Fighting

Pepper's comments in the Penner thread prompted me to post this thread. I'm something of an agnostic on fighting: I'm not in favor of banning fighting; at the same time, I'm not sure what it accomplishes. I'd appreciate your comments on the following questions relating to fighting:

Fighting is supposed to keep cheap-shot artists on the opposing team from roughing up your team's skill players (most of whom are, presumably, smaller than the average thug). It also is used as a means of energizing your team when you have fallen behind by a couple of goals and/or are playing lethargic hockey.

1. Since 99% of the fights take place between an enforcer on Team A and an enforcer on Team B, does fighting really protect the skill players? Why not just go rough up the cheap-shot artist (who may or may not be an enforcer)?

2. The "new rules" are designed to increase the speed and flow of the game and to increase scoring. While we've only had a limited sample, it appears that they are, in fact, achieving those goals. Enforcers generally---but not always---play on the 4th line. Since the 4th line is getting less ice time under the new rules, hasn't the role of the enforcer(s) been minimized?

3. If, as the proponents of fighting maintain, fighting is such an essential and integral part of the game, why does it totally disappear during the playoffs? (Aren't the same considerations that mandate its use during the regular-season equally applicable to the playoffs?)

1. Since 99% of the fights take place between an enforcer on Team A and an enforcer on Team B, does fighting really protect the skill players? Why not just go rough up the cheap-shot artist (who may or may not be an enforcer)?

Most of the fights between two enforcers are not because of somebody cheapshotting opponent, it can be because of many things from waking up the team to fighting for the fun of it.

2. The "new rules" are designed to increase the speed and flow of the game and to increase scoring. While we've only had a limited sample, it appears that they are, in fact, achieving those goals. Enforcers generally---but not always---play on the 4th line. Since the 4th line is getting less ice time under the new rules, hasn't the role of the enforcer(s) been minimized?

Enforcers don't get as much icetime but their role hasn't been minimized.

3. If, as the proponents of fighting maintain, fighting is such an essential and integral part of the game, why does it totally disappear during the playoffs? (Aren't the same considerations that mandate its use during the regular-season equally applicable to the playoffs?)

Because of the stupid rules like instigator, you can't take extra penalties and give opponents powerplays. Also in play-offs you're less likely to see cheapshotting for the very same reason. The final reason is that usually you don't need to wake up your team in the play-offs.

Pepper's comments in the Penner thread prompted me to post this thread. I'm something of an agnostic on fighting: I'm not in favor of banning fighting; at the same time, I'm not sure what it accomplishes. I'd appreciate your comments on the following questions relating to fighting:

Fighting is supposed to keep cheap-shot artists on the opposing team from roughing up your team's skill players (most of whom are, presumably, smaller than the average thug). It also is used as a means of energizing your team when you have fallen behind by a couple of goals and/or are playing lethargic hockey.

1. Since 99% of the fights take place between an enforcer on Team A and an enforcer on Team B, does fighting really protect the skill players? Why not just go rough up the cheap-shot artist (who may or may not be an enforcer)?

2. The "new rules" are designed to increase the speed and flow of the game and to increase scoring. While we've only had a limited sample, it appears that they are, in fact, achieving those goals. Enforcers generally---but not always---play on the 4th line. Since the 4th line is getting less ice time under the new rules, hasn't the role of the enforcer(s) been minimized?

3. If, as the proponents of fighting maintain, fighting is such an essential and integral part of the game, why does it totally disappear during the playoffs? (Aren't the same considerations that mandate its use during the regular-season equally applicable to the playoffs?)



1)Instigater prevents also most teams have enforcers who are middleweights as well as heavyweights (Moen,Konopka)

2)Actually this year the 4th line is getting more minutes for our team then in years past. Brennan and Fedoruk both get decent minutes

3)Fighting just like hockey and all sports are for entertainment correct? Well fighting is one the most loved aspects of this sport and what rivalries would exist without fighting? There still is fighting during the playoffs but these days players are scared of taking penalties which can single handidly lose a game.

1. Since 99% of the fights take place between an enforcer on Team A and an enforcer on Team B, does fighting really protect the skill players? Why not just go rough up the cheap-shot artist (who may or may not be an enforcer)?

I often get lumped into the anti-fighting crowd (I think) but really I don't have a problem with 2 heavy weights duking it out.

I do, 100% however, believe that the notion that enforcers "police" the game is idiotic. They don't. And they shouldn't. The league should (and doesn't but thats for another thread).

2. The "new rules" are designed to increase the speed and flow of the game and to increase scoring. While we've only had a limited sample, it appears that they are, in fact, achieving those goals. Enforcers generally---but not always---play on the 4th line. Since the 4th line is getting less ice time under the new rules, hasn't the role of the enforcer(s) been minimized?

It was a little while ago during some random game I was watching and the annoucers were talking about less fighting. They tossed out numbers then like 40% fewer fighting majors than the last season and quite a few more games that had no majors in it at all. I thought it was an interesting stat and am curious what the current difference is.

Most of the fights between two enforcers are not because of somebody cheapshotting opponent, it can be because of many things from waking up the team to fighting for the fun of it.

I've had conversations with many of the Ducks' enforcers over the years (Grimson, Ewen, Severyn, Cummins, Sawyer and Burnett come to mind). Most of them realized that if it weren't for fighting, they wouldn't have a job in the NHL, but never got the impression that any of them enjoyed "fighting for the fun of it".

Their heavily-scarred knuckles, multiple concussions and broken jaws all seem to belie the notion that they considered fighting to be "fun". (If we're talking about Bob Probert, all bets are off.)


Enforcers don't get as much icetime but their role hasn't been minimized.

If, ask you acknowledge, they don't as much icetime and, further, if fighting is down 40%---or anywhere near that---how can you avoid the conclusion that their role has been minimized.

Because of the stupid rules like instigator, you can't take extra penalties and give opponents powerplays. Also in play-offs you're less likely to see cheapshotting for the very same reason. The final reason is that usually you don't need to wake up your team in the play-offs.

I agree with you about the instigator rule. Earlier you said that "[M]ost of the fights between two enforcers are not because of somebody cheapshotting opponent . . . ." So, are you saying that cheapshotting---retaliaton for which generally is not the cause of fights between enforcers (i.e., the vast majority of all fights)---virtually disappears during the playoffs? If so, isn't the answer to putting an end to cheapshotting is some combination of making the penalties for it more severe and/or more strictly enforcing the penalties for it that currently exist?

I've heard enough NHL players talk about fights "energizing" the team to believe that it does serve as a wake-up call. But it seems to me that salaries that range from a minimum of $450k/year to $7,000,000/year should be sufficient motivation.

I've had conversations with many of the Ducks' enforcers over the years (Grimson, Ewen, Severyn, Cummins, Sawyer and Burnett come to mind). Most of them realized that if it weren't for fighting, they wouldn't have a job in the NHL, but never got the impression that any of them enjoyed "fighting for the fun of it".



Tie Domi was one enforcer who said that in the end he just loves fighting.

Burnett I know loves fighting, I've met him he loves what he does for a living.

Grimson enjoyed the role of being a protector, whether that means he enjoyed fighting well...

Jim McKenzie was one guy who simply didn't really like to fight.

But it seems to me that salaries that range from a minimum of $450k/year to $7,000,000/year should be sufficient motivation.

It doesn't really work like that.

It's a long season and there are going to be many games where a team falls behind 2-0 or 3-0 simply because they are not on their game. That's where an enforcer goes out and drops the gloves. This often wakes up the team and brings them back in the game.

1. Since 99% of the fights take place between an enforcer on Team A and an enforcer on Team B, does fighting really protect the skill players? Why not just go rough up the cheap-shot artist (who may or may not be an enforcer)?



I don't know about 99%...

there are a lot of power forwards and middleweights and stay at home d-men fighting.

Fighting to me is fun to watch sometimes, but I can take it or leave it. The idea of enforcers policing the game is idiotic to me. Yes, their role has been decreased. And it's a good point about no fighting in the playoffs.

Other than that I'll reserve comment lest some fan from another team call me uncivilized.

It doesn't really work like that.

It's a long season and there are going to be many games where a team falls behind 2-0 or 3-0 simply because they are not on their game. That's where an enforcer goes out and drops the gloves. This often wakes up the team and brings them back in the game.
It seems that enforcer is a misnomer; no one is enforcing anything. Maybe they should be called agitators or stimulators or merely fighters.

It seems that enforcer is a misnomer; no one is enforcing anything. Maybe they should be called agitators or stimulators or merely fighters.
Well supposedly they're vigilante enforcers of the rules. But I think that would be best left to the officials.

there are a lot of power forwards and middleweights and stay at home d-men fighting.

Buts its still just a mutual 'lets go' kind of deal to pump up the team like the Moen-Iginla scrap for the most part.

Incidently, a scrap that put Iginla into the box for 5 minutes in a game they were losing and cost Moen 3 games injured... gotta wonder if both sides got what they wanted out of that one.

Buts its still just a mutual 'lets go' kind of deal to pump up the team like the Moen-Iginla scrap for the most part.

Incidently, a scrap that put Iginla into the box for 5 minutes in a game they were losing and cost Moen 3 games injured... gotta wonder if both sides got what they wanted out of that one.

Well Iginla knew he was going to be sitting for 5 minutes when he went after him. When your captain drops the gloves it better motivate you to play harder. Thats what Iginla was trying to do.

Moen's injury was a freak injury that could happen on any collision behind the net, on any check into the boards. This time it happened to have occured during the end of the fight.

Enforcers DO police the game - go ask Selänne if you don't believe me. I've seen several top players say that they feel safer out there when they know they have a heavyweight on the team ready to deal some punishment.

Self-policing has been in hockey since the first hockey game, calling to get rid of is idiotic if anything.

Well Iginla knew he was going to be sitting for 5 minutes when he went after him. When your captain drops the gloves it better motivate you to play harder. Thats what Iginla was trying to do.

And I'm saying maybe he should have been trying to score a goal.

Moen's injury was a freak injury that could happen on any collision behind the net, on any check into the boards. This time it happened to have occured during the end of the fight.

Put it this way, if I climb up on my roof I might fall off, but if I stay on the ground I certainly won't.

The fact that I can get hit by a bus walking across the street has no connection with my choice to go up on the roof or not.

And I'm saying maybe he should have been trying to score a goal.

Which is an easier way to wake up your team, pick a fight or score a goal? Time starts now.

Which is an easier way to wake up your team, pick a fight or score a goal? Time starts now.

The fight failed, Calgary lost. The easy path isn't always the correct path.

Fighting is apart of the game, I'm tired of seeing the NHL trying to do away with it.

Fighting can help energize a team, and the fans, it also gives us something to cheer about when we are seeing a boring game.

And while fighting may not prevent cheap shots, if a cheap shot is taken at one of our players I want to see the tough guys roughing up the person that did it, or another teams skill player.

It's eye for an eye, you don't let teams get away with cheap shotting your best players, otherwise it could just cheap happening.

The fight failed, Calgary lost. The easy path isn't always the correct path.

Come on Hank, you can do better than that. Did it ever occur to you that Iginla was trying hard to score a goal but realize that chances are he can't don't and decided to try the other way? How do we know what the result would have been without the fight?

If Iginla could choose the way to wake up his team, of course he would pick goal scoring but since that's much, much harder than to pick a fight, he can't be blamed for opting for that.

Besides, we're talking about Iginla whos one of the few who can score and fight, what if the player was Darren McCarty? There's not many ways for him to wake up the team.

Besides, we're talking about Iginla whos one of the few who can score and fight, what if the player was Darren McCarty? There's not many ways for him to wake up the team.

McCarty's team leading 5 major penalties say otherwise.

All I'm saying is Iginla in the box for 5 minutes hurt his team's chances drastically since he's their only real scoring threat. Are you really arguing that point?

And I'm saying maybe he should have been trying to score a goal.



It's hard to score a goal when the rest of your team is asleep. He needed his team to wake up and help him get scoring chances.

McCarty's team leading 5 major penalties say otherwise.

Ummm says otherwise what?

All I'm saying is Iginla in the box for 5 minutes hurt his team's chances drastically since he's their only real scoring threat. Are you really arguing that point?

What are the chances for Iginla to score during that 5mins? He has what 10 goals now after 15 games (too lazy to check the actual numbers). So if we assume that he plays 20mins per game and he has averaged 0.75GPG, the chances of him scoring during that 5 mins he would have gained by not fighting is pretty minimal. Besides, him sitting in the box for 5 mins most likely wouldn't affect his total ice time that much (~1.5mins in fact on average).

Ummm says otherwise what?

Come on Pepper, don't act dumb. It says he can fight just as easily as Iginla and if that motivates teams it should serve the same purpose.


What are the chances for Iginla to score during that 5mins?

Chances are zero when he's in the box. We know that much for sure.

Come on Pepper, don't act dumb. It says he can fight just as easily as Iginla and if that motivates teams it should serve the same purpose.

Uhhuh, you keep missing the point. For a guy like McCarty there's little else he can do except fight unlike Iginila who makes a much bigger impact by fighting than McCarty.

Chances are zero when he's in the box. We know that much for sure.

I take it that you realized the futility of your argument?

speaking of fighting...hockeyfights.com site has been down the last couple days...anyone know why?

speaking of fighting...hockeyfights.com site has been down the last couple days...anyone know why?

Been wondering that myself...Well, thank god there are other sites with videos.

I think this is something you understand a lot more if you've actually played the game at all.

I think this is something you understand a lot more if you've actually played the game at all.
How so? I play hockey, and while fights are fun to watch sometimes, I think they're unnecessary more often.

How so? I play hockey, and while fights are fun to watch sometimes, I think they're unnecessary more often.

When you play hockey hard you know why fights happen.

When you play hockey hard you know why fights happen.The implication being that I don't play hockey hard.

LMAO you have no idea how I play hockey. A friend and I were discussing this the other day. The guys in the league that fight are the ones who have no skills, so they try to get under your skin. In the higher divisions, guys don't fight...they play hockey.

I don't drop the gloves too often myself personally, but if you have someone out there on the other team running around taking shots, you feel a lot more comfortable if someone on your team can kick their *** if they try and get intimidating. You would think in adult rec league hockey you wouldn't have to worry about that so much, maybe it's the places I play.

I don't drop the gloves too often myself personally, but if you have someone out there on the other team running around taking shots, you feel a lot more comfortable if someone on your team can kick their *** if they try and get intimidating. You would think in adult rec league hockey you wouldn't have to worry about that so much, maybe it's the places I play.
Actually the last time I got in a fight was because a guy nailed someone on my team from behind along the boards. (The guy he nailed was one of my best friends.) And the guy who nailed him was a known jerk, for lack of a better word. So I know what you mean. My point is that it's unnecessary more often than not.

Actually the last time I got in a fight was because a guy nailed someone on my team from behind along the boards. (The guy he nailed was one of my best friends.) And the guy who nailed him was a known jerk, for lack of a better word. So I know what you mean. My point is that it's unnecessary more often than not.

Well was that necessary or unnecessary fight then?

A little bit of both I guess.

A little bit of both I guess.

Man, you should be in politics.

Man, you should be in politics.
Lol. I'm trying to say it's a grey area. There's pro's and con's, just like anything.

There should never be a need to fight in a rec league. If you're fighting someone, it's because the refs aren't doing their jobs. (which is common occurance when your game is at 11 pm and the refs don't care)

There should never be a need to fight in a rec league. If you're fighting someone, it's because the refs aren't doing their jobs. (which is common occurance when your game is at 11 pm and the refs don't care)

I agree, the problem is you have a-holes who think it's the NHL, not men's brass divison.

Back to one of my original contentions: the fact that fighting disappears during the playoffs---which everyone who has played hockey knows is the time that all players "take it up a notch"---belies the notion that fighting is an integral part of the game. If it were an integral part of the game, it would be present during the most critical games of the season. It's virtually nonexistent during the playoffs, ergo it's not as essential part of the game.

BTW, it's not present during the World Cup or the World Juniors, either.

Back to one of my original contentions: the fact that fighting disappears during the playoffs---which everyone who has played hockey knows is the time that all players "take it up a notch"---belies the notion that fighting is an integral part of the game. If it were an integral part of the game, it would be present during the most critical games of the season. It's virtually nonexistent during the playoffs, ergo it's not as essential part of the game.

BTW, it's not present during the World Cup or the World Juniors, either.

There are some good end of game brawls in the playoffs where all the chippy play gets settle in the final seconds and messages are sent for the rest of the series.

I wish fighting was allowed in the World Juniors so when the Russians were sticking there tongues out and showboating to the USA bench after every goal they would have paid a price for it.

There is fighting in the World Cup of Hockey though not a lot. Team USA and Team Canada had some good fights in the 96 cup.

Back to one of my original contentions: the fact that fighting disappears during the playoffs---which everyone who has played hockey knows is the time that all players "take it up a notch"---belies the notion that fighting is an integral part of the game. If it were an integral part of the game, it would be present during the most critical games of the season. It's virtually nonexistent during the playoffs, ergo it's not as essential part of the game..

You were already explained the lack of fighting in the play-offs, why do you keep repeating that??

BTW, it's not present during the World Cup or the World Juniors, either.

Well doh, when you get game misconduct and possible suspension, players cant take that risk.

"Enforcers" may not rid the cheap shots on your star players, but it's eye for an eye. I absolutely hate it when players on this team get cheap shotted and nobody does anything.

The instigator is a problem, it takes away a bit of that 'players policing themselves' cliche.

Well doh, when you get game misconduct and possible suspension, players cant take that risk.

Well, duh, I guess that proves that fighting isn't a necessary part of the game and can relatively easily be minimized, if not entirely eliminated.