I'm not done with Paul Kelly. I respect him for re-evaluating some of the aspects of fighting in hockey, but I still think he's an idiot. He's missing the big picture, along with the rest of the goon army of dog-brained fighting fuckers.
I wish I had an audio recording of him speaking this. I wonder whether he talks as loud as Don Cherry. Here's some more of Kelly's wisdom:
"... when you have guys in there to protect the star players, the skill players, the people fans pay good money to go watch, it deters that type of conduct, it protects those star players... It actually, in many respects, reduce[s] the amount of violence in our sport."
First of all, why are there unskilled players in the league? How did they get there? Why is the system so demented that we need mediocre players who are only useful because they're stupid enough to love to fight? GMs actually bypass skilled players in the draft in order to recruit less skilled players? The system stinks of irrationality.
Under Kelly's logic, "fans pay good money to [watch skilled players]." So then why doesn't the league comprise 100% of skilled players? Why must 20% of players in the NHL be enforcers, when they could all be good play makers and scorers? If the NHL was all talent, then according to Kelly's logic, there would be more fans. Because after all, NHL fans pay good money to watch skilled players. I can speak for myself. I tend to not watch hockey when the goons take the ice and shit on it.
Kelly has absolutely no evidence that fighting in hockey = less violence. The NHL has never experimented. The Olympics doesn't allow fighting, and things seem to be going on fine there. What about all the other leagues around the world? They seem to get along fine, too. I would be interested to see an investigation about whether Kelly's hypothesis, enforcing/self-policing/fighting = less violence in hockey. I don't buy it. It's a load of crap and he's just shitting out of his mouth when he says it.
I'm going to end this post with a thought: If fighting in hockey serves the "crucial" purpose of "self policing," then Kelly is a supporter of police brutality. Since when do the police have a right to beat the shit out of offenders? Jail criminals, punish criminals, educate criminals, but don't physically harm them. What good does that do, other than fulfil a thirst for inflicting pain? Violence is not the answer to curbing violence or crime. The day our police force is allowed to beat criminals, that's when I'll accept fighting in hockey.
suck my tits,