DON Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Some old goon (never heard of him before) pisses off Gallagher eh. Gallagher maybe should find a hobby to stay busy and pass on responding to idiots on social media, because am sure there are many other irrelevant opinions who criticize him out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Some old goon (never heard of him before) pisses off Gallagher eh. Gallagher maybe should find a hobby to stay busy and pass on responding to idiots on social media, because am sure there are many other irrelevant opinions who criticize him out there. I thought Gallagher put him in his place quite nicely, and then left before it became a dreary, unending flame war. Well played by the young man IMHO. This is the first time anyone, anywhere, has given a moments' thought to Jim Kyte since he retired. Classy of Kyte to leverage the fame of current NHLers to try to get attention, by trashing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Has anyone seen the twitter war between Jim Kyte and Gallagher? Not really a war, but Kyte made the idiotic assumption that BG and Brad f'n Marchant are players that are of the same ilk..dirty, cheapshot players that are protected by the league rules, and that he would've loved to play against them and seek retribution. He said that it's players like these that are the reason he doesn't watch nhl anymore. I told him that he ought to start watching more closely because BG and the prick Marchant are not even close to being similar players. The most important thing Gallagher did was point out that guys like Kyte would never be NHLers today. Kyte was 6'5" when players were rarely 6'5" and got drafted 12th overall by the Jets because of it. He's from the days where blueliners could do whatever they wanted to you if you were going towards the net or near the net. I liked that Gallagher spoke up to shut him down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Gallagher and Marchand could both play in any era, that is who they are. They are tough hard nosed players. I for one miss the fighting, hard hits and players policing themselves, Crosby incident a couple of days ago is why. A fine and a game s missed is no deterrent, It's like sending me home for the day and fining me 5 bucks for hitting the secretary with a stick. It means nothing. Head injuries, lame hockey and stupid rules is all we have now. I would say less people watch hockey now a days then the 80's for sure. Just my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Gallagher and Marchand could both play in any era, that is who they are. They are tough hard nosed players. I for one miss the fighting, hard hits and players policing themselves, Crosby incident a couple of days ago is why. A fine and a game s missed is no deterrent, It's like sending me home for the day and fining me 5 bucks for hitting the secretary with a stick. It means nothing. Head injuries, lame hockey and stupid rules is all we have now. I would say less people watch hockey now a days then the 80's for sure. Just my opinion 1) Ratings show more people watch hockey today. 2) The idea that there were less rats when the players policed themselves is also simply not true. Even without an instigator rule and a laissez-faire attitude toward violence, the NHL of Kyte's era still had to deal with despicable, dishonourable jerks like Bobby Schmautz, Ken (the rat) Linseman, Bryan Marchment, Louis Sleigher, Ulf Samuelsson and even Kyte himself. Gallagher was quick to include a youtube link to Kyte's sucker punch of Mario Lemieux in his twitter salvo, which Kyte tried to defend as "sticking up for his teammates". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Didn't say thre were less "rats" as you call them. Both Marchand and Gallagher would be rat like linseman. Comparing the watching hockey now is speculative a best, i's much easier to watch hockey now, there are more teams now. I just think the hockey is better with fighting, hitting and board play. I don't even watch like I used to. Stupid overtime rules, other dumb rules I don't even want to get into. Just my opinion, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Of course its fair to say you personally watch less hockey than before.... thats fine, you like fighting, others don't. You're entitled to your own opinion. I object to the comment that " I would say less people watch hockey now a days then the 80's for sure." because when we talk about the general population, its clearly not true. Fact is fighting is leaving the game, and the majority of fans either haven't even noticed, or haven't allowed it to effect viewing patterns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Of course its fair to say you personally watch less hockey than before.... thats fine, you like fighting, others don't. You're entitled to your own opinion. I object to the comment that " I would say less people watch hockey now a days then the 80's for sure." because when we talk about the general population, its clearly not true. Fact is fighting is leaving the game, and the majority of fans either haven't even noticed, or haven't allowed it to effect viewing patterns. He makes a salient point that you missed. Until Bettman (well before the era he was referencing) there was no hockey on television outside of regional viewing. In parts of New England, it was possible to get the Whalers/Habs/Bruins, but forget about the Western teams, especially Western Canada. There was no hockey on TV at all in the Southern US. ESPN2 changed things by having national games around 95/96. I have no idea how this applied to Canada.So it is conceivable to say that more people watched back then comparatively speaking when you take into account the audience size. And I can confirm from my father and uncles that the fighting was a HUGE draw to American fans that first started watching the game in the mid-70s to 80s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 And one of the reasons networks didn't want to pick up hockey was because they didn't want to be known for broadcasting the sport with the benchclearing brawls and the backlash they would get from that. Also advertisers didn't want the backlash from supporting it even when the ratings were there. Based on the fact there is more money involved in removing fighting than there is in putting it back in... things aren't going back to that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Fighting was a huge draw for casual male fans who were more likely to spend money on boxing than hockey. These same fans don't watch hockey and instead watch MMA today. The general barbarism of 70s/80s hockey pushed more fans away than creating them. It was Gretzky that brought new fans to the game who stayed, not the goons. There was more cheapshots and head shots in the 80s by far. Headshots are so uncommon now you finally recognize them. What Dube did to Crosby used to happen to any player near a crease. People seem to forget what hockey used to be like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 And one of the reasons networks didn't want to pick up hockey was because they didn't want to be known for broadcasting the sport with the benchclearing brawls and the backlash they would get from that. Also advertisers didn't want the backlash from supporting it even when the ratings were there. Based on the fact there is more money involved in removing fighting than there is in putting it back in... things aren't going back to that way. Yep, that's where the penalties for starting fights in the last five minutes of the game came from. The networks wanted reliable time slots for the games instead of thirty minutes of brawling at the end of the game. Hockey did draw audiences initially from a quasi-MMA crowd, but that doesn't mean that they're leaving because fighting is down. The only case I can see that happening is local audiences at AHL games. The fighting is great, but I don't think it's bad that the five minute a night goons are gone. Every person in the house wanted to see Toews and Kesler go at it Black Friday. One type of player I'm losing patience for is the Bobby Farnham, asinine Don Cherry like player who starts meaningless scrums after every whistle. The head shots have to go, one game for Dubinsky is a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 They'll never get rid of it 100%, but they don't want the stuff like the Good Friday Game.... thats the kind of stuff we'll never see again and thats what had to be removed before US networks were willing to touch the game. Thats how we got 10 games for jumping off the bench. Now I agree we need serious penalties for head shots, and for them to be out of the game. I suggest 10 games for shit like Dubinsky did (and more if he does it a second time). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Of course its fair to say you personally watch less hockey than before.... thats fine, you like fighting, others don't. You're entitled to your own opinion. I object to the comment that " I would say less people watch hockey now a days then the 80's for sure." because when we talk about the general population, its clearly not true. Fact is fighting is leaving the game, and the majority of fans either haven't even noticed, or haven't allowed it to effect viewing patterns. People are much more devoted to sports in general these days. Games are accessible by way more forms of media like computers Playstation, telephones while driving in a car through the desert etc... culture has changed dramatically with regards to sports. Your argument is certainly valid and I don't disagree, but the argument could also be made that sports in general is easier to watch and fanatical sports cultures have raised viewership in all popular sports. So it's tough to say there were ties and fights in the eighties... there are wins and less fights today... more people watch it now, therefore it is because of ties and fighting. My opinion is that way too many staged useless fights started happening in the eighties nineties and early 2000s. It hurt the integrity of the game. But we are not there yet as far as game integrity is concerned. A foul in any other sport is a foul. Regardless of overtime or playoffs or whatever. The disparity in reffing and discipline still calls for a certain amount of policing by players. Think of when Souray beat the shit out of Armstrong for a dirty hit on Koivu after a whistle. Until a foul is a foul, I feel policing is warranted. But I could never advocate leaving a better player in the minors so two goons could give each other brain damage. That isn't good either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 I don't miss the fighting between goons, and the staged or "you just know" fights, that was dumb. Now I don't see a lot of fights, but once in a while you see a spirited tilt like Toews the other night, and that is a part of the lure and legend of hockey, that others have said, is forgotten by today's fans. For the most part however, I like the more civilized game the NHL is trying to give the fans, and I don't really miss the fights at all, I just hate the thoughts of going down that ridiculous road that is the NFL rule and behavior book... So therefore, an adrenaline charged scrap between two good hockey players is ok by me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 I don't miss the fighting between goons, and the staged or "you just know" fights, that was dumb. Now I don't see a lot of fights, but once in a while you see a spirited tilt like Toews the other night, and that is a part of the lure and legend of hockey, that others have said, is forgotten by today's fans. For the most part however, I like the more civilized game the NHL is trying to give the fans, and I don't really miss the fights at all, I just hate the thoughts of going down that ridiculous road that is the NFL rule and behavior book... So therefore, an adrenaline charged scrap between two good hockey players is ok by me. Hard to disagree with this. The problem with regular fights - not talking here about a rare tilt from a guy - is, of course, the brain injuries. I used to really enjoy boxing, as well as hockey fights. That enjoyment evaporates (at least for me) once you realize that these men are subjecting themselves to potentially life-altering brain injuries - basically making themselves handicapped for life. I don't know if anyone remembers this old Air Farce character, Big Bobby Clobbers. He was a hockey player character whose whole schtick was that he couldn't string two coherent sentences together. Everyone found him hilarious, and a recognizable real-life hockey 'type.' What that 'type' actually represented was a guy suffering from concussions so badly that he was no longer a fully functioning human being. Ha ha ha. As far as the 'policing' argument goes, what bugs me is that nobody seems to have any convincing evidence one way or the other. Is it ACTUALLY true that dangerous cheap-shots spike upward when you get rid of the self-policing element that tough guys and fighting provide? This seems to be more an article of faith than anything close to an empirically-demonstrated fact. Certainly I don't see today's, mostly fight-free NHL being markedly filled with hazardous cheap shots relative to how things were in the past. Hell, in the past Scott Stevens was awarded Cups and a Hall of Fame berth for basically elbowing guys in the head night after night. The best we can say about the 'policing' argument is: unproven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 For sure. I don't think you can provide evidence to support the policing argument. I also think it's tough to find true evidence to support a lot of theories in sports trends. It's too dynamic with too many changing variables. The argument is made often that changes to the game have increased viewers. I agree with this. Moreover, I think that understanding what is and what is not a foul, would help draw in new viewers. As the game stands now, no new viewer could possibly understand what a foul is. Reffing changes based on opinion circumstance and reputation. I want the foul called Everytime. If that can't happen then I want fear of bare knuckles in the face at high speed and with great force to be a deterrent to cheap fouls. Neither fighting nor "let em play because it's OT" or " Let em play because it's playoffs and they are behind" make any sense. But they go hand in hand. I believe if you want to stop fighting, you need to call the game right. If you do that, chances are more people will understand what the hell is going on and watch more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 I agree. The fact that penalties change based on time of year, or time left in the game, never made sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 I find that the older generation, myself included, find games harder to watch with less entertainment value. I still see players turn their back so they can't get hit. Unfortunately the league has removed most of the body checking with the new style that has evolved. One of the reasons fighting is down is that there is far less close contact. Fans are looking for more action. I do not believe if you take body engagement and/or fighting (that interaction) out of the mix; that you can replace it with more scoring. You do need to replace it however, with something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Now I agree we need serious penalties for head shots, and for them to be out of the game. I suggest 10 games for shit like Dubinsky did (and more if he does it a second time). 10 for the head shot, 10 for the extra crosscheck when Crosby was laying on the ice. Would some players play on their toes? Sure, price to pay when players are reckless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 For sure. I don't think you can provide evidence to support the policing argument. I also think it's tough to find true evidence to support a lot of theories in sports trends. It's too dynamic with too many changing variables. The argument is made often that changes to the game have increased viewers. I agree with this. Moreover, I think that understanding what is and what is not a foul, would help draw in new viewers. As the game stands now, no new viewer could possibly understand what a foul is. Reffing changes based on opinion circumstance and reputation. I want the foul called Everytime. If that can't happen then I want fear of bare knuckles in the face at high speed and with great force to be a deterrent to cheap fouls. Neither fighting nor "let em play because it's OT" or " Let em play because it's playoffs and they are behind" make any sense. But they go hand in hand. I believe if you want to stop fighting, you need to call the game right. If you do that, chances are more people will understand what the hell is going on and watch more For sure. I can't stand the arbitrary way the NHL enforces discipline. This applies to refereeing, with its endlessly arbitrary culture of shifting standards depending on the score and the time of game/year, not mention the refs' personal mood; particularly infuriating is the way the standards suddenly undergo a radical change at playoff time, such that the best team for 82 games can find itself completely hamstrung as the rug is pulled out from under it - which happened to the Canucks in 2011, for instance. It also applies to 'supplemental discipline,' with its eternally shifting criteria and the attention paid to whether a player is a 'good guy' (i.e., well-liked by his peers and the NHL head office, with their elusive 'codes'). It's complete b*******t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 That's the type of discipline I've been advocating for the past 10 year or so. Much more effective than the BS Jim Kyte self policing. But than I hear comments like tortorella's moronic comments and I doubt if anything will ever change. 10 for the head shot, 10 for the extra crosscheck when Crosby was laying on the ice. Would some players play on their toes? Sure, price to pay when players are reckless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Manny Malhotra isn't giving up on his playing career just yet. He signed a PTO with Lake Erie of the AHL (farm team of Columbus) today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Gotta love hate that spear by Prusty. Well deserved but of course a low blow...hmmm I remember Bruins defending a certain #17 who repeatedly did that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Gotta love hate that spear by Prusty. Well deserved but of course a low blow...hmmm I remember Bruins defending a certain #17 who repeatedly did that. I love how angry Bruins fans are about it. As if they have never seen it before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted December 6, 2015 Author Share Posted December 6, 2015 Viktor Tikhonov was a Coyotes first rounder in 2008. He played out his ELC, wasn't happy, and went back home until he became an NHL UFA this past offseason where he signed with Chicago. Tikhonov was waived yesterday and was claimed today by, you guessed it, the Coyotes. Something tells me he's not a happy camper right now. As for the Prust thing, we saw it here for three years. If the team is losing badly, he'll do something stupid a few times a season. This is just another on the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.