tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post5514188503055692321..comments2024-01-15T09:53:40.089-05:00Comments on Black Aces: The Easy Guide To Hating The NHL - New Fan EditionJeremy Milkshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09719907099819957578noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-2851149561815358442011-09-07T00:25:06.467-04:002011-09-07T00:25:06.467-04:00I don't think that all this talk about fightin...I don't think that all this talk about fighting is just idle chatter. I think that the winds of change are in the air.<br /><br />But, I think that the driving force behind the change will be fear of lawsuits. Lawsuits have started in the NFL. It's only a matter of time before something happens in the NHL.<br /><br />The key is what does the research say. If the studies start pointing to fighting being responsible for serious injury or premature death, then look out. The lawyers will launch their suits.<br /><br />My bet is that the NHL does something before it hits that stage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-82463921812630443852011-09-06T23:44:31.701-04:002011-09-06T23:44:31.701-04:00True that. And to judge from the commentary on blo...<i>True that. And to judge from the commentary on blogs, message boards and in the media, that day is approaching faster than you might like.</i><br /><br />I don't know if that is really the case. This seems like your typical "something very tragic happened and makes us think about things a different way... for a moment" kinda thing (for better or worse). <br /><br />Tomorrow, Sidney Crosby will "talk to the media." Imagine he announces his retirement because of concussion problems? All of a sudden "hits to the head" becomes the new thing (well, not so new... but taken to another level)... which is probably a good thing because they could be (are?) more dangerous than fighting. I'm just saying, this discussion fighting debate has been happening for years.<br /><br />Again with the Sutton hit (because I got all nostalgic and started watching the highlights from that series after reading this): it looks like he hits Leopold's shoulder first and THEN his head anyways (i.e. the "principle point of contact is not the head). It's more likely that the fall and the fact that he wasn't prepared for the hit knocked the wind out of him big time. Just my thoughts...boobsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-38059185287071258842011-09-06T23:12:11.103-04:002011-09-06T23:12:11.103-04:00Everyone is entitled to their opinion but just rem...Everyone is entitled to their opinion but just remember it's those "Neanderthals" @ the Board of Governors, who call the shots. Blood and guts sell...these guys don't care about the players...the new prototype will be/is Mika, big O, big D, big speed, nice size and good "Dukes!"Canucnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17721271986892279353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-13716052646153737062011-09-06T22:34:42.193-04:002011-09-06T22:34:42.193-04:00There's a good interview that TSN Radio did wi...There's a good interview that TSN Radio did with Jamal Mayers last week. I think that it was on the Bryan Hayes show. The podcast is available on the TSN website.<br /><br />Anyway, Mayers made a distinction between staged fights and fights that flowed from on ice frustrations. He said that, in his opinion, staged fights had no affect on the game.<br /><br />I wonder how many other players feel the same way.<br /><br />My view, as a fan, is that if fighting was removed from the game, I wouldn't miss it. That said, I loved the Ray Emery/Marty Biron dust up and the McGratton/Domi knockout. They were definite Sens highlights for me, over the last twenty years.<br /><br />If fighting is banned, they will still happen, they'll probably just be punished more severely and the staged fights will surely disappear.<br /><br />This debate is going to flow all season long. I just hope that more thoughtful voices like Jamal Mayers' are heard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-2622964713733834352011-09-06T21:54:10.938-04:002011-09-06T21:54:10.938-04:00I was just using wiki as a starting point, but tha...I was just using wiki as a starting point, but thanks.dzuunmodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04848369299210812686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-53201816067016575032011-09-06T19:20:48.158-04:002011-09-06T19:20:48.158-04:00DZ: Fighting was very prevalent before the 1920...DZ: Fighting was very prevalent before the 1920's and in fact often resulted in serious injury from stick swinging incidents. A good book to read is The Best Of It Happened In Hockey by Brian McFarlane which relates many fighting related anecdotes, some of the most notorious ones happening right in Ottawa. Wikipedia should not be trusted for accurate historical research.Jeremy Milkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09719907099819957578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-43385729158529415372011-09-06T18:57:54.060-04:002011-09-06T18:57:54.060-04:00DZ: Don't confuse bloggers and message boarder...DZ: Don't confuse bloggers and message boarders for the ticket buying public. I'd bet the house on fighting staying in the NHL for a long, long time.Jeremy Milkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09719907099819957578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-12491182413106140102011-09-06T18:55:25.919-04:002011-09-06T18:55:25.919-04:00Boobs, I totally agree. Those Sutton hits were leg...Boobs, I totally agree. Those Sutton hits were legal, and they were spectacular.Jeremy Milkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09719907099819957578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-29974604482906399702011-09-06T18:53:10.976-04:002011-09-06T18:53:10.976-04:00The very fact that fighting has survived for over ...<i>The very fact that fighting has survived for over a century in NHL hockey is proof enough that it is more a part of the "fabric" of the game than the changes you mentioned. If it has been such an impediment to the entertainment of the game, then why is it still thriving (although happening with much lesser frequency).</i><br /><br />Are you sure that fighting has been in the game for a full century or more, Jeremy? It's an honest question - the wiki page on fighting in hockey says that from the 1920s through the '60s, fighting became much rarer, but also more brutal. It doesn't have precise numbers to back up those claims.<br /><br /><i>And I again say this: How come NHL players themselves largely support fighting staying in the game, including skilled players who don't fight themselves? Perhaps there's something to that.</i><br /><br />There might be, but it could also just be a case of people opting for the status quo rather than change in general. It could also be that they're not saying *fighting* is important, but keeping authority and the power to severely penalize people out of the hands of the referees is important.<br /><br />You know many players who want the refs given more discretion on any matter, not just fighting?<br /><br /><i>The NHL is an entity built around entertainment, not athletics like the college game or the Olympic game.</i><br /><br />I think you have a much more Pollyanna view of the Olympics than I do. Perhaps the NCAA for that matter, too.<br /><br /><i>When people don't want to watch fighting is when fighting will become extinct.</i><br /><br />True that. And to judge from the commentary on blogs, message boards and in the media, that day is approaching faster than you might like.<br /><br />Cheers.dzuunmodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04848369299210812686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-78787728952700403502011-09-06T18:36:12.098-04:002011-09-06T18:36:12.098-04:001. I can't believe this has to be said a year-...1. I can't believe this has to be said a year-and-half later, but the Sutton hit was clean at the time. And yeah, there was video evidence that the hit was clean, so suck it. Maybe we should retroactively give Scott Stevens 5 million penalty minutes?<br /><br />2. Why does everyone always bring up Olympic hockey when talking about "better" hockey?<br /><br />I mean, Olympic hockey is good and all, but unless you have 2 of the following teams: Canada, US, Russia, Sweden and maybe Finland and CR playing, then don't even bother comparing. Is it any surprise that the two teams in the finals last time were all from the NHL? So don't compare that to the NHL and say "look, no fighting = better hockey" cause first of all: it isn't always better, and second of all... when was the last time there was fighting in the Olympics? How can you even compare?<br /><br />Sigh...boobsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-43269089502850734042011-09-06T18:26:07.975-04:002011-09-06T18:26:07.975-04:00DZ: The very fact that fighting has survived for o...DZ: The very fact that fighting has survived for over a century in NHL hockey is proof enough that it is more a part of the "fabric" of the game than the changes you mentioned. If it has been such an impediment to the entertainment of the game, then why is it still thriving (although happening with much lesser frequency). And I again say this: How come NHL players themselves largely support fighting staying in the game, including skilled players who don't fight themselves? Perhaps there's something to that.<br /><br />As for fighting not being in the Olympics and in college, you're right. Fighting is not integral to the sport, but it has been integral to the NHL, and there's a big difference there. The NHL is an entity built around entertainment, not athletics like the college game or the Olympic game. Plus, the Olympics are made up entirely of the best of the best, something that is not possible to achieve in a 30 team league. There are goons in the NHL because there is room for them and there is also a role. We often lose sight of the fact that the NHL provides entertainment first and foremost. It's showbiz. Fighting has always been a part of that. When people don't want to watch fighting is when fighting will become extinct. Legislating it out of the game seems to be a major overreaction.<br /><br />Anyways, fun as always to go back and forth on these things.Jeremy Milkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09719907099819957578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-22156210745723634022011-09-06T18:07:12.622-04:002011-09-06T18:07:12.622-04:00I think you missed the tongue planted firmly in Om...I think you missed the tongue planted firmly in Oman's cheek, Jeremy.<br /><br /><i>I don't mind tweaks, but when you talk about taking fighting out of the game, you're talking about changing the very fabric of it.</i><br /><br />If you want to watch fighting because you like fighting, that's a legit conversation. But if you want to argue that fighting is integral to the sport, I have less time for that. Are you saying that Olympic hockey isn't hockey? That NCAA hockey isn't true to the "fabric" of the sport?<br /><br />And if maintaining the "fabric" of the sport is the crux of your argument here - if that's really your big concern - then I await future posts from you on why we should return to hockey without line changes, get rid of all these new-fangled *lines* on the ice and start calling wrist shots "scoop shots", like they were called back in the good old days.<br /><br />Surely the introduction of line changes altered the *fabric* of the game more than the elimination of fighting would, Jeremy? And surely we have a better game today as a result.dzuunmodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04848369299210812686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-21728107356961692512011-09-06T17:29:20.290-04:002011-09-06T17:29:20.290-04:00Article was great until the last few paragraphs.
...Article was great until the last few paragraphs.<br /><br />Traditions aren't always correct, and appealing to them can be a logical fallacy. Sutton was being defensive and his statement was brutal; there was video evidence of what he did and he was simply trying to save his job. I'm glad he's no longer in Ottawa.<br /><br />Good blog,<br /><br />Greg.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-86775113869623006892011-09-06T17:20:15.247-04:002011-09-06T17:20:15.247-04:00Oman: Yes, I do like the status quo as it is now. ...Oman: Yes, I do like the status quo as it is now. The game is quite good compared to some of the crap we all had to endure during the 90's. I don't mind tweaks, but when you talk about taking fighting out of the game, you're talking about changing the very fabric of it. I don't understand why you presume I will naturally see the light when fighting is banned. I happen to like fighting in hockey and am not ashamed to admit it. It is one of many reasons I love the sport. I realize that's not a popular opinion right now but this blog doesn't exist just to reinforce popular opinions.Jeremy Milkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09719907099819957578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-74662563141210034242011-09-06T17:15:01.722-04:002011-09-06T17:15:01.722-04:00DZ: I'm not criticizing any possible rule chan...DZ: I'm not criticizing any possible rule changes. I'm criticizing the modern fans desire to see constant changes, not the changes themselves. (and doing so with tongue heavily in cheek in case you did not get the tone of the writing)<br /><br />I fully realize the game can be tweaked in positive ways, but I get the sense fans will never be satisfied with the game and that was the point I was trying to make. You can make tweaks, but in a year those same fans will want those tweaks reversed as we are seeing now with the rules put in after the lockout.<br /><br />Sometimes enough is enough. The constant harping about rule changes creates the impression that the game is not good in its current form, when in fact it hasn't been better in over twenty years.Jeremy Milkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09719907099819957578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-44692481086787882032011-09-06T17:14:00.910-04:002011-09-06T17:14:00.910-04:00I think it's pretty clear what his position is...I think it's pretty clear what his position is dzuunmod... <br /><br />Jeremy is in favour of status quo. He likes the powers that be. He likes the rules that be. He doesn't want things to change, but after they have changed, he likes them.<br /><br />So I say give fighting an automatic game misconduct, double major, ejection, and an automatic suspension for instigating... and after Jeremy sees that the game is better without the 250 pound goons and the staged fighting, he'll be defending these new rules with ironic yet patronizing blog posts. <br /><br />I actually agree with Canucnik that the fighting could get better as the lighter heavy weights, who can also play hockey at the NHL level, fight less often, but at moments that fit more naturally into the game (eg. in a heated game with good rivalries after a good battle along the boards).Omanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16187530354371373399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-15992219356450732712011-09-06T15:05:56.961-04:002011-09-06T15:05:56.961-04:00Some of this makes sense, and some of it is just b...Some of this makes sense, and some of it is just bizarre - especially Rule 2.<br /><br />First you say: <i>There should always be a preference for new rules to either slow or speed up the game, to take away shootouts, to ban hitting and fighting, to make the rinks bigger, to change the size of the zones or to allow goalies to play the puck. This is important because to express satisfaction with the game or to simply enjoy it for what it is should be considered heresy for the modern hockey fan.</i><br /><br />So you're saying that the worst kind of hockey fan is the one who wants to tweak the rules, right? The worst hockey fan is the one who can't just be satisfied with the product in front of him. Do I have that right?<br /><br />Then, you write: <i>It is of vital importance to express continual dissatisfaction with the new rules put in after the lockout, such as the shootout, the delay of game rule, the crackdown on obstruction and the trapezoid, even though all have contributed to a better product for the fans.</i><br /><br />This suggests that you're *in favour* of the rule changes that came in after the lockout. So which is it, Jeremy - are rule changes always bad? Always good? Or only the ones that came after the lockout are good, but now the game is perfect and true and we shouldn't ever mess with it again?<br /><br />The NFL changes rules every single season, and it's the most successful pro sports league in North America, if not the world. Following its lead, by allowing the sport to change and evolve each season, is hardly the worst thing the NHL could do.dzuunmodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04848369299210812686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215652504344172254.post-9924054547042286002011-09-06T14:34:06.701-04:002011-09-06T14:34:06.701-04:00The only part of this post that you got right is t...The only part of this post that you got right is the corn chips part.<br /><br />That's my "go to" snack. It's actually corn chips with salsa and some melted cheese on top. The elitists called them nachos.<br /><br />Not me. I call 'em like I see 'em. Corn chips with bits of tomato, and melted cheese.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com