Fading Away

WARNING TO READERS: THIS IS AN ANTI-FIGHTING HOCKEY BLOG. IF AVERSE TO SUCH DISCUSSIONS, AVERT YOUR EYES AND PLACE HEAD FIRMLY BACK IN THE SAND.

"In the not-too-distant future, it'll be, 'You fight, you're out."

These were words that had to put a chill in the heart of every red-blooded Canadian who believes with all his heart and soul that fist-fighting was and continues to be an integral part of hockey.

They were spoken by Canadian Hockey League commissioner David Branch in a radio interview with The Fan 590 on Thursday night as he commented on the decision by the Quebec junior league to institute a variety of anti-fighting rules in response to the messy Jonathan Roy incident from last spring.

(The disclaimer that preceded this post, by the way, is out of courtesy to those who believe I write on fighting endlessly and constantly. The truth is, I rarely do, but be prepared to hear this from respondents who can't actually argue the point. I will also be cleverly invited by those same folks to restrict my future writings to badminton and figure skating.)

Basically, Branch was suggesting that the die has been cast, that the hockey world is gradually rejecting fighting as part of the game and soon, while it will still appear, combatants will simply be ejected from the game. Which is all I've ever espoused.

It would be nice, of course, to see Gary Bettman echo these comments, but you'll probably never hear that. He continues to believe there's a constituency and an important one that must be served by including at least one bout per NHL game, and sometimes a few. More than that, he's spent years trying to convince people that he actually knows the game, and would be terrified to take a position that "purists" would slam him for. I've long believed Bettman believes fighting is a waste of everyone's time, but thinks he can't say so.

Remember, fighting was actually up in the NHL last season. According to hockeyfights.com, the bible of such matters, there were 664 fights in the NHL last season, an increase of 33 per cent from the 2006-07 season. That said, last year's figure was down about 16 per cent from pre-lockout numbers, which leaves one scratching one's head about the trend here.

Branch, however, seems to think fighting is on its way to the extinction list, and those who run the Q seem to be of the same mind. Truth is, there is little of it these days, and the bulk of the practioners are specialists employed by teams and managers who believe the presence of such a player is a deterrent and thus necessary to the success of a club.

Well, last season the Detroit Red Wings were dead last in the NHL with only 21 fights. Yet the "pansies" of the league still managed to win the Cup a year after the Anaheim Ducks led the league in fighting and won it all.

What does that prove? Well, probably that you can win by brawling, but it's not a necessary component for a championship team. The lone argument, really, is that to some fighting is entertaining, and you are left to wonder why those who adore it so much don't watch the real thing, like boxing or martial arts or ultimate fighting.

Like mandatory shields, a ban on fighting - meaning game misconducts for those who scrap - is inevitable in hockey. Just expect the NHL to be the last league to make it happen.

Interestingly, Anaheim's Brian Burke continues to be the No. 1 proponent of fighting in the game. Should he come to Toronto at the end of this season, you can bet his first move would be to make the Maple Leafs more "black-and-blue."

Whether that's the right direction for any team given current trends in the game is certainly open to debate, although if fighting is up again in the NHL this season, Burke may still be on the right track.

Comments

[RJ]

Nothing wrong with editorial point of views like this anti fighting diatribe. Truth is (sad or not)the world and sports fans want more fighting in sports...evidence? basketball though 90s, the rise of MMA, English Soccer, Aussy Rules football etc(violent films and tv aside). Hockey is loved for its blue collar, conservative, "git-er-done" persona. And fighting is part of that in the minds of the average joe who adores clint eastwood. Dont confuse most vocal with most popular. Im not advocating it..just pointing out that violence(esp the straight up fists)is adored apparently by the vast majority of film and sport fans.

[neil no more last name]

Well, last season the Detroit Red Wings were dead last in the NHL with only 21 fights. Yet the "pansies" of the league still managed to win the Cup a year after the Anaheim Ducks led the league in fighting and won it all.

Well there's just no disagreement with that.

I could live with a "fight and you're out of the game" misconduct. There still be fights, just not as many.

[MO]

I like fighting in Hockey.
But, as Damien correctly pointed out, most of it is goon on goon contact. It's premeditated, rarely spontaneous and--for the most part--boring as heck.
By comparison, when two non-goon players engage in spontaneous fisticuffs after a particularly spirited battle for the puck, it is exciting.
Vinnie versus Iggy was good--a passionate display of competitiveness.
Belak versus Jansen was not good--a predetermined low brow move.
The problem is, to get rid of the bad you have to get rid of the good.
So I say keep 'em both.

[Daryn Lund]

I have always been a believer of fighting as part of the game when you see the emotional dropping of gloves i.e. Vinny vs. Iginla,Clark vs. Tocchet, Neely vs. Corson all these guys could play the game and I believe you are seeing more teams leaning towards the team toughness as opposed to the one big goon. But anybody that says fighting is barbaric please check you childs video game collection or the last time you watched an MMA fight and stop being a hypocrite cause there are many of you out there.I have far more disdain for a guy like Pronger who continually lifts elbows at peoples head a gets a slap on the wrist.

[charade]

Hey.

Hey bro.

Why don't ya stick to writing about badminton and figure skating!

[jacob]

I would rather see, "You hit from behind, and you're out."
Because once you take out fighting, we're going to see a lot more dangerous hits, stick infractions and the like. Let's start with what causes the worst injuries in hockey - that's not a one-to-one fist fight. Fighting is as fair as it gets compared to a blindside hit to the head.

[Bryan M]

Right on, Damian. Hockey is entertaining without fighting, and it's time the sport evolved. I know what RJ is saying, and he's right to a point, though I'm not sure the majority of hockey fans really like fighting, and would miss it if it were banned. Many fans cheer it on at a game out of a collective mob psychology (everyone else is cheering the fight so I'll cheer too).

At some point there has to be visionaries who see something better, and take bold (and perhaps unpopular) steps to help the game.

[IAMCANADIAN]

Fighting, at least in the NHL, is here to stay. They haven't got fricking visors or no touch icing...what in Allah's name makes anyone think they'll accept a league with auto ejections for fighting? As long the captains and best players of teams(Calgary, Dallas, Tampa) recognize the value of fighting, and there is a value(perhaps minimal), there is no way that teams are going to risk losing their best players and, by extension, games.

Hits from behind, shots to the head, non-obstruction slashing(malicious/ie Bobby Clarke), and the like need to be addressed more primarily. These can be handled with league imposed punishments and can be applied after games. For example, the referee imposed punishment for a hit from behind may range between minor and major penalties, but the league should review these hits much more strictly and apply further punishments that are much more severe. Any hit from behind call should be evaluated and suspensions decreed should they be found deserving. Assessing a hit from behind or a shot to the head in game and making a fair diagnosis/reactive punishment is often flawed. Leave the in-game stuff to the refs and enhance the power of off ice officials. I didn't talk about fighting much because it is here to stay.

[Michael Nestlehut]

I believe in retaliatory or "heat of the moment" fighting where a stick in the chops causes a instinctly fight response, but the premediated fighting without due cause should be abolished. I like the "you fight and your done" rule.

[mark]

I wouldn't care if hockey fighting went the way of the dodo bird. But Damien, everytime you begin one of your rants you never address one of the reasons for hockey fighting in the first place and what you would do about that. Example? How about if Dion Pheuneuf decides that he should cross check Martin St. Louis? He would get a 2 minute penalty. Meanwhile, St. Louis is effectively removed from the game (if not physically then mentally). I honestly believe that players policing themselves will continue to exist until the league steps in with more severe penalties for stick work, hits from behind, hits to the head, knee on knee. Your focus, Damien, as usual is misguided. You are like a doctor who prescribes decapitation for a headache.

[Ian Donnelly]

As a fan of donnybrooks, I have no problem with leagues tryting to curb and/or control fighting with regards to 16/17/18 year olds. But, I still don't see the problem with two men, as willing combatants, having a scrap. They know the risks, and accept them. Sucker punches and blind sided jumpings, throw them out for 10+ games, no argument here. RJ, I'm not sure how many AFL (Aussie Rules) games you've actually watched, but the penalty for 'Striking', which is a deliberate, even single punch, is a one match suspension. ELP players don't fight either, I assume you're talking about the fans, who aren't on the pitch playing the game.

[Ryan Marshall]

With David Branch talking about the elimination of fighting within hockey, he is talking nation wide minor hockey, which is a different animal all together. Kids in minor hockey dont need to fight, in my opinion, period. It is a institutionalized excuse for bare knuckled fisticuffs for children. ( And many instances of padded glove on helmet.) It's superfluous to the minor game and quite to the point, it fuels itself to the point of neccesity. While the professional need of fighting in hockey can be debated, young hockey players to fighting leaves me scratching my head. Branch has finally said soemthing that we know he has wanted to say for a while, maybe this will give Bettman the oppurtunity to say something as well.

[DGL]

Agree for once with you Damion. No fighting will come to the NHL one day. But along with that rule, there will have to be, as others have mentioned here, they have to put an end to head shots, blindsite hits, boarding, etc. These types of hits are a good reason why many fights start and continue to the next games with the clubs involved. Surprised you didn't mention this more in your editorial.
These types of things irritate me more in the last few years than any fighting does.

[kwilson]

Good article Damien - especially in light of an article I read a couple of days ago stating that it has been scientifically proven that teams that fight more are more successful. The best hockey played is international hockey - Olympics, Canada/World Cups etc. where fighting is not allowed. It's the most intense and exciting hockey there is and there are no fights. Playoff hockey is just as high on the intensity and entertainment scale and, once again, fighting is rare. Detroit's busiest fighter last year was Aaron Downey and he never dressed for 1 playoff game. Not one. The league's "policemen" rarely play in the playoffs. What does that tell you about the need for fighting and/or policemen?

[Byaah]

Eliminating fighting (or implementing harsher penalties for it) would simply cause an increase in the cheapshots from elbows, sticks and, an even more alarming recent trend, skates.

But hey, if you happen to be a Philadelphia Flyers fan, that's good news, right?

Fighting is a part of the game and a part of the game's appeal. I think these millionaires can handle a scrap or two to get the fans out of their seats from time to time.

A bigger problem in the league these days is diving. It's turning into soccer.

[Allen Ford]

Damien, is the press box really so high in NHL arenas that you are completely removed from the buzz created by a fight? Two things are guaranteed to get fans out of their seats at an NHL game: a goal or a fight. You keep writing about the growing anti-fighting minority in the NHL and hockey, yet in any NHL or junior game I have been at where the gloves are dropped I don't see any evidence of this.

Until a significant number of players and coaches speak out against fighting, I'll choose to believe that its place in the game is warranted.

P.S. Who cares what David Branch has to say? Afterall, you don't give Bettman any respect because of the position he holds.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

Fighting aint going away, it's too ingrained int the sport and too many people love it. I don't see why it has to be so black and white: it's a either a combat sport or it isn't. Hockey provides the grey. You're just jumping on board the Q bandwagon.

[jimmy]

It sounds good but how do you legislate against 4th line winger taking on first line winger - both get tossed but one team suffers more than the other. That's only one possible unintended consequence of such a rule, and as the politically incorrect guy on CBC has pointed out the "instigator" rule has caused as many problems (or more) as it has solved.

[MZ]

You mock those who "can't actually argue the point", but you're certainly not presenting a well-thought-out case here yourself when you say that "the lone argument, really, is that to some fighting is entertaining". That's not true.

Fighting is, for now, like it or not, a part of the game. But it's being clamped down upon at just about all of the sub-NHL levels, so a natural consequence is that young players coming into the NHL won't have the "traditional" sense that fighting is part of the game, because it hadn't been part of their game up to that point. So fighting will, eventually, die off except for the most heated moments like those mentioned by the other commenters.

And you know, that's OK. When you've got the fastest pro sport in the world going on, which is, yes, a physical game (unless you want to ban checking too, wouldn't surprise me), and the young men involved have blades on their feet and sticks in their hands and rock-hard "pads" on their shoulders and elbows, any given player has the ability to really seriously hurt someone that they've got a problem with. Would you rather see them settle it between themselves by fighting, with relatively low chance of serious injury, or in more potentially damaging ways with one of the non-misconduct methods at their disposal?

[Down Goes Brown]

Damien asks:
"The lone argument, really, is that to some fighting is entertaining, and you are left to wonder why those who adore it so much don't watch the real thing, like boxing or martial arts or ultimate fighting."

But they are -- MMA is the fastest growing sport south of the border, so much so that a no-name fight on CBS beat the Stanley Cup finals on NBC in the ratings.

That doesn't necessarily reflect anything about fighting being right or wrong, but it certainly shows that there's a big chunk of sports fans out there who enjoy the idea of watching two guys have a good, clean scrap. And in the dead puck era where the NHL's entertainment value has hit rock bottom and started to dig, you have to question whether now is the time to take aim at one of the few moments of excitement that a typical mid-season game can still offer.

It's funny... For years we heard the argument that the NHL had to get rid of fighting to grow the game. "Won't somebody please think of the fans?" Then fighting was reduced, and ratings dropped. That mythical fan who was just waiting for fighting to go away before they became a diehard turned out to be, predictably, a myth.

And now the same anti-fighting types who promised us mainstream acceptance if we'd just eliminate fighting have changed their tune. Now we're suddenly not supposed to care about entertainment value any more. Who cares what the fans want? Flip, flop, flip...

Damien, if you really don't think that entertainment value is worth worrying about, then maybe you have a lot more in common with Bettman than you'd think.

[Chris]

Like some of the other posters so far, I like fighting in hockey, but could do without the goons that play 3 minutes a game, and the fights that happen in the face off circle. I have no problem with Cox's argument, but if you suggest that kicking a player out of a game is the best outcome, please explain how you would stop a marginal 4th line player grabbing the opposing team's star and starting a fight with him in the first period. This would rob a team of their star player, and the fans from watching that player. How is this a good idea?

[RJ]

Good points Bryan.
Ethics aside i suggest that the instigator rule has already resulted in what jacob has stated. I see more cheap shots today than in all the 40 years ive watched hockey. No one likes goons, but everyone likes a skilled guy who stands up for his buds (iginla).
Another thought...business side. Removing fighting wont bring more fans into the game, but it will certainly cause a few fringe fans to leave.
In the real world fighting is allowed by law (your allowed to defend yourself)..its not as abhorrent as some would suggest.

[djm]

I am having a hard time recalling a moment when being able to fight prevented a cheap shot from happening. Anyone recall a particular moment when that happened? I am not offended by two consenting adults engaging in a fist fight while wearing skates. The problem is that most hockey fights look the same, don't achieve a damn thing and are boring. A physical game is good hockey but how does a fight prevent the other team from scoring or help your team score more goals? Stop the fights. If they interest you that much, go rent "Youngblood".

[matto]

Kudos to Damien for another well articulated opinion piece. Fighting's time has come and gone from our great game.

I also believe we should rethink the post-lockout solution to tie-breaking. I have what I think would be an interesting alternative: After 5 minutes of overtime, if still tied, each team's coach selects a player and song. The player then tries to skate in sync to the song and perform acrobatic maneuvers of various difficulty while not falling. Let's evolve people, we should be promoting and highlighting the finesse and grace of the game.

And as a note of constructive criticism to Damien: I would have liked to have seen a few more mentions of what imbeciles Leafs fans are for rooting for a team from the town that they live in.

[Rick Cottier]

I like fighting in hockey. It's entertaining. The only thing better than a hockey fight would be if one day on the Reporters, Damian Cox finally snapped and just decked Steve Simmons right out of his chair.