Reasoning not as emphatic as you think. Premierement, one could say the whole justification of a shootout is to determine a winner. But we'd agree that the whole justification for discouraging fighting is to minimize potential dangerous or lethal situations. So even if both were justified as crowd pleasers, fighting could still be verboten on the ground of its dangerousness. For example, sports and smoking are both enjoyable but we encourage people to participate in one and not the other because one is deleterious to one's health and the other isn't.

Right - which is why we have banned boxing, X-sports competitions, and skydiving.

E Latella

Well, I argue otherwise. Boxing is nearly extinct. Compared to the glory it enjoyed in the 70s, it has become a fringe sport and all due to the fact that we're now aware of the neurological damage it causes and the potential for fatality. As for X sports, whenever I catch it on TV it's guys going up and down snowbanks on snowboards, or going down a hill on a skateboard, you might end up with some scrapes but it won't cause you Parkinsons. Those fringe sports exist as borderline activities and but indeed they're banned within mainstream sports, you don't see much fistfighting in tennis matches, it's not something that any other sport encourages.

"Boxing is nearly extinct."

So what - that is a reflection of fan preference (and distaste for sleazy promoters and/or boxers) - it isn't "banned" or "verboten" as you would have fighting in hockey due to the danger to participants.

Whenever I watch X-sports (or similar) it is guys riding single-track that includes 20 and 30 foot cliff drops. Miss one of those and a low probability of Parkinsons (for a hockey player) forty years from now will seem pretty tame in comparison. No doubt, the guys involved are doing it for the thrill and the chest-thumping - but it is being televised for the titilation of home viewers; due to the participant danger we should be clamping down on it, too. If it is truly danger to the participants that concerns us, we should be outlawing body checking - it seems that more damage has been done in the way of concusion or joint injury by (within the rules) body checks than by fights.

"...you don't see much fistfighting in tennis matches..."

No - and you see unaccountably few topspin forehands in a hockey game, let alone drop shots. You might note that they are different sports!

There are reasons to oppose fighting in hockey: it disrupts the flow of the game, it over-emphasizes attributes that are not aesthetically pleasing, or it turns off fans and potential fans (although I am not convinced about that last one). Fine; feel free to argue them, and in some cases I will be in agreement - but 'reducing danger to the participants, like we do in other sports' is not one of them.

Just to take it back a step, I absolutely do not agree that the "justification for discouraging fighting is to minimize potential dangerous or lethal situations". No serious on-ice injury that I'm aware of has ever come from an honest bout of fisticuffmanship.

"fisticuffmanship?

That is so not a real word!

I know the Habs had a guy with a broken cheekbone this year, I think it's pretty common that the fighters get badly injured although they're certainly not going to advertise it to you. I'd argue that all of those arguments against fighting you mentioned are valid, as is my own, plus there's another far more important one that has been overlooked. The Don Cherry-ization of Canadian culture has led to a creepy and dangerous notions across Canada among young males. I trace it to Don Cherry because it's tellingly absent in French Quebec where Cherry has no impact. So for example, if you walk into a bar in Montreal there's never any tough guy looking for a fight, unless, of course, you're on the English part of town. Whereas in every other Canadian city and every bar and every street where there's a group of young men presnet, you know that the notion of fisticuffs as a purifying ritual of male validation is prevalent and dangerous. I argue that this culture is fed by the Don Cherry's of the world. Whether you want to directly attribute it to him or see him as a justifier for this culture means little. Because it's a hurtful, harmful and homicidal tradition. In cities across CAnada young men constantly get into fights and getting killed or suffer concussions at the least. It frequently happens that a random streetfight ends up in a young person getting killed perhaps by hitting his head on the sidewalk. I knew a kid who got punched in the face and at age 19 died. Of course they were English kids. There's no real reason to allow boxing to infilitrate hockey any more than there is a reason to allow any diving, longjumping or any other sport to the game that is a competition of which team can score the most goals. I see no reason at all to have it, particularly now that the game has become entertaining enough on its own merits to deem this additional sideshow as superfluous.

"No serious on-ice injury that I'm aware of has ever come from an honest bout of fisticuffmanship."

I'd argue that the Steve Moore mauling stemmed from an attempt to initiate an "honest bout."

...and you'd be totally wrong. As for your earlier comment, "just", those are strong words. Strong, bewildering words.

Strong and bewildering words? Which ones? I'm not quoting Alesteir Crowley or even Jimmy Page's biography or nuttin. Nothing fancy about what I said. I'll try to put it in Malcolm Gladwellisms if that'd make you feel more comfy. When hockey players punch each other as hard as they can with their fists as an expression of their frustartion or anger, it gives viewers permission for themselves to do the same thing, in bars, parties, clubs, bus lineups, etc, which is not an acceptable thing in civil society. So our national sport shouldn't really be legitimizing something that's illegal and hugely dangerous. If you disagree with this point, please present an argument to counter it, that's usually how these things work.

Yeah! Also, didn't you hear that boxing has been universally banned and is now extinct because it encourages young men to randomly attack each other? [twirling finger, cuckoo noises]

Oh. Yeah. Right. I'm crazy because I argue that boxing has suffered a major decline as a popular, mass sport since knowledge of the damage it causes has become widely known. Oh yeah, lock me up and put a straitjacket on me. As I said, you should try to present an argument, not a poorly presented adhominen attack to rebut someone's argument. As far as I'm concerned, the Hitler rule extends to ad hominens, in other words, those who invoke personal attacks automatically lose the debate.

just,

I should have been more specific. I consider the following things you said to be very, very nutty:

• That there's a franco/anglo divide to be seen in the distribution of bar fights, and that the high number of bar fights among the anglos has something to do with Don Cherry. On whom do you blame pre-1980 bar fights, I wonder. Or were there none?
• That boxing has "infiltrated" hockey, as opposed to fighting having always been part of the game.
• That what Todd Bertuzzi did to Steve Moore was simply an invitation to fight gone horribly wrong.

I have a theory that the reason the NHL hasn't eliminated touch-up icing and forced the reintroduction of shoulder and elbow pads, as opposed to kevlar exoskeletons, is because Cherry supports them, and to agree with Cherry is to throw your hat in with the neanderthals. In my books, just, people like you, who actually believe that Don Cherry has a profoundly negative effect on Canadian society, are every bit as unpleasant to agree with as Don Cherry is to you and your kind. I wasn't arguing pro-fighting or anti-, but thanks to you I think I'm off the fence again. Clear the goddamn benches.

"I trace it to Don Cherry because it's tellingly absent in French Quebec where Cherry has no impact."

Hmmm... how then, do we "explain" Marc Lepine? Or indeed, the Hells Angels and the Rock Machine in Quebec. Maybe watching the wrong TV shows?

"I have a theory that the reason the NHL hasn't... is because Cherry supports them..."

And bearing Hanlon's Razor in mind, also because Gary Bettman is a complete moron. Interesting comment, though, and I think there is some truth to it. If only Don would plump for bigger, harder, weapon-pads and shed tears of joy at a player slammed into the end boards after a 90-foot sprint to an iced-puck, we might get some common sense in the NHL rules committee? Might work...

Firstly read the small print, I mentioned a little lawylery line somewhere in an earlier post that gets me off the hook about whether Don Cherry is the great cause of evil or whether he's simply an unfortunate proponent of a pre-existsting tendency. I said that it matters little whether Cherry is instigating or perpetuating the unholy thirst for blood in Anglo Canadian society, he's an agent of it nonetheless. Somewhere deep in my stash of papers is a newspaper article from about 12 years ago, it's a survey which asks French Canadians their reaction to certain words. The French Quebecers' preferences were unlike those of english-speaking residents in other places. Words like competition and battle were way way down on their list of chosen concepts. Words like harmony and cooperation scored unusually high. Those are words traditionally embraced by females elsewhere, but in Quebec they were widely lauded by males and females alike. This shows that Quebecers have a feminine bent to their culture, or if you prefer, it's a non-aggression oriented society, which is one of the reasons that any goon hockey player from Quebec (Worrel, Brashear, Laraque, Enrico Ciccone) is not pure laine francophone, while those pure laines who do make it, Pierre Bouchard, Gilles Lupien, etc, were always very halfhearted about their role and didn't do it long. Once again to invoke another Gladwellism, you've got to consider not a couple of isolated examples. Yes biker gangs are pure laine, but Italians and Irish and blacks have always held a far greater proportion of organized crime than the pure laines, indepedence rebels have been amazingly tame compared to movements in other countries and I can think of only a few prizefighters that are pure laine francos. In spite of the exceptions, in the larger picture aggression and fisticuffs are amazingly absent from the vocabularly of hostility here. I'm not a huge admirer of all of French Canadian culture, but their avoidance of assault as a tool for self-exprssion is something we can all learn from. And yeah I certainly stand by the three items you object to. 1-Yes I think drunken guys in bars in Sudbury and Coquitlam have a few Don Cherry-fed notions that it's ok to beat people up. What propelled thugs in an earlier age is could be the subject of a larger inquiry, but here and now Cherry has to be a part of it and I feel that you've bought into this nonsense yourself. 2-Yes boxing has infiltrated hockey, I don't know when, but yes it happened. Somewhere along the line this strange perversion of punching opponents has become commonplace, which is really quite unnatural given the spectrum of what's considered acceptable in all other sports and fields of endeavour. 3-What Todd Bertuzzi did to Steve Moore was an outgrowth of the tradition of general fisticuffs. I believe that Moore's check on Naslund was entirely clean and the promised assault on Moore was highly inappropriate and that Bertuzzi's maiming of the guy was inspired by the acceptance of assault in modern hockey.

And I thank you for your clarifications, even though I still disagree, I was disappointed by the peurile knee-jerk dismissive and derisive reactions which belie this blog's purported committment to logical debate.

"I was disappointed by the peurile knee-jerk dismissive and derisive reactions..."

Get ready for another one: you are full of crap - although not "knee-jerk," you may condsider it dismissive and derisive if you wish.

"Yes biker gangs are pure laine, but Italians and Irish and blacks have always held a far greater proportion of organized crime than the pure laines..."

Sorry - but you can't just wave your hands and make a counterexample go away. We were not talking of "organized crime" but violence - and I don't beleive that anyone has been more violent than the (pur laine) Angels and Rock Machine. Are the Irish, Italians, and Blacks somehow unduly affected by Don Cherry, and the bikers not? If so, when did it start? If they have "always" been more involved in (violent?) crime, did that pre-date DC's spot on HNIC? It seems to me that you are cherry picking (if you will excuse the expression) data points that fit a pre-conceived notion (and rejecting those that don't), not examining data and finding a hypothesis that explains it.

"Yes I think drunken guys in bars in Sudbury and Coquitlam have a few Don Cherry-fed notions that it's ok to beat people up."

I've never been in Sudbury, although I happen to have some friends from there (and they don't strike me an unusually violent). I have been in Coquitlam - and aside from the Angels (the Vancouver Chapter clubhouse is in Coquitlam) I don't recall any epidemic of bar violence. In any event - your "thought" that this is true is hardly conclusive.

As you note, boxing has declined significantly in public interest and in stature as a spectator sport. If there is a cause-effect relationship between sporting violence and general violence in society, then we would expect to see a decline in general levels of social violence.
I await your link to such observations.

"Somewhere along the line this strange perversion of punching opponents has become commonplace, which is really quite unnatural given the spectrum of what's considered acceptable in all other sports and fields of endeavour."

Have you ever heard of Eddie Shack? Ted Lindsay? Gordie Howe? Are you familiar with an incident involving Ted Green and Wayne Maki? By-the-way, all of these players (or events) pre-date Don Cherry's national appearances on "Coaches' Corner." Physical intimidation has been a part of hockey (and every other contact sport) since I don't know when - and in the case of hockey that includes fighting. It has nothing to do with Don Cherry, and it has nothing to do with Quebbec versus non-Quebec Canada.

"I said that it matters little whether Cherry is instigating or perpetuating the unholy thirst for blood in Anglo Canadian society, he's an agent of it nonetheless." (my emphasis)

Sir George Williams Computer Centre
"Richard Riots"
Pierre Laporte
James Cross
Summit of the Americas / Quebec City

You were speaking of some unique propensity to violence in Canadian culture outside of Quebec?

I don't see much substance in your post, so I find it hard to know what to rebut. I stand by my data, which includes some attempt at empirical as well as anecdotal data.

I don't mean to be obnoxious but I believe that my exposure to this issue is deeper than yours. I've lived in Quebec all my life, but I'm an anglo. I have worked in French for many years in an all French environment dealing with French families. I cna assure you that the anglophones of Canada are far more inclined to physical conflict and aggression than they are. I say that with some assuredness and weight of experience.

If you've ever been to Montreal you'll note that there's a police cruiser every evening at Crescent and St. Catherine because they know from experience that english people get drunk and fight. It's part of the culture here and yes in England etc. You don't see that in comparable French areas, St. Denis street, etc.

Now yes, you can provide examples because my statement is a generalization based in fact. Perhaps there are times when french people will punch each other. But how often? I'd hazard to guess that for every 4 barroom braws in an english establishment, there are perhpas one in a french establishment. That's why I can wave off your examples.

However your examples aren't particularly persuasive anyway.

Sir George Williams Computer Centre- done by English students.

"Richard Riots" Crimes against property. (as were the 86 and 93 Stanley Cup riots, which I both witnessed, altho I guess you Torontonians wouldn't know about what happens when your team wins the Stnaley Cup).

Pierre Laporte -killed accidentally.

James Cross - well treated in his confinement.

Summit of the Americas / Quebec City - the protesters were largely not franco Quebecers

I'm specifically talking about the culture of asasult, specifically the glorification of fistfighting, I'm not talking about crimes against property. I don't hold Don Cherry responsible for political protests or vandalism, but I do hold him responsible for glorifying fistfighting, which I maintain is a terrible thing to do.

Take some time and read "La traihaison des clercs" by Julian Benda, done in about 1890, one of the main thrusts of this text is that the literate classes had long internalized a noble mission to improve civilization, one which was suddenly abandoned by the yellow press of the era. He considers this a sort of treason. Don Cherry is part of this treason insofar as he uses his podium and his consdierable credibility to excite the lower instincts, in the form of validating the practice of glorify people punching each other as hard as they can with their fists. This is not a legitimate thing for him to do.

So far all I've seen in his defense is a vague notion that fighting is entertaining and the idea that they've been doing it for a long time, therefore it's okay. But I think in the larger picture it's a horrific aberration that feeds violence in society and violence is a terrible thing, it leads to bullying in the schoolyard, and men smacking their wives. That's the true face of fisticuffs.

There are better ways of settling things than smashing someone with your fists, and we need to start teaching people that now.

" I stand by my data, which includes some attempt at empirical as well as anecdotal data."

But you don't "stand by your data" - to the extent that you present any (and by the way - repeated anecdotal data does not qualify as 'empirical'):

> "Pure laine" biker gangs - possibly the most violent groups in the country, at least among native-born Canadians - are waved away because other ethnic groups (notably, not anglos) have had a long-standing history of criminal involvement.
> The murder of a public official as part of a terrorist plot to destabilize an elected government is not indicative because "it was an accident"
> Based on no evidence whatsoever, you pronounce that there is a 4:1 ratio of fights in English bars versus french bars. After your well-documented comments about pub violence in Coquitlam, I am not sure if you are talking about "English" bars in Quebec, or English bars in Canada outside Quebec - but if the latter, I think you have a distorted notion of the level of casual violence in Canada - particularly outside some identifiable, usually ethnic, gang problems.

"It's part of the culture here and yes in England etc...." Which would explain the recent events in Paris; no doubt those were English kids brought in to torch cars - the second-generation French (or if you insist, Algerian-French) kids were too busy discussing issues of poverty and exclusion without resort to violence. Equally, it explains the French tradition of farmers and union-members blocking roads, rioting, and throwing molotov cocktails to buttress demands for (usually) more money for less work.

"But I think in the larger picture it's a horrific aberration that feeds violence in society and violence is a terrible thing, it leads to bullying in the schoolyard, and men smacking their wives."
I disagree, but in any event, how does this relate to your original assertion that we should ban fighting in hockey because of "danger to the participants?"

"...altho I guess you Torontonians wouldn't know about what happens when your team wins the Stnaley Cup." No - they wouldn't. But I'm not one.

Seeing as you've lived in Quebec your whole life, just, I'm a bit surprised to see you equate greasy, chach-infested Crescent Street with civilized, upscale St-Denis Street. Crescent is not the anglophone St-Denis — it's the eight circle of hell, and not because it's full of anglos but because it's full of hyperactive morons who spend all their money on expensive shoes, hair gel, and neon purple accessories for their Hondas while living in their parents' basements in St-Leonard. Back to the topic at hand, I'd say "Pierre Laporte — killed accidentally" is a brilliant summation of the echoing vacuity of your arguments.

As I said, yes it's true I believe Quebec culture to be less prone to violence but I've tried to narrow down the scope of this debate. I'm not discussing crimes against property or political protests or gang wars. I'm talking about the anglo proclivity towards the culture of assault via fisticuffs and the media characters who irresponsibily excite the lower instincts and betray their duties by advocating and glorifying this sadistic phenomenon.

And the data that I produced was a study on the reaction to words. That's significant and I'm sure you weren't aware of it. If I can find the clipping I'll give the data of the article and so forth.

And in case you were confused about who I'm talking about, I'm referring to traditional pure laine francophone Quebec culture, therefore Arabs protesting politics in France have nothing to do with this debate. And as I've mentioned earlier I'm not discussing political protests, but you'll note that the separatist movement in Quebec is far less violent than other comparable movements, say the Basques or Tamils, etc.

And yeah the 4:1 ratio of fisticuffs was an estimate and I presented it as such to illustrate that a few isolated examples do not vitiate my thesis.

But back on the topic of fisticuffs in hockey. I don't know if you're familiar with the French sports media but you should be if you want to take such an entrenched position in this debate. If you knew French Quebec media, you'd note that there are no proponents or defenders of this element the French media. They are neither promoting or protecting fighting. Watch a show like 110% where these big name hockey experts (Jean Perron, Michel Bergeron) blab heatedly for a half hour non stop, never once will you hear any of them waxing poetic about hockey punchups as you see elsewhere. They'll say lots of crazy stuff, like the anti-French hockey player conspiracy. But they don't rhapsodize about the best fights, they don't even seem to discuss it as an important element in the game at all. So the idea that Cherry is defending some sacred historically cherished element of our national pasttime and must do so is all just ridiculous, you guys are hypnotized by boosterism.

Step back and think about what the hell is going on here. Punching people is an illegal act, it will get you thrown in jail. Even a boxing match is more civilized than a hockey brawl insofar as both boxing combatants are willing and prepared participants, often in hockey one guy will start punching another helpless dude and he'll only start fighting back because in self defence. A big guy could start punching a small guy, which is another thing that's not accepted in organized boxing. It's a cruel and highly uncivilized thing and it says something about your characters that you'd support something as potentially damaging and sadistic as this. It's just silly and has nothing to do with the game.

I cite every reason that this is just crazy: it's dangerous, it's a bad example, it's illegal, it leads to injury, it's unnecessary, it's unentertaining, all of the above. Why you guys would side with Cherry promoting this is totally beyond me.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about Crescent Street. Are you implying that there's a socioeconomic disparity between Crescent and St. Denis? Entirely untrue. The price of beer is the same at both places, there's no dress code at either, both are jammed with young people, students, etc, yet one is largely English and one is largely French. The English/allophone one is violent, the French one is peaceful. For somebody attacking my 'vacuous' argument you sure seem to validate it.

"So the idea that Cherry is defending some sacred historically cherished element of our national pasttime and must do so is all just ridiculous..."

Other than you, who has said that?

"I'm referring to traditional pure laine francophone Quebec culture, therefore Arabs protesting politics in France have nothing to do with this debate."

Except when you want to argue that "[i]t's part of the culture here and yes in England etc" when happenings in a foreign country are relevant in explaining "the unholy thirst for blood in Anglo Canadian society."

I think fistfighting is far more prominent in anglo culture on both sides of the pond, which is why you have soccer hooligans from England but not in France (disclaimer: if it does exist, it's at such a minor level to be insignificant). I think you'd have to be blind to not realize that anglo culture is generally feistier and more aggressive than French culture. Brits wanna drink beer and get into boisterous excitement, whereas french want to sip wine and get mellow. Anglo culture is generally a successful culture and it's possible that this feisty aggression is inseparable from the winning formula. So perhaps that fighting thing is borne of some larger recipe that's largely successful. But I still think it needs to be tweaked. I figure fistfighing is pretty much doomed anyway, nowadays it's just poor-skating condottieri with their phony meaningless faux fights but one day one useless player will asault a star player and injure him with his fists and that's the day when the insanity of the current anarchy will truly come to light.

Here's some very new stastical data that proves my claim that Quebeckers are far less prone to physical violence than the rest of Canada.

http://snipurl.com/k9rw