|
|
Post by davetheblaze on Nov 23, 2005 23:21:54 GMT 1
Who is pro fighting and who isnt?
Would you still watch hockey if fighting is taken out of the game?
|
|
|
|
Post by JP on Nov 23, 2005 23:28:42 GMT 1
I would still watch, but it would take a LOT of the excitment out of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by davetheblaze on Nov 23, 2005 23:33:00 GMT 1
To quote the Hansons ' The only times a fan stands up are for a goal or a fight'.
I am pro aggressive hockey and if a fight breaks out then all the better however I dont want to just see endless fighting.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakemurrall7 on Nov 24, 2005 9:06:00 GMT 1
i feel if fighting is took out, hockey will become alot more of a skillfull game although fighting is something within this sport, i think fighting is needed in ice hockey, to stick up for yourself and others but also to entertain the crowd and get them going, imo fighting is needed in this sport but i don't like to see it too often as it wrecks the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 24, 2005 10:36:59 GMT 1
Old school hockey is where the party's at!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Nov 24, 2005 16:40:37 GMT 1
Fighting is part of the skill in hockey.
|
|
|
|
Post by tully19 on Nov 24, 2005 17:04:43 GMT 1
Fighting needs to be in the game to keep chippy little players under control
|
|
|
|
Post by covunistudent on Nov 24, 2005 18:16:37 GMT 1
Having said that, I have been to a game once where I thought the fighting was "fixed" i.e. the players had arranged it before the game. Although I don't think the game was "fixed."
"Fixed" fighting really does NOT add any entertainment to the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Nov 24, 2005 19:17:27 GMT 1
Well think of it like this.
Did the games in Grenoble lack anything without fighting or were they viewed as different because of the same
|
|
|
|
Post by tully19 on Nov 24, 2005 19:36:44 GMT 1
The games in Grenoble were good but every player on every team was chippy chippy chippy they used their sticks a lot and threw their weight around. If they came to Britain they would soon lose that chippiness as they would soon realise that someone will get annoyed with them and beat the living daylights out of them
|
|
|
|
Post by shyfx on Nov 25, 2005 14:45:36 GMT 1
I'm all for it.If i wanted to watch a sterile sport i would stick with football or something.Also its just a theory i have,but it seems the less physical a sport is they get more crowd trouble.Like i say i can't prove that but look at football compared with hockey or rugby or the like.
|
|
|
|
Post by PW on Nov 25, 2005 16:15:50 GMT 1
Well think of it like this. Did the games in Grenoble lack anything without fighting or were they viewed as different because of the same I may be in the minority, but I enjoy a game far more when all that is flying in are big hits and skilful play, and some muppet isn't considered a hero for dropping the gloves at the slightest provocation. Don't get me wrong-I can see that fighting MAY have a place in the game (though nowhere near as much as a lot of British and Blaze hockey fans seem to think) but given a choice between watching a 5-4 game where the hits, shots and saves are thick and fast and there's maybe one fight, to a game where people are dropping the gloves three or four times in a game just because they want to "send a message) then I'd take the skill game any day-apart from anything, rarity adds to the excitement of fights when they do happen. Or maybe watching the DEL is clouding my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by covunistudent on Nov 25, 2005 17:08:48 GMT 1
I'm all for it.If i wanted to watch a sterile sport i would stick with football or something.Also its just a theory i have,but it seems the less physical a sport is they get more crowd trouble.Like i say i can't prove that but look at football compared with hockey or rugby or the like. Or perhaps the more popular a sport is, the more trouble there is. This mainly comes from people who are not "sports fans" but make a football match an occassion for their behaviour. |
|
