Gygax

Hmmm, interesting topic. I think I have some things I could add...

Slows down the game? How many fights are there per game that the game slows down so much? Try 0.54 per game this year. That's basically one fight every two games. Does that really slow down the game? The stats of fights per game are 0.64 in '03-'04 (pre-strike), 0.38 in '05-'06, and 0.40 last year. In fact, only 38% of the games played this year featured a fight. Can fighting really be slowing the game down that much?

The one time the stands are guaranteed to be rocking is when two players drop the gloves. If the home team is down by 4 goals with five minutes to go, a goal by either team will be barely noticed in the stands. But a fight will make everyone stand up to watch. The excitement in the arena is palpable.

First off, Steve Moore was not even penalized for his hit on Naslund. It was borderline cheap at best. Bertuzzi was an idiot for taking a premeditated run at Moore 3 weeks later and assaulting him. BTW, Moore fought Matt Cooke earlier that fateful night, so Moore had already been paidback for the hit.

Back on topic. You missed the point on the cheap shot comment. Having fighting still in the game helps prevent a lot of the cheap shots, especially the stick work. When guy knows he may have to answer to a cheap shot by facing a guy, he is less likely to use the stick to begin with. Watch many of the European leagues and there is a much higher incidence of crosschecking and high sticking. You will even see the occasional stick fight, something that is extremely rare in the North American game.

The anti-fighting faction of hockey will say to look at Olympic hockey as an example of why fighting is not needed. They fail to note that those are the very best 125 players in the world playing on a surface that is almost 20% bigger than regulation NHL rinks. More space with better skilled hockey. So the Olympic excuse is defeated.

As many have already pointed out, fighting was never a part of football, soccer, or basketball, so why should it be allowed now? Hockey has a long history and fighting has always been a part of it.

You want to fix hockey? Its going to take some radical changes. First off, some of the teams need to be eliminated. Both Florida teams have brutal attendance, this despite the Panthers having won a Stanley Cup. Nashville or Atlanta? In a way, paring down the league and eliminating roster spots will reduce the opportunities for enforcers to remain in the NHL anyway. If you can't truly play the game at a high level, you won't be on a roster. The amount of true enforcers in the league is way down anyway compared to the '80-'90s as Aika pointed out. Increasing the overall skill level by eliminating some of the teams would further enhance the league.

Some of the recent changes have helped the game, even at the cost of pissing off hockey purists. The elimination of the red line (no more 2 line pass violations) has led to more breakaways. The 4 on 4 OT is great. And as much as its against pure hockey, the shootout has added excitement, especially to the live experience.

What I truly believe the NHL needs is a new dynamic leader. Not on the ice, but in the league offices. Gary Bettman has simply not accomplished enough in his long tenure as commissioner. He was the leader through a lockout, one that saw an entire season cancelled. He's negotiated some terrible TV deals, such as the current national US contract with tiny Versus. He is basically a terrible figurehead. Before his current position, he never held a post in hockey. He was a VP in the NBA before taking over the NHL. Even his persona is very poor for the commissioner of a major sports league. He comes off whiny often and just is not a true leader. Its simply time for a change and it has to start at the top.

No worries about getting under anyone's skin. Its just a friendly debate!






BTW, did I mention that I'm an Admin of hockeyfights.com? With over 500 hours of hockey fights now on DVD!?! LOL!

__________________