Violent Gentlemen
Even the truest thesis or argument has deniers. Therefore, some critics believe fighting should not be allowed in hockey. Critics take a surface level look at a brawl on the ice. They see a drop of blood, or a broken nose and look away in horror but do not recognize that security has been restored. They see a brawl and think these men must love violence, when it really is an act of love for their teammates. If they would take the time to analyze the data, critics would actually find teams with enforcers suffer far less injuries and keep stars on the ice for longer stretches. The moments of brutality blind them from the benefits gained from the scrum and focus only on old cliches such as leading children by example.
To begin with, a study in the journal Men and Masculinities, stated that, “interpersonal aggression is common in the lives of these hockey players, both on and off the ice.” This take is blatantly untrue. A hockey game is 60 minutes long barring any over time is played. If players were ridden with interpersonal aggression as the study concluded, the games would quickly escalate from sport to riot. Rarely, if ever, does any event of such kind happen at an NHL game. Additionally, O’Hear states in Marquette Sports Law Review, that, “a combination of NBA and NHL players account for only 6% of crime” when analyzing professional athletes’ criminal history. Clearly NHL players are not the violent athletes.
Another blatant objection to Pappas’ journal in Men and Masculinities is further illustrated in the NHL postseason when fighting severely drops off. Goldschmied writes in “I Went to a Fight the Other Night and a Hockey Game Broke Out’: Is Professional Hockey Fighting Calculated or Impulsive?”, “the fact that fights happen less in the postseason, when teams are focused on winning the championship, shows that players adhere to an unwritten code.” When a penalty for instigating may cost your team the game or even the season, players remain controlled on the ice. They are deterred by the repercussions of their actions. The enforcers job is done. This clearly illustrates the player are not violent men, they just are acting within a certain set of rules to maintain order and safety.
The old adage, violence is never the answer is wrong. Buccigross writes in The Pros and Cons of Fighting in the NHL, “hockey players don’t fight just for the sake of violence; combat within the context of the game serves as a deterrent to hurting star players because the aggressors know there will be pay back.” A clear and obvious retort to this adage is exemplified by NHL players. Violence is the answer and ‘goons’ are there to enforce the rules. Without the enforcers the refs are left powerless on the ice.
Next, it is not uncommon to see hands cut open from blows to helmets nor a bloody nose as the player glides to the penalty box to serve their five-minute major for fighting. Some would argue this is bad and any type of injury should be avoided if it can be. An outright ban on fighting would keep both players safe in this scenario, but only temporarily. Reppucci writes in the San Fran Chronicle, “I can no longer rationalize hockey’s most blatant cause of head trauma. I worry that the game I love is on the wrong side of history, despite the natural trends trying to guide it into the future.”
Concussions are a major concern with any type of athlete. In hockey, concussions are prevalent and can lead to lasting health problems. This is no different than the problem the NFL sees with CTE from reoccurring concussions. Both are contact sports where player launch their bodies at another person at high speeds. A major difference is the NHL uses a puck that can fly at speeds over 100 mph. McKay writes in British Journal of Sports Medicine which analyzed injuries across all NHL games from 2006-2012, “the most commonly injured body region was the head (16.8%).” Reppucci’s anecdote is a not an accurate depiction of when injuries occur
Nevertheless, we do not live in a perfect world and head injuries will occur no matter what rules are implemented. However, head injuries or concussions rarely occur from fighting on the ice. McKay also states, “body checking accounted for the largest proportion of injuries (28.2%).” Therefore, if we want to reduce the amount of head injuries and keep players safer our sights should not be set on fighting.
Another obvious aspect to hockey that is sometimes overlooked is the game is played on ice. When two players engage in a fight the typical stance requires both players to grab onto each other’s jersey. This is to provide stability on a slippery surface. The players spin together, and punches throw each player off balance. It is not uncommon to see both players tumble to the ground before landing any significant strikes. This is not the same type of fight we see in boxing or MMA and these athletes are not trained fighters.
Reppucci erroneously claims, “there is also a moral imperative to ban fighting right now. Many young players are incentivized to seek out fights in the name of increasing their potential value at the next level.” Again, his thoughts could not be further from the truth. It is not the responsibility of the league itself to control the actions of the players. It is the responsibility of the players to control their own actions. Enforcers on the ice are the best way to deter other players actions. Additionally, physicality when administered properly by a player is a useful tactic to win a game. Discouraging this type of play would ruin the game we all came to love.
In closing, there are many arguments made by many different people on why the NHL should forbid fighting within the game. Their reasoning varies from ethical reasons to injury related but they fail to address the true nature of our world and where injuries actually occur. Fighting in hockey is a ritual to show respect and to gain control on the ice and injuries occur mainly from body checking. The largest aspect to controlling body checking is having an enforcer on the ice.
References
John Buccigross, “The Pros and Cons of Fighting in the NHL,” espn.com, Jan. 8, 2007
McKay CD, Tufts RJ, Shaffer B, et al The epidemiology of professional ice hockey injuries: a prospective report of six NHL seasons British Journal of Sports Medicine 2014;48:57-62.
Nadav Goldschmied and Samantha Espindola, “‘I Went to a Fight the Other Night and a Hockey Game Broke Out’: Is Professional Hockey Fighting Calculated or Impulsive?,” Sports Health, Sep. 2013
Nick T. Pappas, Patrick C. McKenry, and Beth Skilken Catlett, “Athlete Aggression on the Rink and off the Ice: Athlete Violence and Aggression in Hockey and Interpersonal Relationships,” Men and Masculinities, Jan. 2004
O’Hear, Michael (2001). “Blue-Collar Crimes/White-Collar Criminals: Sentencing Elite Athletes Who Commit Violent Crimes”. Marquette Sports LawReview.
Reppucci, Jeffrey. “It Is Time to Ban Fighting in the NHL.” San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle, 12 Oct. 2021
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
hollyp715
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
For my feedback I would like to know if i made a valiant enough effort to take my opponent down.
GB, I’m impressed with the directness of your opening paragraph, but I wish it weren’t so polite. And I truly hope you’ve found an actual named assailant to combat. I’ll be disappointed if you keep referring to “opponents of fighting” or “the uninformed,” etc.
Why do I say polite? You hem and haw about the good and bad. Unnecessary. Your counterpart in this dialog must be honored, but only with specifics. If she has a particular point to make that you are forced to acknowledge, award that point, but otherwise, she’s just wrong. Ready?
No idea comes without a counterargument and this theory remains true in regard to fighting in hockey.
—Maybe, instead: Even the best and truest thesis can be argued, so there are critics of fighting in hockey.
Critics take a surface level look at the violent aspect of the game but fail to appreciate the positivity and safe environment it creates.
—Maybe, instead: They see a drop of blood on the ice, but can’t calculate the carnage that drop of blood prevents.
Without a true deep dive into the understanding of the players’ minds on the ice, the opposition would draw an incorrect impression.
—Maybe, instead: They think the fighter loves the violence, when in fact his role is to prevent it.
Additionally, failing to acknowledge the empirical evidence surrounding fighting is another key flaw in the counterargument.
—Maybe, instead: If they bothered to run the numbers, they’d find that teams with feared enforcers suffer far fewer injuries and lost ice-time than teams that let their players get bullied and pushed around.
While fighting in hockey has advantages both seen and unseen on the ice, critics cite injury, and that hockey glorifies violence leaving a bad example for children and viewers.
—Maybe, instead: They let the hard hits blind them to the benefits of hitting back and retreat to platitudes about teaching kids to misbehave by example.
Compare those attitudes and phrases. Take no prisoners.
Let your language express your conviction.
Not: has advantages both seen and unseen
But: hard hits blind them to the benefits
If you have evidence, tell it. Don’t hint that you might have it.
Not: acknowledge the empirical evidence surrounding fighting
But: teams with feared enforcers suffer far fewer injuries
If your opponent is drawing the wrong conclusion, say what it is.
Not: the opposition would draw an incorrect impression
But: They think the fighter loves the violence
Get it? OK. Enough about style. Incorporate that if you can.
On to the big question:
Have I made a valiant enough effort to take my opponent down?
No idea comes without a counterargument and this theory remains true in regard to fighting in hockey. Critics take a surface level look at the violent aspect of the game but fail to appreciate the positivity and safe environment it creates. Without a true deep dive into the understanding of the players’ minds on the ice, the opposition would draw an incorrect impression. Additionally, failing to acknowledge the empirical evidence surrounding fighting is another key flaw in the counterargument. While fighting in hockey has advantages both seen and unseen on the ice, critics cite injury, and that hockey glorifies violence leaving a bad example for children and viewers.
—The content is there, but the tone is more Prince Tentative than Prince Valiant.
To begin with, a clear and obvious argument against fighting is it is violent, and violence is wrong. As society progresses throughout time, we have become more and more tame. We throw violent offenders in jail and teach children from a young age violence is never the answer. According to a study in the journal Men and Masculinities, which stated, “the findings indicate that interpersonal aggression is common in the lives of these hockey players, both on and off the ice.” If society now views violence in a negative light why would a nationally televised sports league allow fighting in a game where the objective is to score the most goals?
—Prevailing social mores make a poor Worthy Opponent, GB. You might be able to make it work, but it’s not as satisfying as finding the flaws in a very specific argument a critic has put on the record.
—You make several points, I think, that don’t add up to a refutation of anything in particular.
—1. Society is increasingly violence-averse.
—2. Violence sets a bad example for kids.
—3. Hockey players are aggressive in their personal lives.
—4. A Rhetorical Question is never a claim, so I don’t know how to paraphrase this one about scoring goals.
—What’s the main idea here, in the age of televised MMA?
In contrast to this viewpoint, violence is not always a bad thing. In our world, countries go to war with each other over acts of aggression. Violence is met with violence to create a safer world. The same notion is played out on the ice. Buccigross writes in The Pros and Cons of Fighting in the NHL, “hockey players don’t fight just for the sake of violence; combat within the context of the game serves as a deterrent to hurting star players because the aggressors know there will be pay back.”
—Sloppy phrasing makes it hard to know which act of violence you condone. You say “we go to war over acts of aggression.” That doesn’t clearly condemn either act. I know what you mean, but that’s never a good explanation. The harder readers have to work, the less energy they have to continue.
—The quote gets it right.
This point is further illustrated in the NHL postseason when fighting severely drops off. Goldschmied writes in “I Went to a Fight the Other Night and a Hockey Game Broke Out’: Is Professional Hockey Fighting Calculated or Impulsive?”, “the fact that fights happen less in the postseason, when teams are focused on winning the championship, shows that players adhere to an unwritten code.” When a penalty for instigating may cost your team the game or season players remain controlled on the ice. They are deterred by the repercussions of their actions. This clearly illustrates the player are not violent men, they just are acting within a certain set of rules to maintain order and safety.
—This would be stronger if you detailed the code. Too many possibilities occur to the reader you don’t carefully guide. Is the code that I’ll be punished if I instigate a fight with a star player? Or is the code that I’ll instigate all I want unless the stakes are too high? That one doesn’t sound like code; it’s just careful shopping.
—Does it illustrate players are non-violent or that they can control themselves to win big games?
Next, it is not uncommon to see hands cut open from blows to helmets nor a bloody nose as the player glides to the penalty box to serve their five-minute major for fighting. Some would argue this is bad and any type of injury should be avoided if it can be. An outright ban on fighting would keep both players safe in this scenario, but only temporarily.
—Does this somehow contribute to the idea that fighting prevents injury? I don’t see it.
—Have you made any truly outrageous counterintuitive proposals yet? Want to try one?
—You say penalties “might cost the team a game,” etc.
—I suppose a common penalty is to remove the instigator from the ice for a time.
—I suppose also teams use enforcers they can afford to have sit on the bench since their primary contribution is not offensive or defensive but, you know, to fight.
—Taking those players off the ice is a calculated cost for the enforcing team, and a cheap one.
—But what if . . . the instigator had to sit out for a time AND . . . wait for it . . . the innocent team could choose a second player, whoever they chose, to sit alongside him.
However, these wounds are superficial. They leave players with a mere cut or scrape which will not deter a player from returning to the ice. In a game where the players are toted as the toughest in all of sports, a minor injury will not lead to any missed playing time. Furthermore, hockey players celebrate injuries. Missing teeth is a badge of honor in the hockey world. Players willingly dive in front of shots to ensure a puck doesn’t reach the net. Buccigross writes, “the average speed of Slap Shots in the NHL today is right around 100 miles per hour.” A selfless act that causes the player to incur a minor injury yet there’s not a second thought regarding their decision.
—I’m lost. Is this paragraph supposed to refute a claim that fighting should be banned outright? How does it do that?
Another major concern with any type of athlete is concussions. In hockey, concussions are prevalent and can lead to lasting health problems. This is no different than the problem the NFL sees with CTE. Both are contact sports where player launch their bodies at another person at high speeds. A key difference is the NHL uses a puck that can fly at speeds over 100 mph. McKay writes in British Journal of Sports Medicine which analyzed injuries across all NHL games from 2006-2012, “the most commonly injured body regions was the head (16.8%).” There is no argument against the need to eliminate head injuries. In a perfect world players would not have to worry about concussion or the long-term effects they may cause.
—Still lost. I think this demonstrates the danger of trying to argue against unspecified common sentiment, GoBirds. You end up arguing with yourself. You should be spending your considerable talent knee-capping the specific flawed claims of a Hockey Pacifist. Please find one to quote.
Nevertheless, we do not live in a perfect world and head injuries will occur no matter what rules are implemented. So, knowing this truth, we move to eliminating head injuries in any way we can. This is a fair conclusion but there is one key aspect critics overlook. Head injuries or concussions rarely occur from fighting on the ice. McKay also states, “body checking accounted for the largest proportion of injuries (28.2%).” Therefore, if we want to reduce the amount of head injuries are sights should not be set on fighting.
—We’re getting deeper into an unnecessary argument, GB. Your thesis isn’t “all kinds of violence are OK and shouldn’t be discouraged.” It’s: “Retaliatory enforcement prevents additional violence in hockey.” These paragraphs devoted to injuries that occur in the general play of the game seem so irrelevant.
Another obvious key aspect to hockey that is sometimes overlooked is the game is played on ice. When two players engage in a fight the typical stance requires both players to grab onto each other’s jersey. This is to provide stability on a slippery surface. The players spin together, and punches throw each player off balance. It is not uncommon to see both players tumble to the ground before landing any significant strikes. This is not the same type of fight we see in boxing or MMA and these athletes are not trained fighters.
—Got it. The fights rarely do much damage. This prompts the obvious next question: does a slip-and-slide confrontation effectively deter the instigator or his teammates from further instigations?
In closing, there are many arguments made by many different people on why the NHL should forbid fighting within the game. Their reasoning varies from ethical reasons to injury related but they fail to address the true nature of our world and where injuries actually occur. Fighting in hockey is a ritual to show respect and to gain control on the ice and injuries occur mainly from body-checking. The largest aspect to controlling body checking is having an enforcer on the ice.
—I like this observation very much. I’m reading The Selfish Gene now, and author Richard Dawkins makes a similar observation about fighting in the animal kingdom. Lions will kill and eat antelopes, and they could eat other lions, but even when they’re starving, they won’t. Why?
—I’m paraphrasing Dawkins paraphrasing Konrad Lorenz here: Members of one’s own species are made of meat, too. Why is cannibalism so rare? There is too much danger of retaliation and no need to inflict real harm. Animals fight with gloved hands and blunted foils. Threat and bluff take the place of deadly earnest. Gestures of surrender are recognized by victors, who then refrain from dealing the killing blow or bite that we might predict.
I applaud the effort, the sources you’ve collected, the wide range of ideas you’re considering, GB, but this refutation needs two things:
1.) An actual Worthy Opponent who voices the best arguments against retaliatory fighting (for example: a statistical proof that enforcement DOESN’T actually prevent further violence or injury).
2.) A careful and specific takedown of that author’s argument that exposes the flaws of its logic or conclusions.
Provisionally graded. This post is always eligible for a Regrade following significant Revision.
I tried to make a bunch of changes based on your suggestions. I picked two specific critics to argue against. If this is any better i’d like a regrade, if it’s not lets pretend I didn’t ask yet.
Masterful reworking of your introduction, GB. Every detail you added after the example is apt and beneficial! One word, though, is just wrong: Nevertheless. It needs to be Therefore. The logic is a little tricky, but think it through.
Your “hockey players are violent” paragraph is really strong too, and your new statistic shows promise, but it needs context to be understood. Right now, it’s a frightening number. You say:
a combination of NBA and NHL players account for only 6% of crime
without identifying the size of the overall pool of crime/criminals.
If they account for 6% of ALL CRIME EVERYWHERE, they’d have to commit a crime every waking moment.
If they account for 6% of all crimes committed by all professional athletes everywhere, that’s a lot less crime.
So . . . 6% of what?
About Goldschmied, you have a punctuation problem:
Calculated or Impulsive?”, “the fact that fights
Strange as it looks, keeping the comma inside the quotation mark results in this correct punctuation:
Calculated or Impulsive?,” “the fact that fights
If you don’t like the looks of it, you need to separate the Title quote from the Quotation quote, maybe like:
In the article, “I Went to a Fight the Other Night and a Hockey Game Broke Out’: Is Professional Hockey Fighting Calculated or Impulsive?,” Goldschmied says, “the fact that fights happen less in the postseason, when teams are focused on winning the championship, shows that players adhere to an unwritten code.”
—
A Banned 2nd Person problem:
When a penalty for instigating may cost your team the game
And a Possessives problem:
The enforcers job is done.
Goldschmied writes in “I Went to a Fight the Other Night and a Hockey Game Broke Out’: Is Professional Hockey Fighting happen less in the postseason, when teams are focused on winning the championship, shows that players adhere to an unwritten code.” When a penalty for instigating may cost your team the game or even the season, players remain controlled on the ice. They are deterred by the repercussions of their actions. The enforcers job is done. This clearly illustrates the player are not violent men, they just are acting within a certain set of rules to maintain order and safety.
You would be smart to echo the word “calculated” in your explanation after the quotation in order to emphasize that the question has been answered.
For clarity’s sake, put the adage into quotes. You are, in fact, quoting common parlance. The old adage, “Violence is never the answer,” is wrong.
When you cite Buccigross the first time (and for that matter Goldschmied), use both first and last names when you know them. The second and every subsequent mention should use just last names.
I assume “The Pros and Cons of Fighting in the NHL” is an article title, which belongs in quotation marks. It’s going to bang into your quote again, as above.
Please review the 14 Fails For Grammar Rules.
Violence is the answer and ‘goons’ are there to enforce the
Still completely missing the point of this paragraph:
Next, it is not uncommon to see hands cut open from blows to helmets nor a bloody nose as the player glides to the penalty box to serve their five-minute major for fighting. Some would argue this is bad and any type of injury should be avoided if it can be. An outright ban on fighting would keep both players safe in this scenario, but only temporarily. Reppucci writes in the San Fran Chronicle, “I can no longer rationalize hockey’s most blatant cause of head trauma. I worry that the game I love is on the wrong side of history, despite the natural trends trying to guide it into the future.”
Explain if you can.
Still confusing after the second paragraph.
If you’re trying to say that the most common cause of head trauma is delivered by hockey pucks (not hand or glove blows) to the head, please say so BEFORE you waste two paragraphs not making that point. I’m really just guessing. I shouldn’t be guessing.
Nevertheless, we do not live in a perfect world and head injuries will occur no matter what rules are implemented. However, head injuries or concussions rarely occur from fighting on the ice. McKay also states, “body checking accounted for the largest proportion of injuries (28.2%).” Therefore, if we want to reduce the amount of head injuries and keep players safer our sights should not be set on fighting.
Maybe THIS is the payoff paragraph. Way too late and still not crystal clear.
I think the bigger issue is that the “players can get injured in other ways” is a distraction from the thesis. Nobody says getting rid of fighting will end all hockey injuries. If they did, you could spend all day on these non-fighting injuries with great effect.
Another obvious aspect to hockey that is sometimes overlooked is the game is played on ice. When two players engage in a fight the typical stance requires both players to grab onto each other’s jersey. This is to provide stability on a slippery surface. The players spin together, and punches throw each player off balance. It is not uncommon to see both players tumble to the ground before landing any significant strikes. This is not the same type of fight we see in boxing or MMA and these athletes are not trained fighters.
—I think there’s big value to this paragraph, but for me it needs at least a taste of the observation that what you mean by “this is not the same type of fight” is that jersey grabbing and roundhouse blows that mostly miss is largely ceremonial, not an attempt to grievously injure an opponent, as it is in MMA. Hockey “fighters” spend as much energy trying to avoid injury to themselves as they do trying to hurt another player.
Yeah. It’s way better. Plenty of room for refinement (not only the bits I pointed out), but substantially clearer. Regraded and, as always, still eligible for a Regrade following significant revisions.