Exposed

About a week ago, Phoenix Coyotes enforcer Georges Laraque worried that the role of fighters is nearing extinction in the NHL.

Well, based on his conduct Thursday night against Los Angeles, it can't come soon enough.

While wearing a televison microphone for the game, Laraque inadvertently made a mockery of his chosen art and completely undermined the dogged efforts of those who maintain that fighting has an important part in the sport.

With a faceoff just outside the Phoenix and the Coyotes ahead 3-2 in the 14th minute of the first period, the 6-foot-6 Laraque ambled over to L.A.'s designated goon, Raitus Ivanans, and inquired politely if he might possibly interested in fisticuffs.

"Wanna do it?" said Laraque, without a trace of anger, a curse word or any indication that the invitation to scrap had anything at all to do with something that had happened within the game.

There was no argument, no schoolyard jabbering back and forth, no "I'm gonna knock your teeth out" or claim that revenge was at hand for a previous injustice.

Best of all, when Ivanans accepted, Laraque happily said, "Ok," then offered a terribly menacing threat.

"Good luck," he said breezily, and as soon as the puck was dropped, the two dropped their gloves and wasted everybody's time for 45 seconds.

See, if the NHL wonders why it struggles to find TV acceptance in the U.S., one of the reasons is because of pro wrestling silliness like this.

It was a phony fight, pure and simple. The punches were real, sure, but those guys in the squared circle really jump off the top rope, too.

If Gary Bettman wanted to make a statement about the integrity of the sport, he'd immediately suspend both players.

The beauty of this incident is that it proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that all the cliches offered by those who believe fighting is so crucial to the sport are complete baloney.

Neither Laraque nor Ivanans was trying to stop the opponent from "taking liberties" on their teammates.

It wasn't about keeping the sticks down. It wasn't about stopping guys with visors from "running around" and hitting everything in sight. It wasn't about "policing" the game to keep it fair and clean.

It was a rather pathetic attempt by both men to legimitize their increasingly dicey existence as NHL players.

How else would Laraque make $1.1 million per season? In what other line of work would Ivanans pull down $450,000 per? Without fighting, of course, neither man would ever have earned a position in the league, so it is in their interest to try to perpetuate the myth that fighting is an integral part of the game.

All those ex-players and former coaches in the media, of course, are in on this dirty little secret. They know this kind of fake confrontation is part of the NHL every night.

But they don't want to be the whistle blower. So they continue to mouth the propaganda.

The truth is that playing the game itself is incidental to these enforcers, and their little insiders deal is evidence of what goes on every single night with enforcers.

Their phony fight made a joke of both players and the job of the professional thug.

And in so doing, it makes a mockery of the NHL.

Comments

[polaroidsofpolarbears]

Damien - I agree and disagree with you... I hate it when two goons agree to fight simply because "it's their job." However, you can't take fighting out of the game for instances such as last Saturday when Darcy Tucker and Paul Mara dropped the gloves because Mara felt Tucker was taking liberties with their best players (Chara and Savard)... That was two guys going at it because they were mad at each other, the crowd went wild and the teammates on both sides were standing and clapping... It sent a message, to both sides, that Mara was going to stand-up for his teammates... You must be able to see that... And, that's why fighting can't be taken out of the game... The fans, and the players, love it (when its a legitimate fight between two guys who are actually mad at each other)...

[Dougie Johns]

My Dear Mr. Cox:

You seem to have stumbled across the inconvenient fact that all professional sports are a sham, that the so called 'competitors' are all performers, and that every NHL game is mere theatrics, and barely competition.

As you say, though the action is real, the stakes are essentially irrelevant. There is no purpose to an NHL game, other than 'to win,' just as there is no purpose to an NHL fight, other than 'to win.' There is no justification for NHL games, other than that people enjoy watching them, just as there is no other justification for NHL fighting.

If you really feel such contempt for an NHL fight, you should also extend your contempt to NHL hockey.

You may rebut: 'I enjoy seeing hockey performed well. The purpose of the NHL is to display beautiful hockey.'

I would retort: 'NHL fans enjoy seeing hockey fighting performed well, and one of the purposes of NHL spectacles is to display hockey fighting done well.'

Chew on that.

Yours,

Douglas Johns

[Raymond Escasa]

Damien,

No, it wasn't about stopping the opponent from taking liberties.

It wasn't about keeping the sticks down or policing.

Yes, your right! It was a phoney fight!

But, the NHL is all about entertainment. Finesse goals, beauty passes, hard hits, and a good old heavyweight tilt once in a while. And that's why fighting remains.

[Michael Allen]

While I agree with your sentiment, you haven't really advanced your cause at all. There is no doubt that the miking shows that, with respect to this particular occasion, it was all a sham. Unfortunately, you can't use that to argue that ALL such occasions are shams. You point out that this fight wasn't about revenge, etc, but then you seem to think that it follows that no fights are about revenge. My car isn't blue. Does that mean no cars are blue? The fact of the matter is that - and I'm afraid it is obvious - many fights are about revenge, spur of the moment events tied to a goalie being bumped, or a knee being stuck out. I would be very happy to see fighting go, but I think the issue deserves a more thorough consideration than was given in The Spin. Let's grant the point that fighting acts as a safety valve and a self-policing mechanism. If we still want it to go, as I do, then how do we address what is being lost? We shouldn't pretend it serves no purpose; let's consider what purpose that was, and then figure out how to achieve it in a better way.

[Sean Boulton]

You know, even if I disagree with your viewpoint, you had a well-reasoned argument up until this point:

"The beauty of this incident is that it proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that all the cliches offered by those who believe fighting is so crucial to the sport are complete baloney."

And then the wheels fell off ...

The fact that this one specific fight wasn't about stopping people from taking liberties, or about keeping sticks down, or about policing does not prove - even a tiny little bit - that fights are NEVER for any of those reasons.

That would be like saying the fact that it's not sunny today in Toronto proves that it's never sunny in Toronto. That's illogical.

Sometimes a fight is about one of those purposes. Sometimes a fight is just two guys needing to blow off some steam after having been in each other's face throughout the game. Sometimes a fight is because Brian Marchment has just taken out your best player with a deliberate knee-on-knee check, and you know the league isn't going to disclipline him appropriately. And, yes, sometimes a fight - a good, fair fight - is just about a guy reminding his coach, his teammates, and the opposing team why he's in the lineup.

If it's a secret, it's only so to you.

Oh, and by the way, the NHL could learn a thing or two from pro wrestling, particularly in the U.S. They'd certainly kill to have pro wrestling's ratings.

[Aaron]

How can you say fighting is making a mockery of the NHL? And to say it's the reason why we can't find acceptance in the US. Isn't the UFC all about plain fighting? Isn't UFC one of the highly rated shows in the US? So why wouldn't they like a hockey fight?You disagree with it? Maybe you should take up tennis... Oh, you already do that.
With fighting on the decline, lets just say in 5 years fighting will be abolished. When the US still does not have interest in the NHL, what would you complain about then? Maybe take out hitting, or heck, what about slapshots?

A hit, a slapshot is as much a part of the game, as a hockey fight is.

[FlamFlim]

Would ya just listen to all these loogans? You're bang on Damien, I agree with you 100 per cent. Evolve people! Quit dragging your knuckles and drooling when you walk.

[Wardo]

Ban fighting? What for? People like them.

Fans get out of their seats just as much (probably more) for a good scrap as they do for the shootouts journalists have been cooing about for a year now. I thought the game was all about entertainment? Why do the highlight shows always roll clips of the night's fights? What's the difference between that and a hotdog goal or a shootout that force-feeds a winning result? Before you say that shootouts are part of the game and fights aren't - the 5 minute major proves it's part of the NHL system. They are condoned.

Who cares if the odd fight is orchestrated, and not part of some vendetta or "safety valve" function?

Your arguments, as previous posters have already mentioned, make no logical sense. Bettman has no need to worry about the "integrity" of the game, as you put it - since fighting is in the rules, the integrity is preserved just fine, thank you very much.

Your entire post could be condensed into, "I don't like hockey fights. I want them out of the game."

And that puts you in the minority.

[A-Mar]

I agree with this article and have to say that alot of these comments reek of homerism or people trying to find an argument-loophole... Cox isn't saying that just because this fight lacked in reality every fight does... I think its just the general idea that there are players earning a keep from faking passion for a sport that most of them can't even play at its highest level. Do I begrudge Tucker, Neil, or Iginla for fighting? No... they can play the game, its the one dimensional heavyweight that I just find hard to justify in the NHL. I don't watch hockey for the incidental fights... to do so would be like watching NASCAR for the crashes... yeah fights are interesting to watch now and again, but its the main event that we are watching... I guess I like hockey fights when there is some emotional investment... if I want to watch people fight each other without provocation I'll watch UFC... as they are the best at doing it...

[Moe Green]

I agree absolutely, fighting has no place in hockey. If it's about US ratings, how about girls pole dancing at centre ice after a shootout. That would certainly entertain a great many people, it may even bolster the sport's chances at a US TV contact, but it has nothing to do with hockey.

The loudest arguement I hear for the continuation of fighting is, esstentially: "You're a homo!" Not good enough. Those of us, in most cases, are far from pacifists. Hockey fights, to us at least, are a boring sham. Now a good hit, or aggressive forecheck, a spectacular one-timer; now that's entertainment.

I can't even believe that someone actually suggested we take our cue from pro wrestling. You have got to be kidding. The problem is with the fans, not the NHL. Fans, particularly young ones, are not interested in pro sports, period. Perhaps they don't have the attention span necessary to understand the game. These new, young, potential fans are of a group that think Adam Sadler and Dane Cook are funny.

Look, I don't even think hockey fights have much to do with the sport's credibility in the US, nor do I care. Hockey is a fine sport that has, for whatever reasons, not captured the imagination of fans south of the border. So be it. Screw the US fans and if some franchises have to fold, that's okay with me. Maybe salaries will have to drop. Boo-Hoo.

To those who sill support hockey fights: How do you explain your position to your kids? Is it okay to fight at school, at work? If not, why not? How do you explain that there's no fighting in Football, Soccer, Baseball? Is the only reason you support fighting in hockey is that it's legal?

The biggest problem I see in the NHL - now that they've eliminated interference to a large degree - is the poor officiating. Now I think hockey officials are the best in the world. But hockey continues ot be the worst officiated game in the world. Notice that the broadcasters catch almost everything. Why not have a off-ice "video ref" that can call penalties. With current technologies he could be in constant contact with the officials on the ice. Nothing is more frustrating to a player than an unjust call. In fact, I would argue that many fights are the result of frustration stemming from poor officiating.

[grant rankin]

I believe your taking yourself too seriously.For me the fight was all a part of the game no matter how it started,if he hadnt had the mike on no one would have known the difference.Just take a look at the fans when two heavyweights are on the ice together,the anticipation something might happen.Hockey is turning into a panzy game with the way they call penalities and all the power play time,the checking is all but gone now if you take the fighting out and more so the intimidation factor out we will have glorified figure skating.

[Joel]

The 'new' NHL is improved, but no fighting would be a big mistake. It differentiates it from other sports, and people really do love the blood aspect of it. I wasn't around during the Broadstreet Bullies years, but even I have a nostalgic feel for it.
Hooking and holding, no, bashing in the teeth, yes.

[Tim]

How about leaving the rules of the game to those who've actually played? Ask Gordie Howe's opinion; Jean Beliveau, Darryl Sittler, Phil Esposito, Bobby Hull. Ask those with experience in dealing with what actually goes on out on the ice; rather than knee-jerk scribes and pompous lawyers. I would take Howe's input on the game over Bettman's any day. Old time players provided years of memories in a great game, yet Cox would have us believe that a lawyer, who never even saw ice outside of an additive to his drink at Happy Hour, must be the savior of hockey? Thanks to Bettman, we now have the moronic shoot-out to decide games. If Cox and Bettman have their way, tutus won't be far behind.

[Nathan Goveas]

Why does the game have to change itself to appeal to U.S. fans? The NHL was the best before it expanded futher into the Sun Belt when they had less teams, when there were more goals scored and when there was more fighting.
If you watch any highlights package they always show the fights. Do you actually think that Americans viewers are turned off hockey because of this? If so why is it that in an arena when a fight begins everyone is on their feet?
Its true that some people who don't like fighting will not watch hockey. Just like some people who don't like boredom won't watch baseball. The game doesn't have to change to suit those people.

[Andrew Barrie]

To say that fights do not belong in the game, absolutely have no place, is to ignore how many people, as evidenced by the volume of replies to this blog, enjoy a good hockey fight. This issue is not so clear cut that sports writers should be calling for Bettman to ban fighting from the NHL. To do so is being shortsighted.

Changes were made to the game to make it more exciting, more open ice with the removal of the centre line, crack down on obstructions so the skilled players can showcase their skills, all for the betterment of the game. faster, pretty, often more exciting.

But guess what, fights are also often exciting. Perhaps the Laraque bout was less exiting than most, but in no way should it be used to say all fights are boring.

The highlight reels are full of fights, as the Star reported itself, becuase many people are entertained by it.

Mario Lemieux in a not too distant campaign even dropped the gloves. He is the epitome of a finesse player, but if he can fight, why should it be taken from the NHL?

if games without fighting were as entertaining, perhaps more of us would tune into women's hockey.