What if the NHL banned fighting? Would you consider watching hockey games? Of course not, you're an American. You wouldn't even start watching if, during fights, the players all stripped down to their jockstraps like Michael Ontkean did at the end of Slap Shot (video below!). But should the league ban fisticuffs for the betterment of the image of the game? Eh. Probably not.
I'm not a big fan of it. It is truly a beautiful game without it. Want to make a living throwing punches? Box. Or, "fight" your way into the octagon. But many hockey purists would literally punch me over banning the dropping of gloves. Their arguments for not illegalizing it include:
1. Dangerous stick fouls would increase. This, considering simple probability, is true, I guess. If players spent more time with their sticks in their hands-because they couldn't drop them to start throwing haymakers-then more stick fouls would occur.
2. Coaches send their designated goons out to fire up the team. Hmm. How about if coach himself just sucker-punched the players who were not giving it their all in the back of head? I'm sure the thought crossed psychotic Mike Keenan's mind constantly.
3. Enforcers protect their more-skilled teammates from cheap shots. This is the best argument for keeping fighting legal. But stiffer penalties/suspensions for dirty play would do much to lessen it. But, this is the reason I think fighting should stay in the game.
4. There's some sort of "warrior code."
The pro-fighting faction would point out, correctly, that it has almost been forced out of the game anyway. The instigator and third-man-in penalties have eliminated much of the spontaneous fighting. Plus if you leave the bench during a fight, you're tossed; this has stopped the big Slap Shot-like brawls (almost to the video!). And because every player now wears a helmet, the most prevalent hockey fight injury is a mangled bloody hand.
Me, I've been in one hockey fight in my life. It was during a game in a fairly violent, pathetic post-college league. I was digging at an arguably loose puck under a goalie's pads, when a defensemen punched me in the face with his gloved hand. We grabbed each other and fell down, the end. It smelled, more than hurt. There are few things that smell worse than a well-worn hockey glove, especially by the third period.
If you've got bloodlust to read more, here's a long-ass 2008 ESPN article on the Cult of the Goon. If not, here's your video from the best hockey movie of all time (edging out Mystery, Alaska):
Copyranter is an ad copywriter who blogs about advertising here. Before selling out, he was a sports reporter for several small newspapers, including a daily where he covered the Philadelphia Flyers. He knows his way around a rink, having majored in hockey in college-which led to his graduating with a 2.8 GPA in Communications and a wicked wrist shot.
I like the hockey posts, but judging by your account, you have been in zero hockey fights.
I did once beat the shit out of Bob Probert in a mall parking lot.
I know Bob Probert, and you sir, did NOT beat up Bob Probert in a mall parking lot.
Hockey - fighting = girls lacrosse.
Ken Dryden doesn't like fighting and doesn't buy the pro-fighting arguments. That should really pretty much be case closed.
I think the best argument for banning fighting is that the best hockey never happens with it. (Hello gold medal game three weeks ago?) I played hockey for about 20 of the first 21 years of my life and like 99 percent of the people I know who played hockey like I did, I was in absolutely zero fights (at least the way you see them in NHL games). It's just not a part of the game in amateur (and most professional) leagues anywhere in the world. The NHL should have banned it thirty years ago. Also, nobody in the history of hockey to my knowledge has ever said 'stick fouls'? In hockey there are 'penalties' that include 'high-sticking' and 'slashing,' the end. (Sorry to be a lil bitchy.)
I think that there are maybe 3 elements in play that will keep it from being removed, at least not in the current landscape:
1) Gary Bettman is a Mongoloid. He has terrible business sense, and even worse hockey sense. He has no idea what fans actually want, and he has no idea what is good for the league, as has been evidenced time and time again (See: Jim Ballsalie) He thinks that fighting needs to exist to sell it to American markets (false) and to continue satisfying the get-er-done blue collar canadian markets (also false.)
2) The NHLPA wouldn't rally for it either. Look who some of the player reps are: George Parros, Bryan Allen, Willie Mitchell, David Clarkson...these dudes be fighin'.
3) A lot of fans do sort of like it, even if you or I could live without it. I don't mind it either way...I can watch a fight and I can not watch a fight. It makes no difference as long as nobody important breaks a hand.
4) In the current environment, everyone IS penalized appropriately. If a superstar wants to drop the gloves, he spends 5 minutes in there like everyone else. It doesn't necessarily benefit anyone to do it...there's no reward for fighting (unless it's added to your contract.) Some players do it because they are paid to, and others simply because tempers do flare. Tempers flare in every sport. At least in this one, MOST players get their aggressions out through fighting. As long as Todd Bertuzzi is still allowed to play hockey, and Mike Richards gets a minor for ending Booth's season while Ovechkin gets 2 games...fighting is certainly the lesser of most evils. I think there's way too much that needs fixin before we start taking about fighting.
4 elements then, it seems.
There's a fifth argument that the pro-fighting contingent would submit if it was being honest: the thrilling, consuming bloodlust engendered by any good hockey fight (which I suppose would be 2A). I say this speaking as a pro-fighting hockey fan who can't help but get excited when a fight starts. I'm not trying to be provocative, but I can't understand how people talk about "exciting hockey" vs. "fight-filled hockey," as if they're mutually exclusive. The Olympics is a great example: the final was incredible, but it would've been even more incredible to me if, say, Pronger had "called" Kesler to task for his chippy play. Sure, I'm Canadian (and worse, a Leafs fan), so maybe the hockey fight is just too important to my already shaky national identity. Also, a smart hockey column!
Thank you for this! Every time I see Mike Millbury go off with his defensive justifications for fighting (and now, boardng), I (ironically) want to punch him in the face. Shit is dangerous, and it's not like hockey's going to stop being a contact sport.
That said...sometimes the fighting really does seem more like WWE-style "entertainment", where both pugilists do the dance to raise the energy levels of the crowd and/or their teammates. Still though, so unnecessary. I agree that the best hockey is plenty exciting and high-energy without resorting to this crap.
It's tough, as fighting really is ingrained in the culture of the NHL. As a Hawks fan, I couldn't help but notice that, almost literally, the first thing Adam Burrish wanted to do upon returning to the ice after a five-month injury was..get in a brawl.
I like the fighting, but detest the Milbury.
I'm not a fan of fighting.
I just spent the weekend at the greatest sporting event in the nation, the state high school hockey tournament (big around these parts).
The best game of the tournament was a semi-final that went into quadruple OT. There were ZERO penalties. Just seven hours of high school kids playing their hearts out.
It was a thing of beauty.
My exception to this rule comes to goalies. Goalies can always fight. Preferably at the blue line.
See Roy v. Vernon and Roy v. Osgood.
(Roy v. His Wife, not as amusing).
uh...that would be seven periods, not seven hours.
Assuming we are talking about NHL hockey, allowing fighting in hockey is obviously a "tradition," but there are more valid reasons than the above:
1) Consider that these guys jobs depend on doing well. If they don't 'wow' the organization, or at least do what they were hired to do, they WILL be sent down to the minors, if not picked up at all. There's a healthy dose of frustration served to them nightly.
2) They are doing more cardio-exercise in hockey than in any other Major sport. There's a skill exercise in hockey called a "Herbie" (named after hockey coach great Herb Brooks), where one skates as fast as they can for about 30 feet, slams on the breaks, then goes back and starts over. Try doing that just 10 times. You WILL collapse if you are not in top shape. Trust me.
3) It's all men. Testosterone-filled, alpha-male-wannabe men. Even if there is no conflict, the desire is usually there.
None of the above are a reason to fight. However, add 1, 2 and 3 together and it would be shocking if an occasional fight did NOT break out.
Hockey has its bad boys outside of the arena, (Chelios, Heatley), but the number of hockey players who get in trouble with the law are WAY less than you find in football, basketball and baseball. Could the reason why be that they are allowed to vent their frustration with a few punches and a shove?
One thing many don't touch on with the fight/not fight debate is that the fights are always controlled. The refs allow the fight but as soon as the players/fighters fall down or there is a obvious 'winner,' they immediately break it up. Most fights last no more than 10-15 seconds.
There is an unwritten "rule" in hockey that whatever happens on the ice stays on the ice. Meaning, if a fight is inevitable, take care of it and get on with your business. There's no reason to fight anywhere else than on the ice because it's part of the game - and that's where it should stay.
Two points:
1) I think that many people would have a different perspective on this debate if there was any faith in the NHL's Office of Discipline to dole out suspensions and fines in a matter that is consistent, logical, and painful enough to make players consider changes in behavior. Colin Campbell is about as good a disciplinarian as he was a head coach.
2) I don't mind fighting in the game. I DO have a problem with goons and staged fights. If two guys get into it and decide to drop the gloves in the heat of battle, that's one thing. But the whole idea of Donald Brashear casually skating up to Colton Orr and politely asking him if they want to drop gloves always struck me as something that should not have a place in the game. And even worse is the "my player took a hard but clean check into the boards, so I must avenge him" fighting that's becoming prevalent over the past year or so.