Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Last fighting comments (hopefully)

Expand Messages
  • Iain Fyffe
    Morey: Apology accepted. Hasty fingers can be hard to control. As to the fighting is not the worst problem in hockey argument: This is akin to saying since
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Morey: Apology accepted. Hasty fingers can be hard to control.

      As to the "fighting is not the worst problem in hockey" argument: This is
      akin to saying since malnutrition is the worst problem facing the world
      today, we shouldn't be paying any attention to pollution or genocide until
      we fix the malnutrition problem. Overstated, I know, but the argument is
      illogical.

      As to the emotion involved in the debate: generally speaking, the less
      evidence someone has to support their position, and this position is
      attacked, the more likely the response will be emotional rather than
      logical. Try not to read too much into that, it's just a fact.


      Iain.

      _________________________________________________________________
      Surf the Web without missing calls!�Get MSN Broadband.
      http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
    • William Underwood
      I know I said this was it for me but I have to respond to my commnet being called illogical . First of all, is not comparing malnutrition to hocckey fighting
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 30, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I know I said this was it for me but I have to respond to my commnet being
        called "illogical".

        First of all, is not comparing malnutrition to hocckey fighting a bit
        emotional Lloyd? It is comparing apples and oranges. One has NO tenable
        positive result, the other, fighting does. It draws x number of fans to the
        game and their money.

        Now, as far as evidence goes...I think that the pro fighting end actually
        has presented FAR more provable evidence. Article one, surveys say that fans
        like fighting. Article two, we see few fans leave a game in revulsion.
        Article three, we see a society that seems to support violence in
        entertainment in box car numbers. Article four, we see a number of products
        based upon fighting actually sell. Fighting tapes, Domi sweaters, etc.
        Article five, in an era where fighting hgas actually declined in the NHl,
        the TV ratings have also went steadily downward. While there are other
        reasons for this, it certainly holds no refuge that less fighting means more
        viewers. Finally, the worst injuries in hockey come from non fighting
        situations.

        Now what evidence does the other side offer. Very little outside of a sense
        of moral outrage that seemingly is outnumbered in the general hockey market.

        Finally, as to other troubles being more important to address. There is
        EMINENT logic here Lloyd. The surveys say overhwhelmingly to keep fighting.
        The fans seem to want it. Do they want the high ticket prices? Do they want
        better games? Do they want Canadian teams surviving? All of these also say
        "yes".

        Simply put, the paying customer, by a vast majority is saying that fighting
        is not a problem at all. If indeed fighting is so unpopular and there are
        legions out there that would watch fighting without it, why is college
        hockey a regional cult sport? Even in Canada, junior outdraws
        college...Malnutition, on the other hand will find few polls saying to "keep
        the status quo". The sad fact is, I submit, that to the paying customer
        fighting is not only a lesser problem but, indeed, not one at all. And the
        NHL is a BUSINESS hence listening to the paying customer takes priority over
        any other argument that can be offered...

        I ask you, exactly where is that logic flawed?

        Sorry Marc, I was planning to stay out of this and will do so if I am not
        being directly quetioned. I just enjoy being called "illogical" no more than
        Lloyd enjoyed Morey's statement about his comments.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Iain Fyffe [mailto:ifyffe@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:18 AM
        To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [hockhist] Last fighting comments (hopefully)


        Morey: Apology accepted. Hasty fingers can be hard to control.

        As to the "fighting is not the worst problem in hockey" argument: This is
        akin to saying since malnutrition is the worst problem facing the world
        today, we shouldn't be paying any attention to pollution or genocide until
        we fix the malnutrition problem. Overstated, I know, but the argument is
        illogical.

        As to the emotion involved in the debate: generally speaking, the less
        evidence someone has to support their position, and this position is
        attacked, the more likely the response will be emotional rather than
        logical. Try not to read too much into that, it's just a fact.


        Iain.

        _________________________________________________________________
        Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
        http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp



        To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
        hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • mangodance
        ... Man, Bill. So far I ve agreed that it will put rear-ends in seats...but is that really positive from a long-term perspective? If you have this
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 30, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          William Underwood wrote:
          > First of all, is not comparing malnutrition to hocckey fighting a bit
          > emotional Lloyd? It is comparing apples and oranges. One has NO tenable
          > positive result, the other, fighting does. It draws x number of fans to the
          > game and their money.

          Man, Bill. So far I've agreed that it will put rear-ends in seats...but
          is that really positive from a long-term perspective? If you have this
          misperception of the sport out there that keeps families from trusting
          it as family material, and the sport needs to overcome that in order to
          prosper, why do you want to perpetuate that? If I were sanguine, I
          could say that a tenable positive result of famine is less population
          pressure on the carrying capacity of the area impacted.

          > Now, as far as evidence goes...I think that the pro fighting end actually
          > has presented FAR more provable evidence. Article one, surveys say that fans
          > like fighting.

          fact.

          > Article two, we see few fans leave a game in revulsion.

          Many of us sit in quiet revulsion while hoping for play to restart. <wink>

          > Article three, we see a society that seems to support violence in
          > entertainment in box car numbers.

          Why didn't the XFL take an already large NFL fan base and make it huge?
          Also, why aren't the lower minors, arguably that place where a LOT of
          fighting occurs, rolling in cash? They often give the fans large
          amounts of fighting, often to the expense of play.

          > Article four, we see a number of products
          > based upon fighting actually sell. Fighting tapes, Domi sweaters, etc.

          fact.

          > Article five, in an era where fighting hgas actually declined in the NHl,
          > the TV ratings have also went steadily downward. While there are other
          > reasons for this, it certainly holds no refuge that less fighting means more
          > viewers.

          I don't live in traditional hockey country...but on the whole, hockey
          does a poor job at showcasing and teaching the sport outside their
          comfort range. ESPN's cutting coverage so they don't "overexpose" the
          product doesn't help.

          > Finally, the worst injuries in hockey come from non fighting
          > situations.

          And I think most of us would agree that there are other areas that need
          to be worked on.

          > Now what evidence does the other side offer. Very little outside of a sense
          > of moral outrage that seemingly is outnumbered in the general hockey market.

          I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. Others have put up points
          (myself included) that speak towards fighting outside of "moral outrage"
          arguments. 1) it is illegal play, 2) it stops a game, 3) it keeps the
          fan base from growing into mainstream(for a number of reasons), 4) it is
          used as a tactic to alleviate the impression of poor play or to lash out
          due to poor performance, 5) it is often a result of poor discipline with
          very little consequence to make it a deterrent. It is a professional
          situation. Could you do that in your job?

          > Finally, as to other troubles being more important to address. There is
          > EMINENT logic here Lloyd. The surveys say overhwhelmingly to keep fighting.
          > The fans seem to want it. Do they want the high ticket prices? Do they want
          > better games? Do they want Canadian teams surviving? All of these also say
          > "yes".

          They say yes to higher ticket prices?

          > Simply put, the paying customer, by a vast majority is saying that fighting
          > is not a problem at all. If indeed fighting is so unpopular and there are
          > legions out there that would watch fighting without it, why is college
          > hockey a regional cult sport? Even in Canada, junior outdraws
          > college...Malnutition, on the other hand will find few polls saying to "keep
          > the status quo". The sad fact is, I submit, that to the paying customer
          > fighting is not only a lesser problem but, indeed, not one at all. And the
          > NHL is a BUSINESS hence listening to the paying customer takes priority over
          > any other argument that can be offered...
          > I ask you, exactly where is that logic flawed?

          As a person who doesn't care for it, that logic is not flawed. It has
          always been one of those issues where publicly the powers downplay and
          say they're cracking down, but publicly they're worried that doing so
          will drive people away. You mean people say stuff just for PR
          purposes???? <grin>
          --
          Bluegrass Hockey: Celebrating hockey in the Commonwealth:
          http://mangodance.tripod.com/bgh/bghockey.htm

          Mangodance's Volkswagen Toys & Literature:
          http://mangodance.tripod.com
          Volkswagen Toy Group (& literature):
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/volkswagentoygroup
          Johnny Lightning Good Traders Directory:
          http://mangodance.tripod.com/jltraders.htm
        • William Underwood
          Back to another unwanted retort...Let s call this one quits guys! Marc has already asked and twice I ve had to go back on my plans to do as he reqeusted! I
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 30, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Back to another unwanted retort...Let's call this one quits guys! Marc has
            already asked and twice I've had to go back on my plans to do as he
            reqeusted! I feel badly about that, but when people aska a question... He
            asked us yesterday--I'll give it a rest if everybody else does...He's right,
            this is getting TIRED--let's take it off line from now on if we must but cut
            everybody else a break on the list!

            This is my LAST go!


            >Man, Bill. So far I've agreed that it will put rear-ends in seats...but
            >is that really positive from a long-term perspective?

            I'm not so sure that the long term perspective shows us any real change in
            taste at least in the foreseeable future.

            > If you have this
            misperception of the sport out there that keeps families from trusting
            it as family material, and the sport needs to overcome that in order to
            >prosper, why do you want to perpetuate that?

            The same failies that go to games. That let their kids watch WWF... the same
            ones that take the kiddies out to watch Van Damme or Schwarzenegger go out
            and use their limmited "acting talents" pounding the tar out of people then
            buying the action figure form them for Christmas... The same ones that buy
            HBO boxing and let the kids stay inthe room or scream KILL HIM when a
            lineman gets even close to a QB and when the QB fails to get up screams in
            tribal glee in front of junior? Where are allo ois these non violent folks?
            I frankly just don't see all that much evidence of people shielding their
            families from such alleged violence.

            In fact, I think that a nasty slash would inspire more of that anyhow.

            > If I were sanguine, I
            could say that a tenable positive result of famine is less population
            >pressure on the carrying capacity of the area impacted.

            Agian, we are actually comparing starvation to an entertainment driven bit
            of fisticuffs...the non fighting crowd really has to go far afield to
            present a logical reaons why the NHL ought to dump fighting.

            >> Now, as far as evidence goes...I think that the pro fighting end actually
            > has presented FAR more provable evidence. Article one, surveys say that
            fans
            >
            > like fighting.

            >fact.

            >> Article two, we see few fans leave a game in revulsion.

            >Many of us sit in quiet revulsion while hoping for play to restart. <wink>

            Umm when I've actually stayed seated during a fight I feel a lot like an
            explorer in a deep Amazonian rain forest during monkey matingn season! I am
            surrounded by tall loudly screaming objects...

            >> Article three, we see a society that seems to support violence in
            > entertainment in box car numbers.

            >Why didn't the XFL take an already large NFL fan base and make it huge?

            Because it was a morbid minoor league trying to act the pretense of being
            big league. Because we also saw idiot announcers turning the game into a
            strip club. Simply put, it wasn't violent enought for wrestling fans and too
            much of an utter joke form it's promotional standpoint and quality of play
            for NFL fans to tolerate. NO Minro league football does well here. The CFL
            is a flop southn of theborder as is NFL Europe. It had NOTHING to do with
            violent contect...everything to do with bush league players and announcers
            trying to pass bathroom humor off as commentary. Oddly enough, violence
            never even came up...

            > Also, why aren't the lower minors, arguably that place where a LOT of
            >fighting occurs, rolling in cash?

            And they aren't? Franchise values have skyrocketed form 25 G my first year
            in the ECHL to the point that now you get laughed out of the room if you
            offer much under a million for a team. Believe me, I've been involved in a
            few bids! In one we were opffering 1.5 mill and got beat out!

            Teams fold, sure. But it isn't revulsion to violence that does it. It is
            usually economic downturn, laziness in promotion or a general indifference
            to hockey that kicks in after novelty wears off.

            > They often give the fans large
            >amounts of fighting, often to the expense of play.

            Not universally. In fact, in over ten years involved at the AA level I can
            say that I have generally not seen the product meet this description. There
            is fighting but not NEARLY as much as people think! In fact I recently was
            ata a two game hoem and home EXHIBITION between two teams largely mad eup of
            guys trying to make the team. There was only one real fight! Quite often
            there are actually NO fights! Yes there is fighting and yes it seels. But to
            paint AA like something out of Slap Shot is not accurate and you know that.
            In fact, I'd say that present day AA hockey has less fights than the NHL
            that I watched in the 70's...

            >> Article four, we see a number of products
            > based upon fighting actually sell. Fighting tapes, Domi sweaters, >>.etc.

            >fact.

            >> Article five, in an era where fighting hgas actually declined in the NHl,
            > the TV ratings have also went steadily downward. While there are other
            > reasons for this, it certainly holds no refuge that less fighting means
            more
            >> viewers.

            >I don't live in traditional hockey country...but on the whole, hockey
            does a poor job at showcasing and teaching the sport outside their
            comfort range. ESPN's cutting coverage so they don't "overexpose" the
            >product doesn't help.

            Yes there are other reasons as I have said. Most of which is a general lack
            of appeal for hockey in the US. But since when has anybody lauded the game
            getting "cleaner".

            >> Finally, the worst injuries in hockey come from non fighting
            >> situations.

            >And I think most of us would agree that there are other areas that need
            to be worked on.

            >> Now what evidence does the other side offer. Very little outside of a
            sense
            >> of moral outrage that seemingly is outnumbered in the general hockey
            market.

            >I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. Others have put up points
            (myself included) that speak towards fighting outside of "moral outrage"
            >arguments. 1) it is illegal play,

            But an illegality that is rather unique I think that you will agree. And
            there is a penalty for that illegality already, you sit 5 minutes, maybe an
            extra 2 and even maybe a game misconduct. Hence we are not talkign about an
            offence that is not penalized already.

            > 2) it stops a game,

            But also entertains people during that stoppage...

            > 3) it keeps the
            fan base from growing into mainstream(for a number of reasons),

            Again we have ZERO evidence of this...And is it good business praqctise to
            risk alientating paying loyal customers for ones we first of all don;t know
            really exist. And secondly, may well be in smaller numbers...

            > 4) it is
            used as a tactic to alleviate the impression of poor play or to lash out
            >due to poor performance,

            Not really. As a tactic it is used for intimidation plain and simple or the
            concept that a team won't be pushed around. Good teams actually figth too! I
            watched two of them win Stanley Cups with it being a core part of their
            play.

            It is also generally done by 5 % of the players hence we also come back to
            them being there as a harmless sideshow that draws fans.

            >) it is often a result of poor discipline with
            very little consequence to make it a deterrent. It is a professional
            >situation.

            Actually this is not so true especially today. Fights are all but pre
            programed. More times than not the players that do it have the green light.
            In fact, for some of them taking the ice is a tacit "go out there and drop
            them..."

            >Could you do that in your job?

            If it drew 1000 paying customers a night to his business, and the legal
            authorities wouldn;t care, he'd probably encourage me to do it and give me
            araise if I did it well. Just as is the case in hockey. But's let's be real
            here! We are not talking about evryday jobs! Would your boss go and tell you
            to plow your business rival into a wall and try to separate him from his
            breif case and discourage him form ever carrying it again? Again we have to
            go to apples and oranges...

            >> Finally, as to other troubles being more important to address. There is
            > EMINENT logic here Lloyd. The surveys say overhwhelmingly to keep
            fighting.
            > The fans seem to want it. Do they want the high ticket prices? Do they
            want
            > better games? Do they want Canadian teams surviving? All of these also say
            >> "yes".

            >They say yes to higher ticket prices?

            The coprorate ones do. But the average fan often does like a freind of mine
            when he had to buy a house, he had to drop his...We are talking AVERAGe
            folks...not corporations...

            >> Simply put, the paying customer, by a vast majority is saying that
            fighting
            > is not a problem at all. If indeed fighting is so unpopular and there are
            > legions out there that would watch fighting without it, why is college
            > hockey a regional cult sport? Even in Canada, junior outdraws
            > college...Malnutition, on the other hand will find few polls saying to
            "keep
            > the status quo". The sad fact is, I submit, that to the paying customer
            > fighting is not only a lesser problem but, indeed, not one at all. And the
            > NHL is a BUSINESS hence listening to the paying customer takes priority
            over
            > any other argument that can be offered...
            >> I ask you, exactly where is that logic flawed?

            >As a person who doesn't care for it, that logic is not flawed. It has
            always been one of those issues where publicly the powers downplay and
            say they're cracking down, but publicly they're worried that doing so
            will drive people away. You mean people say stuff just for PR
            >purposes???? <grin>

            Naah, nobody would ever do that would they? <chuckle>
            --
            Bluegrass Hockey: Celebrating hockey in the Commonwealth:
            http://mangodance.tripod.com/bgh/bghockey.htm

            Mangodance's Volkswagen Toys & Literature:
            http://mangodance.tripod.com
            Volkswagen Toy Group (& literature):
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/volkswagentoygroup
            Johnny Lightning Good Traders Directory:
            http://mangodance.tripod.com/jltraders.htm




            To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
            hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          • Craig
            You know, I think I started this thread and even I am sick to death of it..... Craig C Wallace Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 30, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              You know, I think I started this thread and even I am sick to death of
              it.....


              Craig C Wallace

              "Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly. "
              Robert F Kennedy
              1925-1968
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.