clean and hard checks needs to stop. That shit pisses me off.

Agreed too, but with a caveat...being able to protect your star players requires a level of retaliation for "clean, hard checks", as jstew effectively points out with his Damphousse example earlier. Depending on who the "clean, hard" check is brought on would determine the response.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

I chose option 2.

The game needs to have players on the ice, and I use the word player loosely, who can force an opponent to answer for a cheap shot. As long as guys like Avery, Cooke, J Ruutu, Downie, Carcillo and Ott have a place in the game, then so do guys like Godard, Orr, Parros etc.

However, the instances of players retaliating for good, clean and hard checks needs to stop. That shit pisses me off.

I couldn't agree more and well said. It makes players more reluctant to throw good clean hard checks and I'm convinced this has led to the extinction of the hip check. The ref's confusing a good hip check with a trip or interference doesn't help either.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

I couldn't agree more and well said. It makes players more reluctant to throw good clean hard checks and I'm convinced this has led to the extinction of the hip check. The ref's confusing a good hip check with a trip or interference doesn't help either.

boss ... man you should watch more canucks games because it seems like we have all the guys in the league that still throw them effectively and they seem to be teaching the other dmen how to throw them

hell Sami Salo threw a hipcheck a couple games back (surprised the hip didnt break)

youtube Ballard and hamhuis hipcheck

 

[BOSSMANPC]

boss ... man you should watch more canucks games because it seems like we have all the guys in the league that still throw them effectively and they seem to be teaching the other dmen how to throw them

hell Sami Salo threw a hipcheck a couple games back (surprised the hip didnt break)

youtube Ballard and hamhuis hipcheck

Unfortunately I don't get to see too many Canucks games. But remember back in the 60's and 70's when you would see them in almost every game? That was awesome! Tracey Pratt of the Sabres could throw a mean hip check and I bet he learned it from Timmy Horton.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

i wish there was a 4th option

"its a necessary evil and the game overall would be better without the instigator penalty"

^^^^this you know my stance

 

[ritari330]

I'm somewhere between "Meh" and "I like it"

 

[beantownmaniac]

I chose keep fighting, but would also continue to watch without it. I would just enjoy it less.

I don't remember seeing one fight last year in the playoffs (although my memory is bad these days), but I enjoyed the games as much as ever. It doesn't matter either way to me, but I do love a good hockey fight now and then when it's for the right reasons.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

I'd like a combination of the first two, I hope it stays but overall it really isn't that important to me.

+1

 

[SLY]

I like seeing blood.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

I think we all knew the result of this poll ahead of time. While it's been up, we've had one thread about Cooke getting his face caved in and another entitled tOfficial "I like watching guys get punched in the face" thread.

Not one thread about kittens and no threads entitled "I like nice hockey plays and cute fluffy stuff."

 

[Slimpikins]

For those of you guys who oppose changing under the pressure of the media or "specil interest groups", would you change your opinion, hypothetically of course, if public health officials, physicians and scientists came out with an independent report linking fighting to long term health effects?

This report is far from forthcoming and would probably be decades from now when enough data is gathered, but....

No, they are consenting adults they should be able to fight in the game if they choose. No one forces them to fight. If they don't want to they don't have to.

It's not like one fight has these effects it takes a long career of fighting. If you choose to drop the gloves and get punched in the face three times a week for fifteen years you choose to live with the consiquences.

 

[filosofy29]

I chose option 2.

The game needs to have players on the ice, and I use the word player loosely, who can force an opponent to answer for a cheap shot. As long as guys like Avery, Cooke, J Ruutu, Downie, Carcillo and Ott have a place in the game, then so do guys like Godard, Orr, Parros etc.

However, the instances of players retaliating for good, clean and hard checks needs to stop. That shit pisses me off.

THIS^^^^^

The choreographed, drop the gloves right after the opening whistle bullshit of goons "getting their teams pumped up" needs to go the way of the Dinosaur as that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. I've played hockey for 17 years and I've never "needed" a fight by a goon to get me riled up to play. It's hockey, not boxing. You need to be able to play the game and understand it.

That said, you eliminate fighting, and you get a bunch of Steve Ott, Corey Perry, Matt Cooke, Daniel Carcillo, and Steve Avery's running around with no price to pay. However, since I've played for 17 years, I also understand that their needs to be fighting allowed. Plays escalate and become more dangerous when two players who hate each other can't fight. That's when sticks get up and boarding calls go up and hits from behind. If people can't fight, they'll resort to other ways of exacting their revenge/justice.

End Thread.

 

[SLY]

Well if theres bad blood... Then a fight off the face off is justified. Theres always an "if".

 

[Nasty_Magician]

If any of you get the chance, "The Code" is a great read. It gets redundant after about the 50th page, but it gives some very interesting insight into the world of fighting.

 

[filosofy29]

Well if theres bad blood... Then a fight off the face off is justified. Theres always an "if".

Not choreographed ones. There is no IF for that which is of any significance.