Response to: "Violence in sports: Necessary?"

I agree, hockey would be just as exciting without the “mini-boxing matches”. There is no necessity for full-fledged fistfights in hockey. However, taking out checking in hockey would change the sport completely. Hockey is a contact sport, and even though many “clean” hits result in serious injuries, I can’t throw blame on the NHL for “preserving hitting”.

Comparing hockey to football, football is much more physical and hard-hitting, but should a player throw one punch against someone on the opposing team, they are immediately ejected from the game. Using the NFL as an example, I believe hockey would be just as successful with a ban on fighting. As you could see, fighting does not sell, as the NFL is a more profitable league than the NHL. So then, if the most physical sport does not condone fighting yet rake in more profit than the NHL, violence in the form of fighting is not necessary from a business perspective.

Also, I do not agree with your comment about the extent of violence in the NHL. You cannot compare Armstrong’s broken nose, from a fight that he chose to engage in, to Steve Moore’s career ending injury from a sucker-punch from behind (not a fight he mutually agreed to). These examples of violence are polar opposites. In no way did Tod Bertuzzi lay such a cheap shot to “advance his career”. The Bertuzzi-Moore hit is a clear example of the impossibility of complete violence being taken out of hockey. Fist fighting can be easily banned, but hits both legal and illegal are simply part of the game. The games fast pace and natural contact will lead to legal and illegal hits whether they are purposeful or not. 

Here is the link to the blog I am responding to: http://faithisourmedium.blogspot.com/2012/03/violence-in-sports-necessary.html