3/12/2004 10:39:03 AM, writes: I appreciate your police chief analogy. It reminds me of the Stanley Park mob-in-uniform which was verbally defended by their brass as being frustrated that they can't seem to outplay small time drug dealers. So blame the courts, blame society, blame the moon cycle, but don't blame my goons because they are only acting on emotion. So it's ok to beat the shit our of someone if your really mad as long as you are on the right side whether that means having a night stick and few witnesses or a rink full of hometown fans pissed off because your down 8-2. Forget about the black eye Bertuzzi gave the NHL with that sucker punch. The league has been hiding behind rose coloured lenses for years. I think the message that zipped across international time zones was far worse for Canada. Most Canadians are proud of the fact we didn't goose step into Iraq with our southern neighbours, but now it seems that even U.S. hawks are getting a bit squeamish about the barbarian tribal rituals blowing down their way with the cold north winds. One of the saddest aspects of this spectacle is hearing Canucks boss Brian Burke arguing that it was the news media's fault for hyping the controversy. When you unleash the lion and send it out onto the floor with the gladiators it ain't Lady Bing you're trying to impress pal.

3/12/2004 12:18:27 PM, writes: I completely agree. This article has expressed almost all my frustrations with the coverage of the Bertuzzi incident. For the past four days all I've heard is what a horrible, mean-spirited, violent brute Bertuzzi is, and he's getting what he deserves. He made a horrible mistake, and while I definitely believe that he needs punishment, I don't agree with the politics. I've been hard pressed to find coverage on the NHL's responsibility in all this, which is frankly amazing, considering how they pretty much encourage the fighting and violence. And what about the parts the news media and fans play in this -- because they DO play a part. It's disgusting how every one of these groups has been lusting after the Canuck's vendetta against Steve Moore, and yet when something like this happens, they're the first to cry foul. And now Todd is taking the fall. Of course we can't forget how he broke a guy's neck -- according to the news folks, this incident apparently will be remembered until the end of time -- but we can't ignore the part we played in it.

3/12/2004 8:51:25 PM, writes: The ‘no fighting rule’ would destroy a good part of hockey’s raison d’ etre. Hockey fans seem to forget that, economic and entertainment values aside, most sports are little more than sanitized warfare and hockey, with it’s armour and weaponry, happens to be only one of many games where fighting (violent, aggressive behaviour) is not only applauded by all who take part, it is carried to the extreme. Check out the language: ‘kill ’em ’, ‘knock ‘em dead’, ‘attack’, ‘revenge’, ‘retaliate’, ‘down in flames’ etc, etc. The metaphors are endless, and although certainly not exclusive to hockey they reflect what the ‘games’ are all about. Flowery talk about ‘sportsmanship’ and ‘playing the game’ is the language used to convince us that the games provide something other than a sanctioned, unapologetic release of aggression. Keep the fighting in hockey. A league full of Todd Bertuzzis behaving “abominably” and releasing testosterone in the confines of an arena battlefield, where violence is accepted by fans, players, owners and NHL brass, is preferable to the same behaviour on the street or in the home among less violent segments of society.

3/13/2004 8:52:54 AM, writes: There already is a no fighting rule in hockey, as well as an interference rule, a high sticking rule , a cross checking rule and so on. These transgressions are called penalties , players are penalized because they broke the rules. I don't get it when (mostly men) argue that fighting is part of the game - it is not part of the game. You don't get points for fighting - you get penalties - that is the recognition right there in the rule book that says fighting and premeditated violence like high sticking or cross checking is an offence against the game. It is the non enforcement of rules that already exist that is the problem and that is coming from the boardroom. It is amazing to me how enthusiastic some people are for violence as long as they don't have to do the fighting, kind of reminds me of a president who went AWOL and then sends young people to fight his war. As a child I watched hockey with my dad every Saturday , we had a cousin in the NHL and our whole family would cheer him on. I haven't watched hockey in years because of the violence and as much as hockey has gained fans south of the border they have lost a lot of people in Canada . The dropping enrolment of young boys into the sport shoud be telling them something.

3/13/2004 11:42:58 PM, writes: This is the most interesting commentary I've seen yet on the punch. I'd love to read more about marketing hockey violence to the U.S.

3/14/2004 4:10:39 AM, writes: I almost passed up this intellectual discourse taking today's version of the Roman's bloody entertainment that took place in a battlefield arena and society's primitive lust for violence. It is strikingly ironic that the most touted "democratic civilized of industrialized nations" - and self-acclaimed police force of the world is the most violently motivated nation as well. I am, of course, talking about our "fire friendly" pals south of the free-trade "as long as I win" border. Bertuzzi's act of retribution (and many of the public's reaction to it) is parallel to gang mentality - you hit one of ours - and we will get you some time in the future when you least expect it. No laws, governing or reason factors in the equation. It is the attitude the U.S. takes in both trade and war on vulnerable nations - and it is a form of bullying that has no space in a progressive world. Rules in hockey will change when society matures to handle conflict on another level.

3/14/2004 11:07:27 AM, writes: I have to agree this is an excellent analysis of why agressive and sometimes violent behaviour is tacitly accepted in the NHL. As well there is the other excuse used, that less fighting will result in more dangerous stick violations and potentially worse injuries. Also there is the fear that "star" players could egged into fighting, and then thrown out for the rest of the game by some lesser player from the other side. However, I don't know how realistic these fears are. It seems to me that the league should be able to adjust to rules where fights result in ejections. I think they've attempted to deal with this issue with the "instigator" rule, but clearly it hasn't been very effective, if you look at the number of fights in the sports highlights every night. I'm not so sure that the US fans are clamoring for fighting and violence in hockey any more than Candadian fans are, or that its the selling issue that you claim. I'd like to see some real research on this claim. Many people seem to think that it's the lack of scoring and exciting play in the NHL that is the problem, that, and a regular season that is too long with too many dull and meaningless games. Baseball and the NBA also suffer from that problem. None-the-less, I'd like to see either the elimination or considerable reduction of fighting in the game. As a fan I don't find it entertaining, generally it just slows down the game. Most of the fights are awkward and stupid and don't result in much of anything happening, although sometimes they spark a team or the crowd, but not nearly so much as a timely goal. And then there is the insidious effect on minor hockey, which in the midgit and juniour ranks is often nastier than the NHL. As you say, most of the responsibility lies with the management of the teams and the league. But, as most of those men have lived and risen through the same hockey culture I don't see change coming any time soon, but at least the Bertuzzi-Moore incident has focused our attention on the issue again, however briefly.

3/14/2004 11:23:28 PM, writes: The problem for me wasn't simply that Bertuzzi fought, it was the style of play he carried out. This big hulk lurked around the goal and pushed and shoved and intimidated and did whatever he could to get the puck into the goal. To me, it was boring hockey. Not much skating, little passing, not much playmaking, just hang around the goal crease and push and shove and intimidate. It wasn't working very well for the past month. I like hockey when it's a game of skill, not brute (and I mean brute) strength. The fighting of course is related to the style of play. But it's boring fighting - much more skill is usually shown by boxers, and even by the acrobats they call wrestlers, when they actually stop talking and fly around the wrestling ring. I think some major rule changes are needed in the sport, so it can become something enjoyable to watch.

3/15/2004 1:04:01 PM, writes: Old Time Hockey Like Eddie Shore. Of course the NHL condones violence. Hockey Players have been beating the piss out of eachother since they first strapped skates on in this great country. It IS pivitol in the game of hockey. A week ago today, emotions were running high and Todd did something he really shouldn't have that embarassed us all and ended his season prematurely on a sour note. The league threw the book at him. Every two bit sportswriter in this town has been forced in to an opinion and I'm no different: He should have known better. That was a SUCKER PUNCH from behind and it's not what violence in hockey is all about. The concept isn't that difficult to understand: A hockey fight is a mutual agreement that the gloves are going to come off and the two players involved are going to do their best to send eachother to the dentist. It's beautiful, it's primal, it's hockey. When hockey gets out of hand, it's the league's responsibility to get involved and they have. Taking fighting out of hockey would be like trying to take yelling out of curling. It's not in the rulebook but it's part of the culture of the game that isn't going to change in a hurry. Charles: I liked your reference to the Police and I found it to be timely. If the Stanley park six generated as much press interest and public outcry as the Bertuzzi incident, I might be able to believe that this city wasn't full of lemmings. Neale Adams: I think that you can probably get hooked up with a Euro satelite feed to watch all of the Swiss and Suedish games if that's the style of hockey you prefer. Hell, you can probably have them throw in the pro wrestling channel if you need to get your fix of men in tights pretending to be pugulists. In the NHL, there is opportunity for players who make their living by adding toughness and fighting ability to hockey teams. But only for those with true grit, and we're CHOCK FULL of that, Man!

3/15/2004 1:06:21 PM, writes: I think the whole NHL is managed and overseen by hypocrits who have one law for favorite all-star clubs like Avalanche and another for teams like Canucks. This is so evident from the faulty officiating in games down to the determination of penalties and punishment given to erring players. Frankly, I believe that if we judge punishment given to players based on extent of injury as they are claiming in Bertuzzi's case, then surely Steve Moore deserved to be punished for that vicious hit on Naslund. I am sorry that Steve Moore got injured but he got what he dished out. If the NHL wants to end the violence, then they should stop being hypocrits and ban all violent actions on the ice. A hit is vicious not matter if from the front, the back or the side. Hockey was envisioned and created many years ago as a game of talent on the ice. Let keep it that way.

3/15/2004 1:26:57 PM, writes: I wonder if an appropriate penalty for injuring another player might be to be banned from playing and from paycheques until the injured player plays again. The kicker being that if the injured player decides never to play again, too bad, so sad.

3/15/2004 2:19:37 PM, writes: I don't agree Charles, simply because you failed to look at the other side objectively. Perhaps if face to face fighting were more, yes more, accepted within the NHL this would have never happened. It used to be that the players had a way of self-regulating each other away from what has unquestionably been a rise in inappropriate stickwork, cheap shots and unsportsmanlike behaviour in the NHL. It used to be that if a cheap shot was issued or a star player hit too hard, the 'enforcers' of the league would literally fight for the justice and the issue would be immediately resolved in what was an accepted culture of the game. But as the NHL ruled out fighting more and more, specifically with the instigator rule, the 'enforcers' were rendered more useless and the result has been many players who don't get out their frustrations when the witness a cheap shot, or an unnecessarily hard hit on a star player. They instead let the feeling fester and fester and eventually the festering manifests itself as an ill thought out act like the issue that spawned all this attention in the first place. My hope is not that people will blindly agree or disagree with what I have to say, but will at least consider it when they judge the role of fighting in hockey.

3/15/2004 3:17:31 PM, writes: Do the authors of stories engage in the commenataries that follow them? Here goes: I don't think fighting should be banned. I watch fights and find them a guilty pleasure like many male hockey fans. It's the escalation of violence that bothers me, because that's when people tend to get hurt. Let hockey goons fight, but then send them to the dressing room so they can't come back on the ice and try and top themselves, as happened in the Vancouver-Colorado game, and as happened recently in Philadelphia. Moore and Cooke fought before Bertuzzi sucker-punched Moore. That fight should have been the end of the affair, and probably would have been if they'd been thrown out.

3/15/2004 3:34:03 PM, writes: Many good comments by all.. I agree that fighting and brute violence is NOT part of the 'real' game of hockey. Maybe it's time to cull out the deliberate violence and fighting, let the chips fall where they may. Sure some bloodthirsty fans will stop watching and going to games (especially in the US), but many more, like me, who love "real" hockey, will start watching and going to games again. I won't pay the high price for tickets just to see non-hockey (violent) garbage, when I can see that on TV any time I want.. (which I don't). So what if some teams fall by the way. When the teams that can't attract enough fans that like to watch real hockey, fall by the way, then there will be a greater pool from which to draw talented players.. and consequently bring down the ridiculous salaries required to attract them, and then (also consequently) bring down the price of tickets and (also consequently) attract more fans of hockey, as opposed to fans of violence.

3/15/2004 3:44:31 PM, writes: Many refreshing points of view here. I have to agree with the points that Faith raised - the rules are already in place, they simply have to be applied! Not only applied but applied consistently to all teams and all players. Naturally, no referee (or 2 referees) are going to spot every infraction but surely they aren't only going to miss infractions by one team or one player!!!! As far as the infamous game of last week (and what about the brawls in the Ottawa/Philly games????), I believe a large amount of responsibility lies with the refs for losing all control of the game and both coaches for not ensuring the main 'combatants' stayed off the ice at the same time once the score became totally one sided. I certainly believe the media bears some responsiblity for both the end result and the ultimate suspension/fines. The media feeding frenzy started with Moore's initial hit on Naslund (which definitely deserved a penalty which, when not given should have warranted a one game suspension by the League)and continued up to and now following the March 8th game. Bottom line - some of that 1/4 million $ fine to the Canucks should have been given to the Avalanche and the officials and Todd's suspension should have been based on his action not the result. Hopefully, Steve Moore will recover fully and being ever an optimist, the NHL will get the message that hypocrisy to this appalling degree will no longer be tolerated. 8-)

3/15/2004 3:52:08 PM, writes: As a woman who was a victim of male violence (in the home and on the street), and as a social work student looking at preventing such, I am trying to understand where violence comes from and if there is a NEED for expressing it. Does watching violence in hockey satisfy some inherent male trait? Should we as a society not be trying to raise our men to NOT want to use violence? How can we, as one comment suggests, pretend to be against war and domestic violence if we condone and feed the expression of violence in hockey? (Not to mention movies and video games.)Tit for tat is exactly what the US seems to believe in (although overkill is more the response). I guess I am asking, really, what is it to be a MAN?

3/15/2004 3:57:17 PM, writes: Charles Campbell, I agree: violence in hockey should be tolerated if not encouraged, but for none of the reason given. What you and the many male hockey fans you speak of need to ask yourselves is why your voyeurism is pleasurable.

3/16/2004 10:34:24 AM, writes: You've taken a large bite in tying to prevent violence, Betty, and I hope for all of our sakes that you're able to chew it all. Having participated in my share of violence I can assure you that, in one form or another, it's here to stay. It's primal. Something buried deep in our DNA is facinated by hand to hand compbat. Because of its inherent appeal, many an oppertunist has had great success capitolizing on various forms of violence. Face it: This is America. If you can make a buck off of it, you're a hero. If that buck gets made in a dramatic and spectacluar fashion, you're a goddamned rockstar. In short: it's cultural. It's been made cultural, but it's cultural none the less. To remove it from our culture would take making non-violence profitable. I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that one. However, I haven't known anyone to pay hard earned money to watch two guys not fight.

3/16/2004 10:42:00 PM, writes: KWD, two concerns about your stance. In your first post you argue that hockey and other sports are a vent for violence that might otherwise be out on the streets or, worse, in the home. I agree that sport creates a venue where tensions can be expelled, but I see a link between violence of all forms on TV and other ``entertainment'' media, regardless if its a sucker punch from a sore loser or two hours of blood and goar as someone's `saviour' gets crucified. Both can generate difficult emotions, especially among those who might be called followers or fans. In your second post you suggest the problem is an issue for males to whip themselves with guilt over. I realize males are culturalized earlier to the ritual of the olde hockey (or add your favorite) game on TV, but I would strongly suggest that not all who scream for blood are tenors. Again, I agree it beats war, but it hasn't done much in the past century to eliminate it. Instead it seems to act more as the fiery torch that keeps the impressionable, who only cheer for the good guys, ready for the call to arms.

3/16/2004 11:29:31 PM, writes: KWD, Perhaps you might take your sexist inquiry posing as highbrow, and try it equally on the voyeuristic females who consume "games" (as in screaming away)..just one of which happens to be for gladiators chasing rubber. Consumers are consumers and they are consumed by ideas they assign value to, whether those of dominance of the observed, or projected violence. Quit trying to assign the false comfort of "numbers" or misguided "gender" weight to an argument about voyeurism. The real question ever becomes (about "sport" et al): Why is the observer who is consuming violent representations doing so? (one reason which ALWAYS involves the position of STATUS of the observer, in the "empowered" position) - the "observer", however MUST DENY (every moment by moment) other equally present impulses to instead partake in the consumption of violence - it is not "natural" to consume violence - it is at once surrender of the frightened observer (any observer - whatever they may "say" (even those who see themselves as having "no fear") - who deny their own impulsive actions (meaning toward proactive actions - not violence), and the false power "over" the "observed". It is a self-deceiving sleight of hand to consume violence. The powerful are NEVER violent - all counter arguments on the premise violence being a "normalcy", so witness the power of their own RATIONALES in action - not the "facts" (as they may term them) - and supporting "evidence" - to support their conviction – is then organised along those lines, accordingly. If an individual sought different (non-violent) "evidence" - or "validating" experience of such a counter perspective - they would find it. If the criterion of value is "saleability", we'll, enjoy playing consumer - the consumer, in those terms is ever being "had" by whatever purveying agency. If we but glue ourselves to representational products - mediated products - we'll ever end up feeling un-empowered - and "blissfully" resigned voyeurs (yelling for "teams", or whatever poses for "the heroic projection") - ad nauseum. In the doing, we are less, in those terms. The free choice is ever there.

3/17/2004 11:00:29 AM, writes: Ee-gads, man! It sure as hell wasn’t pretty, but Chris has finally put a nail through the heart of this confusion. Experience precludes me from believing that human observation of and participation in violence is anything other than natural – primal in fact. Our bloodlust’s dominance over more productive natural emotions and tendencies, however, is most definitely a concern. It shouldn’t be a mystery, though. It’s often difficult to step outside one’s self and observe the beastly habits and sometimes disturbing behaviour that defines an individual. The same is true for a culture. It’s about time that we clenched the proverbial bullet between our collective molars – hard, so that we can really feel it – and got objective about ourselves. Daily, we indulge in a bouquet of dangerous drug cocktails that (by design) cause us to be irritable, nervous, over-confident and ultimately violent. Most of these cocktails are consumed with disturbing regularity: chemical clockwork that leaves a lasting impression on our psyches and demeanours. In the context of our consistently drug addled volatility, the barrage of violent content in the media that we consume gains new meaning. Is it being served up as a compliment to our medicated impulsive edginess? Or is it existing in a symbiosis with our drug induced aggression and irritability, all in the name of saleability?

3/18/2004 7:56:02 AM, writes: Violence and bravura are certainly not limited to males, as you acknowledge. Presenting an argument by assuming a reduced view “in keeping with a thread” on any competitively framed engagement doesn't serve (in my view) to get to the heart of issues; I'd suggest it rather introduces artificial plateaus and false scopes of an idea, or complexes of ideas. Events, as ideas themselves are intertwined, in my view. Events ARE representations of ideas - ideas in action, "observed", I'd suggest. It certainly is anybody’s right to subscribe to a set of beliefs for themselves, there are, however, outcomes for "rationales of comfort"..."better smashing others up in buildings / stadiums et al".. is perilous, and continues to propagate the representations. I should also say, if you're the same individual as in other threads with your "name" - you've posed deprecating comments about violence purveyors / warmongers and "peace protesters" and being "flips sides of the same coin", a flip attitude that places committed and caring persons as conceptual bedfellows of the violent, and those who advocate peace and cooperative community "don’t get it" and that expressions (protests) as calls for peace and cooperation are a misapplied expression of energy. Every wilful assault (in whatever framework) on another is an indirect assault on one's self - or ones family (to borrow your phrase) or one's Country, because we are all lesser when that happens - when we rationalise it, in “buildings”, sports fields - or killing fields - battlefields - we are complicit. I'm of the view that the work of effective change begins when we question the term "fact" - and instead propose "agreed upon idea(s)" - because choice (as compare to a “fact of life” belief), as an idea, enters, as can inspiration to new, and perhaps effective avenues of new choices.

3/18/2004 7:55:28 PM, writes: Pretty much right on, although the use of the judgmental label “deprecating” is a perfect example of “an indirect assault on one's self”, and IS the crux of the violence issue. Pain leads to fear leads to anger leads to resentment leads to a need to retaliate leads to fight or flight (a natural survival response, and as a species we wouldn’t be here without it) All of which precedes (at a nonconscious level) any act of ‘free will’ or choice. However, when the pain is a result of judgment (not reality) exactly the same process occurs except the person in pain, now responding to the judgment, doesn’t know why they are in pain or its source (an unnatural survival response, and the one that gets us into great difficulty at the interpersonal level right through to international politics). It’s a thought process completely, and my bet, in some circles, conveniently overlooked. So, criticism of George Bush by the “committed and caring”, in my humble opinion, is the flip side: the unnatural response side. The examination of the flip side is an avenue of new choice, not a “flip” attitude (another label generating pain for the user). Without that understanding there can be no ”effective change” and subsequent proposition of “agreed upon ideas”.

3/19/2004 1:08:19 AM, writes: I really take it I wont be seeing you at the peace rally (well, maybe not here in Vancouver - but then again, you could be in Timbuktu right now). You also might have [truly] better - for you - plans that would be "proactive" as gathering. Pain does necessarily lead to fear leading to anger then resentment - in my mind, but it may be so in yours. There are legions of persons who've met challenging fear (and pain) by summoning courage, nor did a stone enter their hand, nor were they fleet of foot. Communication plays a pretty vital role. You may happen to assume that we're the offspring of fast runners or triumphant pugilists (and give thanks to those principal probabilities for our survival). Sounds a bit Darwinian to me. I happen to believe that all people fundamentally know why they feel, and feelings followed, lead to action. In your posts on the topic of violence, you've quoted the founder of the Gestapo (Goering) as someone to infer "wisdom", or "lessons" from. I certainly don’t think so. Belief is also far more than a "thought process" alone. "Leaders" of the Goering mold "appear” to assume that “a population” can be duped into violence. Again, I don't agree. We are not but levitating brains "watching it all", nor are people amorphous, vacuous vessels. There are outcomes in the holding of convictions - actions. "No opinion" can also be a fear of having convictions at all, and its own fear of emotional involvement, for some, a shrinking from impulses, than moving toward. I think you're more sounding like you'd like me to assume I'm "generating pain" (for myself? not. For you? That'd be up to you what you feel) via "labels" of what's flip or not. Your comments seem (to me) by the tone of your argument [attempt to] deconstruct actions of gatherers in the name of peace, seeming as if you happen to know why they gather, or posing extrapolations of what you appear to assume they believe. In the same breath you claim to "selfishly" prefer pugilists to occupy venues "elsewhere" than where you are, for safety's sake. I wonder where you happen to believe ideas begin and end? Where does a clash [if there is one]..of ideas reside? Seeing George Bush (or pick any "substitute") as “totally” powerful, would certainly be incorrect - criticism - of "his"/or whomever’s represented belief systems - belief systems (in my view) that are in degree in all of us (else why do we see, or converse of it at all) is certainly not "unnatural" nor a "flip side" of a coin - criticism - at one stage, summons an "observer" of those beliefs to seek change in themselves (first), and, in the following of their spontaneous natures, to effect externalised actions

3/19/2004 1:29:13 AM, writes: .my intended [prefacing] comment was: "Pain does -not- necessarily lead to fear leading to anger, then resentment.."

3/19/2004 10:25:35 AM, writes: Braden, you pose an interesting question about the relationship of substances and voyeuristic behaviours. Sometimes it seems as if chemical "bridges" are perhaps applied to "smooth" the [I speculate] discord of belief(s) in the "viewership". That's not to suggest that all substances are applied in such manners (ceremonial, and traditional cultural uses, native herbs and compounds etc - which seem applied and accepted for different individual and communal reasons), but purveyors of sport seem "offer" consumption in "un-ending" circles - addiction to the "gaze", and maintaining a trance of that. What's interesting, seems to me (speculatively) a transference of [what I believe to be] natural impulses to direct personal action, creation and exploration (coupled to "unending" car adds shown in the landscape, the illusion of "open roads" and new "frontiers", then hardware store ads - production - and money ads - power). And the commentary sport priests/generals (a.k.a former "coaches") to parse the confrontational landscape. Meanwhile, one "objective" [of "sport" media purveyors] appears to perhaps create a "narrative situation" and park the viewer and have them consume - to remain in the "state" as an unending passive consumption - watch, remain "drugged", and move only to work and shop – and not question the “representational landscape” (the “game”) that a [probable] viewer consumes. I guess it’d be “perceived” as undesirable (by a purveyor) that a consumer start reflecting on their own ideas, as well as the landscape. But that’s what people are beginning to do (I believe). The game – perhaps the framework - is beginning to lose money. Though “new games” could ever be “proposed”, and informed citizenry may begin to be released from that framework. It must a dilemma for writers (with a social conscience) to “observe”, and participate within that framework. Perhaps that’s not their only stories to tell. I happen to believe that they're a pretty smart lot.

3/19/2004 12:07:38 PM, writes: KWD. Thanks for the reply. One thing I am noticing, especially with the responses to this article is a sense that a good many people, while they will acknowledge that violence in itself is not a good thing, also try to justify it in the game. The arguments range from the primal bloodlust we all inherit, just like the tail bone, nearly useless toes that are no longer capable of grasping tree branches and other apendages of now dubious value, to the somewhat misapplied Darwinian theory that the meanest son of a bitch on the team is actually the leading edge in human development because, after all, sport is war. Why not just ship the raging bull off to a stud farm to more quickly advance the human condition? Yes, we are still the product in many ways of our first ancestors, but most of us have also picked up a bit of cultural and societal behaviour through the generations. In fact I would guess most of us buy into the societal cues before we revert to our still lingering primal reserves. Unfortunately, sport, as we are disgussing here isn't a cultural event, like a friendly game of pond hockey or the non-violent Olympic games we all pine for, but rather a business enterprise that gets packaged in nationalism, regionalism or what ever other red-flag boosterism is required to filled the cheap seats. That the NHL and other `professional' sports groups gravitate to the lowest common denominator of our cultural soup isn't surprising when the real goal is turning a profit. As you rightly mentioned in one of your posts, the language of the game parallels the war reports out of Iraq. Fear, anxiety and loathing are emotions that naturally arise in a state of war whether it's over freedom, oil or league standings, the latter a battle that renews itself on schedule each September. I agree that sport, at least in theory, is a vent to reduce violence on the street and in the family and is a positive in that sense, but professional sport has gone far beyond being an alternative to war. It has become am important cutlural component in helping to perpetuate hatred and righteouness by the home-towner on those evil visitors. And in an age where most rational people have to question just where this world is heading on a lot of very scary fronts, it's not a real stretch to see why some fans don't see violence as anything but normal, especially if your team is down 8-2. Unless extraordinary tactics are employed you and the other losers are going home with nothing to dampen the disappointment. Who to blame? The list is endless. At the very least our media too has a hand in this by cranking out the war analogies. Try to find the word PEACE in a sports headline. I suggest the closest you might get would be Victory or some other term that hints at the gore and violence that led to the final outcome. We yearn for good clean sports as much as we yearn for good clean transportation, but so many of us are now driving oversized SUVs that look and cost more like war wagons than passive people movers. Stats show they aren't any safer, but are much more lethal if you happen to collide with one. The ads that sell these monsters assure us the latest powerhouse on wheels is a true trailblazer capable of reaching the mountain top even though most who drive them would never venture beyond paved city streets. Not to drag this on further, but perhaps what has happened is that we are no longer real citizens, but rather consumers (or pawns)in a much larger game.

3/19/2004 4:38:54 PM, writes: It’s late in the afternoon and I can barely type through these caffine shakes, but something has to be clarified. As much as it seems like we should have evolved out of our violent ways like we have our tailbone, appendix and useless toes, it goes a little deeper than that. Our most vicious tendencies are based around and triggered by hormonal impulses. I don’t claim to understand hormones any more than your average school teacher or prison warden, but my experience tells me that they can really be a bitch. Control and predictability are foreign concepts to those powerful chemicals that drive the actions that our conscious minds can only fight to control. Gad Zooks! There it is again, violence in language. Allan is right, it’s everywhere – especially in sportswriting. But now we’ re into the chicken and egg concept and I never did like that story because it lacks closure. Did the violent nature of sport stem from our inherently violent instincts, or is it the violence in our games (and the literature that surrounds them) that prolongs and continues to activate our now obsolete hormonal activity? There is no questioning the fact that it sells and I feel like I can make a pretty good case for its symbiosis with many of our favourite drugs; beginning at the top of the list with Alcohol. Booze, by astonishing coincidence is also a sure bet when it comes to sales. “Voyeurism” seems a little sensationalized, no? Didn’t we all crowd around in high school when there was a fight? People enjoy traditional hockey fights – gloves off, face to face. It’s the people who took pleasure from watching Bert’s sucker punch who have problems. To this date, I’m not aware of anyone who did.

3/19/2004 7:00:42 PM, writes: Well..it was kind of you to take the time to respond, Braden. I see you're happy enough with the view, sensationalized or otherwise, from other posts, elsewhere on the site (if narrated by the better 'caster's). Cheers and best. I find this all very instructive, personally: it appears we must first engage, in mutually agreeable terms, to effect a relationship with others, before anything surprising (to oneself) starts to happen, in the company of others.

3/20/2004 12:33:50 PM, writes: Chris: You can be a tough guy to follow and (as I think you're trying to "point out"), that is part of the problem? This discussion has exploded into one about our inherent culture of consumption. The narrative tone that exists in some of the finest literature today, including sportswriting, does indeed grab readers' attentions and compel them to continue to consume the literature. Your suggestion that a narrative writing style is part and parcel to the ongoing mindless consumption that takes place is an interesting one and I must admit that I've never thought of it that way. The Story. The best reporters have always had an unwavering commitment to COVERING THE STORY at all costs. If one were to simply stitch the facts on the page in point form with no semblance of order, it would be bore us to tears. Who the hell wants to read that, and what use is it if no one reads it? People are compelled by stories, and I have to believe that that tendency is entirely natural. More human compulsion. It seems like it's everywhere we turn. Most likely, storytelling has been around since humans have been able to control fire. In modern times, the campfire has become the water cooler. Personally, I loath that guy who can't come to a bloody point as his story meanders in circles. Everyone looks as the water in the bottle bubbles. Truly, Chris, it's like The Force. Quality narration can be used to distract people's attention from more important realities (see any harlequin novel). But it can also be used to grab their attention and focus it on pertinent issues, occurrences and situations giving them depth and clarity. If people are to become the masters of their thoughts and actions, it won't be because someone handed them a dry account of the ways by witch they've become lemmings; a cultural balance sheet. It's works like Orwell's 1984 - a compelling narrative - that open people's minds and cause them to be aware in the most productive of ways.

3/21/2004 10:26:08 AM, writes: I don’t mean to appear difficult to follow, or to be cryptic in some way. I too, subscribe to the idea that people are compelled stories – a “natural trait” as you phrase it – with the caveat being that - so long as the “listener” (whatever the medium – certainly not but via “ but the word” [dance, song..un-ending frameworks..] ), or “receiver…or participant” is experiencing “new territory” of thinking – in their “value set” – in THEIR terms of reference. I’d be the very last person to ever suggest that offering “literary dry bead” would be a fundamental desire of any writer of whatever form – “sports” - or non –“sports”. I’ve personally subscribed, “whole hog”, once upon a time, to hockey consumption in particular. Everything (at the time) had an “emotional colour” for me, with respect to the “game” – the “setting”, the shape of the “nets”, the “look of a play”, the look even of the numbers, the heroic fantasy (underdog to champions), the “community” the smells of the very building – if I were there – absolutely and utterly everything – had an “emotional colour” – a complex of feeling – and an architecture, if you will (and no offence to architects, for perhaps mis-appropriating their personal creative expression). I speak for me in my description here – but could absolutely be dead wrong in my representation of this with respect to any other individual’s perceptions of the hockey (or any competitive “sporting”) framework. I’m of the view that writers are voracious observers – and have a fantastic capacity to read the “feeling of the moment”, plus the architecture (the idea sets) of the “game”, and within a “sporting (perhaps your) framework” – construct worlds of the for others to view. Creative bridge makers (and community makers) into “worlds” for others to view, if you will. Most importantly to me – they (writers – but certainly not limited to writers only).. know (I believe) where the “feeling” is and the architecture of ideas that spawn them (feeling). [I happen to subscribe to an idea that (spontaneous) ideas come first, and feelings flow of them.]. I really wonder what people are really being fed, or “purged of” whether in buildings or playing fields – or in the “sports pages’. I saw how Vancouver “fans” acted around town after “winning”. I’ve been in other cities, in similar times. I guess one might ask, if this is the game of our lives – what kind of life are we living. No offence to the memory of a CBC radio host. I guess “THE STORY”, as you state it, is a tricky thing. And how much of “it” an individual is willing to tell (of rather their opinion of “it”) – their view of the landscape of the ideas at hand. Far be it from me to suggest a writer “go broke” or to naively suggest that they write themselves out of a job – a sportswriters job or any other. I guess my comment is about looking at options – new “idea-games” to play (or reveal to others). An interesting example of a sports writer who told quite a different story (at least once) – who (concurrently) explored another storyline, as it were, is Scott Young - Neil Young’s (the singer songwriter, filmmaker’s..) parent. [Title of Scott Young’s book: Neil and me] Quite a compelling story; full of inquiry, reflection, and celebration of life. And surprisingly little about hockey. I’m also not naïve to think that “talk”, or just “posting” what one thinks one knows, alone, effects “wished for changes” in whatever the observed landscape – I think that their has to be personal risk with new ideas to witness a better story on stage. I’m not short on work that needs to start with me, to be sure. Page: /Sports/current/How+Hockey+Profits.htm

Change/make a rule...only one...if something you do causes a player to lose consciousness, whether you use an elbow, a shoulder, a fist or a stick it's a PENALTY. PERIOD... in the case of using your stick as a WEAPON, you are GONE...suspended for as long as the injured player is out with an automatic 10 game suspension to follow..

I gave up going to hockey games or watching hockey about 20 years ago because of the unnecessary violence. I still enjoy ladies or old-timer games. Lest you think I'm a wimp, I served on a Bomber squadron in WW II. A tip to those who post long winded comments. I learned long ago that if letters to the editor or comments are not concise they probably won't be read.

Hockey in fighting has done the game good! Not only has it been entertaining to the fans but it also helps keep other violence under control. You see if we take fighting out of hockey then violence in the game will go up!! It used to be that if someone hits your star then your tough guy teaches him a lesson. When fighting gets taken out you will just have guys trying to knock each others heads off with their sticks, guys getting hit from behind, and ultimately with the case of Todd Bertuzzi. Fighting in hockey must stay there. There is nothing more exciting to the fans and also it charges up the players. Come on fighting is exciting in fighting, if you don't like it then watch ping pong!!