What does environmentalism have to do with fighting in hockey? I’m far from a “tree hugger”, but if that’s not a total non-sequitur, I don’t know what is.

Not to mention the fact that LeBrun contradicts himself within the article, first saying that Nadeau should’ve defended himself, then supporting Fedoruk’s quote about how fighting, while dangerous, should be allowed because it’s a choice between two consenting adults. I didn’t see Nadeau consent to the fight… yet he got drawn into it.

What’s worse is that now Nadeau is being chastised by LeBrun and others for wanting to stay out of a fight where the scoreboard was way out of hand and it wouldn’t have done him or his team any good to drop the gloves (or glove and blocker) and fight.

I’m all for fighting in the game, LeBrun just proves he’s another useless hockey writer. Is Duhatschek to only good big-time hockey writer left?

Posted by Nathan on 03/26/08 at 02:15 PM ET

This is the same guy that wrote an article wondering when will the Bertuzzi story ever go away? There is a difference between an honest fight between willing and/or deserving participants (nothing wrong with beating up a cheapshot artist even if then turns tails) and just punching someone because you can. Besides I expect professionals to fight for their jobs, but not kids to be forced to indulge some deliquent adults fantasy.

Posted by Hockey1919 from Montreal on 03/26/08 at 03:18 PM ET

What in the blue bloody hells do environmentalists have to do with this?

What a poorly written article.

Having said that, I don’t think we see enough fighting in the game. And honestly, I don’t know anyone who was “shocked” by the brawl. I’m shocked there hasn’t been more.

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 03/26/08 at 03:25 PM ET

I usually enjoy reading LeBrun pieces, but of late he seems to have gone “off the rails”. 

It could be a case of overexposure to certain members of the Sportsnet crew, maybe he’s developed a case of “Kypreos-itis”.

Posted by dash_pinched on 03/26/08 at 03:27 PM ET

Not that I’m defending him, but tree-huggers was a metaphor for bleeding heart, stop animal testing, war is bad, peace is good hippies.  Nothing about environmentalism. 

The who Roy brawl situation is ugly and should just be forgotten about.  No good can come from any further coverage of it.  Both Roy’s got suspended, the league handled it, move on.  Nobody got hurt, nobody died, this isn’t a Todd Betuzzi, Kurt Foster, or Patrice Bergeron situation with grey areas.  It shouldn’t have happened and everyone will be fine.  Except maybe the Remparts without their coach for 9 games or whatever. 

I don’t much care and I’m a Roy fan til death.

Posted by Phil M on 03/26/08 at 03:52 PM ET

...tree-huggers was a metaphor for bleeding heart, stop animal testing, war is bad, peace is good hippies.

Hey, I’m pretty much all of those things. Well, okay, at my age I guess I’m an ex-hippie. But those things still have nothing to do with what Roy did.

While I believe war is bad (well, duh!), I do love a good, fair hockey fight. That’s not what happened and LeBrun can’t make it into an “okay” part of the game by dragging out tired cliches like “tree huggers”.

In the past couple of weeks I’ve seen some truly bizarre justifications for the antics of guys like Pronger, Jackman, Phaneuf and Roy. Call me a bleeding heart, but I just don’t believe thuggery has any place in hockey. Period.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 03/26/08 at 04:06 PM ET

Tree-hugger has evolved into a term often used specifically for environmentalists, particularly extremist ones, but that seems to be a generational thing - with older people using it as more of a synonym for hippies.

Has anyone in the media thought that maybe fighting is less a part of the culture of hockey because it is more of a profession than it used to be, and less of a pastime?  It’s one thing to brawl without regard for the consequences when your career and livelihood lie elsewhere - when your hope is to list “professional hockey player” as your career, not just something you do in between whatever else pays the bills, you are less likely to do anything that will cause permanent damage to your body (thus getting a reputation as being injury-prone, perhaps) or to your reputation (gaining a name for being difficult and uncoachable).  Maybe the lack of fighting is a result of the players taking their professions more seriously.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 03/26/08 at 04:16 PM ET

Tree huggers don’t fight cause they smell too much to get that close to each other.

Posted by Laker from dapuddle on 03/26/08 at 04:52 PM ET

Here’s one definiton of irony. It’s a statement like this…

Tree huggers don’t fight cause they smell too much to get that close to each other.

...that comes to us by way of someone from “dapuddle”. 

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 03/26/08 at 07:03 PM ET

I love fighting. I love hockeyfights.com. I love that Brash is on my team now because he’s such a great fighter.

However, I think Jon Roy’s behavior was shameful and absolutely don’t want to see it’s like again. If this guy can’t tell the different between what Roy did and the fighting I like, he shouldn’t be writing about hockey.

Posted by false_cause from DC on 03/26/08 at 08:04 PM ET

OlderThenChelios - Hence why I said I wasn’t defending him, but rather putting “tree-huggers” in a general context.  I personally don’t care about tree-huggers points of view (even though they’re close to my own views) when it comes to hockey, I was just hoping to save some people’s time and clear up what he was saying.

Baroque - I personally know where the term “tree-hugger” is derived from, but it’s been generalized in this day and age.  It’s no longer so literal.

Posted by Phil M on 03/27/08 at 10:33 AM ET

false_cause, you got it right, my man.

Enforcers like Brashear are important to the league. But in most cases, the true enforcers of the league have some honor in what they do. They don’t cave in the faces of the other team’s star player. They go toe-to-toe with guys of their ilk, and they only fight when both guys are ready to go to it.

The one “exception”, so to speak, is when a a cheap-shot artist gets hunted down and beat into the ice (a Claude Lemieux/Darren McCarty situation). If you are a dirty enough player, eventually your enforcer won’t be able to keep answering the call for you.

Being that Nadeau was just standing there waiting for all that crap to end so his club could get on with the win and get ready for the next game, I don’t think he qualifies as the “exception”.

Posted by Nathan on 03/27/08 at 10:35 AM ET