Fighting mad

Violence in hockey paints fans into two corners

Folks, no introduction of mine can live up to the fire in this mailbag. And so, without further ado ...

Frankly, I could care less if the NHL catches on and becomes the "official" fourth major sport. Popularity among the mainstream U.S. public is greatly overrated (see the WWF). All it usually means is stands full of rejected NASCAR fans wearing Mighty Ducks jerseys. The NHL, like all other sports, is essentially a drama. The sport is violent by nature and it adds to the drama. I couldn't care less if the average Joe doesn't like it. Why do Americans always have to change things that they don't understand?
—Matt Campeau, Kingston, Ontario

Matt, you may not care about the NHL's popularity and there's no reason you should, but you can bet your last nickel the NHL cares. (And the players association, and the trainers, and the refs, and the arena vendors, etc.) I suppose feeding people to the lions was a drama, too. I don't understand opera but I don't want to change it. I don't think we should change advanced calculus (which I don't really get either). As for guys clubbing one another on TV? That I'm ready to change.

Regarding your tirade on fighting in the NHL, how many fans do you see diverting their eyes at a fight in the game? And I'm not just talking about the newbies, but the die-hard fans like myself. I've been watching the NHL for as long as I can remember and I truly believe fighting has its place in the game.
—Mark, San Luis Obispo, Calif.

How many drivers do you see averting their eyes from a roadside accident? Should we applaud car crashes, too?

I just read your piece on violence in the NHL playoffs, and I couldn't agree more with your point of view. But I don't understand how the NHL powers-that-be thought that the Winter Olympics would benefit the league. The hockey showcased at the Olympics was exciting to watch. It seems to me that anyone who enjoyed that brand of hockey would be very disappointed when they saw the NHL version.
—Dave, Winnipeg, Manitoba

Olympic hockey shined for many reasons, not the least of which was the high talent level of the players and the wider ice surface. The point about fighting is not just that it doesn't occur in the Olympics, but also that it rarely ever happens in international games. My point, and I'm pleased to hear a concurring voice, is that if European teams can play great hockey without smacking each other around, and NCAA teams can do the same, why does pro hockey in North America have to be SO violent. European and NCAA games are still very tough battles, and still very physical, and still great to watch. They're just a little less barbaric.

Sorry, Mr. Kennedy, this is not a question; more of a rebuttal to your column about the abolition of fighting in hockey. I do not condone dirty play. On the other hand, I do believe that fighting is one of the aspects of the game that gives hockey its uniqueness. Hockey relies on brutal physical dominance to sway the tide of each game. If this happens to include a fight between two grown, consenting men, I think that's a genuine part of the sport. You contend that adults would be more likely to bring their children to a hockey game that didn't include the violence. Well, the last time I checked, the WWF sells out arenas and other venues on almost a daily basis because of violence, and one can usually see thousands of children with their parents in the crowd. I hate to compare a joke like wrestling to professional sports, but I believe the comparison does hold merit when someone speaks of violence as a deterrent to profitability for hockey teams. There are other variables, too; if players cannot fight to relieve their aggressions with each other, I am quite sure that stick incidents and cheap hits would be on the rise.
—Jeff Cartnerz, Grimsby, Ontario

I love that many of you defend hockey by citing the WWF. That's what you want this sport to be like?. Those are the fans hockey should appeal to? Hey, as you wish. The WWF violence, incidentally, is far more benign than it is in hockey. The WWF is openly scripted and openly fake. It is theater. I don't care for it much, but it's little more than an over-the-top romp that can be hilarious at times and is always in good fun. In hockey violence, you get the sense that the guys actually mean this stuff, that they really do want to hurt each other. There are a lot of things that we don't let consenting adults do -- they're not allowed to beat each other up on a town street, are they? How come it's OK when it's on TV?

As for the notion that fighting is a means for getting out aggression, that has to be the least logical argument ever to make the rounds. Ninety percent of hockey fights occur between 10 percent of the players. Explain that one, Jeff. You're telling me the rest of the hockey players don't have to blow off steam? Please, folks, start making sense.

I agree wholeheartedly with your recent column. Players commit these acts of violence with little fear of punishment from the league or their own teams. And the fines levied by the league are of no financial impact to most players -- not dissimilar to a parking ticket for you and me. It seems fair that a player who maliciously or carelessly causes injury to another player should be suspended without pay until that player is physically able to return to action. What better way to force players to modify their on-ice behavior and respect their opponents? As for fighting, I'm with you, get rid of it. Clean up the game and bring back the run-and-gun action we all used to enjoy. Do you actually see any growing sentiment among the NHL brass of the very real need to clean up the violence?
—Jonathan Zimmer, Pittsburgh

There is a faction of NHL people who would like to see fighting taken out of the game, but it is a righteous minority. Thus far it hasn't been able to wield its influence. When something is as ingrained in a culture as fighting is in hockey, it's very, very difficult to move. There's also a genuine split among people who see fighting as a lure to customers and those who see it as a deterrent to growth. There are few in the game who think that fighting has a point aside from prurient pleasure. As we all know, fighting is almost always premeditated and almost always takes place between a pair of designated roughhousers. It's a sideshow attraction to the greater spectacle. And it's a sideshow that could easily be phased out.

"Would any responsible parent take his or her child to watch a game like this?" you asked. Yes. You are clearly implying it is not responsible to take my kid to the game. Here in Canada we watch a lot of hockey, yet we seem to be pretty good people. Kostya, did you ever stop and wonder why Canadian players are so well spoken and polite (and virtually none of them have college degrees)? When you write stuff like this, it's hard to take you seriously. If you aren't going to write stuff that makes sense, stick to the box scores, and leave the thinking to those of us who think before we speak/write.
—Darren DeWitt, Ottawa

Ah, an old philosophical trick: To discredit the argument you attempt to discredit the arguer. Won't work here, Darren, m'boy, because I am too smart for you. I will tell you this: Canadian hockey players, and Ottawans I've known, are polite, responsible, intelligent and excellent people. I'd go so far as to say that, as a group, Canadian players are the best athletes with whom to work of all the major professional sports. If this comes from letting young children watch adults beat each other up, hey, you're on to a neat child-rearing trick the rest of us might learn from.

I suppose if the parent is next to the child explaining why it is that people are bleeding and that stretchers are being called out on the ice, and why it is that this happens not as the result of some accident but as part of the design of the game, there's no harm in letting kids feast their eyes. Hey, they might learn a neat rabbit punch move for the playground. Anyway, get back to me sometime, Darren, and we'll dissect a box score together.

You said they couldn't win the Southeast Division. They did. You said they would get beat in five by New Jersey. They won the first two. After losing Game 4, you still said they could not beat the Devils. They did. Now, after all is said and done, can you please say that Carolina can't win in the second round so that we can go to the Eastern Conference finals?
—Matt King, Raleigh, N.C.

Well, Matt, after a year of Hurricane-idiocy on my part at least I owe you loyal Carolina faithful this: The Hurricanes won't beat the Canadiens in the second round. (But good luck to you guys all the same.)

Sports Illustrated senior writer Kostya Kennedy covers the NHL for the magazine and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. His NHL mailbag appears Thursdays during the regular season. To send a question, click here.

 

Related information
Stories
Kostya Kennedy's Insider Archive
Multimedia
Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video
Search our site	Watch CNN/SI 24 hours a day
	Sports Illustrated and CNN have combined to form a 24 hour sports news and information channel. To receive CNN/SI at your home call your cable operator or DirecTV.