|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Sept 5, 2006 17:13:15 GMT 1
Now that the season has started the age old debate has been littering the forums across the land about how you judge a fight.
Many (Albeit newer in the most) fans are coming up with the "takedown" equation whereas many longer standing traditionalists go by the quantity and quality of landed punches.
Discuss
|
|
|
|
Post by naffer on Sept 5, 2006 23:14:55 GMT 1
Quantity and quality of punches i would say ,if its a close one then the person who wins the takedown gets the edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 6, 2006 16:49:53 GMT 1
Quantity and quality. What connects is possibly most important. Also visible damage, like blood often adds points!
|
|
|
|
Post by JP on Sept 6, 2006 21:53:31 GMT 1
Quantity and quality of punches i would say ,if its a close one then the person who wins the takedown gets the edge. That's about right. |
|
|
|
Post by davetheblaze on Sept 7, 2006 17:42:24 GMT 1
Quality over quantity.
One good punch on the chin has to be better than five landed over someones shoulder on their back.
If someone takes it to the ground or into a hug rather than stand and throw then Id usually give it to the other guy, but who ends up on top looks better off.
To be honest, its a cliche, but its not as much the winning thats important, for me the willingness of a player to drop the gloves for his team especially against someone tougher shows a decent charachter.
Id much rather see a guy who fights for his team and loses everytime than see a guy who picks his fights, jumps players or keeps punching on the deck for no reason.
Im also not too keen on the 'easy' chants after a fight as usually I applaud the effort from both guys unless our keepers been run or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Sept 7, 2006 17:51:18 GMT 1
I love the "Easy" chants after a fight....in fact I love them after a win at the face off as well ;D
I go for Q&Q as to who wins
|
|
ALDO#3
Wow, I Can Post
Posts: 180
|
Post by ALDO#3 on Sept 8, 2006 12:08:55 GMT 1
Q&Q for me every time. The amount of times you see a player instigate a fight then go straight into a clinch and trip the other player over, craighead v Payette at the end of his playing days at Cardiff, really annoys me. If you don't want to drop the gloves and start throwing why bother.
"Easy" chant is fine by me especially when the instigator gets a whooping. ala Payette v Ndur.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 8, 2006 16:17:59 GMT 1
"Easy" chant is awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Sept 8, 2006 18:23:41 GMT 1
Is it better than "We are superior"  |
|
|
|
Post by PW on Sept 8, 2006 18:51:30 GMT 1
Q and Q, but only on CONNECTING punches. Basically, if a player drops another through a method other than a punch, they've drawn it at best...
Although, I do have a very moral code when it comes to fighting-to my mind there should be none of this "jumping"/"sucker-punching"/"attacking" stuff...if you're going to fight you should make all things equal-challenge (push/shove or whatever), remove helmet and gloves, find some space, and go...any other way of a fight beginning (one dropping the gloves before the other and jumping them) should be punished with the "instigator" rule brought in...apart from anything else, it might stop some of the dirtier play , hiding beind face cages, or stupid niggly fights if people actually have to abide by a code of conduct, spoken or unspoken. I was never taught to fight by hitting someone before they'd had a chance to defend themselves-I've always seen it as a cowardly way to do things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Sept 8, 2006 18:54:29 GMT 1
One should always get their retaliation in first ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by davetheblaze on Sept 9, 2006 19:00:08 GMT 1
I agree that hockey fights should be done properly but I also believe that a player who gives reason for a fight but then refuses to leaves another player no option but to jump them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Sept 10, 2006 12:20:26 GMT 1
I would toughen up hockey be making a more severe penalty for players refusing to fight  |
|
|
|
Post by davetheblaze on Sept 10, 2006 14:48:43 GMT 1
I would toughen up hockey be making a more severe penalty for players refusing to fight Im not sure if your being sarcastic but Id certainly agree with that in some cases, I think niggly or dirty players should be prepared to fight. |
|
