Funny, I thought refusing to bandwagon when everyone else is bandwagonning takes courage.

Many writers seem to lack that courage.

Posted by Primis on 01/28/09 at 02:37 PM ET

Has SI even covered hockey since the Gretzky and Lemieux days? Even super-duper OMG! posterboy Sid hardly gets mentioned.

Again they ask the misguided question “How many fans will stop watching if fighting is banned?”, yet they can’t or won’t answer “how many new fans will a fighting ban actually create?” If you currently aren’t watching hockey, it’s not the fighting, it’s the fact that you don’t like hockey. It ain’t rocketry folks.

Posted by JAMESinMI on 01/28/09 at 02:54 PM ET

You’re asking the anti-fighting crowd to prove that something will happen. In short, you’re asking for proof of something that’s impossible to prove, whether it’s true or not. No one can reach the standard of proof that the pro-fighting crowd wants.

Posted by JAMESinMI on 01/28/09 at 03:30 PM ET

James -

I’m not even Pro-Fighting, necessarily.

I do think if hockey is to ban fighting, then basketball has to ban a;; charges and all intentional fouls, football has to ban all blindside hits (legal now or not), and baseball has to ban brawls by assessing long, long suspensions to anyone involved in any altercation.

Because someone MIGHT be seriously injured during any of those events in those sports. Heck, mor epeopel are paralyzed for life in football than in hockey… And that’s the mantra that’s being chanted right now by those who do want fighting banned “Someone could get REALLY hurt!”.

Posted by Primis on 01/28/09 at 07:30 PM ET