tahoemoj’s profile

The Lorenzo Neal reference was made to illustrate that there are roles in every game/job that need to be filled. For every Alexei Kovalev, there is a Georges Laraque. For every Ladanian Tomlinson, there is a Lorenzo Neal. I guess my point was that to say that George wouldn't be in the NHL without fighting is a statement of the obvious. If Neal wasn't an excellent blocker, he wouldn't be in the NFL. The angle of penalties doesn't invalidate my point. Just because something incurs a penalty doesn't mean that it isn't part of the game.

posted at 06:23 PM on January 08

Even if that video invalidates my argument to a certain extent....BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! Hit him with your purse next time!

posted at 04:31 PM on January 08

Thanks rockrat for posting this. I think it really helps validate what I have been saying about hockey fighting in previous threads. Georges, like many NHL tough guys, seems like a pretty nice guy off of the ice. And I'm fairly certain that he is not the only North American who isn't positively enamored with what he does for a living. He is good enough at something to get paid fairly handsomely to do it, and I feel the game ultimately benefits from what he does.

If you were not fighting, then you certainly would not be in the NHL.

If Evgeni Nabokov couldn't stop a puck, niether would he. If Lorenzo Neal didn't deliver skull-splitting blocks he wouldn't be in the NFL. And if my accountant wasn't good with numbers, he wouldn't be in his firm. He is lucky to be good at something that pays as well as it does. Enforcer is as valid a job as any other in the NHL, from star center to towel boy. And he does it well, complete with humanity.

posted at 01:10 PM on January 08

since an awful lot of members of the Massachusetts Bar and Bay State judges are BC graduates, Jagodzinski might not have a chance.

I'm guessing that this was significantly tongue-in-cheek. You don't really think that where people went to school has an impact on Massachusetts contract law, right?

To me, it sounds a little bit counterproductive. "We're looking for stability in our program, so we're going to fire you two years into a five year deal." I understand that there is a protocol involved in telling your employer when you are testing the waters, but to fire someone for wanting to experience an interview is way out of line. Whether or not he straight up told them he was interviewing, they seemed to know somehow that he was going to. The story said he was warned not to do it. I'm not an expert on employment law, but I'm pretty sure that no employer can preempt you from looking at another job. Sure, they can sue you for breach if you leave early, but not for thinking about it.

posted at 12:51 PM on January 08

Then your job is retarded.

And so is Shane Moseley's, Randy Couture's, Ricky Hatton's, Brock Lesnar's, Vladimir Klischko's, and Quinton Jackson's? Anyone who fights for a living is doing a "retarded" job? Or is it just a hockey thing you have an issue with?

posted at 12:38 PM on January 08

I'm not sure that, when the mid-major conferences signed on to be a part of the BCS, they were told, "we'll give you some money, but by entering this agreement you forfiet any claim to a national title in perpetuity." Had that been made clear, I don't think the small school ADs would have been so eager to sign on.

posted at 11:58 AM on January 08

When I first saw this story, I immediately thought of sour grapes. Upon reading it, I think he might be on to something! Maybe that's just the lawyer in me.

posted at 10:35 AM on January 07

That's more like it. I like to wear clothing on the course that would make Ian Poulter blush.

posted at 10:19 AM on January 07

I suck at these things so bad that I can't even get one of those. Could set a record for most incorrect picks ever in the college bowl pick-em, though.

posted at 06:19 PM on January 06

Chicks dig the well-read putt!

posted at 06:49 PM on January 05

I don't want to get in a pissing contest over this, but, sure, I'll bite. The previous comment showed a lack of understanding of the dynamics and motivations involved in most hockey fights. As one with a certain experience level, I thought I'd point out something that he was missing. Then I included a word he had used in his post, I hoped, to comedic effect.

Never did I suggest that someone should not be allowed to comment on a sport they had never played. From a position of knowledge, I found what I felt was a flaw in a fellow commenter's point, and I addressed it. And that is what Sportsfilter is all about. Thanks for the witty sarcasm, though. It was clever.

posted at 01:53 PM on January 03

I've never played hockey - apparently that makes a difference in the morality issue. Bunk.

But it does make a difference, and the fact is that you don't understand the role of the enforcer on the ice. Throughout its history, hockey has realized that a few minutes in the penalty box, or even a major or match penalty, is not really a deterrent for cheap shots. There is always the possibility that some low skill level thug will take a cheap shot at one of your highly skilled (and highly paid) players. Now, you're out one of your team leaders for the period, the game, or the season and, if the thug gets caught, the other team might be short one nobody for two to ten minutes. The game found a way to deter this from happening, in the form of the enforcer. Traditionally, these guys were barely serviceable hockey players who only set foot on the ice when it was time to send a message. Lately, the skill levels of the enforcers, dictated by the requirements of the modern game, have greatly increased. However, just because these guys can contribute in other ways, they know what their job is. Why do you think that wherever Wayne Gretzky went, Marty Mcsorely followed?

There is no morality involved, and it is a misconception that hockey fights are based on emotion. I played hockey for 25 years, and I have been in exactly 2 fights. That doesn't mean I played the game without emotion, my role was to remain on the ice to help our team win. If you look at fights in hockey as a release of a feeling of anger or frustration, you don't understand the dynamic of the hockey fight. In the vast majority of fights in hockey, there is no animosity or anger toward the opponent. In the vast majority of cases, the fighters are like a boxer or MMA fighter, in that they are doing their job, nothing more or less.

Why is hockey the ony sport where this is not considered assault?

Boxing and MMA, like I said before, come to mind. And I haven't seen too many charges filed for "assault" after fights on the court, gridiron, or diamond. These sports suspend players who fight because fighting is not part of the game. This is not the case with hockey, and you would know that if you had ever played the game. Making your point.....bunk.

posted at 01:31 PM on January 03

In a hockey fight, when the two players go to the ice, there is rarely another punch thrown. One player has won the fight, one has lost, and rarely does one sustain an injury. And I really don't consider a bloody nose or black eye an injury so much as superficial mark. So I guess I disagree that the purpose of a hockey fight is to hurt somebody. Most of the fighters in the NHL and other hockey leagues would tell you that they have no intention of hurting anyone, but just letting them know that if the disrespect the elite players on the ice, there can be consequences. That deters dirty play more than any two minutes in a penalty box can. That is the point of the act.

posted at 01:22 PM on January 02

The blogger who wrote that seems to have a cloudy memory of a few things. Moore's injury at the hands of Bertuzzi was not sustained during a fight in response to a clean hit. First of all, he threw an elbow, it was not a clean hit. (Not justifying Bertuzzi's actions, though.) The attack from behind that caused the injury was not sustained in a fight. In fact, had Moore fought when he was challenged (twice) Bertuzzi would probably not have resorted to the jackass move in the first place. In short, Moore's injury was caused in response to his refusal to fight, so to involve it in this anti-fighting discussion is inappropriate. I'm not justifying Bertuzzi, just wondering why this guy brought it up in the context of this tragic loss of life.

Sadly, there was a death on the ice. So that makes the sport of hockey and its "code of silence" (whatever the hell that means) barbaric. Banning fighting in hockey because of one tragic death. By that logic, should we ban driving cars, swimming in the ocean (or a bathtub) or flying? Does this esteemed author give any other examples of deaths caused by fighting in hockey? In his depth of understanding based on one sad occurrence, there is something inherently flawed with the sport of hockey and those who defend the traditions of the game.

I've said it before and I stand by it. I really don't like to watch fighting in hockey. It's not what has attracted me to the game as a fan and a player for the last 30 years. But it is a part of the game. I would like to see it become a rarity, but not because of an across the board ban imposed by alarmists. The self-policing of the game is done by men who choose to fight and who understand that what they are doing is dangerous. One freak accident leading to very sad consequences should not dictate policy in a game.

posted at 12:52 PM on January 02

Again, thanks for all of the hard work. And what NoMich said.

posted at 01:43 PM on December 31