A nation of fighters

by James Mirtle on Jan 9, 2009 1:46 AM CST Comment 50 comments

People like to watch other people fight.

Not all people, and not in all circumstances. But the history of humankind would suggest that the old schoolyard instinct is powerful, and nearly impossible to suppress.

— Stephen Brunt, The Globe and Mail

Despite fielding a ton of emails on the subject, I haven't written a thing about Mr. Don Sanderson. His death was a tragedy, no question, but as Brunt writes, not an unavoidable — or unpredictable — one.

Hockey, in general, is a dangerous game, one where you're putting your limbs, teeth, eyes and head on the line depending on the level you're playing at. If you fight, the stakes are even higher.

Let's face it, however, deaths are not common. This season, the NHL is on pace to have 815 fights in 1,230 regular-season games, and the likelihood of a tragedy the likes of the one that befell Sanderson is immeasurably small.

There have been literally thousands and thousands of fights in NHL history, and while the danger was always there and many injuries result, death never has.

Blogger Tom Benjamin is right, I am "reluctant to use a tragedy to advance" my opinion, especially when this particular death occurred in a league so far removed from the spotlight that a death from any other hockey-related cause would have likely been but a footnote in the community.

Because it happened in a fight, no matter the level it occurred, Sanderson's death has become a huge story for weeks here in Canada.

I've written this in the past, but I don't like the fact the NHL employs human punching bags. I don't particularly like watching what they do, and I cringe whenever there's a horrible injury coming as the result of a blow from one of the behemoths chucking his fists for a living.

That said, I wouldn't eliminate fighting — just attempt to curtail it. If there was a way to weed out the "enforcer" types through a rule change, I'd be all for it. Make it a game misconduct if you have to and increase the number of games given out based on repeat bouts.

Yes, fighting is a part of hockey. It's just not enough a part of it for me to justify the human cost involved.

A high-level player will die in a fight one day in my lifetime, I'm sure of that, and as Benjamin notes, it'll play "a thousand times on CNN." What it may not be, however, is an NHLer, as we've got 1,500 16 to 20 year olds duking it out in small rinks across this country, battling for $40 dollars a week, a potential partial scholarship and, for the lucky few, a spot in "the show."

They're fighting in junior, they're fighting in senior, fighting in Junior A, B and C. Everyone's dropping the gloves, emulating their idols, putting a lot on the line for what is, for almost everyone but the elite few, a past time.

That's insanity.

1 recs | Comment 50 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

growing up in canada, i have had my share of hockey fights. i understand they are risky, but not more so than other sports. after a player in football gets paralyzed does everyone scream to take out tackling. no, because it is part of the game. if people do not like watching potentially crippling tackles, then they can turn it off. fighting is part of the game, if people do not like it then dont play, or watch hockey. one guy died from an accident. where is this same outrage everytime someone dies from other accidents (on the road, jobsite, etc).

by slutnuts on Jan 9, 2009 6:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm reconsidering my position on fights

After watching the WJHC where fighting (fisticuffs) is pretty seriously punished I’m not sure that I buy the the arguments on fighting being a necessary part of the game anymore.

Where the two teams were evenly matched, we saw spirited, exciting, fast, skilled hockey. We saw some edginess but it never evolved into fights (didn’t see a glove dropped which is where the punishment starts). Those games were very entertaining and the fact that there weren’t any fights did not detract at all.

Humans used to think that throwing other human beings to the lions was good entertainment at one time. Maybe we should continue our evolution and rethink the entertainment value of fighting in hockey.

by hockeycountry on Jan 9, 2009 6:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

did you enjoy watching tavares get hit from behind? or how about all the chippy/ dirtiness between the u.s. and canada? without any threat of possible retribution and accountability (2 minutes is not enough of a retractor), dirty players roam the ice lookig to injure star players. unfortunately international tournaments are a small scope to use as an example. the teams dont play against each other enough to begin hating each other. i guarantee if the interantional teams played each other 4-6 times a year you would see fights.

by slutnuts on Jan 9, 2009 8:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

This is a smokescreen argument

People who claim that “fighting protects against dirty play” are either blind, or fooling themselves.

Players who are "dirty" aren’t "afraid" of getting beat up – so even with fighting, if they even fight at all, they will take their lumps…and come back on the next shift and do the next "dirty" trick. Can you name a “dirty” play that was appropriately head “accountable” by a fight? The majority of fights are goon-on-goon.

What people who make this argument REALLY want, but are not comfortable admitting – is for it to be "fair" for a team that has been "wronged" by a dirty player to be allowed to "retaliate" against that dirty player – eye for an eye justice.

These people know, deep down, that you can never "stop" players who cross the line – even if you are allowed to beat them up (with or without fear of an instigator penalty).

So the "wronged" team, only have 2 remedies – you either sit back let the league try to punish the bad actor through penalties or suspension (in hopes that it will deter future bad actions by setting an example for other players to follow) – or you let your own players "sink to the level" of the bad actor (ie – Ruutu throws an elbow at Crosby’s head? Then someone on Penguins is going to throw an elbow at Heatley’s head).

I believe if the League was doing its job properly – in better legislating against these dirty actions, in forcing officials to harshly penalize players who do cross the line, and in adding long suspensions and harsh $$ fines when they do – you will get a lot more of this type of "dirty" play out of the game, then if you just team’s resident goon throw a few punches at a guy.

by poploser on Jan 9, 2009 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

here is my 2 cents

Fighting is not truly a part of hockey. To compare hockey fights to football tackles is wrong; tackles are obviously a necessary part of football – you need to stop the ball carrier. Hockey fights are always separate from hockey plays, and occur after play is officially done. Hockey fights don’t put points on the board, or stop points from going on the board (a la football).

I will say that fighting could never be removed from hockey, and I do enjoy the occasional scrap. We should, however, get right of fighting for fighting’s sake (i.e., look at fights in the playoffs – much different than regular season crap between two goons). I would suggest suspensions and hefty team fines when a player whose ice time averages less than, say, 6 minutes per game gets in a fight.

by rich snake on Jan 9, 2009 8:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I would suggest suspensions and hefty team fines when a player whose ice time averages less than, say, 6 minutes per game gets in a fight.

Tell me you’re kidding. You would actually punish a guy because his coach doesn’t play him X amount of time? I’m sorry, but that’s insane.

Look, I agree that the goon battles are frequently unnecessary and uninteresting, but there is no sensible way to curtail them.

by Doogie2K on Jan 9, 2009 8:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not kidding

There are reasons why coaches give their goons X amount of ice time, obviously.

Take a look at the 30 or so players who currently average less than 10% of a game on the ice…the highest “scorer” in the bunch is Boogaard, with 3 assists. He is also the only one with a +/- better than +1. Yeah, if the Wild make the playoffs, the coach is going to need his obvious skills at both ends of the ice and raise his ice time for sure when it really matters.

Mr. Mirtle suggested game misconducts and suspensions for repeat fighters…is that more sensible than what I have suggested, or should the rules actually suspend Crosby if he gets in another “fight” or two? At least James and I didn’t just shrug and cry out that it’s hopeless to eliminate goonery. As the good Dr. Van Nostrum states in his fine post below, “it can be curtailed…it only takes a willingness to do so.”

by rich snake on Jan 9, 2009 9:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I just think that it smacks of discrimination, and gives fighters one more reason to say that they get the shitty end of the stick, not to mention it gives the PA something else to scream about, which I don’t think the NHL has the patience for right now. It also fails to distinguish between a pointless goon battle (which I’m all for getting rid of) and a fight between an enforcer and a guy who laid an unpenalized dirty hit the previous shift (which I’m not in favour of getting rid of). We already have enough trouble with the NHL’s supplementary discipline being a steaming pile of turd that I really don’t think we need or want Colin Campbell going through every single fight and determining its relative necessity; that creates more problems than it solves. Either ban ‘em all or let ’em play, but there’s no way that such an idea is going to hold up in reality.

by Doogie2K on Jan 9, 2009 10:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It also fails to distinguish between a pointless goon battle (which I’m all for getting rid of) and a fight between an enforcer and a guy who laid an unpenalized dirty hit the previous shift (which I’m not in favour of getting rid of).

Honestly, does this ever happen? Does Avery or Ruutu ever fight a heavyweight for a cheap hit?

by James Mirtle on Jan 9, 2009 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Those two, not necessarily, because that kills their effectiveness as professional douchebags. A lot of players, though, will man up. For example, Kurt Sauer took on Tom Kostopolous after knocking Andrei Kostitsyn for a loop in the MTL-PHX game. Fine, he didn’t take Big Georges, as he probably should have by The Code, but in the instigator-era NHL, where he has a choice, he’d be stupid if he did.

by Doogie2K on Jan 9, 2009 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, Sauer’s a monster. He’s bigger than Kostopolous and has fought regularly as long as I can remember.

by James Mirtle on Jan 9, 2009 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Big Georges was busy blogging for Sportsnet.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Jan 9, 2009 1:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good post, James

stucknuts wrote: “One guy died from an accident. Where is this same outrage every time someone dies from other accidents (on the road, jobsite, etc).”

Valid point about proportionality. However, that “one guy” was named Don Sanderson. He had parents, siblings, teammates and friends. He died of a brain injury that resulted from a fall during an on-ice fight. Fights are not a necessary part of advancing the puck into the opposition’s net. It can be curtailed, Doogie, it only takes a willingness to do so.

stucknuts also wrote: “Fighting is part of the game. If people do not like it then don’t play or watch hockey.”

I might invite you to not watch as I slap my wife around for over-cooking the roast. I might invite you not to watch while I burn a cross on my neighbour’s lawn. I might also invite you not to watch while I rob your bank. It’s called a vested interest, and I have one the same as you do.

stucknuts wrote: “Without any threat of possible retribution and accountability (2 minutes is not enough of a retractor), dirty players roam the ice looking to injure star players.”

Not sure what a “retractor” is, but I believe what your mangled syntax is proposing is called a “false choice”: We must allow fighting or we must resign ourselves to vicious stick-work..

There’s a solution to vicious stick work. It’s called the rule book, a whistle, and a willingness to use both.

But back to James’ post, the buried thesis is: This would be a different discussion if this was an NHL fighting death. James’ Freudian slip tells the tale: “A player will die in a fight one day in my lifetime, I’m sure of that.”

“A player” has died. His name was Don Sanderson. What I believe James meant to say is “an NHL player will die in a fight one day….” It’ll be on TV. it’ll play 10,000 times in the highlights reels. Commentators and video pimps will fall all over themselves to variously condemn or defend hockey fights. Politicians will stand up in the House of Commons (or Congress) and demand something be done. Lawyers and insurance companies will get involved.

And at some point fighting will be taken out of hockey. And sensible people everywhere will look back on the Fighting Era and wonder, “what were we thinking?”

by Dr Van Nostrum on Jan 9, 2009 9:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

But would this be the issue that it is if he had died from hitting his head on the ice because he slipped while chasing an icing or on his way back to the bench? Of course not. It was a fight, so it grabs headlines, and presents its own false choice: ban fighting or see more people die from slipping on the ice.

So no, I don’t see this as a fighting issue, in the first place; I see this as a helmet issue, because if his helmet had been on, he would’ve lived. There have been several NHL hits over the last few years that resulted in serious concussions, but might not have if the player’s helmet had been secured properly. (I think Neil-on-Drury, leading to that brawl a couple of years ago, was one of them.) The obvious response to this incident specifically is to have a buckets-on rule for scrapping, because there’s no way the NHL or PA give up on fighting itself; they both have too much invested in it. I’m not sure you could sell a helmet rule to the players at the NHL level, though the jersey tie-down ejection (as opposed to an extra two or something) somehow passed, so who knows. In the developmental leagues, though, it’s something that maybe should have been done already. I mean, some might say ban fighting in the CHL altogether, but I would counter that (a) it was already banned in Don Sanderson’s league, and happened anyway, and (b) it seems to me much safer for a kid to learn how to fight in a league with his similarly underdeveloped cohorts than in a league where John Mirasty is waiting to kick his teeth in. The visors make things a bit more complicated, but I think the odd broken finger from a misaimed punch is better than the risk of a broken skull. (Besides, didn’t I hear a couple of years ago about one of the equipment companies working on a visor that can be unclipped for fighting but couldn’t be knocked off by a slapshot or errant stick? Was that a fever dream?)

The other rule change, which is something the NHL should have done 30 years ago, would be to stop allowing players to keep playing after losing their helmets. In international rules, if you lose your hat, you go back to the bench, or get a penalty (there might be an option to recover the missing bucket, but I’m not sure). Surely, it would’ve been easy enough to make this part of the rule in ‘79, and I don’t see why it wasn’t, but there we go. I bet if you did that, you’d see a lot more helmets done up properly, and therefore fewer head injuries, as a result.

by Doogie2K on Jan 9, 2009 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Doogie, you’re right about this being ultimately a helmet issue, which I lost sight of. My previous comments were (a) in response to the “part of the game” argument, and (b) an attempt to solve the goon-on-goon nonsense.

by rich snake on Jan 9, 2009 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough. It is kind of difficult these days to argue it’s part of the game: I still support it, partially because it’s the only recourse for players given some truly asinine decisions by the on- and off-ice officials, and partially because it is entertaining at a very base level, the same way boxing, wrestling, and MMA are.

I’ve thought a lot about the goon-on-goon nonsense myself, and I personally couldn’t come up with anything that wouldn’t get shot down by either the players or the league, but if you or someone else can come up with something, like I said, I’m all for it. I like fights as a response to the play, not as a sideshow away from it.

by Doogie2K on Jan 9, 2009 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The league doesn’t want to curtail fighting or eliminate goons. They’d shoot down any proposal at this point.

by James Mirtle on Jan 9, 2009 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, you wouldn’t. I am foremost a fan of a hockey league (the NCAA) where fighting is prohibited. A player’s first fight of the year gets a one game suspension. The second gets two games. The third means you’re done for the year. Oddly enough, you don’t have brawls breaking out all the time. I probably see two actually fights a year, though plenty of roughing double minors.

Contrary to everyone’s baseless speculation, the NCAA doesn’t have particularly dirty play, either. There aren’t noticeably more stick fouls, or checking from behind. What there is is more hockey. Maybe it’s just me, but more hockey is a good thing.

by J. Michael Neal on Jan 9, 2009 9:39 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

E at Theory Of Ice said it quite well a while back… fighting actually isn’t part of the game. Play stops when a fight breaks out, and both players are assessed penalties for their actions. Can hockey really be held liable for the actions of two people pounding each other on the ice, and the game deeming that action illegal? Maybe the punishment is “soft”, but there is a penalty. The rule book sets up a system to deal with fighting, but it doesn’t actually allow the activity.

It’s a tough call. If everyone wears visors it’s tougher to punch a guy in the face if the helmet is on. But taking the helmet off causes much worse damage, as we’ve seen. Hockey helmet manufacturers would have a hard time creating a visor that could be removed for fights that wouldn’t come off during the regular course of a game (creating manufacturer liability concerns if the player then got hit in the eye with a stick or puck). I remember seeing junior players remove their visors before fighting before, but I think they just learned how to remove them and that was actually abusing the equipment.

As for the cheapshots at the World Juniors… you have to realize these are teenagers at their most competitive. International men’s tournaments don’t have nearly the same amount of cheap shots, and Canada helps out by not giving a spot to a guy like Della Rovere or Steve Downie at each tournament as well. As J. Michael Neal points out, the NCAA doesn’t have a problem in relation to other leagues with cheap shots, either.

The only solution to curtail the illegal activity of fighting is stiffer penalties for it. Making fighting more “safe” is pretty much impossible, and really contradictory to the rulebook in some ways.

Personally, I don’t mind scraps, but I don’t complain when there aren’t any. I wouldn’t mind if my team became like Detroit and hardly fought at all. Really, I think fighting (or wanting your team to fight constantly) is only important for hockey fans when there team isn’t winning games. The old “can’t beat ’em on the ice, beat ’em in the alley” school of thought.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Jan 9, 2009 9:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

"The Instigator"

James,

Interesting article. I’m wondering how you feel about the instigator penalty and if you are in favor of removing it? Do you think there would be more fighting or less without “the instigator”?

by Robert McGee on Jan 9, 2009 10:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

the instigator rule is not the problem or the solution

The instigator rule argument is a distraction from the real issue. People who want to remove the instigator rule say its not “fair” because…for example…Player A takes a cheap shot against player B. Player C retaliates against Player A, and Player C gets an instigator penalty.

This is exactly how it SHOULD be. Players are not policemen. Referees, and ultimately the League, are the officials and are in charge of doing the policing. In what other sport are the players allowed to “police” the game? In football or basketball, if a player commits a foul, is the other team allowed to retaliate in kind? That’s ridiculous. But thats what people who support fighting as a deterrent (and who are against the instigator penalty) want.

by poploser on Jan 9, 2009 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I mostly agree with what poploser said. The instigator’s a pretty significant penalty overall, and is there to penalize the kind of stupid thing Crosby did a few nights ago.

by James Mirtle on Jan 9, 2009 1:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I actually agree with you for the most part, but I would counter that if the ref doesn’t see it, and the League doesn’t punish it…then what?

I’m not saying it’s the best answer, just the only one left after official means of discipline fail.

by Doogie2K on Jan 9, 2009 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Get the league to deal with infractions seriously. It’s the only way you are actually going to get rid of them. There is zero evidence that fighting lowers the number of cheap shots. It doesn’t do any good to pretend that it does. The only consequence of fighting is that there is fighting.

by J. Michael Neal on Jan 9, 2009 2:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t say there’s zero evidence, but it’s probably more anecdotal than scientific, and it generally has less of an effect the further along you are in the game (to use a crude analogy, it’s easy to spook a schoolyard bully by simple retaliation; it’s not so easy to spook a street thug by doing the same). I do agree with you, however, that the League needs to deal with serious infraction better; it’s the only way the players will ever “feel” safe enough to consider giving up fighting, and it’s certainly the only way you’ll get a large contingent of fighting supporters to feel at ease with the change, because it’s as much about our own primal sense of justice as raw entertainment. Speaking purely for myself, I’m perfectly content if a guy gets tossed and suspended for a cheap shot instead of having the shit kicked out of him.

by Doogie2K on Jan 9, 2009 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course. as poploser points out, this attitude is exactly what produces players overreacting to perfectly clean hits by starting something. As senses of justices go, this is beyond primal, andmakes it all the way to brutal, pointless, and inefficient. If justice is your goal, I think your solution is worse than the problem.

by J. Michael Neal on Jan 9, 2009 5:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it leads to overreactions. No, I think “primal” is the correct word, if you look it up. You’re free to disagree with the method of justice, but that’s the culture of the game, and if you want to change it, you need better enforcement of the existing rules. I don’t think we’re really disagreeing here, we’re simply coming at it from two different starting points.

by Doogie2K on Jan 9, 2009 11:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a failure of the League. The League is the one with access to TV replays, and the ability to suspend. If something is missed by the officials on ice, the League has the ability to suspend a player after the game.

When you give the players the right to “fill in” as officials, you open up a much bigger can of worms. The players are, by definition, going to be one-sided in their opinions on what is “right” or “fair” or “clean” or “dirty” or “just”, and that will necessarily impact their reactions. Its why we see players getting jumped for hard, but ultimately clean hits. Players are the WORST position to act fairly.

by poploser on Jan 9, 2009 4:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think everyone is missing the real culprit

It’s not the fighting persay, it’s the ice. It’s too hard. I propose we remove the ice, and instead play the game on one of those blowup air mattress thingys that little kids bounce on at fairs. That way, players can remove their helmets (an added bonus of returning to the “true roots” of hockey where you can see the player and their hair) which I’m sure Rosenbloom would appreciate, and would also allow for the removal of skates and those pesky dangerous blades. That way, we wouldn’t have anymore Barrasso/Zednik incidents.

Without ice, the arena would be warmer, or we could actually play outdoors easily, and in the summer too! This would increase popularity in the US no doubt.

I’ve just improved the safety of hockey about 500%, while improving the US marketplace. And the only downfall is that stickhandling will now be harder. I think I should be the new commissioner.

by lordosis on Jan 9, 2009 11:49 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Roller hockey on foam wrestling mats? Sold.

All you need to do is switch to one of those roller hockey pucks or, barring that, a ball. Works for university intramurals, amirite?

by Doogie2K on Jan 9, 2009 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you couldnt do a worse job than the current commissioner

by poploser on Jan 9, 2009 12:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I totally agree with your stance.

First off, the percentage chance of dying from a fight is very, very small.

Secondly, it’s not that I want fighting banned from the NHL, I just don’t want fighting the way it is now. I’m tired of seeing some stupid pre-planned fight between two fourth line goons. And don’t feed me that line about “pumping the team up”, they’re freakin’ taking away ice time from more skilled and more interesting players whom, frankly, I’d much rather watch deke, pass, check, and PLAY HOCKEY.

If a fight happens to occasionally break out through the natural transgression of two good hockey players battling each other all game and getting under each other’s skin, that’s fine by me. But this “role fighting” thing is making the game less interesting imo.

by sunnymehta.com on Jan 9, 2009 12:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I would love to see an analysis of all fights in a given year, to see how many of them were pre-planned “goon on goon vs these "spontaneous” fights between two “good” hockey players. Im willing to bet that the large majority of fights are not between guys who are “good” players.

When you take away the “goon” fights, I think people would come to realize that fighting is not nearly as vital to the game as they think.

by poploser on Jan 9, 2009 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well...

I don’t like fighting per se, but when I played midget (many moons ago), I got into the only two fights of my doomed career. Both fights were with the same guy, a guy notorious for crosschecking from behind and dirty stick work. I finally had enough of it and pounded him twice. That was the end of it.

So while I am not a huge fan of fighting it has its place. I think if you eliminate it completely you will end up with a lot of stick work.

As for getting a hate on… my midget days were spent in a prairie town’s house league. We had a grand total of two teams and twenty five games, late on Sunday nights. (They were trying to get us to quit.) Both teams were slated to make the playoffs! But in the last regular season game before the championship, a ton of fights broke out (twenty or so games against the same guys will do that to you!) and they cancelled the season. We were not happy about that. We wanted one more lick at them.

FWIW

by dcsj on Jan 9, 2009 12:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

So while I am not a huge fan of fighting it has its place. I think if you eliminate it completely you will end up with a lot of stick work.

Except that, as I keep pointing out, we have actual empirical evidence about this. We have a league that doesn’t allow fighting. It does not have more stick work than the NHL. As far as I can tell, you are wrong.

Until you can come up with something to support your argument beyond just speculation, I don’t see any reason to treat it seriously. If you like fighting, fine, vocally support it, but don’t try to tell me something that clearly isn’t true.

by J. Michael Neal on Jan 9, 2009 2:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Please note that I am not for fighting. I am actually for limiting it and penalizing it. But I do think that if it is totally eliminated, you will have more serious problems down the road.

by dcsj on Jan 9, 2009 8:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That isn’t so much specifically a hockey fight, though, as sticking up for yourself against a bully. Like any bully, he will push and push and push until someone pushes back – then odds are they collapse like a cheap lawn chair. It could have been pushing you around on the playground or intimidating you in the hallways, but it just so happened that he bullied while playing hockey.

Professionals have an entirely different motivation. At least most of them do, anyway.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Jan 9, 2009 6:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Professionals…

Jarkko Ruutu…

Need I say more???

by dcsj on Jan 9, 2009 8:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

At least most of them do, anyway.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Jan 10, 2009 4:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Besides ...

I’m not sure that he is so much a bully as just a petulant child with poor impulse control. Bullies are more calculated in their actions – I can’t imagine biting someone as being a strategy as much as a stupid sudden impulse. Like you would see in a toddler (right before his parents smacked him for biting).

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Jan 10, 2009 4:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

First fighting Death in at least 50 years

It might be even 90, as I thought I saw a cornwall article talking about an early hockey death from fighting. If you want to fix the chippiness.
Lose the helmets and visor, force the players to have respect for one another.
Watch the old games, even in the dirty 70-80’s players did not hook slash or hit from behind like they do now. The more fights the better. Believe it or not the more PR ( good or bad) that the NHL gets the better in the US. In Canada fighting is part of the game.
Learning how to stand up and defend yourself, friends and teammates is something all people should be taught.

Leafs selling hope to the hopeless since 1967

by Toe Blake Hockey on Jan 9, 2009 3:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Oh Lord, spare me the respect argument.

If you actually watched those games, you’d know how little respect there really was. Watch a Battle of Alberta from the mid-80s, when it was at its peak. Tell me there was respect in those games. Tell me there were no cheap shots. There were a lot of fights, but there were also a lot of cheap shots, and no respect. Jim Peplinski had a great line once, that it was a wonder no one was killed in a BoA, because it certainly wasn’t for lack of effort.

And it was 1906, 103 years ago, and the incident involved stick fighting, specifically, which is something that hasn’t happened commonly in the NHL since the pre-Original Six days.

by Doogie2K on Jan 9, 2009 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Respect doesn’t stop a slap shot hitting someon in the head, If you have players without helmets you’d need to get rid off all the current sticks and go back to ones from the 70’s that won’t shoot the puck at 90mph at head height.

The Savage - Game Thread Leader and King Of The World

"Two roads divurged in a wood, and I took the one less travelled by, and that has made all the difference"
R. Frost

by Savage33 on Jan 14, 2009 2:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nobody else will know about it, but a couple months ago, an assistant coach with the Alberta Midget Hockey League’s Strathmore UFA Bisons died after slipping on the ice during practice. He hit his head, fell into a coma, and died a few days later. This incident merited a small mention in the Calgary papers, and a prominent mention in the Airdire papers, where he was from, including a successful campaign to have one of the arenas in Airdrie renamed the Ron Ebbeson Arena. Mr. Ebbeson’s death was a tragic incident of local interest only.

Sanderson’s death likely would have been the same, except for the stampede of people willing to trample over his grave to push their own agendas. When you go back and listen to the arguments made before this happened, I am quite convinced that many anti-fighting zealots WANTED someone to die, just so they could say they were right. His was a tragic death, but it was not, in and of itself, a real argument against the value of fighting in the game.

by Resolute on Jan 9, 2009 7:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Damien Cox

Check out what he wrote in his mailbox. I don’t know that he wanted someone to die but he sure as hell was ready to use it to further his arguments.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Jan 9, 2009 10:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree insofar as to say that this is getting overblown because it happened during a fight; I made that point earlier in the thread. But to suggest that anti-fighting “zealots” “wanted” this to happen is entirely over the line and over the top.

by Doogie2K on Jan 9, 2009 11:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A Nation of Fighters

Well I agree with you on the tragic result from the Don Sanderson fight and it was an isolated incident so I hope people don’t over react. The fear is though if you try and curtail fighting and the outlet it creates then you will likely see much more stick work in the game which could have much greater consequences. Pissants like Rutu will have more freedom to get away with their BS. My view is there is no place in the game for guys like him.
Walt AKA All Sports on the Web
All Sports on the Web

Walt AKA All Sports on the Web
All Sports on the Web

by webbontheweb on Jan 10, 2009 9:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090111.truth12/GSStory/GlobeSportsHockey/home

Well there you have it. Cherry’s has spoken

A question for the masses.

Who amongst us can trump the words of Mike Sanderson?

by cubanpuckstopper on Jan 12, 2009 9:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Just because Don Sanderson and his family believed in fighting in the beer leagues doesn’t mean the rest of those in hockey circles have to endorse that point of view.

I agree with Cherry in the sense they have to get rid of the guys who can’t play and can only fight. That alone would decrease the number of fights in the league and protect those human punching bags I talked about.

by James Mirtle on Jan 12, 2009 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Point taken James.

I agree with Cherry on goons, I don’t know how to do it, perhaps if you score less than 30 points and get into a fight it is a game misconduct, if you score more than 30 and fight it is a major penalty??

The seeds of becoming “A Nation of Fighters” are laid early. I coach youth hockey, after practice there is usually a hockey game on in the lobby area. When a fight breaks out, parents (who are a much larger influence on players individually than I am) will yell, “Fight, fight”, and seek out their little hockey player to be sure they are watching with them. When a goal is scored or a big save is made, there is little fanfare.

What’s the message that is being sent?

by cubanpuckstopper on Jan 13, 2009 7:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs