Now that a deal has been reached... Let's talk hockey fights!

[UrbScotty]

Don't forget to visit www.hockeyfights.com for a detailed compilation of info on NHL fights in the past several years.

[Maple]

1. Oh let's not

and say we did.

[getmeouttahere]

2. There have been so few decent dust-ups....

in the last several years, because they are trying to sell the game in the U.S. and they actually think that eliminating fighting will help.

One of the great things about the "old days" in hockey was that almost everybody dropped the gloves every once in a while. Superstars and Scrubs alike.

My all-time favorite tough guy wasn't even considered an enforcer - in fact, he had the best "snap-shot" I ever saw - Wendel Clark. Pound for pound, as tough as they come. In a game between the Leafs and Kings here in L.A. several years ago, I saw him start out underneath a guy (I think Doug Zmolek), flips the guy over and starts pounding away. Never saw anything like it!

[Maple]

3. Might be nice

if they actually played hockey, and skipped the 'glove-dropping' crap.

[Joey Liberal]

13. John Wensink was a tough one too

One of the great things about the "old days" in hockey was that almost everybody dropped the gloves every once in a while. Superstars and Scrubs alike.
======
I couldn't agree more. Old school hockey was much better than what we've seen in recent years. Even Bobby Orr dropped his gloves every now and then. Do you remember John Wensink? He was another legendary tough guy for the Big Bad Bruins. Ah, the good ole days:)..........

[getmeouttahere]

4. Wow, you're like the ultimate shit-disturber, ih8thegop!

start a thread about hockey fights and then don't continue the discussion...what's up with that???

[UrbScotty]

5. What are you talking about?

<drops gloves>

[jakefrep]

6. Hockey fights suck...

...they detract from the game.

[MrSlayer]

7. Chris Nilan is my favorite all time fighter.

He kicked some major ass in the 80's. I've got some really good fight tapes I need to transfer into digital featuring him and many of the other bad asses from the period.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. Ban Fighting COMPLETELY!

Slows the game down, and puts too many people with limited hockey skills on rosters. I want fast and exciting. Not chippy and angry.
The Professor

[Joey Liberal]

10. Wrong!

Hockey is a spectator sport. What drew people to it was the hard hitting and the fighting. Yes, people like to watch fast, good skaters and scoring too. But when the old Big Bad Bruins played the Broad Street Bullies, the games were almost always sold out. People knew they were watching a historic rivalry. Now, its boring.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Just Don't Agree

That doesn't make either of us wrong. And, the Oilers and Islanders were the two teams that drew the highest ratings and the most consistent sell-outs on the road in NHL history. You can look it up.

Hard hitting and fighting are mutually exclusive. The Islanders had some of the hardest forecheckers ever! But, clean, legal, and in the flow of the game hitting is exciting! Dump and rush, a board pinning for no good reason except roughness is not.

You say almost always sold out for Philly and Boston. The Oilers and Islanders, during their heydays, were sold out WAY more often. And yet, both of those teams were rooted in high speed, quick passing offenses and goal scoring. No goons. No thuggery. Just high paced hockey by highly skilled teams.

Fighting is NOT what most fans go to see hockey games to see. That's a myth. Additionally, you have to remember that hockey, as the #8 spectator sport in the U.S., is ignoring a GIGANTIC fan base that was most interested during the 80's when the two teams i mentioned were dominant. Keeping fighting because a few troglodytes insist it be part of the game, isn't exactly a growth strategy.
The Professor

[Joey Liberal]

12. I hear ya

But the fact is that fighting is a part of the game. There was less high sticking when the enforcers ruled the rinks. Making players wear helmets has also resulted in more high sticking. You don't think that Dave "The Hammer" Shultz attracted fans? Hockey was doing great until they changed the rules. The ratings went down in recent years, and the strike just made it worse. Even Bobby Orr says that fighting is a part of the game.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. However. . .

. . .in International & NCAA hockey, there is no fighting, and the penalty rate for high sticking, spearing, roughing, boarding, and slashing are LOWER than in the NHL. And, over 40% of the entire NHL now consists of people who came from the Euro or college ranks!

There is direct contradictory evidence about fighting eliminating the chippy stuff. The data show it to be the exact opposite.

And, i'd watch Gretzky, Lemieux, Savard, et al over Schultz any day of the week.
The Professor

[Baclava]

21. They are supposed to announce some new rule changes tomorrow

Should be interesting to see what they come up with to try to win the fans over again.

[Ravenseye]

17. Are you kidding? No thuggery on the Oilers?

The Oilers routinely carried a variety of thugs to protect Gretzky. They carried goons and used them. Someone would get a bit to close to the great one, and oh say...Marty McSorley would go out and flatten the guy. There were tons of fights.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Go Look At The Stats

Least penalized team in the NHL every year they won the Cup. Least stoppages due to rough play. One season they had ONE 10 minute misconduct, and another they had a grand total of 3 5 minute majors.

You memory is not supported by the facts. Sorry.
The Professor

[Ron Mexico]

20. So the Flyers never did win the Cup, then?

No way were they the least penalized team in the 70's.

Fans may not list fighting as their #1 reason for watching the game, but I have never met a fan who objects to it. Most hockey fans have played and know that occasionally some steam has to be let off.

Banning fighting wouldn't put much of a dent in it.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. The Flyers DId Not Enjoy The Attendance Numbers, On The Road. . .

. . that the Oilers and Islanders did. Really look at the facts before you knee-jerk based upon your own desire to see fighting in the game.

The numbers do NOT support that fighting is good for the game's popularity. They just don't.

You like fighting, fine. I don't. If i want to see people throwing punches, i don't want to see guys on skates standing on a zero friction surface doing it. I'll watch boxing.

I want to see the elements of the game that make it something OTHER than boxing. But, there are 250 million sports fans in North America, and hockey is a distant 8th in attendance, and 9th in viewership. They're doing something wrong. And catering to those who like the fights is, IMO, one of the mistakes. The data are clear.
The Professor

[Ron Mexico]

23. Could you possibly put any more words in my mouth, please?

I never said I liked fighting - I can take it or leave it. However, if you have any data to back up what seems (repeat: seems) to be your notion that fighting is responsible for bad attendance, let me know what it is. The game was suffering before the strike because of the style of play that New Jersey made popular.

In other words: the numbers do NOT support that fighting is bad for the game's popularity. They just don't.

The Flyers didn't play in an era where there were so many teams, but as a function of average road attendance versus that of the rest of the league's teams they did just as well. Trying to get tickets for Flyers games back then was just about impossible in the cities I tried: New York, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal. Only the Bruins seemed to attract that much attention in major cities. Remember, there were still a ton of crappy expansion teams that didn't do shit back then, to include the California Golden Seals, a pathetic Minnesota North Stars squad, etc. Comparing sheer numbers in a league with larger arenas, more teams and corporate boxes is of little value - just as the Raiders attract NFL attention for being dirty, so did the Broad Street Bullies - and they attracted lots of it.

As for the Oilers and Islanders, if they're who you're using to make your point as you tell ME to "look at the facts before you knee-jerk based upon your own desire to see fighting in the game," which you inferred on YOUR kneejerk reaction to something I didn't even say, all I can say to you is that you weren't watching very carefully. The Oilers had goons like Dave Semenko fighting any time someone even sneezed at Gretzky and Kurri, and the Islanders mixed it up with anyone and everyone who got close to Bossy or Trottier. Clark Gilles and Bob Nystrom fought a lot and rarely lost, but didn't get the attention of one-dimensional goons because they had other skills and didn't start the fights.

Why don't YOU check YOUR facts before YOU "knee-jerk," and why don't you read the words in other people's posts instead of just making assumptions that just because someone doesn't agree with everything you say it MUST mean that the person is of a completely opposite stance? The next time you assume I like fighting (as opposed to simply being indifferent to it and accepting it as inevitable, since I used to play and know you'll never get rid of it), find some words of mine that indicate that before YOU "knee-jerk."

This site sure gets punitive when someone disagrees with someone else in the political forums, but I thought that in the SPORTS forum I could at least find an escape from bullshit like "Really look at the facts before you knee-jerk based upon your own desire" when I expressed no such thing. Guess I was wrong.

By the way, what was the highest level at which you played hockey, or do you simply make your judgements having never taken a cheap shot into the boards?

[MrSlayer]

25. Wrong. The Bullies were the top road draw in the 70's.

Teams that would average 8-10 thousand would sell out for the Flyers every game. Why? Because people love the fights. Watch any game today and when a fight breaks out everyone in the building is on their feet screaming. They love it. If anything they should have taken the instigator rule out and allowed to players to police themselves again. You wouldn't see anywhere near the amount stickwork and cheap shots from behind if the players were free to settle up on their own. Fighting is part of the game and should always remain so. You should check the facts and attendence records, the Bullies sold out every road game.

[Joey Liberal]

9. Terry O'Reilly is my favorite all time hockey fighter

As a long time Boston Bruins fan, I have to put Terry O'Reilly at the top of my best hockey fighters list. John Wensink and Stan Jonathan get honorable mention. Fighting is a natural part of hockey. I think hockey lost something when they cut back on the fighting and made helmets mandatory. Hockey is now boring. The strike really hurt the NHL too.

[Oreo]

14. I recently found out that Mike Peluso lives a few blocks away from me.

http://www.hockeyfights.com/players/733/fightcard/reg97

I was always a Stu Grimson fan.

[Allenberg]

16. Give me Chris Tamer or Ulf Samuelssson anyday.

I love hockey. :D

[MrSlayer]

26. Ulf Sammuelsson was a cheap shot punk, not a fighter.

He would turtle up like a bitch anytime someone came after him. When Cam Neely pounded his face in with his helmet it was a beautiful thing and Tie Domi will always have a special place in my heart after he knocked Ulfie out. The dude was a coward and a kneebuster, it's a shame someone didn't skate over his neck.

[hasbro]

19. Todd Bertuzzi's first game in Denver this year

I honestly hope his career takes a nose dive.

[Oreo]

24. He just got 10-20 more games

I used to like the Canucks but after the 03-04 playoffs I changed my mind. Cooke, Ruutu, and Bertuzzi are all slime. Without them, I couldn't help but like them.

They still can't get over the Wild beating them up there!

[hasbro]

27. Yeah I lived in Vancouver for a while

but have no place in my heart for the Canucks after this. I couldn't stand Brian Burke when he was the GM of my team, much less when he was in the league office letting thuggery reign supreme or whining with the Nucks.

It wouldn't be as bad without the whining by Bertuzzi and the blame the victim mentality directed at Moore.