Response to "Violence in Sport: Necessary?"

This is a response to jlazaga’s post at: http://faithisourmedium.blogspot.com/2012/03/violence-in-sports-necessary.html#!/2012/03/violence-in-sports-necessary.html

Jlazaga argues that violence in hockey serves a number of functions which include selling tickets and meeting coach's expectations, yet the potential for careers to end too early makes violence something that needs to be reevaluated. I definitely agree with the fact that violence in professional hockey could be greatly restrained and that the dangers of these “mini-boxing fights” outweigh any entertainment purposes. However, I disagree with the contention that violence in hockey is considered ‘necessary’ especially given the current context. Similarly, I believe that there are a number of factors contributing to changing attitudes in respect to fighting in hockey.  

Jlazaga maintains that violence fulfills an important function in ensuring tickets are sold. The example of how the NHL All-Star Game and the Olympics prove that a lack of violence cannot sell is inaccurate. I believe both greatly illustrate that tickets are sold out in seconds even WITHOUT the promise of dirty hits and fighting. Although the tolerance for violence is very low at these hockey events, anyone trying to buy tickets will be met with long waiting lines, crashing ticket sites and insane scalper prices. I believe that the potential for change is definitely there! Hockey sells regardless of violence.

There is definitely a declining toleration for violence in the NHL. Strategies for reducing violence are newly instituted. Anchors for Sportsnet and TSN subject every hit to great discussion rather than simply sloughing it off as just another moment in the game. We are seeing players get more severe criticism for these dangerous and blindsided hits that have serious effects.

In addition, having been to a few games I do realize that fans can get easily riled up during a “good” fight. But I also notice that they are more enthralled with the game when their team scores a great goal or lets in an easy one from the opposition. Fans do not “need” the lure of violence for the ACC to be sold out. A deep emotional connection (as corny as that sounds) is what gets tickets sold.

Are these players being celebrated for their ability to throw down?

Similarly, I do not think violence plays a huge role in furthering careers. Sure Tie Domi was known for his ability to absolutely annihilate an opposing player but who are the players you can name off the top of your head right now? Crosby, Stamkos, Price, Malkin, etc; players famous for their stick handling and ridiculous point values rather than for dominating the leader board for “number of times gloves were dropped”.  

The last point I want to stress is that I think the time for change in the NHL is upon us. After seeing how a NHL “god” like Crosby had his season shortened (and almost had his career ended) because of a dirty hit, serves an important function in swaying opinions on hockey violence. The NHL is about HOCKEY. If the best cannot play because they were concussed so badly, what is the point of celebrating the sport in a professional league? I think greater actions may soon be taken to protect what is ultimately at stake here; the love of the game.

This certainly ties together last week and this week's lectures pretty well!