#also the reason fighting is such an institution is because the dops is shit and refs don't call dangerous plays against skill players

[doghartzy]

when the poll ends do you mind sharing what you vs your friend thought the key hockey concept was? I'm so curious !

yes !! so skill play ended up winning, but if you combine the two categories of fighting and physical play, they add up to way more. this came up because i'm currently going through a whole emotional journey around violence in sport and the way personal choice, bodily autonomy, and the monolith of sports culture can overlap and conflict. that's not super important but i think more people should think about it because it's a really interesting and tough topic. anyway, i was talking to my friend from rural BC, and we were talking about violence/physicality as an inherent part of hockey or if there was a way to mitigate dangerous injury while still maintaining the spirit of hockey as a sport.

she was of the opinion that physical play, fighting, all of that were essential to hockey, and there was no way to play the same game without them. i'm still working on what my opinion is, but i'm finding that more and more i come down on the side of, hey, all of these injuries are unnecessary and there's no reason for hockey -- contact sport though it may be -- to be this dangerous and injurious. there's a lot of reasons i feel this way, but one of the biggest ones is that when i think of hockey -- when i think of the most important, joyous, exciting moments in hockey, moments that made me genuinely love this sport and the place it holds in my life -- i think almost entirely about skill play. what makes hockey worth watching for me is the speed, the skill, the insane passes and bad-angle goals. kirill kaprizov sidney crosby trick shot type shit. when those players have room to play, i love this sport like nothing else.

my friend, on the other hand, isn't wrong when she says that overall, the impression people have of hockey tends toward violence. even if they haven't thought about it enough to pass judgment, the vast majority of people think first of checks and fights.

the problem i have is that a lot of times, skill players are stifled by physical play. i like puck possession, but checking turns that into an almost irrelevant part of nhl hockey, and i like when superstars have space to do insane things, but if they're injured half the year because every fourth liner in the league pretty much has free reign to headhunt without the refs blowing the whistle, i don't get to see any of that. it's the same reason i'm annoyed with the way kirill's been treated in the league -- he's a phenomenal player who can do unparalleled things on the ice, but his production has been down because he got injured a couple seasons ago and hasn't had the space (or protection from further injuries, looking at you, dops) to heal it fully and get back to form. in what world is that the best that hockey can be? i'd rather every skill player gets long, obnoxious nhl careers than keep fistfights in a sport that really doesn't need them, but i'm aware i'm in the tiny minority there.