What’s Wrong With “Old Time Hockey”?

Why am I bombarded with anti-violence articles concerning hockey every time I pick up a magazine or a newspaper? Why is it that some people have a chip on their shoulder about the way the game should be played and was played in the past? The last nonsense story I read came from a respected sport business journal, and once again, the author was grasping at straws.

Critics have taken every opportunity to bash hockey for its violence during the past ten years. These critics tell us that violence is turning American viewers away from hockey and it is detouring new fans from tuning in. I don’t deal with anyone on a day-to-day basis that feels this way. I have not come in contact with these people at an actual hockey game nor have I been engaged in casual conversation with them. Why is it that the certain people that oppose fighting have jobs in mainstream sport publications? Where do these people come from?

It would be much easier for these so called sports fans to simply drop their argument and go back to watching their NBA or MLB games on television. Unfortunately, many would rather sit around and wait for more opportunities to tell fans how hockey is violent and barbaric.

The latest news on the “anti-fighting” front tells us that ratings have proved once again that violence does absolutely nothing for recruiting hockey fans. The ratings suggest that sports fans were not at all intrigued by the Bruins-Habs first round series, and preferred to watch the match up featuring the Avs and Kings. Ratings also indicate that the Isles and Leafs series did not interest fans nearly as much as the Avs and Kings.

These ratings and supposed indicators of fan interest tell me one thing– absolutely nothing. All it says are some times and channels produce better ratings then others.

Are we supposed to heed these “warnings” that hockey violence is turning fans away rather than making them tune in? The ratings tell me that Colorado has big name players and people want to watch them. Is it startling that this series had a better viewership? The answer is a resounding NO! If Montreal and Boston had as many marquee names as Colorado, the series would have had the same size viewer ship or possibly larger.

All this being said, why take another poke at violence in hockey? As a matter of fact, I didn’t notice much violence in the first round. I noticed teams that didn’t like each other getting after it. I noticed hard-hitting games and emotion throughout. The most important sign that I saw was players giving 110% for the most coveted prize in all of the professional sports world.

This type of action is what we’ve come to appreciate in a Stanley Cup playoff series and most traditional hockey fans look forward to this action year after year.

To all the “anti fighting” community, I apologize that hockey isn’t baseball or that the NHL isn’t the NBA. The fact of the matter is that hockey players still play with unbridled passion and are driven to win unlike any other. Although since the dawn of the Bettman era, NHL players have begotten swollen egos and outrageous contracts, hockey has still not caught up with basketball players and baseball players in the greed and money game. For the most part, hockey players just want to win and will attempt to do so at all costs.

Hockey players are no more violent that any other athletes. In fact, hockey players do more for their communities and through charities than athletes of any other sport. So, let’s drop the violence and “anti-fighting” nonsense. The argument has become stale and grows weaker by the day.

It will be interesting to see how far television ratings and attendance drop when all of these changes are actually made to our great game.

For every player that has ever laced up a pair of skates and for every fan that cares about the traditions of hockey and its future, I hope this never happens.