Bullfrog said:
I think my opinion on fighting in hockey more closely resembles Grimson's (as I understand it.)
I don't believe fighting should be banned from hockey
. However, I think the role of the enforcer needs to go.
Players need to be talented hockey players first, fighters
last. This way the quality of the hockey goes up, and
more importantly in terms of player safety, it's not the
same player who gets their head used as a punching bag
every other game. Fighting, while still a major penalty,
can be used to police the game as it once was.
I'm against pointless fighting, head shots, and reckless
hits and stick work. And while I've been accused in the
past of being a softy and enjoying "european-style"
hockey, it's not entirely true. I thought Phaneuf's hit on
DaCosta was the most enjoyable part of the game. I
love hard-nosed, physical hockey. But I deplore useless
violence and intent to injure.
Hockey should be a physical sport, not a violent one.
To me, Stevens' hit on Lindros was one of the more
shameful acts in hockey's somewhat recent past.
Staged fighting also needs to go, as I suspect it will as the role of the enforcer fades away.
I agree on all of your points. I, too, thought that Stevens hit on Lindros was "shameful". If Stevens were playing today, I'm certain at some point or other, he would have been given a suspension, as eventually, one of his so-called hits would have been deemed a "head shot".
Also, as I have been repeating occasionally in some other of my postings on the subject of hockey hits, the 'art' of bodychecking -- good, clean, hard-hitting (if you will) jolts -- is where it needs to be at. (The Phaneuf hit on Da Costa is a recent prime example). Until players re-learn the proper aspects of physicality in the game, only then will the game itself be elevated to new heights, so to speak, minus the non-sensical violence.
