Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Don Cherry: Advocate of Hockey Violence?

I am a lazy bitch. I don't work for anyone, so this blog gets updated when I feel like it. Well something has recently happened in the media regarding hockey and bullshit. In case you're out of the loop, I've pasted a fragment from a news article that will get you up to speed:

* * *

Dr. Charles Tator, a Toronto neurosurgeon, made the comment in front of about 150 people at a Hockey Canada concussion seminar being held in Regina.

The doctor said there's been too much emphasis on the "sock 'em, kill 'em type of hockey."

Tator says Cherry helped with a campaign many years ago to prevent broken necks and it would help if Cherry could now take a strong stand against hits to the head.

While Cherry is a long-time advocate of physical play in hockey, he's also championed rule and equipment initiatives to improve player safety.

He has also complained on air about the lack of respect among players as well as some hits that he considers dangerous.

* * *

Cherry, much like his stupid dog, has barked back. His yelps have echoed throughout the Canadian media. Check out the article about that here.

What does Don Cherry say in response to Tator, the neurosurgeon?

"I don’t give a [expletive] about him, I don’t give a [expletive] about him."

There is an issue of whether or not the "tape was rolling." Well, it was. The clip was recorded and I believe it's available on youtube. Way to go Cherry, very professional of you. Update your 75-year old mind. People are recording things everywhere and stuff gets uploaded onto youtube in minutes.

COME ON!? Do we need to review all of the tapes that clearly show Cherry advocating hockey fighting and violence? Check out the one I embedded in this post. Cherry here rightly criticizes Avery for his stupid instigating behaviour. Okay, fair. Avery is a pest and a problem. That kind of behaviour does not belong in any sport.

Cherry's suggestion for Avery's antics?

Dress Wade Belak so that he can beat the shit out of "this midget."

Again, what ever happened to being professional? Cherry is a clown. It is unacceptable to call someone a midget on prime time Canadian TV. At approximately 1:00 to about 1:15, Cherry emphasizes that Avery should be "wiped out."


It drives me ABSOLUTELY CRAZY to know that Cherry (and his supporters) can't seem to step back and actually realize what his message is.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Response to comment regarding police brutality = fighting in hockey

Gawd, I love dialogues. This is what blogs are meant for. Anonymous kindly wrote:

"you obviously have never played or been involved with a competitive hockey team, if so you would know you are completely out of your mind. there is a place for fighting in hockey. read what you just wrote. it is absolutely ridiculous to equate hockey fighting to police brutality. listen to what you saying. you are insane. end of story."

I am often mistaken for an insane person so I consider this a fair criticism. Perhaps I didn't illustrate my argument clearly enough. Mind you, it is an illustration. A metaphor to help illustrate my point. I thought it was kind of clever. But hey, you're more sane than me so you know better.

But wait, maybe I just wasn't clear enough. Yeah, that's it. I didn't take my pills the morning I wrote that original article. I'm full of drugs right now and my thinking is straight, so let's try it again:

1. Hockey enforcers, the finest players of all, enforce "the rules" of the game.

2. The police officers enforce the law. (I'm comparing THE LAW to the RULES OF HOCKEY.)

3. When someone "breaks the law" in hockey, the enforcers (AKA Goons) use their fists and beat the crap out of the offenders.

4. When someone breaks the law in society, police officers attend to the scene. They try to detain offenders by causing the least amount of damage to the suspect as possible. It is never acceptable for a police officer to unnecessarily beat an offender (IE: Rodney King). This is considered to be an abuse of power. Civilized people look down upon it. They call it police brutality.

5. Enforcers, goons - the meanest, stupidest and least skilled hockey players (who also hold the responsibility of enforcing the rules) punish offenders in the game of hockey by using brute force. Punching is the most acceptable method.

So... do you see the parallel? Goons and enforcers are vigilante "heroes" that follow the philosophy of enforcement by brutally beating offenders.

And that's my argument. Above it is the logical evidence that proves my point. What the hell are you shouting at me?

A. That I didn't play competitive hockey.

You're right, I didn't. So what? I have played hockey before. In fact, I went to a hockey skills camp. Did they teach me how to fight? Nope. Hmmm... funny, they called it a hockey skills camp for a reason.

B. That I'm apparently "insane."

Just because I never played in a league doesn't mean that you can write off all of my arguments as "insane." Hey, I'm the one who's arguing that violence is bad. I actually think you're insane, Anonymous. I'm pretty sure most people agree that violence is bad. For some reason you seem to think otherwise. Check your head, idiot.


Sunday, March 29, 2009

One comment! Yay! And here's my rebuttal...

"Anonymous" kindly wrote a comment on the blog. Here's what he/she said:

If you don't want your son to see fighting why the hell did you bring him to a hockey game?That's like complaining that a fight broke out at a boxing match you took your son too
March 28, 2009 1:21 AM

I'm sorry, but you are arguing a lost cause. Reason, and critical thinking is on my side of the argument. Here's what our very reasonable writing staff had to say in response:

The Writing Staff said...

Dear reader,Thanks for visiting and taking the time to comment.

Your analogy, "That's like complaing that a fight broke out at a boxing match," proves nothing.

First, I know what to expect out of boxing. Fighting. Punches, blows, blood, bruises. Some ugly stuff. A boxing fan watches boxing because fighting IS the game of boxing.

Hockey is about skating, shooting, passing, etc. This is acceptable for young children to watch. But then these idiotic, unexplainable fights break out and that is not acceptable for kids to see (Just as that one father on the Toronto Star website pointed out).

Fighting has unfortunately become "a part of the game" of hockey because a culture of violence has been tolerated for many decades. People like you accept fighting in hockey because hockey fans have turned their brains off and failed to evaluate this idiotic culture of violence critically.

You believe it is essential to the game of hockey only because it is a tradition. My mission is to show you that fighting is not necessary in hockey. Traditions needs to be evaluated all the time to make sure that society isn't doing or tolerating something stupid when it shouldn't

I won't take my kid to a boxing match or an MMA match because it's not kids entertainment. It's meant for adults who have the capacity to understand that the sport involves fighting and blood. And you know what? I have no problem with that. You don't have an argument. Boxing is different than hockey because it is all about fighting. Currently, the NHL accepts fighting and my whole argument is that it's a very big problem.

Ok, now my turn to give you some advice:If you love fighting so much, why do you bother watching hockey? Shouldn't you be a boxing fan instead? You must be really bored during hockey games because fighting only happens about 10% of the time, if not less. How do you tolerate 90% of quality skill and play, and anxiously await for a brawl to erupt?

Try really hard to look at this logical argument:

A. Fighting is not acceptable for children to watch.
B. Boxing involves fighting.
C. Children should not be allowed to watch boxing.

* * *

Now change B and C so that it looks like this:

B. Hockey involves fighting.
C. Children should not be allowed to watch hockey.

Franky, that is the truth. As long as violence is tolerated, I will not let me children play or watch hockey. And if they do want to watch it, I will take a lot of time to explain that the fighting part is very, very, very stupid.

I'm ready for a rebuttal any time. Thanks for commenting, and if you're a visitor and you have something to say, please, comment!!!! I'd love to hear what you think. No matter what side of the argument you're on.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Through The Eyes Of A Small Child

Sometimes I can't articulate the argument well enough. I was reading some comments on Damien Cox's blog, "The Spin," and stumbled upon a fantastic posting. Here it is:

"I never had a problem with fighting in hockey and used to cheer a good donnybrook as much as the next guy. Then, I became a dad and took my 3 year old son to a Jr. B game. When a fight broke out, he became very quiet and concerned and asked me why they were hitting each other. I didn't have a good answer.

"Try justifying violence against another individual to a child - you simply can't. I know that there are nuances to the game in its current incarnation that support compelling arguments for why it's necessary to protect one's teammates by dropping the gloves, but surely the rules can be enforced in a manner that make fighting unnecessary. Certainly, seeing a hockey fight occur through the eyes of a small child changed my perspective.

Hockey is an absolutely great game, and would still be so if fighting was banned outright."

The author's name is James and that's just about all the credit I can give. Can you disagree with him? I would be interested to see someone even try. His story is clear example of why fighting is stupid. Inappropriate behaviour doesn't have a place in a sport that children typically play and watch. The NHL has to choose whether it's a top-4 professional sports league, or a pay-per-view fighting league like MMA. The half time fighting show needs to end now.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Fighting In Hockey = Police Brutality

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,
Liz Oak

Straight Talk

Hi. The format of this blog is changing. It was a satire, but now it's going straight. No more of "I'm trying to be clever, funny and critical at the same time." That didn't seem to make an impact and I feel like it's time to be more forward.

I still think fighting in hockey is extremely stupid so I'm not closing up shop. If you want to revisit some of the articles in this blog, please do. I sincerely believe some of them stand out as good satirical pieces.


Don Sanderson is dead. He played for the Whitby Dunlops. Google his name to find out more if you don't know. This event has re-energized the fighting debate in such a powerful way that the NHLPA is wants to evaluate some of the fighting rules. I won't stop arguing until fighting is completely abolished so I'm not that excited yet.

I want to quote the head of the NHL Player's Association, Paul Kelly, because he makes an unbelievable amount of sense:

"Fighting isn't just there for some gratuitous reason. It's there because there's a need to self police, there's a need to protect those kinds of players in our sport. And I think that if you get rid of fighting, you're going to have some consequences that are very unfortunate."

Gratuitous, eh? That's a word that doesn't get tossed around enough in this debate, because it should! Of course fighting is gratuitous. Let's look at his first reason:

"there's a need to self police"

Why? Aren't refs, technically, police? And why is there a need to have a "self-police"? Shouldn't the players have enough sense not to hurt each other in the first place? Is hockey so bankrupt of sportsmanship that players cannot resist making "dirty plays" and "dirty hits?"

Here's an argument: The culture of fighting encourages dirty plays.

Digest that thought for a moment.

For instance, let's pretend I'm a solid player who makes a "questionable" hit on a superstar. The result is that the superstar is out with a broken bone or some other wonderful ailment for more than a month. The same two teams meet again and some kind of fight breaks out. Fight ends, people get excited and that's the end of the whole cycle.

Unless the league punishes dirty hits, foul play will continue because THE ONLY PUNISHMENT IS A BRAWL. And brawls, apparently, are entertaining. So brawls will never end, and dirty plays will never end.

This, by definition, is what the NHL's brilliant policy of "self-policing" is. I've got a better idea, why not just cut to the chase and call it BULLYING. That's what it is, really. An endless, idiotic, time wasting cycle of adult men bullying and hurting each other. If you're lucky, sometimes you'll see a game without the childishness.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

NHL Creates Death Penalty

Last Saturday, the Montreal-Toronto hockey game featured a friendly hit by Tom Kostopolous on Toronto's Mike Van Ryn. Van Ryn suffered a concussion (as-yet unknown grade), a broken nose, a broken bone in his hand, a gash to the forehead and damage to his teeth and gums.

"I love hospitals so I really don't mind," Van Ryn said yesterday.

"There's nothing better than blanking out. It's really fun and trippy, you know? After all, doctor's say that concussions are good for the brain. I can't say how much I appreciate what Tom did to me," Van Ryn finished, before falling unconscious on his hospital bed.

Tom Kostopoulos suffered a three game suspension.

"Three games? That's ridiculous. I only gave him a concussion, and a couple of other broken things, you know. What ever happened to giving players NO suspensions after hits like that? This pussy NHL of today sucks," Kostopoulos said, while eating a gyro.

To the surprise of many, the NHL has also begun investigating the possibility of an even more severe punishment system to punish players who deal "hits to the head."

"We call it the hits to the head incurring death suspension. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?" said league disciplinarian Collin Campbell.

The ultra-severe punishment is meant to punish players whose hits to the head cause death.

"If a player dies during a game as a result of a hit to the head, the aggressor will receive a five game suspension and a $500 US fine. We're hoping this threat will send a message to the players of the league."

"Whatever, punishing players severely for hits to the head is still really stupid," said a defiant Kostopoulos.

We are not giving any credit to the Florida Department of Corrections for that photo.