Mother of all Hockey Fights

[X. Benedict]

Wow, beating the dead with their own shoe is just crazy! 

643329[/snapback]

Hockey. It is not for everybody, and we like it that way.

[ans4e64]

What, couldn't figure out a way to work in the "it's for the children" angle again?

 

Those who don't understand it criticize it.  Hockey is the most honest of all sports, allowing those who talk trash or play the game outside the rules to pay for their transgressions.

 

What was on that video was sad because it had the worst behavior possible.  Guys who swing their sticks or who jump into a one-on-one tussle with cheap shots are not revered by their teammates.  That gives people like you a chance to jump in with your ridiculous "and we wonder where our kids get it" thing, regardless of the fact that such things are incredibly rare. 

642816[/snapback]

 

 

so let me make sure i have this correct:

 

beating the hell out of someone within the confines of the rink is ok, but other teamates cant get involved or use their sticks because thats not ok.

 

personally i love watching incidents like marty mcsorely and todd bertuzzi, i think its great for the sport of hockey and our country's reputation as a whole........ btw no sticks or teamates were used in those "fair" incidents.

 

im sure both of them and others who participate in behavior like this have kids of their own, so tell me how they explain their actions to them.

[slothrop]

What the hell is with all the moralistic crap in this thread. I am referring to both sides: On one we have the Rev. Lovejoy "what about the children" crap. On the other we have the Rev. Don Cherry "hockey will enforce itself" crap.

 

Why can't we all watch a rediculous incident and laugh together?

[ans4e64]

What the hell is with all the moralistic crap in this thread. I am referring to both sides: On one we have the Rev. Lovejoy "what about the children" crap. On the other we have the Rev. Don Cherry "hockey will enforce itself" crap.

 

Why can't we all watch a rediculous incident and laugh together?

644040[/snapback]

 

 

i tried

[Alaska Darin]

so let me make sure i have this correct:

 

beating the hell out of someone within the confines of the rink is ok, but other teamates cant get involved or use their sticks because thats not ok.

Absolutes are never OK. Try and wrap your brain around that one.

 

personally i love watching incidents like marty mcsorely...btw no sticks or teamates were used in those "fair" incidents.

Really? Care to explain the McSorley incident to me in detail? Sounds to me like we have another "I never played hockey and everything I know about it I learned by watching CNN" basher.

 

im sure both of them and others who participate in behavior like this have kids of their own, so tell me how they explain their actions to them.

644021[/snapback]

They could tell them to "kitty up" so they could play with your kids.

[ans4e64]

congrats, you officially made a post in which you have nothing to say worth while

 

Sounds to me like we have another "I never played hockey and everything I know about it I learned by watching CNN" basher.

644786[/snapback]

 

 

ok first, i play hockey, but even if i didnt, who learns about it through CNN

 

 

i dont have anything else to say, i dont know how you can think that the incident that happened here should be justified, its disgusting. if you think it is wrong then you agree with me. if you dont, then oh well, we have opposing views that arent going to change by going back and forth.

[Alaska Darin]

congrats, you officially made a post in which you have nothing to say worth while

ok first, i play hockey, but even if i didnt, who learns about it through CNN 

i dont have anything else to say, i dont know how you can think that the incident that happened here should be justified, its disgusting. if you think it is wrong then you agree with me. if you dont, then oh well, we have opposing views that arent going to change by going back and forth.

644811[/snapback]

Why don't you go ahead and tell me where I stated in this thread that this incident was justified? Once you're done with that, you can explain to me how the McSorley incident didn't have a stick involved.

 

Your reading comprehension is about as good as your hockey knowledge.

 

As far as CNN goes, your arguments in this thread are very similiar to the ones made by CNN's talking heads after the Bertuzzi incident. Sorry you couldn't put the two together.

[IDBillzFan]

Why don't you go ahead and tell me where I stated in this thread that this incident was justified?  Once you're done with that, you can explain to me how the McSorley incident didn't have a stick involved.

 

Your reading comprehension is about as good as your hockey knowledge.

 

As far as CNN goes, your arguments in this thread are very similiar to the ones made by CNN's talking heads after the Bertuzzi incident.  Sorry you couldn't put the two together.

644831[/snapback]

Tell ya one thing: you'd never see a fight like that on a golf course.

 

I'm kidding. I'm just !@#$ing kidding.

[plenzmd1]

Tell ya one thing: you'd never see a fight like that on a golf course.

 

I'm kidding. I'm just !@#$ing kidding.

644837[/snapback]

 

Happy Gilmore got the piss beat out of him by Bob barker no?

[IDBillzFan]

Happy Gilmore got the piss beat out of him by Bob barker no?

644849[/snapback]

The Price is WRONG, B word!

I stand corrected.

[plenzmd1]

The Price is WRONG, B word!

I stand corrected.

644865[/snapback]

 

Lordy, I hate Adam Sandler movies, but gotta admit I like that one

[IDBillzFan]

Lordy, I hate Adam Sandler movies, but gotta admit I like that one

644876[/snapback]

Sorry to admit I think his schtick is kinda funny. I even thought Little Nicky was funny. But he really went nuts in "Wedding Singer." The scene where he sings "Love Stinks" is worth the price of admission.

[ans4e64]

Why don't you go ahead and tell me where I stated in this thread that this incident was justified?

 

i clearly remember you saying

Hockey is the most honest of all sports, allowing those who talk trash or play the game outside the rules to pay for their transgressions.

so in other words, fighting and incidents like this are good because when someone doesnt follow the rules they "pay" for them.... good one.

 

Once you're done with that, you can explain to me how the McSorley incident didn't have a stick involved.

 

i meant that the bertuzzi incident didnt involve sticks and the mcsorley incident was one on one and didnt involve a brawl, my mistake that i wasnt clear.

 

Your reading comprehension is about as good as your hockey knowledge.

 

and your ability to critically understand an argument is about as good as your football knowledge

 

 

if you agree with me, then why are you arguing with anything im saying, seems dumb to me thats all.

[Alaska Darin]

i clearly remember you saying  so in other words, fighting and incidents like this are good because when someone doesnt follow the rules they "pay" for them.... good one.

There is a clear difference between fighting and incidents "like this one." AND IT'S QUITE CLEAR THAT I NEVER STATED THAT "INCIDENTS LIKE THIS ONE" ARE GOOD. In fact, if you could actually comprehend what you read, you'd see I said quite the opposite. As far as "paying for it" goes, fighting isn't the only way to get back at someone, but you already know that since you "played the game."

 

i meant that the bertuzzi incident didnt involve sticks and the mcsorley incident was one on one and didnt involve a brawl, my mistake that i wasnt clear.

Spin, spin, spin. Both of them fit my point. Neither one of them was two guys squaring off face to face. Each involved hitting a defenseless player from behind, which is pretty much the worst thing you can do in the game, outside of a two handed swing at someone's head (McSorley did something similiar). It takes a special person to pretend either is anywhere near the norm. But you played the game...

 

and your ability to critically understand an argument is about as good as your football knowledge

What exactly am I missing? That you brought up the typical emotional yet intellectually bankrupt argument to enable children to act out because of something they saw in life? Yeah, I'm the idiot.

 

Why don't you tell me exactly which football post I've made that you don't agree with. It'll be fun to watch you search back and try and find something. But we'll all just pretend that you bringing that up wasn't some pathetic attempt to save face.

 

if you agree with me, then why are you arguing with anything im saying, seems dumb to me thats all.

645107[/snapback]

I don't agree with you. I'm not surprised you can't figure out why, either.

[ans4e64]

First off i'd like to say that you know when you're winning an argument when your opponent stops attacking what you're saying and starts attacking you.

 

I am a very knowledgeable and educated hockey fan. I will not specify my “qualifications” to you. The point is that people like you will apparently assume that anyone who does not share their opinion simply does not know as much as you do, no matter what the evidence may indicate to the contrary.

 

So....... your argument is that fighting in hockey, a one on one fight, is ok. No cheap shots, sticks, or brawls, but two guys going at it is perfectly fine.

 

I have often heard people say that "fighting eliminates cheap shots." I have never seen an article of evidence to support this theory, empirical evidence that is, and the evidence presented to support this theory is anecdotal.

 

I will never be able to convince you of my "qualifications for hockey knowledge," but I'm sure that you might be able to believe hockey's greatest player in Wayne Gretzky when he says, "“We have such a poor image in California and the United States, just because we allow fighting. We don’t need it any more.”

 

I have also heard people say that fighting is a part of the game. Gretzky is clearly implying that fighting is a choice, and it can be removed. It is not good for the game, and this can be proved by looking at the diminishing fanbase over the last 10 years, and now that it is for the most part taken out, hockey is now making a comeback.

[slothrop]

It is not good for the game, and this can be proved by looking at the diminishing fanbase over the last 10 years, and now that it is for the most part taken out, hockey is now making a comeback.

645185[/snapback]

 

I have been standing back reading your argument with AD with delight. It has been entertaining - thanks to both of you.

 

However regarding your point quoted above I think I am "exteremely qualified" to answer this question because I have absolutely NO HOCKEY QUALIFICATIONS. Therefore, I am one of the people the NHL wants to recruit as a fan. Heck, I did not know all the rules until this season. LOL!

 

So, it is with my preminant qualifications that I can say with 100% certaintly that you are dead wrong. The reason Hockey lost its fanbase over the last 10 years is because the game SUCKED ASS! It was terrible to watch leaving only die-hard fans left. The NHL stripped its fan-base to its minimal core of fans.

 

However, what has brought the game back is not the lack of fighting. Heck, I love it when Peters rolls onto the ice! What is saving hockey are two things: first, and primarily so, the new rules (and enforcing old ones as I have come to learn) has made the game exciting to watch so people like me tune into to watch and buy tickets. Second, an infusion of exciting young talent that a new generation of fans can follow for years to come.

[ans4e64]

However regarding your point quoted above I think I am "exteremely qualified" to answer this question because I have absolutely NO HOCKEY QUALIFICATIONS. Therefore, I am one of the people the NHL wants to recruit as a fan. Heck, I did not know all the rules until this season. LOL!

 

What the hell are you talking about? i said i was an educated hockey fan, and that I did not feel the need to justify why. So what are you talking about no hockey qualifications? recruit as a fan? you're making absolutely no sense, way to jump in at the end.

 

So, it is with my preminant qualifications that I can say with 100% certaintly that you are dead wrong. The reason Hockey lost its fanbase over the last 10 years is because the game SUCKED ASS!

 

And why did it suck..... because there were no goals being scored, clutching and grabbing was not being called, and the star players couldnt do what they do best because they would end up in confrontation from a non-skilled defenseman

 

However, what has brought the game back is not the lack of fighting. Heck, I love it when Peters rolls onto the ice! What is saving hockey are two things: first, and primarily so, the new rules (and enforcing old ones as I have come to learn) has made the game exciting to watch so people like me tune into to watch and buy tickets. Second, an infusion of exciting young talent that a new generation of fans can follow for years to come.

 

And why is it better now...... these new rules you are talking about has made it so that the players can play without a lack of primitave behavior, and that is exactly what is is. Im sorry the big slow defenseman got angry because the skilled foreward skated around him and made him look silly. Instead of turning around and beating the crap out of him, why dont you just replace him with a faster, less meat headed skilled player on defense, which is exactly what is happening, thus, eliminating childish fights.

[Alaska Darin]

First off i'd like to say that you know when you're winning an argument when your opponent stops attacking what you're saying and starts attacking you.

I didn't stop attacking what you're saying. You simply don't have the comprehension skills to understand what anyone else is saying.

 

I am a very knowledgeable and educated hockey fan.  I will not specify my “qualifications” to you. The point is that people like you will apparently assume that anyone who does not share their opinion simply does not know as much as you do, no matter what the evidence may indicate to the contrary.

Sure you are.

So....... your argument is that fighting in hockey, a one on one fight, is ok. No cheap shots, sticks, or brawls, but two guys going at it is perfectly fine.

See, it wasn't so hard.

 

I have often heard people say that "fighting eliminates cheap shots." I have never seen an article of evidence to support this theory, empirical evidence that is, and the evidence presented to support this theory is anecdotal.

So no hockey scientists have proven it to you? Good rationale.

 

I will never be able to convince you of my "qualifications for hockey knowledge," but I'm sure that you might be able to believe hockey's greatest player in Wayne Gretzky when he says, "“We have such a poor image in California and the United States, just because we allow fighting.  We don’t need it any more.”

Sorry, but Wayne benefitted as much or more from fighting and having an enforcer on the ice than anyone. He's a hypocrite. I'd love to see him playing right now.

 

I have also heard people say that fighting is a part of the game. Gretzky is clearly implying that fighting is a choice, and it can be removed. It is not good for the game, and this can be proved by looking at the diminishing fanbase over the last 10 years, and now that it is for the most part taken out, hockey is now making a comeback.

645185[/snapback]

Horrible argument. The NHL didn't lose popularity because fighting was a part of the game (it still is, Mr. "I played the game"). Shoot, the NHL has been trying to legislate it out since another guy with a ton of hockey knowledge, Gary Betteman, took over. The fan base also didn't diminish, but didn't grow as much as the suits wanted because they refused to enforce the rules of the game. The clutching, grabbing, nuetral zone trap, left wing lock, etc and the price of an average ticket are what blew up the product.

 

There are four times hockey fans stand up: the National Anthem, a goal, a fight, and to go to the bathroom (after waiting for a whistle).

 

Americans obviously hate fighting. That's why UFC is circling the drain, right?

[Alaska Darin]

What the hell are you talking about? i said i was an educated hockey fan, and that I did not feel the need to justify why. So what are you talking about no hockey qualifications? recruit as a fan? you're making absolutely no sense, way to jump in at the end.

He was cleary talking about himself. Way to be defensive. Bet you're telling yourself you're winning this argument, too.

 

And why did it suck..... because there were no goals being scored, clutching and grabbing was not being called, and the star players couldnt do what they do best because they would end up in confrontation from a non-skilled defenseman

Yeah, remember all those star players dropping the mitts to defend their honor? You just blew your own argument out of the water.

And why is it better now...... these new rules you are talking about has made it so that the players can play without a lack of primitave behavior, and that is exactly what is is.

The new rules have certainly opened up the game - BECAUSE OFFICIALS ACTUALLY ENFORCE THEM. Has nothing to do with "lack of primitive behavior", unless you classify "primitive behavior" as putting your arm or stick around someone and riding them off to the boards, which was the biggest problem the NHL has had since the Devils won their first Cup.

 

Im sorry the big slow defenseman got angry because the skilled foreward skated around him and made him look silly.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was a hockey fight in the last decade that started for that reason.

less meat headed skilled player on defense, which is exactly what is happening, thus, eliminating childish fights.

645207[/snapback]

Somewhat correct, though mostly wrong. The emphasis on rule enforcement has meant guys like Kasparitis and Marchment can't play the way they have in the past because they're team will get killed by power plays. So for the most part they've (and other thugs) behaved themselves, instead of throwing their knees, elbows, butt-ending, slashing, etc.

[slothrop]

What the hell are you talking about? i said i was an educated hockey fan, and that I did not feel the need to justify why. So what are you talking about no hockey qualifications? recruit as a fan? you're making absolutely no sense, way to jump in at the end.

645207[/snapback]

 

 

I was talking about myself - I am a hockey retard compared to others on this board. I feel that this fact makes me qualified to comment on the "new-NHL" since I am the exact type of person Hockey is trying to court.

 

I was not attacking you as a person. I did not kick your dog (that I know of). I did not attack the virtue of your mother. So calm down, I just disageed with you.