Select "print" from your browser's "File" menu.

Back to Post
Print Topic

Username Post: "The NHL Is Losing Part of Its Uniqueness without Fighting" -- Vice article
Posts 639
12-12-15 08:00 AM - Post#1654350    

Super article: -losi...

December 11, 2015

Dave Bidini

"The NHL Is Losing Part of Its Uniqueness without Fighting"

OK, it's gone, or mostly gone. Handfuls of teams have single-digit fights, including the Maple Leafs, who have a league-low one fighting major this season. The average amount of fights per game has been cut in half over the last 15 seasons. How do we feel about this? Do we miss the fighting? Is there an element of the game that seems suddenly, strikingly absent? Do ticket prices justify watching a physical sport where hardly anyone is physical anymore? Or rather: Do ticket prices justify watching a physical sport where hardly anyone is physical anymore, especially when no one scores goals, either? Can the NHL put fighting back in the game? Some fighting? Any fighting?

A few years ago, I programmed a literary event that had Toronto Star sports writer Cathal Kelly as one of its presenters. Kelly told a story of one summer working abroad as a young man, eventually settling in western Europe. He remembered attending an early Radiohead show in a field—a festival of some kind—and having his view blocked by an enormous umbrella, even though the evening was clear. The umbrella holder was hectored by the crowd until, finally, it collapsed. After the umbrella came down, one of Cathal's friends sighed and said, "And now, we miss the umbrella." This is a little how I feel about fighting.

READ MORE: The NHL Must Reinvent Itself to Address the Rapid Decline in Scoring

I don't miss fighting. Rather, I miss the idea of fighting. I miss the idea that, at any point, the pressure and tension and drama of a game can explode in a hail of fists; ten men losing their shit and addressing their emotions the way we've been taught not to. The cultural significance of fighting is complicated. To me, it was always a little like watching pornography. To paraphrase Susan Sontag: "For the first ten minutes, all you want to do is fuck. For the next ten, it's the last thing you want to do." I wonder if there's a way of getting those first ten minutes back while stopping the next ten from happening.

Does the game seem duller without the threat of pugilism? For devotees of the sport, it probably does not—we watch the play in all of its glorious detail, and we'll keep watching no matter what it becomes—but for those who give it a passing glance (the very demographic that, in the USA at least, will, or won't, put hockey over the top, or at least beyond the mighty five or six dominant mainstream sports), you wonder how many eyeballs have cruised across the game without being drawn to the sight of two sanguine men slugging away at each other, eyes pinched during contact and hair greased in sweat hanging down their necks. Has a certain colour—bloodred, I suppose—become drained from the sport to the point that it shines less hard? Is it now more monochromatic? Do people miss the umbrella?

Tie Domi, Bob Propert, Marty McSorley, Donald Brashear, Tony Twist, Ogie Ogilthorpe, the Hansons, Eddie Shore, Gilles Bilodeau, Felix Batterinski, and dirty Steve Durbano, who died destitute in Yellowknife—for all of their ice crimes (in the case of Batterinski, it was a fictional life), they were enormous cultural figures in the wild and complex narrative of the game. Because of the current absence of goons or policemen—choose your term—there's a vacuum in the game. And with most safe-minded and micro-managed players entrapped in an already stultifyingly goal-challenged game, characters who possessed a true sense of individuality—impetuous and controversial—have been mortgaged in favour of something the NHL has yet to invent.

There are all kinds of issues regarding the decline of fighting, and the possible, eventual, elimination of it. The ongoing lawsuit brought by retired players—alleging that the NHL knowingly put players at risk despite decades of data connecting blows to the head with long-term neurological damage—has likely informed the league's decision to move swiftly (hastily) to rid the league of fisticuffs. But, whatever the NHL's motivations, it underestimated the effect of changing a product in which fighting, or rather, the idea of fighting, was central to its play. Fighting was and is mostly ugly and dangerous, but it also gave the game a kind of character found no where else in professional sport.

I always insisted that fighting wouldn't be missed if it disappeared, and I still think that (I think). But as the game becomes puck chess, I'm left wondering. Hockey has to figure out how it can still remain unique and wild in fighting's absence. These days, we're paying hundreds of dollars to watch players not only not score, but not fight, either.

Not a single umbrella, anywhere.
Posts 12386
12-12-15 08:24 AM - Post#1654352    

All good points.I remember being glued to the TV when the Flyers had a Patrick division game when I was a kid.The games had a certain energy to them.A rivalry means nothing in today's game.It isn't must watch TV anymore....
"I can't prove any of it"-NYRfan

hall of famer
Posts 8850
12-12-15 01:02 PM - Post#1654366    

I hear you. Back in the day when Montreal would play Boston you knew Nilan or Kordic would stir the pot.You looked forward to the game 2 days before.Quebec would come to the Garden and you knew Gord Donnelly and Dale Hunter would start shit.I miss those days.
all star
Posts 2218
12-12-15 03:39 PM - Post#1654379    

Cripes, don't even get me started on an old Black Hawks-North Stars rivalry. Al Secord, Willi Plett, Dino Ciccarelli, Dennis Savard....... I am tearing up as I type this.
Where's the money Lebowski?

Posts 4710
12-14-15 03:04 PM - Post#1654526    

When I was a kid, ESPN aired every Detroit-Colorado game because you never knew what was going to happen. Goalie fighting goalie, Lemieux and McCarty off the opening drop, blood, overtime goals, big hits. I'd never miss a Pens-Flyers matchup.

I've seen a whole three NHL games in-person this season, solely because I got free tickets. I went to my first NAHL game of the year last weekend, and only because we got $5 tickets (this is after working in the league and being a die-hard follower of it from 2006 through 2013). Even on TV, I've watched maybe four games. I'm happy my Penguins fired Mike Johnston... but I haven't watched enough games this year to know why he got fired or why I'm happy with the move.

I just don't care as much as I once did. And it's not just a case of growing up and finding more important things-- I watch just as much baseball, football, and basketball as I ever did. I still collect hockey cards and autographs as well as those in other sports. I just think the on-ice product blows now.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." - Paul Simon

Posts 14134
12-14-15 11:27 PM - Post#1654552    

I always said I would continue to watch hockey if they eliminated fighting.

Well, fight is pretty much eliminated. Even with Dorsett and Prust, the Canucks don't fight much.

The problem is that hitting is also eliminated. With the exception of a fight every 3 games and a good hit every 5 games, the really isn't much separating hockey from basketball at this point.

This is the first year I've been missing Canucks games routinely. Just not interested.

And no, it's not because the Canucks suck. Watched every game between 97 and 2001 and the team was way worse then (and way more entertaining).

hall of famer
Posts 7936
12-15-15 05:52 PM - Post#1654628    

It is calculated, over-coached puck chess. All the emotion and tension has been sucked out, so no need for fighting because nobody is even inspired to fight.

Print Topic

FusionBB™ Version 3.2 | ©2003-2019 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.078 seconds.   Total Queries: 42   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT-6.0). Current time is 03:04 AM