questions for hockey fans -- I think the fighting is ridiculous, so

[Bertha Venation]

do you care to enlighten me?

1. What does fighting add to the game?

2. Why is fighting necessary?

3. Why is fighting allowed?

Thanks

[Bertha Venation]

1. kick

[ZenLefty]

2. Hi Bertha,

-Fighting adds a sense of excitement to the game.

-It's not necessary. The only things necessary in life are air, food, water and shelter.

-It's allowed because it adds a sense of excitement to the game. There have been fights in the game for as long as the game has existed. It gives players a chance to vent some frustrations on one another, and they rarely get seriously hurt from it. In the end, they all shake hands anyway, out of mutual respect.

You're welcome. Glad I could help. :)

[MissMillie]

3. It doesn't add anything

it's not necessary at all, as is evidenced by college hockey.

it's allowed because the majority of hockey fans are men, and for some reason this group of men think that fighting is entertaining.

who knows.

[youngred]

13. yeah, must be because they're all men

:eyes:

[ZenLefty]

16. Don't tell ZenLeftyGirl.

She's a bigger hockey fan than me! :o

[hippiechick]

19. I second that eye roll !!!

:eyes: :eyes:

If ya don't unnerstand or follow a sport on a regular basis, don't jump on the bandwagon when it hits the CNN highlight reels ...

:hippie: <-- woulda been a kickass winger if there was women's hockey 25 years ago !!!

[MissMillie]

22. I watched pro hockey for years

but recently stopped when I realized the management of my favorite team was actually making an effort to keep the cup from coming to this town.

And I didn't jump on any bandwagon about anything. I never enjoyed the fighting aspect of hockey and never understood why, when a penalty exists for fighting, anyone would think that fighting is part of the game.

Now I watch college hockey. It's much more fun. And they don't fight (Well, they push and shove a little bit, but they don't throw punches. Maybe it has something to do with the metal face cages they have to wear....)

[MissMillie]

21. Actually I said "for some reason"

THIS group of men finds fighting to be entertaining. But you know, I'll bet if you took a random sample of people who enjoy watching boxing, wrestling and kick-boxing, you'll find that men dominate the fan base.

I don't make up the demographics. Don't shoot the messenger.

[youngred]

32. Wrong

the majority of sports fans are men, not just for hockey. There are maybe two people who I know who actually approve of fighting (one of whom would like to see more, but SHE's just a loony) in Hockey.

I disagree with your characterization that Hockey is violent because Men like it meaning Men in general like violence.

[MissMillie]

33. Not all hockey is violent

just NHL hockey and it IS violent because its fans like the violence.

And I think that's what I said the first time... when I said, "for some particular reason, this group of men like the fighting."

[youngred]

35. Not just NHL hockey

watch the Quebec Jr. Leagues that's just scary.

I vhemently disagree with your characterization of the NHL as exceedingly violent because its fans like violence. That's just ridiculous.

[MissMillie]

37. I guess I meant to say professional hockey

as opposed to just the NHL.

You won't find that level of violence in college hockey--men or women.

[youngred]

38. Then I refer you to the European Leagues

which are primarily skill based.

You won't find that level of violence in college, but it used to be epidemic before the no-fighting rule. They are still as violent, they just don't fight as much

[MissMillie]

36. Oh, and btw

Would you agree or disagree that violent sports like boxing, kick-boxing and wrestling tend to draw less women then non-contact sports like, say, baseball, basketball (which USED to be a non-contact sport but isn't anymore) and tennis?

Porportionately, which sports have more women fans and which have less? or do you think they're the same?

[youngred]

44. are we talking Women's boxing?

;-)

I don't really think its fair to talk about boxing and kick-boxing as both sports are virtually dead, but traditionally yes, they are the men's domain. As for wrestling, it depends. Pro-wrestling (which is hardly Professional, nor is it wrestling) draws a surprisingly mixed crowd despite the stereotype whereas Grecco-Roman or Freestyle wrestling, which is less violent draws a predominately male crowd.

Non contact sporst such as Baseball and Basketball (agreed on the used to be, Basketball is just the suck now) also draw heavily on Men for their fan base, far more than women. As for Tennis, until the recent surge in popularity of the Women's game over the last 8-10 years it ALSO was the doman primarily of male sports fans. Take Golf, by no means a contact sport, but one which (up until the last year or two) is also dominated by men in both players and fans (though golf tends to draw a slightly higher femalefan base than other sports).

So all I'm seeing is you repeating some stereotypes to defend a poor choice of words (which your other post clarified and I can accept).

[MissMillie]

49. It's not stereotypical

Do the contact sports draw as much of a female audience as other non-contact sports?

Yes, each category has it's female audience but I assure you that more women watch baseball than boxing--and I mean that as in boxing in general.

[youngred]

52. but more people watch baseball than boxing

I already answered your question you figure it out.

BTW, I called you on what I interperted as a somewhat-sexist statement, two other posters agreed with me, and then you clarified to say you didn't mean it that way. OK, fine...so why are you now continuing in defending that idea that men are more violent than women? c'mon.

[MissMillie]

53. Read here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=870722&mesg_id=872064&page=

[youngred]

55. thanks for including the link!

I don't think i could have figured it out otherwise :eyes:

[MissMillie]

43. your generalization, not mine

"meaning men in general like violence"

this is completely against what I said. Did you read what I said? I'll repeat it a 4th time, if you like.

[youngred]

45. maybe if you didn't keep dancing back and forth

it would be easy...you may not have said it but it was directly implied in what you did say. see the end of my last reply

[MissMillie]

51. It WAS easy

I'm not sure what it was that confused you.

Let's say you have 1500 people that watch baseball and 1500 people that watch boxing. I guarantee to you that the percentage of women in the baseball audience will be higher than the percentage of women in the boxing audience.

[youngred]

54. see post #52

I'm not confused atall thanks. I answered your question as you laid it out, you are persistant in attempting to frame the issue against me in defense of what is increasingly becoming sexist language.

[MissMillie]

56. So you think

that baseball and boxing draw an equal percentage of their fan base from the female sex?

or you think that it's sexist of me to compare the two?

[youngred]

58. I already answered that

no, I don't think its sexist to compare the two. More Men watch boxing than women. There is a higher percentage of female fans in baseball than there are in boxing. There is a higher percentage of Men who are fans of golf than baseball. Your point is null in void except when comparing drastically different sports (although I'd never really call boxing a sport), and the underlying point you're making is that men are more drawn to violence by nature than women. That is sexist. Next thing you'll be saying is Men are more criminally inclined because there's more men in the prison system.

[MissMillie]

61. My statement was

"this group of men" meaning the fans of professional hockey seem to find fighting entertaining... and given some of the responses below, it would seem that people agreed with me as well.

And I don't see how saying that "This group of men" meaning nothing other than fans of professional hockey, is a sexist statement.

Now, I understand if you missed the "This group of men" qualifier, but your missing that phrase doesn't mean that I'm dancing and it doesn't mean that I'm sexist, or that I made a sexist statement.

[youngred]

64. Wrong

you said:

"it's allowed because the majority of hockey fans are men, This group of men"

In so doing, you framed the issue of Men seeking violence. Even if your original statement was not completely sexist (as I conceded already) your followup has been. Further, I didn't say you were sexist, but rather your arguments have been such.

Oh, and could you point out those that agree that hockey is violent because those durn male fans want it to be that way? Or would you care to refute the post below in which I talk about my female friend who would like to see more fights? The point is, it doesn't matter the gender, some people are naturally drawn to violence.

[MissMillie]

67. yes, some people are drawn to violence

I framed the issue as "this group of men" which you quoted yourself.

And I ought to know how I framed it, because I've typed it 7 times now.

Methinks that maybe you caught a phrase that you just don't want to let go of.

So be it. You can have a good time arguing it. But I'm done.

[youngred]

69. 4 times jumps to 7, what next 30?

exaggerate much.

You included the inoffensive part. Follow the logic here

Hockey is violent
Men like Hockey

Men are violent.

That's what you're saying. Cut and dried. But way to ignore the rest of my post which clarifies and apologizes for for a mischaracterization. I'm not the one posting ridiculous comparisons and using sexist arguments to back up a poorly chosen turn of phrase

[efront]

4. My take...

I played hockey up through college, so I know something about this. Questions 2 and 3 are really the same. The reason fighting is both allowed and necessary is that it protects the players. Hockey is a dangerous game, and the most serious danger a player faces on the ice is high-sticking. Lost vision, knocked out teeth and severe facial cuts are almost always the result of getting hit in the face with a hockey stick. Fighting ensures that there are serious repercussions for high sticking for all players, as well as gives an alternative avenue to release aggression on another player that is not nearly as dangerous as wielding your stick. Players are rarely injured severely in a clean, face to face fight. You'll notice in minor hockey or college hockey, where fighting is banned, that the players are a lot more vicious with their sticks. See, if a guy cheap shots you from behind, or sticks your nuts in front of the net, the only way to get back at him is to slash him as hard as you can with your stick, if dropping the gloves and fighting is not an option.

As to question 1, fighting adds an emotional element to the game, that almost always is used as a motivational equalizer to a team. If a team is finding itself being beat around all over the rink, or it's sort of in a lull, a good fight can really change the direction of the game. A team gets a huge emotional burst from seeing one of their guys go toe to toe with the other team's tough guy and come out on top.

As for the Bertuzzi incident, it is too bad, b/c the only time the media talks about hockey is after an incident like this. Bertuzzi is not that dirty of a player and I'm sure he regrets his actions. The fact is Moore already fought a Vancouver player in the first period for what he did to Nasland three weeks ago. Bertuzzi should have let that be enough. Bertuzzi got unlucky, though, b/c he just wanted a piece of Moore and Moore wouldn't turn around and fight him-- there's no way Bertuzzi knew he'd hurt him that bad.

[ZenLefty]

7. As for the Bertuzzi incident

That's not fighting. That's a coward's way of seriously hurting someone from behind. But I digress from the scope of this thread.

[MissMillie]

8. I respectfully disagree

Add one more ref to the game, call all the infractions, and fighting will be history.

If there has to be a repercussion for an infraction, what could be worse than a power-play goal by the team that was victim of the infraction.

Now that's what I call sweet revenge.

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. boooooooooooring

Let them drop the gloves and duke it out. The sweetest revenge is watching a guy you can't stand on the other team get his face handed to him by your team's enforcer.

And sometimes, a team's enforcer can also be a skilled player - see Butch Goring for the Islanders dynasty of the early 1980s.

[MissMillie]

27. How 'bout great skating

great passing, great play making..... isn't that enough to be intertaining?

[bif]

11. Put a couple refs in the stands

And let them call penalties. The ice is already pretty crowded. And get rid of the red line for Pete's sake!

[THUNDER HANDS]

5. okay, as an Islanders fan I'll answer...

1. Fighting adds a number of things to the sport - most notably enjoyment for the fans and a number of jobs for tough guys who don't have enough skill to just score goals or defend.

2. It's necessary because if fighting ws taken away the frustrations and anger of the players would boil over and they'd kill eachother with their sticks instead of their fists.

3. Fighting is allowed because of both No. 1 and 2.

[youngred]

14. Islanders Fans aren't Hockey fans

they're Ice Boxing fans

[THUNDER HANDS]

17. yes, and we got four Ice Boxing championships hanging from the rafters

:D

[youngred]

18. Four years exception

Were it up to me the Devils, Rangers, FLyers and Islanders would cease to exist as Hockey teams, and re-commence as ice-boxers.


The Islanders had decent times with talent and skill...but sold it out

[bif]

6. I like hockey but I'm not big on fights

I'd rather see a clean game with lots of passing and skating. I don't understand the fight thing either. If you've ever been to a game though, the fans act like animals when a fight breaks out. Sort of like being at a boxing match. You hear a lot of "Kick his fucking ass!" Nice crowd.

[CanuckAmok]

10. I might get kicked out of Canada for this, but...

I never enjoyed hockey, precisely because of sanctioned fighting. I have seen a few games at the local level and at the NHL level, and I really enjoy the game itself, except for the fighting, and the resulting behaviour of the crowd when a fight erupts.

I won't watch or participate in hockey, because of it's celebration of violence. I won't support any sport where players are promoted and rewarded for being thugs.

[youngred]

12. As a long time Hockey fan with little use for fighting

It doesn't add much to the game, except as a safety valve that is supposed to prevent dirty play such as that exhibited by Todd Bertuzzi the other evening against the Avs. Fighting isn't allowed, but officials will let a fight go on until one player gets knocked out because it decreases more fighting (if they thought they could look good and just drop the gloves without actually having to fight there would be more fights). Fighting and enforecers are a necessary part of the game because they protect the skill players on teams from being beaten up by larger, less-skilled players from other teams.

[MissMillie]

24. This sounds remarkably like

the argument that gun violence will diminish if more people have guns.

How about enforcing the rules more stringently, and when a team is consistently short-handed and losing because of the team scoring a bunch of power-play goals.... then the players will realize that the cheap shots are not in their best interest.

[CanuckAmok]

25. But gun violence might diminish...

...if more people have hockey players.

Discuss amongst yourselves... :crazy:

[MissMillie]

26. I'll buy that

Can I be first in line to have a hockey player? :evilgrin:

[youngred]

29. Not really

the number of fights has gone down in recent years as they've been allowed to fight on.

The rules hsould be enforced more strictly, but then what about come playoff time when you can never get a call to save your life? Would you like to see the Stanley cup decided because some idiot made a dumb foul? I wouldn't.

edit: your comparison to gun laws is ludicrous btw

[MissMillie]

31. Games being decided on fouls

What's so horrible about that? If a team commits a foul, it's not playing by the rules. Shouldn't the best team in hockey be the team that wins the most games while at the same time playing within the rules?

Would you rather have the best team in hockey be the team that managed to win because they got away with the most infractions?

[youngred]

34. Coming from a Patriots fan I don't think I should be surprised

:P

What's so horrible is there a line in sports, and yes Hockey is a rough and tumble game. I'm a slight fellow but I played hockey for several years and I KNOW what its like to be on the recieving end of some nasty infractions. However, I am against enforcing the rules so strictly that it interrupts game play. Part of the reason I love Hockey so much is the flow and tempo of the game. Fighting takes away from it too, but most infractions don't lead to fighting. Besides most teams that have significantly larger rule infractions never make it to the finals because they're committing the infractions out of lack of skill and get penalised for it. But a questionable call late in the game during the playoffs...let em play

[MissMillie]

39. Have you ever watched women's hockey?

It's really the best example of how the sport should be played.

[youngred]

47. Yes many times

in fact I know one of the players from the US team. While it is fun and entertaining I don't necessarily think it is the best example of how the sport should be played. But considering Women's hockey is primarily played at the Olympic level, which is because of the rules less violent overall (for men as well) that isn't exactly a great measure.

[MissMillie]

63. a great measure of what?

I'm saying I think that this is how hockey should be played... on all levels.

The game was designed to be about skating, passing the puck and making plays. And this is typically how women play it. And there's no reason why men can't play it this way and have it be fun and entertaining as well.

[youngred]

66. You missed the point

Look, I agree with you about Hockey being too violent, and like Olympic style hockey better than that played in the NHL for the same reasons you approve of it. Women play it that way because that's the way the rules are set up. If Women were playing by NHL rules I'm certain the level of violence and fighting would be comprable.

[youngred]

48. Yes many times

in fact I know one of the players from the US team. While it is fun and entertaining I don't necessarily think it is the best example of how the sport should be played. But considering Women's hockey is primarily played at the Olympic level, which is because of the rules less violent overall (for men as well) that isn't exactly a great measure.

[MissMillie]

59. Why is the comparison ludicrous?

What's different about the two arguments?

[youngred]

62. You're dealing with completely different subject matters

In Hockey players are less willing to get into a fight if they know they will actually have to fight (as many hockey players, coaches and experts can personally attest to). If more people own guns more people are liekly to get shot. You're talking about cause and effect where the effects are completely different. Fight's don't accidentally kill kids playing with their parent's gun.

[MissMillie]

65. Analogies often deal with different subject matters

"Fight's don't accidentally kill kids playing with their parent's gun."

Here you're talking semantics and degrees.

The idea in the argument posed by the gun lobby is that someone is less likely to attack you if they know you have a gun.

How is that different in saying that a player is less likely to take a cheap shot if he knows you're going to drop the gloves and throw a punch?

[youngred]

68. No kidding

but not when the analogies are failed.

Because that is not what is there to prevent cheap shots. Fighting and penalties exist to prevent cheap shots because you know you won't get away with it. I'm not saying *I* necessarily buy it, but stating the opinion of the players, coaches and analysts, so as you said don't shoot the messenger.

Someone having a gun can result in death, which is far more serious than losing a game or getting a broken nose and a few stitches. Therefore shooting guns does not even come close to equaling throwing a punch in a hockey game.

I'm not the one talking semantics and degrees. You started with your failed analogy.

[noonwitch]

15. I love hockey and I love the fighting

The fights are not what leads to injuries, for the most part. It's the contact before the whistle that does, like what Bertuzzi did.
The fights are fun and the goal is generally to pull the other guy's shirt off, not to bruise and batter him.

I'm really a pretty non-violent person, but I love hockey and the fights. I can't necessarily explain it, but I do.

[U of M Dem 07]

20. Cheap shots do not equal fighting

I love hockey, and the fighting adds a level of excitement and emotion to the game. It's not necessary, but it charges up fans and other players... when the fight is between two equally-sized players, it's fair. A cheap shot from behind is NOT a fight--it's a cheap shot.

[NicoleM]

23. Not a hockey fan

and mostly because of the fighting. I've never understood the argument that they need to fight to keep from killing each other. For one thing, I'm sure people in any contact sport get mad and want to take a swing at an opponent from time to time. I'm not aware of another professional sport (and wrestling doesn't count) that allows it, though. And for another, they're standing on little metal blades on a sheet of solid ice--they *can* kill each other by fighting, or cause very serious injuries.

I'm with you, BV, I don't get it.

[youngred]

30. They're not *allowed* to fight

that gets them penalties and suspensions. They ARE allowed to fight on, because it decreases the likeliehood of people getting into fights, unless you're say Rod Brind'Amour who has nothing to lose by getting in a fight.

[mvd]

42. It's just that in other sports..

you'd be thrown out every time for full fights. But you're right - it's technically against the rules.

Also, fights often go on because refs don't want to risk hurting themselves. :-)

[youngred]

50. That too

fights carry 5 minute majors, and many result in ejection.

and if you were a ref would YOU want to step in between two 300lb men throwing punches when you've got no protection. I sure wouldn't :-)

[mvd]

57. I wasn't blaming the refs

And all I was saying is that fighting is more tolerated in hockey than in other sports. Even a roughing could get you kicked out in others.

[youngred]

60. didn't say you were

just agreeing with you :-)

[mvd]

28. I'll try to answer

1) Entertainment value, and it adds a feel of toughness for teams. Hockey's so physical that enforcers were developed.

2) It isn't necessary - I could do without it

3) Tradition and level of physical play

[Marius]

40. Ahhhhhhhhhh...I can answer!

1. Fighting adds a lot of things. It adds entertainment value. I watch hockey just for the fights! It adds excitement. Who knows who's going to win the fight?

2. Fighting is necessary to prove who the bigger, stronger, and better man is. If you're left standing, you have the pride. I'd hate to be the guy on the ice. You'd be called a "sissy" by your fans. Ouch.

2. Fighting is allowed only until one person loses his balance and falls on the ice. After that, it's penalty time. I don't know why it's allowed....other than the fact that the refs won't be able to stop it anyways.

[MissMillie]

41. Why not just buy tix to the boxing match?

or maybe we could invent a sport--ice boxing!

[Marius]

46. Nah.

During the whole hockey game, you see guys cross-checkin' each other, tripping, and other cheap shots...who knows when a fight would erupt.

With boxing, there's always a wimp and a strong guy. You usually know who's gonna win.

[MrSlayer]

70. Fighting is a necessary part of the game.

Fighting allows the players to police one another. At least it used to until they put in the ridiculous instigator rule. Hockey is an extremely emotional game and because it's so physical tempers boil over. If someone is taking liberties with your star player, cheap shots, holding, slashing or whatever you retaliate by sending out one of your tougher players to do the same. You have to protect your stars. Now because of the instigator rule (2 extra minutes and a game misconduct) players cannot directly address the problems without getting thrown out of the game so you see a lot more stickwork and cheap shots because there is no immediate reprisal. If they eliminate this stupid rule you wouldn't see things like the Bertuzzi incident. Someone would have fought Moore right after his initial (clean by the way)hit on Naslund, sent their message and it would have been over. Besides the intimidation and protection aspects the fans love it. Watch a fight and listen to the crowd, it's exiting.

This should cover all your questions.

[Bertha Venation]

71. I've been to one pro ice hockey game.

It was a Long Beach Ice Dogs game -- International League, I think.

The game itself -- what I saw of it -- was exciting as hell.

After the third fight broke out, near the end of the second period, I walked out.

I don't care to see that shit.

That's the thread-starter's opinion of fighting in hockey.

I appreciate all the responses (that weren't driven by the flame war).

[Fight_n_back]

72. The fighting is very civilized

when compared to the passive aggressive stuff that happens in football and the huge brawls in baseball and basketball.

Hockey is a physical game. If you run at a skill player then another player sticks up for them. If it gets too chippy then the fighters go at it.

There are all kinds of ethics associated with it and it rarely goes to the level of what happened with Bertuzzi and McSorley.

BTW, those incidents weren't fights. Hardly anyone gets hurt in the fights.

[BBradley]

73. Fighting is in some ways strategic...

1. Enforcers protect smaller players from cheap shots, and instigate fights with skilled players to get them off the ice.

2. It's not

3. It's allowed because of the strategic element, because of tradition, because most hockey fans find it enjoyable, the players are mostly for it, and because it's better to have smaller fights like in hockey, than the bench clearers we see in baseball, and basketball. Hockey does have a bench clearer once in awhile, but nothing even close to the aforemention sports.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

74. Hooking and butt ending are dangerous...fighting isn't..that's why