Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Robert Griffin III On NFL Combine: 'This Is A Business Trip'

The human toll of fighting in the NHL

"I don't think people understand the nerves and the kind of mindset that fighters go through. I've stayed up nights not sleeping a wink because I know I'm going to fight someone the next day. It's one of those situations where it's not natural to go out and fight every day or to have that constant threat of a fight, even though it might not come. ... Some guys might not be able to sleep, and they take some stuff to help them sleep."

-Chicago Blackhawks defenceman John Scott, on the difficulty of an enforcer's life after the accidental substance abuse-caused death of Derek Boogaard.

Like many hockey fans, I love watching hockey fights. There's just something about seeing a guy from my favourite team stand up, drop the gloves, and start chucking knuckles with an opponent, whether it be in defence of a teammate, in the hopes of a momentum swing, as payback for a past grievance, or whatever else. It's just primal fun, and it's not uncommon to see the combatants tap each other on the back and skate off the ice with little damage aside from a few cuts or bruises. I could name a half dozen of the most memorable fights in Ottawa Senators history, including epic line brawls against the Philadelphia Flyers and Los Angeles Kings, and I can tell you that I was up and cheering for each one.

But recently, I've come to wonder whether the entertainment we get from watching a hockey fight is worth the costs associated with it.

On most teams in the NHL today, there are one or two players who regularly take blunt-force traumatic impacts directly into their face and head. We pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to do so, because it gives us momentary entertainment, and it doesn't look like they're much worse for wear--maybe they need a few stitches, but not much else is apparent. Of course, if we truly believe that, we're lying to ourselves; the serious injuries that result from these types of impacts are often hidden from plain sight, resulting from more and more damage accumulating inside the body.

Star-divide

The physical health of NHL fighters

Take, for instance, the case of the late Bob Probert. A fan favourite for his fighting prowess, Probert took part in (according to HockeyFights.com) no fewer than 240 fights over the course of his 15-year NHL career, including pre-season, regular season, and post-season tilts. As good as he was at fighting, over the course of those fights Probert would have taken hundreds, perhaps over a thousand, of punches to the face and head.

Probert suffered a fatal heart attack at the young age of 45 after collapsing onboard a boat on Lake St. Clair. His brain was donated to science, and researchers at Boston University found that he suffered from a degenerative disease called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

CTE isn't like, say, heart disease of cancer; it doesn't kill people directly. It's a bit more like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's Disease), in that it's a degenerative disease that is believed by most (not all, I should note) to slowly take its toll on those affected by leading to depression, memory loss, and symptoms of dementia.

Probert's widow Dani doesn't think fighting is what cause Probert's CTE, but instead has suggested it's the many bodychecks that hockey players take during a career. It is true that there isn't a definitive causal link between fighting and CTE, but fighting definitely increases your chance of sustaining head injury, and the more head injuries you suffer, the more at risk you are for CTE.

And although it's true that collisions outside of fighting can also cause the brain injuries that can lead to CTE, those collisions will usually fall into two categories: Either ones that are inevitable in a game featuring hulking 200-pound players skating around at incredible speeds on ice, or ones that should be very harshly penalized (like, say, a flying elbow to the head or a blindside hit to the head). Fighting is far from inevitable, and in my opinion should be more harshly penalized.

Reg Fleming is apparently the only other well-known hockey player to be found with CTE. He took part in 69 fights over his 11-year NHL career.

Star-divide

The fallacy of the free choice

A simple counter-argument to banning fighting could be, "Well, these are grown men, and they're choosing to fight. No one's forcing them to do so." Which misses the point, demonstrates flawed reasoning, and--I would argue--is incorrect, in a lot of cases.

The idea that adults are capable of, and regularly do, act in their own self-interest isn't something regulators typically abide by. Seatbelts are mandated by law. If they weren't, people would choose not to wear them, despite the fact that doing so is usually in our best interest. Even in hockey, were it not a rule that players must wear helmets, there would likely be some who'd choose not to; that doesn't mean we should let them make that choice. It's not worth it.

It also remains to be seen how much of a choice these people are making. Millions of dollars is enough to make a lot of people to a lot of things, and by allowing fighting, the NHL is supporting it. The league is culpable in allowing the enforcer to become a legitimate job in the NHL.

And while it's true that no one literally says players have to fight, that doesn't mean that they're not coerced into it. Most enforcers in the NHL today were once among the most skilled players on their teams; these are players who, in objective terms, are extremely good skaters who can usually make a good pass and take a good shot. But when competing against fellow elite talents, their skills don't look quite as apparent, so coaches and scouts let them know that if they're going anywhere in the league, they'll get there as enforcers. After investing much of their childhood and adolescence on becoming professional hockey players, these individuals aren't going to give up on the dream; if they have the size and strength, they'll become fighters, and if they don't, they'll toil for some time in minor leagues before moving on to other things.

I look at the case of Matt Carkner to realize what players will do to make the NHL. Although he has been a fighter, or at least has fought, for much of his career, it was never his main responsibility before he joined the NHL. So anxious was Carkner to make the NHL that for the Ottawa Senators' 2008 training camp, he tried out as a right winger and pretty much strictly an enforcer. Since then, Carkner has developed his skills and can actually be a solid 5-6-7 defenceman in the NHL even without fighting, but he's now known as fighter. Can he shake that label and become respected as something more? Who knows.

Star-divide

The mental challenge of fighting in the NHL

As evidenced in the quote from Scott at the top of the page, having to be an enforcer in the NHL has a mental toll as well as the physical one. Although Scott said he didn't think that  "nerves" were necessarily the "main factor" in Boogaard's struggles with substance abuse, he did suggest it may have been one factor.

Boogaard enrolled in the NHLPA's substance-abuse program before his passing to try and wrest control from his problem, but ultimately wasn't able to. Brian McGrattan also self-enlisted into the program, although we're not privy to the substances or the causes that drove him to abuse them; we do know, however, that McGrattan is among the league's most menacing enforcers. Probert, too, had a storied history with substance abuse, both drugs and alcohol. Others known to have entered the NHLPA substance abuse program include Ken Daneyko (123 NHL fights), Brantt Myhres (58 NHL fights), and Jordin Tootoo (64 career fights).

Of course, it's not just fighters who join the NHL substance abuse program; although the PA doesn't release a substantive list, lists of known participants include Kevin Stevens, Ed Belfour, and Theo Fleury, none of whom would be called fighters.

We don't know if anxiety caused by fighting is what drives these players to abuse the substances they've abused. But of the players known to have entered the substance abuse program, an inordinate number have been fighters. It may not be fighting that leads people to these things, and not all fighters will seek them, but there's a very real trend demonstrated here.

Star-divide

Scary on the ice, saintly off of it

It's also ironic to consider that, so often, the scariest players on the ice can be the nicest people off of it. Look at Boogaard, much loved in the cities of Minnesota and New York because of his off-ice contributions to them.

Other contemporary fighters loved in their communities include Chris Neil (who has recently become honourary chair for Roger's House), Zenon Konopka (who remains popular in Ottawa from his time with the 67s, and regularly does work with various charities), George Parros (well known for his charitable work), and even Matt Cooke (who, along with his wife Michelle, runs The Cooke Family Foundation of Hope).

Retired players including Rob Ray (247 career fights), Kris King (176 career NHL fights), and Dave Taylor (73 career fights) are all past recipients of the NHL Foundation Player Award, given to the player "who applies the core values of  hockey—commitment, perseverance and teamwork—to enrich the lives of people in his community." Georges Laraque is becoming renowned for environmental activism, and committed significant time to helping Haiti recover from the devastating 2010 earthquake.

We nevertheless ask these people to make massive sacrifices to their mental and physical health purely for our entertainment.

Star-divide

What should the NHL do about it

If others, like me, come to the conclusion that a couple minutes of hockey fights simply isn't worth it, then we need to look at what we can do about reducing the frequency of fighting in the league, and reducing the number of players who join the league strictly as enforcers. The first and most obvious step is harsher penalties for fights.

Although the Olympics and US College hockey are vastly different from NHL hockey, play at those levels is evidence that if strict penalties are placed on fighting, fighting will decline. Were the NHL to make the penalty for fighting a five-minute major plus a game misconduct, staged fights--which even the most ardent supporter of fighting would likely agree are meaningless and unnecessary--should decrease. Add the caveat that, should the fight happen in the final 10 minutes of the game, that ejection carries forward to the next game, and say (for good measure) that they team can't dress anyone in your place if you fight and we're making progress at eliminating most of the fights we see in the NHL today.

Of course, some fights today (although I would argue the minority) are ones where players are policing themselves, exacting vigilante justice for some real or perceived slight on a teammate. This shouldn't be; players shouldn't have to police themselves, because that's what the referees and the discipline department are for. Were the game called properly, there would be no reason for self-policing among NHL players. Preventable headshots across the league need to be properly addressed, and there don't seem to be any headshots more preventable than those that happen in NHL fights.

Star-divide

Conclusion

Will stricter penalties get rid of fighting in hockey? Of course not, or at least not right away. But they'll decrease the frequency with which players drop their gloves, and they'll make players think twice before doing so. Those who don't have the skills to play in the "new new NHL" will, hopefully, find a new profession, while those who do will enjoy a much more meaningful and, more importantly, a safer game.

People enjoy watching fights. But that doesn't make them acceptable. I'm reminded of the recent Bruce Springsteen hit "The Wrestler," and it makes me wonder what we're doing to our beloved enforcers.

Then you've seen me, I come and stand at every door.
Then you've seen me, I always leave with less than I had before.
Then you've seen me, bet I can make you smile when the blood it hits the floor.
Tell me, friend, can you ask for anything more?
Tell me, can you ask for anything more?

Poll
What do you think the NHL should do about fighting?
Nothing, the game is fine as it is.
207 votes
Get rid of the instigator penalty, and leave everything else as it is.
414 votes
They should penalize fighting more harshly than they do today.
175 votes
They should do everything in their power to get it out of the game.
178 votes

974 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 50 comments  |  4 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Silver Seven

The Noon Number: 219

Feb 2012 by Peter Raaymakers - 18 comments

Senators ups and downs: Week 19

Feb 2012 by Mark Parisi - 21 comments

The Noon Number: 32.96

Feb 2012 by Peter Raaymakers - 17 comments

Senators ups and downs: Week 18

Feb 2012 by Mark Parisi - 18 comments

Comments

Display:

Great piece Peter.

I have never really enjoyed fights, just watching the crowd reactions to them is usually enough to make me uncomfortable. But if the league is serious about head shots then it needs to look at all types, including fights.

by Laurie Boschman on Aug 15, 2011 9:37 AM EDT reply actions  

I didn't vote, because I think you hit the nail on the head here:
Of course, some fights today (although I would argue the minority) are ones where players are policing themselves, exacting vigilante justice for some real or perceived slight on a teammate. This shouldn’t be; players shouldn’t have to police themselves, because that’s what the referees and the discipline department are for.

I agree that pre-meditated fights should be eliminated. But I also think that the vast majority of fights come about because a goon took out a skilled player. If you knew that there would be repercussions, if the players knew that they would get 5 games for that sort of action, and it increased every time you made a blindside hit (5, 10, 25 etc), then I think there would be a decrease.

But lets face it. The league isn’t consistent with its punishments. Maybe next year with a new disciplinarian in power things might change, but who knows.

by The Tif on Aug 15, 2011 10:04 AM EDT reply actions  

That's my big complaint

But I don’t think your punishment scale is nearly severe enough. Watching players get suspended again in the first game after returning from suspension proves that. Multiple suspensions have not caused thugs like Pronger and Cooke to change their games.

if it were me, the first hit to the head — intentional or not — would be a 20-game suspension. The second would be for the remainder of the season (or half of the next one, whichever is greater) and the third would be a permanent ban. I don’t believe anything less would get the message across.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Aug 15, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sure. The specifics can be harsher absolutely.

I don’t know how Cooke is still in this league. He’s ended multiple careers.

by The Tif on Aug 15, 2011 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

I've had this argument too many times.

But the usual response to the bit you quoted is something about how the referees aren’t doing their jobs, aren’t exacting the discipline they ought to be and therefore the players have to do it.

This ignores, of course, the fact that if the league wanted the refs to take fighting seriously, it would just have to instruct them to do so (and when they inevitably get lax about it, instruct them again).

by dzuunmod on Aug 15, 2011 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed.

I don’t want to blame the referees as people – they’re working with a flawed rulebook. I want the league to step up and take charge.

by The Tif on Aug 15, 2011 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can't say this for sure...

…but I would also suspect that over the years, they’ve probably had some conflicting direction from the league on the matter.

by dzuunmod on Aug 15, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

For sure. There isn't a lot of consistency from the top.

And that makes it hard to enforce. I think clear rules need to be paramount. That happens, and fighting will go down IMO.

by The Tif on Aug 15, 2011 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

If it were my son out there

I would clearly be against fights, esp. given what we know about concussions now.

If its not my son (which it isnt) how can I, in good conscience, think that the fights are ok?

These are our sons, brothers and buddies out there.

I get the visceral attraction of the fights … but they kind of make me sad now.

by Tom Camps on Aug 15, 2011 10:22 AM EDT reply actions  

Other sports

You definitely make a good point when it comes to building a case for hockey. Couple it with information gathered over the last few years about wrestling and football and it becomes a pretty big indictment of fighting. If you can remove avoidable blunt force trauma to the head inflicted to players from the game it’s obviously something that should be done.

Think back to the worst case scenario of Chris Benoit. This was a guy who was 40 years old and had concussion upon concussion from a long wrestling career where he also abused drugs and alcohol. He ended up killing his wife, child and himself. His brain was donated for study and it was found that his mind was similar to that of a 70 year old with dementia and it was deemed he probably couldn’t have been held accountable for his actions given the state of his brain.

by modsuperstar on Aug 15, 2011 10:37 AM EDT reply actions  

The difficult part is proving that Benoit's CTE was the cause of his dementia

I’m not so sold on this part of the discussion. I think anyone who’s been hit in the head knows there’s nothing beneficial about it. And yet, if the cause of CTE is head trauma, then there are probably thousands of affected people out there right now who don’t have the tragic histories of Probert or Benoit.

I don’t know how to explain that.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Aug 15, 2011 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not every case is going to end horribly like those examples. I think you can definitely make the case that these physical contact sports tend to shorten these players lives significantly. Previous generations of hockey there was a lot more common sense and respect in the game when it came to head hunting. Players weren’t kitted out like gladiators like they are today. It’s like the premise of playing road hockey against a goalie with limited padding, you don’t be a dick and tee up a slapshot on net. Players today have no respect because they wear equipment that makes them feel invincible out there. I think 20 years from now you’re going to find a pretty solid correlation between the 90-00 generation of players and the true cost of playing the game like its played today.

by modsuperstar on Aug 15, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

I hope that you're wrong

But I suspect you’re not.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Aug 15, 2011 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

I echo most of the sentiments above

When a fight breaks out, I get excited and watch it intensely. But then, I realize how everyone is egging on the fighters, cheering, screaming and generally behaving in ways I do not want to be seen in. I become uncomfortable and embarrassed.

Has any of you been in fights before? The rush is so incredible you do not hear anything. The fear is so overwhelming you can not utter a sound of horror. Your legs feel limp and seconds feel like….forever. You shake when you replay the event in your head. It may last only 10 seconds but you remember everything, in slow motion, forever.

To pay someone to fight and entertain me and go through all that fear and tribulation is something I am against. No other professional sports allow fighting except the NHL. No wonder a lot of people think its not a serious professional sports league.

Fight if necessary but not necessarily fight.

by whatsinaname on Aug 15, 2011 10:58 AM EDT reply actions  

Been in fights?

I try not to be.

I strangle, kick, claw, scratch and try to end the other person. When in that situation the other person will do the same to me. I was vicious when I played hockey too, which is why I only did so for about a few months.

by Quizzical Quorum on Aug 15, 2011 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

You call that a fight?

Where are the punches and biting? Tickling works too: might cause a lot of confusion to your opponent, but might just defuse the situation. Think outside the box.

by whatsinaname on Aug 15, 2011 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Get rid of it.

Waste of time. Do I get pumped by it, sure. I’d get more pumped if I saw some good bodychecks, great goals, blocked shots and momentum changes though.

At this point in the game, too many pick their spots and too many “fighters” don’t.
I can’t remember the last time Chris Neil fought on a consistent basis and he doesn’t bring much offense so we’re paying 2 mil for a nice guy. Great. Just remove it and you get rid of a bunch of fringe guys that the league can do without. If you’re going to to bring up the “Well players will be targeted more without fighters!” argument, guess what…Matt Cooke is still going to ram his elbows into people’s heads because he’s going off for a penalty and suspension. Kasparaitis is still going to be vicious because you can’t make him fight (for example).

Seriously, they should go beyond this and cut roster sizes to 15-18 or even (gasp) try consistent 4 on 4 play. The latter will never happen but rosters set to 18 players would be great. Youd have three forward lines (9), 3 defense pairings (6), two goalies (2) for 17 and a spare player or two. Maybe make it 19 players for two spares. Cut the chaff out of the game!
There are too many marginals out there siphoning play time from better players.

And let’s face it, Carkner is here because of the “OTTAWAH VALLEE BOI” factor.
If he were from Moose Jaw or St. John, he wouldn’t be on the team. He’s a Murray Special, not a lot of skill but gritty and local and basically just immune from criticism because of those factors.

by Quizzical Quorum on Aug 15, 2011 11:17 AM EDT reply actions  

Great piece, Peter.

This line hits it on the head:

Were the game called properly, there would be no reason for self-policing among NHL players.

While I believe fighting has a place, I also think it could be eliminated with little impact to the game. I am truly torn on whether or not it should be eliminated, and honestly would still watch either way. I hate what these guys have to do, and i hate what the results are, but I get the honor behind it.

I always default to the players and the PA. If they want to be rid of it, they could be rid of it. I know that’s what you brought up the seat belt analogy for, but in this case, the league and the players agree to have fighting around, and thus it stays. They have the power to change it, and it is too bad the two sides hate each other so much they can’t address the reality of anything and make the game safer.

I’ll stop before I write a book here in your comment section. Great piece, sir.

Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN

Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.

by BReynolds on Aug 15, 2011 11:28 AM EDT reply actions  

Great point

And I doubt the PA will ever support the kind of decision that costs its members jobs—in this case, the role of the enforcer.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Aug 15, 2011 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's what I think, too

The PA is flawed in that respect. I mean… they aren’t even willing to suggest that visors be mandatory, and that’s just a convenience thing; fighters are NHLPA members, so it seems unlikely the PA will do anything to harm them.

by Peter Raaymakers on Aug 15, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

The NHLPA is pretty useless. Any other union heard about fights breaking out between its members on the regular, and that union would want to have a conversation about why.

by dzuunmod on Aug 15, 2011 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

I blame the League more than the PA

The PA will always protect their members. And eliminating fighting is a way to protect their members. True the fighters are members, but its not like membership will drop if the fighters can’t make their teams. There are more press releases from the PA about health issues than the league. Besides, the PA does not make the rules, the league does.

The NHL, it is very clear, wants fighting to be part of the game. I do not recall the league ever contemplating banning fights. The means to eliminate fighting are not a mystery. Just talk to the other three major professional leagues. Bettman came from the NBA, so its not like he does not know how to stop fighting.

Bottom line, a lot of fans and the league want fighting to be part of hockey. And until the fans show their displeasure for fighting, the league won’t do a thing about it. Based on the vote here as of 3:52pm, only 20% want an outright ban.

by whatsinaname on Aug 15, 2011 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Nicely Done

Great, great post. I have to say, up until fairly recently I was a fan and proponent of fighting (at least from far away, seeing them up close has always freaked me out) – not the staged fights but fights that grew out of organic anger and/or vengeance. I read The Code and took it to heart, believing that it was a necessary part of the game because it seemingly always has been.

The more I read about the subject, however, and the more I see great, well-written and well-argued pieces like this that talk about the physical and emotional impact of fighting, the more I’m on board with just taking it out of the game completely. There just seems to be too high a cost in comparison with what little benefit it brings. As you so succinctly point out, if the game is called better there should be no need for players to police each other; as for the entertainment aspect, true hockey fans don’t go to games to see a fight and casual fans won’t stick around because fighting is part of the game – so why is it necessary?

If you watched 24/7 you might remember Matt Hendricks talking about how he learned to fight just to make it to the NHL. That’s followed by what I found to be a particularly poignant exchange between Hendricks and Bruce Boudreau where Boudreau says (paraphrasing) "we don’t want you to think you need to fight every night" and Hendricks responds "I don’t want to fight every night".

(And there was an amazing story on Hendricks and fighting in general in the Washington Post back in April, for those who are interested. Definitely worth a read.)

…sorry for the epic novel. Again, great work.

The definition of being a Caps fan is watching the same team over and over and expecting different results.

by Becca H on Aug 15, 2011 1:14 PM EDT reply actions  

other leagues can't fight... why should you?

I understand that fighting is apart of the NHL experience.

But it shouldn’t be. AT ALL.

What happens when two NBA players fight? the book is thrown at them.

What happens if two NFL players fight? more books thrown at them.

Professionals should act exactly as such: professional. No fights. play the game, get over it

by Tim Woodson on Aug 15, 2011 2:17 PM EDT reply actions  

The only reason fighting is still part of the NHL game is cultural. I think its going to be the medical or legal community that finally forces the issues once and for all. The league and players sadly won’t.

The Artist Formerly Known as CP2Devil.
Associate Editor at Five For Howling.

by Carl Putnam on Aug 15, 2011 2:27 PM EDT reply actions  

So what should we do with boxing and MMA fighting? Think those guys don’t lose sleep? Think those guys don’t get their domes rocked? Should those sports just cease to exist?

Those brutal hockey checks, both clean and dirty, can and do KO guys all the time. That too increases the likelihood of receiving a traumatic brain injury. I certainly don’t think any of us here would want to see checks in hockey or tackles in football go.

Fighting is a part of the game, and ultimately two grown men decide whether or not to do it. I’ll never know what the peer pressure of 20,000 screaming fans feels like, but I do know ultimately anyone can chose say no.

It’s been my experience after attending over 100 NHL games that fighting actually brings in more casual fans that often wouldn’t have even taken a look at this awesome sport.

I certainly wouldn’t stop watching hockey if they got rid of fighting. Nothing makes me jump out of my seat faster or higher than the home team scorings a goal, but fighting gets me on my feet too.

Plus refs can’t catch every dirty hit or shot. Fights hold people accountable in ways refs and disciplinary committees never could. I think one could make a strong case that fights in hockey actually protect a greater number of players from more injuries, including mental trauma.

by CannonGoesBoom on Aug 15, 2011 3:48 PM EDT reply actions  

Apples to oranges. MMA and boxing are pure combat sports where the whole point is to fight. Hockey can and is played on plenty of levels without fighting.

If fighting worked so well to enforce discipline then someone please explain to me all the current discipline issues in the NHL re: head shots, hits from behind, biting, etc. It’s a tired excuse that doesn’t hold water. If you want fighting because you like to watch guys on skates fight then I get it. But, the whole fighting brings justice thing doesn’t do it for me.

The Artist Formerly Known as CP2Devil.
Associate Editor at Five For Howling.

by Carl Putnam on Aug 15, 2011 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't buy your arguement

that fights keep the players honest or that they protect players from more injuries. More violence never reduces injuries. The league, on the other hand can reduce injuries but chooses not to. If the ref missed a crucial play during the game, the league can review the play and impose penalties as it does now on occasion. So, the problem, as you so put forward, lies with the league. And why do we care about the “casual” fans who equate the NHL to MMA or WWE? Surely the game of hockey is so much more than that!

by whatsinaname on Aug 15, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think MMA should be illegal, I was very disappointed when Ontario legalised it

An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.

by Adnan on Aug 15, 2011 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

It’s a massive money maker and the government likes money.

That being said, just because it’s a sport that you don’t like nor appreciate doesn’t mean it should be banned either. Mixed Martial Arts is a very intriguing style of fighting that requires a lot of stamina and skill.

Proud fan of the 2010 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks and the 2010 Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers.

"You cannot dream yourself into a character; you must hammer and forge yourself into one."

by hawks61 on Aug 15, 2011 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

On what grounds do you think it should be illegal?

Curious to hear why you feel so strongly against it.

by The Tif on Aug 15, 2011 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is a hockey blog

I write about issues in hockey. Personally, I don’t watch boxing or MMA fighting; never got into it.

Either way, fighting is not what hockey is about, contrary to what you and many others suggest. It does not have to be seen as a part of the game. Boxing and MMA are literally fighting; hockey is skating, passing, shooting, stopping, starting, and, yes, hitting too. But fighting is a small part of hockey, and I came to the conclusion that based on the little entertainment we get from it, it’s not worth putting hockey players through it.

by Peter Raaymakers on Aug 15, 2011 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also, on to your final point...

Let’s take it and place it in a real-world situation:

… police can’t catch every dirty hit or shot. Fights hold people accountable in ways police and the law never could. I think one could make a strong case that fights actually protect a greater number of people from more injuries, including mental trauma

Pretty suspect argument, if you ask me, whether you’re talking hockey or real life.

by Peter Raaymakers on Aug 15, 2011 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Unless you're in the US. Then it's all fair game.

Isn’t that the premise behind the right to bear arms?

by The Tif on Aug 15, 2011 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

No.

The premise behind the right to bear arms is to prevent a populace from being militarily suppressed by its government. That premise has been perverted by 200 years of advancement in ways the authors of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined, much less anticipated.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Aug 15, 2011 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't believe it does

But that’s where things start to get murky. As written, the Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I believe this is pretty self-explanatory: Because militias are necessary to security, people’s right to guns can’t be taken away.

However, with the way it’s worded—the right is not explicitly linked to militia use only—you could also interpret it as two separate statements. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in that favor.

Interpreting intent is always going to be a subjective thing, but in this case, I think they’re wrong, primarily because as I mentioned above, trying to determine intent on a scenario that was impossible for the authors to envision seems silly to me.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Aug 15, 2011 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

However, with the way it’s worded—the right is not explicitly linked to militia use only—you could also interpret it as two separate statements. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in that favor.

It’s funny because Scalia’s strict originalism philosophy of constitutional interpretation always seems to be gone on vacation when the oh so vague and brief Second Amendment pays a visit to SCOTUS.

But back to hockey.

by SCSF on Aug 15, 2011 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed Cannon. First clean up the dirty hits, which they are trying to do(IMO, not enough yet). Dirty hits cause far more injuries than 99% of the fights. It also happens to be that a lot of enforcers throw their body weight around. So, is it fights that damage their brain, or is it the body checks? Good clean hits cause a lot of injuries, so should we ban checking?
I think the reason that fighting does not keep the cheap shots down at this time is because of the instigator rule.
Contrary to some of the players mentioned in the article, a lot of the enforcers enjoy fighting. They know what type of hockey they play, unless they are blind to themselves.
I played organized hockey until I was 21 , so this is coming from that experience. IMO, maybe some enforcers might suffer from PTSD, but who knows. They all do it by choice.
No one is forcing them to fight. Most enforcers would not be enforcers if they were not good at fighting. They don’t want to fight, then improve your skill level to play, or quit.
Saw another post, the poster suggested limiting the amount of times a player may fight per year. I like that idea. These are all JMHO.

PRUSTOSTERONE!!!

by nathansfamous on Aug 18, 2011 2:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

Well written Peter

While my personal opinion is that I don’t even enjoy them. I always feel uncomfortable when 20,000 people stand up around me and cheer two guys punch each other out.

Fighting is not part of the game, fighting is part of the NHL. When we were watching the olympics, did anyone seriously think, “Oh boy, you know, sure wish we had fights here.” Or for those of you that enjoy the World U20 championships, the same.

Or even playoff NHL hockey, it becomes rare, and only when the result is no longer in doubt. Except for “message sending” which is a questionable practice on its own.

An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.

by Adnan on Aug 15, 2011 3:58 PM EDT reply actions  

Agreed.

I enjoy Olympic hockey just fine. Carl makes an excellent point, though. It’s a cultural thing. It’s like crashes in NASCAR. People love to see it.

I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t be penalized in a fashion similar to other professional sports. It wouldn’t hurt the game at all, and frankly might make it more entertaining. I don’t have 5 minutes of my life to waste watching Lessard and Rosehill circle one another.

No, actually I can't get enough of Spezza's nerdy laugh.

by Jonana on Aug 15, 2011 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Whether you’re in the pro- or against-fighting camp, I suggest you read this New York Times piece on former Chicago Bear Dave Duerson. College educated, Super Bowl winner, and a successful businessman after football, Duerson become irrational and unstable towards the end of his life. Ultimately, he committed suicide and was aware enough to realize that something was not right with his brain. His suicide note even requested that his brain be donated to science.

You read stuff like that, then you hear about Probert and other players, it has to make you question the value of entertainment. There has to be a happy medium.

Enjoying the Shady Acres of hockey blogging retirement. No, that's not the Florida Panthers.

by Mike Chen on Aug 15, 2011 4:15 PM EDT reply actions  

The timing on...

Milks’ piece almost makes it look like an outright response.

by dzuunmod on Aug 15, 2011 5:08 PM EDT reply actions  

What if we were to cap the number of fighting majors a player or team could take per season? NHL.com’s list of players by their major penalties shakes out almost every “enforcer” in the league. If we fined or suspended players who put up a regular season pace of – for example – 15 majors / 82 games, it would dissuade fighters from staging fights, but not necessarily ban the player type (per potential NHLPA concerns mentioned above). You could even punish the teams for having too many fighting penalties (either by the team as a whole, or for having any individual player above the allotted Fighting Majors per season rate), which could put substantial penalties, such as loss of draft pick, on the table. It would let the “superstars” fight as they like/need, and would allow for those “missed penalty corrections” that so many (myself included) list as fighting’s biggest benefit.

The problem here, is that you’re then making it a matter of degree – how many is too many fights – which at this point in the research is a fairly unanswerable question, but it would give some flexibility and room to protect players without significantly changing the game.

This is where a witty signature might go.
This is where a witty signature might go on drugs.

by Bower Power on Aug 15, 2011 5:44 PM EDT reply actions  

And on the day you post this Rick Rypien has apparently been found dead in his Alberta home.

So sad and tragic.

Proud fan of the 2010 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks and the 2010 Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers.

"You cannot dream yourself into a character; you must hammer and forge yourself into one."

by hawks61 on Aug 15, 2011 9:40 PM EDT reply actions  

Yeah, just heard the news

Tragic. If his death was also fight-related (directly or indirectly) you have to think the league will take a very serious look at fighting. Absolutely brutal – great fighter, tons of courage.

by Kangfish on Aug 15, 2011 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Knuckles are bigger, players are stronger

the brain, still as fragile. Players are not fighting because they want to, but because they believe we want them to. All these “I fight for my teammates” business is just bravado to justify an unjustifiable behavior which will get you arrested and thrown in jail if you were to do that on the streets of Ottawa.

by whatsinaname on Aug 16, 2011 1:38 AM EDT reply actions  

Hockey fights

I think that on some level hockey fights prevent worse injuries. I would much rather drop the gloves and see my opponent face to face than have players frustrations build and get an elbow or stick to the head. Hockey fights can be an outlet, not just for individuals but the teams as well. I think the shots to the head are a much larger problem. I also say that anyone using their stick as a weapon ( obviously not a game play) should be suspended indefinitely and charged criminally.everyone knows that a fight can happen on the ice and should be ready to protect themselves. But who expects a pro to take a baseball swing at you with their stick? All that said let’s continue to look at ways of protecting the players from lingering head and other injuries. Hopefully we can do so without making things worse for the fans or the players.

by Kedimo on Aug 20, 2011 8:34 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The unofficial Ottawa Senators blog

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Sens_small
Why Nash should never be a Sens
Bosch_small
Nick Foligno: 2nd Line? Trade Bait?
Small
All-Time Sens Killers: Part Three
Small
What to do with Filip Kuba?
Marv_facebook_small
The No-trade Deadline
Small
All-Time Sens Killers: Part Two
Small
All-Time Sens Killers: Part One
Sb_small
Sens prospect Jakob Silfverberg: "I'm ready"
Small
Stories from the ol' barn
Small
Trade Deadline Options

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Heritage_small Peter Raaymakers

Hutz_small DarrenM

Editors

Sens_small Mark Parisi

Sens-suicidebooth_small Ryan Classic

Karlssonpoint_small Adnan

Authors

Small DaveYoung

Small Varada

Bobby__small bobbykelly