A New Twist to a Raging Debate

The startling piece in the latest edition of Maclean's magazine in which Mike Sanderson, the father of the late Don Sanderson, speaks his mind on the issue of fighting in hockey truly puts the godfather of fighting on skates, Don Cherry, in a desperate light.

While Cherry has insinuated that Mike Sanderson, despite the death of his 21-year-old son after a hockey fight while playing for the Whitby Dunlops, still supports the notion that fighting is an integral part of the sport, the elder Sanderson says that actually isn't true at all.

Even worse, he objects to Cherry's characterization of him as a friend and kindred spirit who was there at Don Sanderson's funeral in Port Perry, Ont and later pronounced to a national TV audience that Mike Sanderson is a "hockey guy" who understands the role of fighting in hockey.

“He said we sat there like we were buddies (at Donald’s funeral),” Sanderson says in the Maclean's article written by Charlie Gillis. “I’m, like, no we didn’t.”  

While some have been accused of using the death of Don Sanderson to further the effort to ban fighting from hockey, Sanderson's father seems to feel he's the one who has been used by those who would see the practice continue. Mike Sanderson says he supports a regulation that would lead to automatic ejections for fighting.

"Helluva rule," he tells Maclean's.

It's a powerful piece, one that vividly illustrates the suffering of a father over the needless death of his son, and his frustration that the act of fighting that led to his son's death is still seen by so many as an indispensable part of the sport.

You'd think more would want to listen to a father who has lost so much. Actually listen, that is, and not just hear what they want to hear.

Comments

[Dave So]

Ross P.... So what? They put out their 4th line? Don't fight back. Simple solution to a very simple problem... Let them lose that line and keep your 1st line.

[Dave So]

To those that say Mr. Cox (and others) should not be using the Sanderson incident to furhter his "agenda": How does one debate their position? They use specific examples both past AND present that support their side. Should we just ignore that this happened and have the debate? It's my understanding that (from comments made) that Mr. Cox's view is nothing new anyways. This story is a big issue right now, and so it should be discussed as such.

[kenny]

"But, if my kid is killed drunk-driving, I'm not going to try and have driving banned."

I'm so sick of rebuttals that are based on this flawed logic. (Newsflash for you, Mr. Michael's: driving under the influence isn't legal.)

The debate/discussion on fighting's place in pro hockey won't progress until the mental midgets that continue to use this pointless argument (the other idiotic variant being "body checking hurts players, so let's ban that too") actually start using their brains before chiming in.

[Nathan Goveas]

What everyone on the ban fighting bandwagon seems to forget is that Don Sanderson's death took place in a league that ironically has banned fighting. Players face ejection and suspension for fights yet Don and his counterpart still chose to drop the gloves numerous times that season.

What Don Sanderson's father wants for hockey does not necessarily mean that he is correct in his assessment. It is no different than a mother who loses a son to a motorcycle accident wanting all motorcyles off the road because of their inherent danger. A much more reasonable compromise is to follow the lead of the OHL and punish those who remove helmets and stopping fights once the helmet is off just as they ban riding a bike without a helmet.

[Dave So]

In regards to my comment to Ross P and his idea of automatic ejections. Yes, your team may look like wusses at the time, but what's more important, winning the game and keeping your first line? Or looking like a wuss? Besides, the other team will look like a bunch of idiots trying to pick fights that no one wants to be a part of.

[ostrich lover]

There must be more to this story because DON CHERRY IS ONE OF THE MOST HONORABLE MEN IN THIS NATION, AND HE WOULDENT LIE. ALSO, HE MUST HAVE HAD A GOOD REASON TO GO B/C DON IS ALL ABOUT RESPECT AND DOING THE RIGHT THING, YOU GUYS WHO THROW DON UNDER THE BUS WITHOUT EVEN GIVING HIM THE RIGHT TO RESPOND OR CLARIFY MAKE ME SICK.

also, im pro fighting becuase I like fighting, who cares about other reasons, its entertaining and fun.

[Noam Sugarman]

I fail to understand why anything Don Cherry says is taken to represent the entire pro-fighting community. Don Cherry has a big mouth that often gets going before his brain kicks in. Attacking him is just a convenient way to avoid giving a single good reason why a ban on fighting would be justified, whereas the violence of bodychecking can be tolerated (and don't give me that 'it's part of the game' crap, because the game could easily be played without it). And just out of curiousity, if a guy died from a bodycheck, and that guy's father or mother understandably questioned the place of hitting in hockey, would you, Mr. Cox, or anyone who opposes fighting draw any attention to it?

[Brad Mitchell]

To Ostrich Lover: that Macleans article came out 4 days BEFORE the most recent Coach's Corner. I am not throwing him under a bus. I find it hard to believe he didn't see that article. SOMEONE would have told him about it even if he didn't see it himself. And if I'm wrong, hopefully he has seen it by now and he has the integrity to respond. Those of who have supported Cherry deserve an explanation.

[skyhawk]

I TOLD you they were going to have to lash out at you for telling the truth,i just didn`t realize what you have to put up with for having the guts to do it.i read the article in Macleans.how did you sneak in there and get that into the magazine ? that must be what happened judging from all the flack you`re taking.it can`t be because you`re simply informing everyone about a story in another publication from another writer.who in their right mind can give you hell for that !? hang in there.i told you they`d kill the messanger

[arnold hogan]

I think that a couple of the posts today have been over the top in their criticism of both the article and Cox; "alex" was especially bombastic. But that's illogical and hard to respond to so i'll stick with what makes sense, those people who disagreed with the post.

Whereas Don Cherry is regarded by some(many?) to be a legitimate hockey thinker and his opinions are given credence by said people, any time that his veracity is challenged or, in this case, dismissed as incorrect by the source, it should be mentioned by the media. I think the principal purpose of the fifth estate should be to question and critique with a fair and balanced perspective. Tolerance, absolutely, but also realistic and weighted response and, where necessary, criticism. This is news. McLean's has written the news and Cox has shared news that he finds interesting and supportive of something he believes in. It's his blog.

[James]

I find the ad hominem attacks on Cox for reporting news that supports his anti-fighting viewpoint laughable. As a journalist, he's got no vested interest in the debate. He states an opinion with underlying facts that support his position, no differenet than those that do the same to support the opposite viewpoint.

I have yet to read any compelling argument for fighting remaining in hockey. Entertainment? Please. Hockey is a sport. Pro wrestling and roller derby are entertainment. Yes, hockey is entertaining, and that would not be diminished if fighting disappeared. You don't see anybody asking for refunds if they attend a game in which a fight doesn't occur. It's unnecessary and discredits the sport internationally.

I'm saddened by the extent to which Don & Ron have become anachronisms. The game is changing to a faster more skill-based product and their opposition to it comes off as curmudgeonly. To bring class or even sexuality into it (i.e. "nancy-boy") is the refuge of the defeated - it's like watching a McCain/Palin campaign ad.

Keep up the good work Damien.

[Dennis Regan]

Feel sorry for Ron McLean. All talent, among the best as to hockey knowledge, doesn't push his views on the audience. The time spent with Cherry must be hard for him. He can't really express himself because this is Cherry's time EH! Knuckles rapped if he tries to do his part of the job. Gets paid much less than Cherry, and the goon audience who decide to watch the corner act feel this is OK! If we donelike tuwatch da Rushins, den weer wit the cornerman EH! Otherwise, let's watch Mclean and the other knowledgeable guys during the second intermission! They are all heard, and even at times one may seem biased, there is always point-couter point.

[ray brewer]

It was an interesting article...I understand Mike Sanderson's position..He lost his son..Anyone would be upset and want fighting taken out of the game..What would you expect him to say?...

Unlike the anti-fighting crowd, I didn't resort to using a dead son's dad to further my cause..It smells of desperation to me..

Let me point out some other parts of this article for you Damian, as you forgot to put a few things in as you usually do..

"That fighting is embedded in the DNA of hockey is hard to dispute. It is said that the first game played indoors under written rules ended in a fight, as players at McGill University in Montreal scuffled with members of a skating club who wanted to use the ice. That was 1875, and it followed several accounts of outdoor hockey devolving into fist fights and stick-swinging incidents in Toronto and the Maritimes".

But you anti-fighting people just know more then everyone else..I mean, the heck with a hundred years of tradition lets just change everything to please all the passifists..Maybe we should just eliminate everything violent from the game..I just don't understand why suddenly everyone wants change..Oh yea, the anti-fighters found a martyr in Sanderson..

Fighting has a long and storied history as well..People say there is no fighting in the playoffs..How about the Mcsorely vs. Clark fight in 1993?..How about the epic battles between Colorado and Detroit?..

I hate to say this but who forced Don Sanderson to fight anyway?..He chose to drop his gloves..So now we should punish the NHL for this?..I don't know how many more times this needs to be said..It did not happen in the NHL!

[Steve]

As a vocal support on these pages of the (non-staged) fight, I am willing to accept that the fighting days may need to end.

However, I really think you should be careful what you wish for.

Perhaps another league arises that allows fighting by realizing that there is a market for it. Theoretically it could quickly gain a market share and have the money to lure 'skilled' players to it. The NHL could end up being seen the way we look at international hockey - boring.

Or, would the NHL end up full of 'Avery's' - despicable pests that would have all the more room to operate - boring.

It is often claimed that the game will succeed and be a better product without fighting. Would it really? I've been a die-hard fan and have attended hundreds of games (and played it too for 35 years.) The worst games (and there are plenty of them) are when there is no intensity. Perhaps it's the knowledge that there 'could' be a fight that helps mask this boredom. After all, nothing is MORE boring in hockey than face washes, scrums and stickwork.
The same with the playoffs. It is often trumpeted to the skies that there is no fighting there. First of all it's not entirely true, secondly perhaps it's the fact that they could - but DON'T - that adds that extra bit of tension.

Just things to think about, be careful....

[chris]

So now it's come to this. It's all Don Sanderson's fault that he engaged in a fight that cost him his life. Blame the victim here, not the code. A new low.

[Giller]

"Blame the victim here, not the code" is ridiculous. Wayne Gretzky never fought - guess he didn't know about the code. Or Mario. Or Sydney. Or Stevie Y. Man alive. Players DON'T fight all the time in the league. Sanderson made a choice. He is not some innocent victim here. If he drank then drove and died, would it not be his fault? No matter how many of your buddies were cheering you on? Oh, right. In this day and age, it's probably the bartenders fault. Or the car manufactures. Or the police for not stopping you. Geez. It seems no one should be accountable for their own actions anymore.

[Cathy]

It is time for the fans to take matters into their owns hands(pardon the pun). Every time a fight breaks out, the fans should start to boo instead of cheer. That's the only way the hockey bosses will listen.

[Dave So]

The real problem with hockey today (and the reason why fighting has become "necessary") is the lack of respect that players have for eachother, and that coaches (yes, they are very guilty in this matter) have for the athletes on opposing teams. It is well known that coaches will send out a player specifically to take a cheapshot at a star player in the hopes of injuring him and thus removing him from the game. Hockey has a culture of playing dirty, and that's got to change. In virtually all other sports I've seen a player help an opposing player get up off the ground (basketball, football, etc, etc), but never in hockey. Now, while I have never played hockey (and I'm sure that statement alone is going to open me up for all sorts of comments that I have no idea what I'm talking about), I know that an athlete should respect anyone on the playing field, and the sport itself. Dirty play makes you look bad, and it makes your sport look bad (especially when done on the scale that it is in hockey).

[chris]

No it is not ridiculous. With a ban on fighting, the officials would have stepped in quickly to make sure the fight wouldn't have started. Don Sanderson's death should not have happened. So don't even try and compare that to drinking and driving, where there are jurisdictions that hold drinking establishments responsible if it was discovered their place served alcohol to those involved in a DUI.

[Dave So]

To Ray Brewer: There are many of us who have been saying that fighting doesn't need have a place in hockey for years. It's only incidents like this that bring the matter into the spotlight for discussion.

[Peter]

chris,
do you have a reading disability or what? Don Sanderson played in a league where fighting is banned. get it? he made a choice, nobedy forced him. i'm tired of people tying to make him out as an innocent victim who was murdered or something. he was aware of the risks.

[chris]

Yeah, some ban Peter. If there was a true one, the officials would have stepped in quickly to prevent it from happening. The rule in that league is the equivelant of being a little bit pregnant.

[Smack]

Will somebody please tell me why it's unseemly to use the example of Don Sanderson's death as an argument against fighting? This is how we learn, how society evolves. In fact, if change for good comes from Sanderson's death, one could say at least his memory is honoured with something of substance.

How laughable that those who are opposed to fighting in hockey are berated for using Sanderson's death as an example while Cherry, who apparently outright lied regarding the statements of a Sanderson's grieving father to support his position, is apparently doing nothing wrong.

[ray brewer]

Ya Dave..But its always the people that want fighting banned that bring it up..

[Smack]

Peter says, "i'm tired of people tying to make him out as an innocent victim who was murdered or something. he was aware of the risks."

Show me one post where someone "makes him out" as a victim of murder.