Violence in Hockey

[Speed Demon 0]

I would appreciate your answers as this will be used in a school project concerning violence in hockey. Moderators, I may post more than one poll, so your patience is appreciated, however, I will not post a stupid poll.

[2048 0]

Depends how oyu see it. There's too much dirt in today's game and not enough ferocious, bone-crunching open ice or along the boards hits. Either way, I'm going to say now because I don't think it has to be curbed in any way but officiating.

[all-star 0]

nah. theres not alot of violence in hockey today, theres only like 1 fight a game usually, and the occasional scrum in front of the net. when the goalie gets bumped lightly.

[kosydar 0]

Besides the extreme examples (Bertuzzi, McSorely, ect.) no there isn't. Like all-star said, theres is one, maybe two fights a game if we're lucky, and most of them aren't that good. Hell, I saw a fight in a Jr. B game this past weekend that was as good as half of the ones I saw in the NHL last year.

[MDE3 0]

On a comparitive basis I cannot disagree with the other posters....but other than history, why should fighting be permitted any more in hockey than other major sports?

I understand all the arguments for it....release of built up tension so that a dangerous cheap shot will not be used for later retaliation...entertainment value....a belief that the fans deserve their pound of flesh...etc etc. But why should it be permitted more in hockey than any other sport?

The downside...mothers who more typically have more reign over their young children's activities early on than do fathers, will shy away from the sport for their kids because they fear the "goon sport" image..arguments pointing to recent events in basketball not withstanding. These younger kids will often end up in soccer, or basketball or some other team sport.

Permitting fighting still promotes the intimidation factor...."well if you get too uppity, we will send over someone to take you out".....which is truly NOT in the spirit of sportsmanship.....something which is talked about often enough but more rarely displayed in todays "pro" sports...Corny maybe...but an element sorely lacking in even today's amateur sports.....what are we really trying to teach here?

It's ok for the guys at the top to play by different rules, but not you kids........right.........We all know that winning is all that counts anyway..... This kind of overt bully image(whether actually true or not) hurts the enrollment appeal for the sport with parents who feel still that sports is a way to impart life values to their children(there are still some parents out there who feel this way).

Fighters were for a long time basically hired bodyguards to protect the "skill players" on a team, and to discourage the other team from gaining advantage by cheap-shotting these "stars" out of the game. The concept of two players simply duking it out to sort out some personal grievances which has some authentic "macho character appeal", has pretty much dissappeared in today's NHL. Eighty percent of the fights are between the "hired guns" now..so almost entirely for "entertainment" value.

The problem with this is twofold.....

First..the majority of the hired guns are not nearly as well payed as even run of the mill fourth liners(with some exceptions....a few can actually play) so that many of the current fights are not really performed with all that much enthusiasm..and the bloodthirsty patrons go home unsatisfied. So why even bother?

Second while the fighting has been reduced almost to a tokenism, it's retention as an officially sanctioned part of the game still promotes the long standing image of hockey as a "goon" sport. For the reason's stated above..this continues to hurt the enrollment of the youth in the sport, and thus the long term growth of it's fan base.

I have often heard the argument that the biggest crowds show up when they know there is going to be a bloodbath in a game following an incident in a prior game. I know that this is true. However this increase in attendance is from within the existing fanbase of the sport. What hockey's problem is currently, is that the growth of the overall hockey fanbase is stagnant. They are not drawing in people from outside that existing fanbase.

Hockey fans come from players and families of players who have participated in the sport,....and a few who would go to see a live brawl when that was the image...those same fans who would go to see the WWF or it's current incarnation.

Fans of the pure game itself...as measured by an almost stagnant growth of USA Hockey player members for the last few years...are not being drawn into and thus grown within the sport as players or their families. If the youth player base does not grow, the NHL fan base will not grow. I think the goon image so long cultivated must be completely eliminated..and to do this, fighting as a formal privelege of the sport, must be revoked.

[kosydar 0]

Look at Lemieux vs. McCarty. McCarty took care of Lemeiux's cheapshot on Draper, not by sticking him, or breaking his neck, but by fighting. Now Claude turtled, but thats a separate issue all together. That one fight completely changed the Red Wings, and many believe that instance turned them into the Cup winners. I remember watching "Return to Hockeytown" or whatever thats called, and half the team talked about how pivitol a moment that fight was because it not only took care of the unfinished business so they could move on, but it proved to everyone, themselves included, that the team was willing to get down and dirty, and do the things needed to finally win the Cup. It doesn't hurt that McCarty also scored the OT winner that game, and got in another fight (with Deadmarsh I believe).

As far as the image it gives hockey- I don't buy it. Fighting is the reason why a lot of people watch hockey, believe it or not. Now, that number isn't as high as it once was, but I know for a fact that people start to watch local hockey games for the fights, discover the beauty of the sport, and start watching more and more NHL games. We had a Jr. B team out here a few years ago that fought a lot. We also had a semi-pro, Link Gaetz team before that. During both periods, hockey in my town soared. Why? Because of fighting. People went to the games to see fights, and they were delivered. From there, they started watching more and more games. Does it even matter what outsiders think of hockey like? Its not like it matters, they frankly aren't going to watch the game, and its not because there is fighting.

[Kovy_Ribs_Fedo 3]

I think there would be MUCH more people if all the players would be like Kovalev, Forsberg, Fedorov, etc. I know it would be impossible to have all forsberg or any superstar in a team. They would go there to wacth the pure skills they have and not to see 10 fights a game like in Semi-pro. I vote yes, because I think fight is not the only violence in hockey. There is Slashing, etc. I don't think fights are problems(but 10 is too much), but slashing are problems for sure. I could talk for hours and hours. I guess I have to stop me.

[kosydar 0]

I like watching those type of guys, especially Datsyuk as much as the next guy, but I don't like the idea of having every player on the ice play like him. I like the hitting and the grittiness of the Tuckers and Bertuzzis of the league. Thats one of the things I like the best about hockey; there are so many different ways to approach and play the game. You have the ultra-skilled guys like you listed, the enforcers, the classy Yzermans and Sakics of the league, the hitters, the defensive specialists, the Holmstroms and Larionovs. The list goes on, and I think thats the ultimate compliment to the game, there are so many different ways to play it successfully.

[Kovy_Ribs_Fedo 3]

I know, I understand what you mean. The league must have a mix of every kind of players.

[2048 0]

And then you get the guys who mix offensive power with brute strength and it's just awesome to watch. It's a shame that no one is really like that now. Bertuzzi was close, but wasn't lindros. Thornton is near there, too. Maybe Ovechkin will be the next guy to really do it.

[ponty 0]

Being "old" I can offer a bit of perspective.

Back in the 80's and 90's there was much more violence. More hitting and much more fighting. Yet the game, in my opinion, was cleaner. Rare was the cheap shot and hit from behind that we have all become use to today. There were more tough players that had talent (e.g. Neely, Tochett, Kerr, Bourque, Mark Howe, and Secord) that would score goals and stand up for his team and himself. Sure you had the Claude Lemuiex's, Kenny Linesman's, and Dale Hunter's of the world but they were few and far in between.

In short todays game is on the surface less violent but the acts are more dangerous and certainly less honrable.

A bit of a twist on your orginal question but I wanted to offer this perspective.

[stevoc 0]

I ust don't see a point in letting two guys stand in the center of the ice and take swings at each other. I don't think that belongs in any sport....takes the sportsmanship out of the game.

Basically, it allows for a release of built up anger and frustration, but it doesn't prove one team better than the other. No example in fighting.

[Chadd 916]

There is no more violence in Hockey than in football, I would say much less in fact. I have issues with fighting when it is the designated goons from each team fighting each other in a semi-stanged situation. If the players were fighting due to some action that was borderline or to retaliate for an illegal play, I have no problem with it.

Somewhat off topic and no offense intended: MDE your avatar looks like a skating penis.