So Much for Being the Majority

For years now, I've argued that a silent majority of Canadians would prefer to take fighting out of hockey.

For just as many years, I've been shouted down by the pro-fighting crowd, told to go watch badminton or ballet if I'm not manly enough to like fighting and don't understand that the vast majority of people love it and understand it's part of the game.

Well, that bubble burst today, didn't it? At least to some degree.

A new Harris-Decima poll suggests a slim majority of Canadians believe fighting should be taken out of hockey. These kinds of polls depend on what precisely the question asked was, to some degree, and certainly not all those who responded are diehard NHL fans.

But at the very least, even the fight fans would have to acknowledge that they're not quite the overwhelming majority they claim to be.

Interestingly, on the weekend NHL commissioner Gary Bettman argued that his league's fans love fighting and want it to stay. This poll, however, suggests that even in hockey-mad Canada, keeping fighting in the game might actually be costing the NHL, and hockey in general, fans and paying customers.

Some of this, of course, is a reaction to the death of Don Sanderson. Well, what's wrong with that? in life and society, it's usually a drastic event that draws people's attention to a problem, and in this case, Sanderson's death surely put to rest for good the old saw that nobody ever gets hurt in a hockey fight.

In a Globe and Mail report today, former Leaf captain Rick Vaive was quoted as saying tough new sanctions against fighting are needed, and on the FAN 590, former coaching great Scotty Bowman echoed Vaive's thoughts and suggested its time to get rid of designated enforcers who can only play a few minutes a game.

The tide does seem to be rising against fighting, but it may be a momentary thing. What seems logical, however, is that the NHL general managers need to take more than a cursory look at the issue at their March meetings.

I've long argued that we already know how well hockey sells, or doesn't sell, with fighting as part of the package.

What we don't know is how well it would sell without fighting, and the NHL has never had the courage to try and find out.

This poll suggests they might be missing out on customers. It took the NHL lockout to get these people to change the game, and now you have to wonder if a deteriorating economy and plummeting NHL ratings might finally force the league to take a new harder line on dropping the gloves.

Comments

[Down Goes Brown]

That's a somewhat surprising result, and the survey is newsworthy. But Damien conveniently leaves out they key finding from the same poll that NHL fans overwhelmingly (68%) want fighting to stay. Even factoring in those who only follow the league "somewhat" closely, 57% want fighting to stay.

Would the NHL create new fans by eliminating fighting? Maybe. But then again, fighting has been on the decline for 15 years. If Damien's theory was right, wouldn't we expect to see the NHL's fanbase growing? Instead, it's been shrinking.

I seem to remember hearing for years that the NHL had to reduce fighting if they were going to succeed in new US markets, especially in the south. We saw how well that worked out.

A final point - Fighting has significant (60%) support among those under 35. That would go against the assumption that support for fighting will fade over the years. If anything, the NHL would risk turning off younger fans with a fighting ban.

There's always several ways to interpret these sorts of surveys. It would be nice to see Damien go into more depth, even when it doesn't support his well-known position.

[DamienCox]

Damien here. . .interesting that Mr. Brown accuses me of failing to go into sufficient depth. Then again, he says fighting "has been on the decline for 15 years." Not really. It's up 24 per cent from last season. Also, you'll always notice that the pro-fighting crowd, when it doesn't get the answer it wants, simply disenfranchises people. Don Cherry will say if you didn't play pro hockey, well, it's none of your business. Mr. Brown, on the other hand, gives more weight to the thoughts of those who identify themselves as NHL fans, dismissing other respondents. Finally, he talks about success in U.S. markets, or the lack thereof. Again, given that fighting has always been part of the NHL game, we don't know how fans in certain U.S. cities would respond to a league that didn't have fighting. We sure know their lukewarm at best about the NHL with fighting as part of the package.

[Mark]

Anybody who watches a hockey game to see a fight is in the wrong place. Go to a boxing match or an MMA event. Watch a real fight with real fighters if that's what you like. I think hockey goons and enforcers would be tough enough to last about 30 seconds in a real fight in a ring or a cage. If not, then I invite some of them to prove me wrong. As for the people who say fighting is part of the game, where in the rule book does it say that? The rule book says fighting is a penalty in violation of the rules of the game. I don't see any part of the scoreboard with a fighting score. And anybody who says fighting has always been a part of the game is simply not old enough to remember the development of hockey generations ago when fighting was not "part of the game". No wonder bowling has higher TV ratings than hockey in the U.S. It must be because of all the fights in bowling that people are tuning in to it.

[AJ]

Let's look at the Poll closely..

1,000 people was conducted between last Thursday and Sunday

First of all you are taking a poll which was taken shortly after a really terribly incident (Brian Sanderson). In a period of time, when most people want to see skill not fighting (All-Star Break). Among people who aren't necessarily Hockey Fans.

Secondly, 1,000 people is not enough to be a valid sample for all Canadians, let alone all hockey Fans.

Then you ignore the statistic that 68 per cent of NHL fans who follow the NHL closely say the gloves should continue to drop.

This is my precise issue with your opinion of it. It has nothing to do with being manly, or badminton or ballet. You have an opinion which I respect, however, the fact that you cherry pick statistics in order to propagandize against fighting is

a. Insulting to my intelligence, even though you often infer I must be some sort knuckle dragging neanderthal for supporting fighting

b. a direct question of your integrity as a reporter.

[Dean]

It's fascinating watching this debate between the pro and anti-fighting camps. Both sides are coming off as belligerent. The media punditry, en masse, has now detemined it will get rid of fighting in hockey no matter what. It's their 'personal agenda' story now and they are appearing as sitting up in a marble palace, clucking their tongues and shaking their heads at the pro-crowd. It's frankly pretty elitist and very typical of media when someone disagrees with them. Meantime, the pro-fighting crowd doesn't want the debate at all and won't listen to reason, whatsoever. It's the immovable object vs the irresistable force. Again, fascinating.

[Steve Mitchell]

Although I admit that I have always enjoyed watching a good tussle or two, deep down I know that hockey would be better off without fighting.

Let's get more skilled players out there and make the game faster with fewer breaks.

I also hate all the pushing and shoving after a whistle. I miss the good old days when players would just line up for the next faceoff without incident.

Damien for League Commissioner!!!

[Brian Evoy-Smith]

I do care about the opinions of hockey fans more, just as I would imagine that figure skating fans wouldn't be to concerned about my opinions on rules in that sport.

[cam]

I think a more interesting question than whether or not hockey will gain fans if fighting is banned, is would hockey gain young players if fighting were banned. How many parents choose to take their kids to the gym in the winter rather than the rink because they are turned off by the fighting in the NHL and minor league hockey?

The more kids that end up playing hockey, the more fans the NHL will have down the road.

[Ian Donnelly]

Seems like cherry picking Mr. Cox, here's a bullett from the poll you should've included.

"However, those who follow the game very closely hold a very different view. Among these respondents, 68% believe that fighting should stay in the NHL, while 31% prefer
too see it banned."

68%? That seems pretty close to an overwhelming majority.

I didn't hear Gary say anything about 'loving fighting' I just heard this:

"I don't think there's any appetite to abolish fighting from the game,"

[Noam Sugarman]

Claiming that having fighting in the game might be costing the league fans is just as naive as the argument that it is needed to sell the game. Well, perhaps not naive, but certainly self-serving. Furthermore, like you yourself pointed out, this is a poll of Canadians, not hockey fans, and as nutty as this country is about hockey, I would still wonder how many of the people questioned in that poll could be counted among the fan base, that is to say people who watch regularly on television and go to the occasional game. If you take fighting out of the game, bodychecking will inevitably be the next to go. First, all the arguments you can make against fighting can and will be made against checking; the game can be played without it, it leads to horrible injuries (more so than fighting), etc. And while many in the anti-fighting crowd point to Europe as an example of fight-free hockey, what they don't point out is that the European game is significantly less physical than the North American game. So take fighting out of the game, but beware, for it is a slippery slope.

All of the leagues problems, including goonery (different from fighting), would be solved by contracting the league to, say, 20-24 teams and capping it there. I know it will not happen until the league fails monumentally the way CFL did several years back, but contracting the league would make competition for roster spots more intense, leaving no room for the goons. All of the tough guys of 15-20 years ago could actually play; it wasn't until the league got so big and watered down that teams could afford to reserve a roster spot for a 'tough guy'. So until contraction, don't expect any of these problems to go away.

[alanalda]

thanks Damien...and thanks to all the people who are finally speaking up to put a halt to fighting. Can you imagine how ridiculous football would be if fights were "part of the game". I used to be a die hard hockey fan and now that I am older with kids, I can't remember the last time I watched a complete game. My kids are 6 and 8 and I have never taken them to a game. It's really kind of boring.

[Johnny the Juice]

Damien, although we see eye to eye on most issues, I can't believe how you have manipulated the results of one poll to suit your anti-fighting agenda.

This was a poll of Canadians, not hockey fans. No bubble was burst here. Hockey fans by an overwhelming marjority (68%) want fighting to stay in the game and that is an undisputable fact.

You also assume that the majority of Canadians who oppose fighting would magically become NHL fans if it was banned, this assumption is not addressed in the poll whatsoever.

Furthermore, I'm not sure how much more popular hockey could even be in Canada. All the Canadian NHL teams sell out already and the NHL is by far the most followed pro sport in this country. The game does not have a popularity problem.

Last, you and the anti-fighting crowd are GUILTY of using Don Sanderson's death to forward your agenda. Has anyone asked the Sanderson family what they think? This was an accident, not premeditated murder! If we banned every event where there was a fatality, you would have walked to work today.

I continue to wonder why you are so determined to rid the game of something most NHL fans particularly enjoy?? If the day ever comes where a fight happens at an NHL game and no one gets out of their seats to watch, then perhaps fighting's time will be over. Until then, GIVE IT A REST ALREADY.

[Johnny the Juice]

Mark, your comments make Damiens look somewhat intelligent. First off, nobody watches the NHL solely for fighting, it is simply an added bonus. Secondly, no one is saying that an NHL player would last long against a steriod-juiced MMA thug. To be honest, I would rather watch bowling. In fact, I bet the same majority of Canadians who oppose fighting in the NHL also oppose MMA, period. Lastly, fighting is allowed in the NHL, Ipso Facto, it is part of the game. Real simple.

[Wii Dickinson]

I would be interested to know how many of the respondents to the poll actually shelled out any money in the last 2-3 years to go and see a game. If they haven't, who cares what they think. Only people who actually support the game should be listened to. No Mr. Cox I am not disenfranching anyone but do you go to a plumber when you have an electrical problem? Mr. Brown's point was over the last 15 years,fighting has declined not whether it has gone up since last year overall it may have declined. I don't know if this is true or not, I suspect it is though. What I would like to see is two minute fighters gone from the game. My simple sugestion is this, if a player engages in a fight and does not have 10 minutes of ice time at the conclusion of the game, he would be suspended for at least 5 games. On top of that, the coach would be suspended for at least 5 games and the GM fined $100,000. That way if you choose to employ the goon you pay the price.
One last though, to everyone who uses the death of Mr. Sanderson as a reason to stop fighting, I would like to see the same people call for a ban to bodychecking the next time someone gets carried off the ice from a bodycheck. You can't have it both ways.

[DamienCox]

Damien here. . .I do find it really unfortunate that fighting proponents find it necessary to suggest those who disagree with them are somehow trying to use Don Sanderson's death for their own purposes. It happened. It's terrible, and I can't imagine the pain the young man's family must be feeling. But we can't pretend that it didn't happen. When Bill Masterton died, were those who then campaigned for the use of helmets "guilty" of using his death for their own ends, as Johnny the Juice suggests is the case now? Are those who campaign for restricted use of handguns whenever an innocent is gunned down "guilty" of using that person's death? Of course not. We all react to events, and when something terrible happens, we try to come up with ways of ensuring that doesn't happen to someone else. Finally, for those who believe fighting has no place in the game, young Mr. Sanderson's death didn't change anything. It simply confirmed our worst fears and left those of us who believe the sport is so great it doesn't need to be plagued by pointless brutality just sad that so many believe it is so necessary.
This same fellow, by the way, argues that "fighting is allowed in the NHL" and therefor is part of the game.
Fighting is illegal under the rules of the game. Under your twisted logic, that means highsticking, crosschecking, tripping, spearing, board and checking from behind are also "part of the game."
Real simple indeed.

[p.j.floyd]

I used to love to watch hockey, for the grace and skill of the players.
Now I don't even turn my TV on, much less spend dollars to watch a live game.
And I wonder: if they stopped serving alcohol at the games, would all those profighting fans still be fans? Seems to me there's more goons in the stands then there are on the ice.

[Noam Sugarman]

I'll say it again; all of the arguments that support the campaign to take fighting out of the game can be made to support a no-checking initiative. Bodychecking is violent, dangerous, and not at all an 'integral' part of the game. How long before checking becomes politically incorrect? Once fighting is gone, checking will be on borrowed time.

[DamienCox]

Damien here again. . .had to respond to Noam Sugarman's comments above. Bodychecking is an integral part of the game used to dislodge an opponent from the puck, either for defensive or offensive purposes. Unlike fighting it is legal in the NHL rulebook.
Most of us who understand the game realize that less fighting actually means more bodychecking, which we embrace. If you watch the game, more and more you see players deliver perfectly legal hits and then have to fight anyway. The likeliest response is for the hitter to think the next time about not bothering.
So take out the fighting, you get more hitting. That's what I want. Those who advocate fighting must therefore want less hitting. Unfortunate, because hitting is what makes the game great.

[Giller]

I'm a huge hockey fan - but I will be the first to admit that when two meatheads decide to drop the gloves for the sake of dropping the gloves, well, I go and get a pop. Toss those goofs out of the game. What a waste of my time. If you start fighting at a faceoff, then you are a goof. There's no reason for it. Now - on the other hand - when two guys go into a corner and fight for the puck and tempers flare up and a fight starts - now that can be exciting. That's pure emotion flowing.
So - get the goofs out of the game who are ONLY there cause they can fight, and after that, let em play. If tempers flare, great! Let em go.
My biggest fear of taking fighting totally out of the game is that stickwork will increase. Maybe that's totally unfounded, but that's my fear, however illogical. And spiders. That's another fear.

[Noam Sugarman]

Mr. Cox,

I agree that bodychecking is a legal part of the game, but integral? Not if integral means that the game can't be played without it; anyone in a men's league knows that. When fighting is out of the game and players keep getting injured, the media will start talking about hitting. Your argument that fighting discourages hitting makes sense, but if you believe that, then you must also believe that fighting acts as an effective deterrent of boarding, stick infractions, and other dirty play. For how could it deter one and not the rest? Lastly, if fighting is a deterrent to hitting, why is the European game significantly less physical than the North American game?

[DamienCox]

Damien here. . .fascinating. . .watched Ian White fight Cal Clutterbuck during the Leaf game, even though it was Lee Stempniak who hit Clutterbuck to start the problem. . .then heard something I thought I'd never hear. . .Maple Leaf broadcaster Joe Bowen say might as well just legislate fighting right out of the game. . .converts are suddenly everywhere

[Noam Sugarman]

Yes, converts everywhere, except amongst the fans, players, former players, coaches, and managers. Why does it not matter that the most important people to the game are in favour of fighting? This is, after all, entertainment, is it not? When White fought Clutterbuck, everyone was cheering and on their feet. The point isn't that fans will turn their backs on hockey once you take fighting out of the game, because they won't. The point is that it would be the worst kind of insult to those fans.

[Aubrey]

Fighting in hockey,it's always been a part of the game and it always will be. What they need to do away with are the goons who are in the NHL only because they are better at fighting than they are at playing hockey.Hockey is a game that requires speed,superb skating ability and hand eye co-ordination. The Rock -em Sock- em crap that Don Cherry promotes with his videos will eventually prove to be an embarrassment. One simply has to look at the number of concussions and career ending injuries of hockey players. Hockey players will always fight, just get rid of the no talent goons.

[Down Goes Brown]

Thanks for the reply Damien.

Re: fighting trends. Let's look at the stats, courtesy of hockeyfights.com. Fighting is up this year, and has been trending up the past three seasons, but that's largely due to an enormous drop post-lockout. And remember that fighting tends to decrease towards the end of the season. You would expect fighting numbers to be high mid-season. Let's wait and see how they look at the end of the year.

And of course, the hockeyfight.com numbers only go back to 2001. I made reference to the last 15 years. While I can't find any stats on fighting frequency in 1993, I feel pretty safe in saying it was significantly higher than even this season's numbers. If anyone can point to the numbers and they prove me wrong, I'll be glad to eat some crow.

Re: "disenfranchising" non-fans. You're right, I think the NHL should pay more attention to fans than non-fans. Like any business, you look after your customer base first. Is this really controversial?

Put it this way: When they do various customer satisfaction surveys, does the Toronto Star care more about the opinions of long-time subscribers, or Toronto Sun readers? This is just Business 101. It's always nice to expand your audience. You don't risk losing your current customers to do it.

What would have been nice is a followup question to the survey: "Would you be more or less likely to watch the NHL if fighting was banned?" What would the answer have been? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that the NHL has done similar customer research. The fact that Gary Bettman says banning fighting isn't even up for discussion might give you some clue as to the results they got.

Re: how fans would react to a fighting ban. No, we don't know how fans would respond to a league without fighting. But this argument could be applied to any rule change. Would fans like the NHL better if the nets were 15-feet wide and the games were played two-on-two? No? Well, how do you know that until you try it?

This seems like a pretty transparent ploy by the anti-fighting side. "Just give it a try, and see how fans respond." But of course, once fighting is banned in the NHL it will never come back. Even significantly rolling back the instigator rule seems all but impossible now.

Imagine if the NHL banned fights and found that fan interest plummeted -- do we really believe Damien and friends would accept a return of fighting?

[John]

Damien,

Great job on this particular string on responding to fans.

I'm kind of torn on the fighting issue - Jarome Iginla vs. Vincent Lecavalier ranks among the highlights of my hockey-viewing lifetime.

That said, the evolution of fighting as a 'tactic' in hockey has come to the point where I would like to at least see what hockey without fighting would look like. The hockey-skills of the best fighters in the NHL seems to be on a steady decline. Goons are simply bad for the sport. And I'm tired of hearing what great guys they are - that argument pre-supposes that the more talented players who would replace them on pro rosters are jerks.

Well-played NCAA hockey for those who've seen them, have more aggressive hitting than many CHL games do with zero fights.

Hitting won't go away if fighting is a game ejection + supsension, and nor for that matter will fighting. It might however get rid of the five-minute-per-night guy who if he isn't fighting isn't justifying his million dollar salary. When players in the NBA so much as throw a slap (Carmelo) they face multi-game suspensions.

It's funny, in a way I'd like make rule changes that would eliminate goons, but "save fighting" in the NHL, though the hard-core, don't-change-fighting extremists would accuse me of being a badminton guy like you!