Welcome

Hello Hockey Fans! 

If you are a visitor of this blog then you are probably wondering what HockeyTalks is all about... HockeyTalks is a research based blog that allows and encourages fans of this fantastic game to put forward there thoughts, feelings and opinions in regards to violence within the game in order to answer the following research question.

Explain the attitudes of fans and players towards violence in ice hockey in light of recent studies that show long term effects of concussions and other types of brain injuries.

Below is a justification behind the research question that will allow you to understand in more depth what is being debated.

Violence in hockey is a highly contested area and many scholars, players, fans and coaches believe it should be eliminated from the game. In a sense you would be right to agree with this statement.  In today’s society in contrast with the early 1900’s we know a significant amount about head trauma and the effects it has on the brain and the consequences it has on players after they have retired from the sport. Oliver and Kamchen (2013, p.257) cite Clarence Campbell president of the NHL for 30 years stating “if violence ceases to exist, it will not be the same game” Colburn (1985) as cited by Kerr (2005, p.68) states “He (Colburn) sees it (fighting) as a social ritual which acts as a means of establishing or re-establishing respect and honour among opposing players” also known as sanctioned violence.

Current literature suggests violence was part of the hockey culture in its early beginnings and is nothing like it is today. Even if it still plays a part, in contrast with today’s game fighting almost seems not existent and the ‘Goon’ population has diminished significantly.  Bernstein (2006, p.192) suggests “fighting serves as an effective deterrent, allowing teams to police one another and hold each other accountable for their actions”. There is a code in hockey that players abide by and respect, proving that there is a method in the madness when it comes to dropping the gloves and instigating a violent act. With reference to Colburn (1985) familiarising ones self with the unwritten rules or ‘The Code’ as it is known would benefit greatly for better understanding.

The controversy surrounding fighting almost overshadows the concussion crisis. You could argue that it is because it is seen as a spectacle and the damage we see is tangible unlike that of concussions, which in today’s game is the real threat to player’s careers and their livelihoods. Over a span of a 20 year career fighting can have consequences, however a fight does not occur every game. In contact sports the consequences a player will obtain from repeated high speed hits on a regular basis are inevitable. Countless players have been forced into retirement due to concussions and are unable to exonerate the symptoms. Rosner and Carrol (2011, p. 53) state..

“On the rink as on the gridiron, the concussion problem grew in direct proportion to the size, strength and speed of the players in the world’s fastest team sport. As the average NHL player sprouted to six foot two and 205 pounds, the law of physics collided head on with the realities of neuroscience”.

If we approach hockey from an alternative perspective of someone who is new to the game, the physicality of the sport would be the main attraction. The crushing body checks, the open ice hits, fighting. All of these would add to the spectacle of consuming hockey as entertainment. Crawford (2004, p.82) cites Wann (1995) suggesting that “The single most important factor in motivating supporters to attend (and continue to attend) a ‘live’ sport event is to be entertained”. It would be reasonable to say that new consumers of hockey are waiting for a fight to break out or a hard check to occur and fail to appreciate and recognise what hockey really is. Fighting always attracts the most controversy and debates about whether it has a place in the sport, the detrimental effects it has on its players and the example it sets for children is a common occurrence when it comes to hockey. As is clear in current literature, scholars have suggested sport is a reflection of society.

Hockey is without doubt an aggressive sport. Emotions run a high in sport and hockey is an emotional game leading to careless incidents that can end careers in the blink of an eye. So why does fighting continue to attract so much attention in contrast to that of the concussion epidemic?
Concussions are common place in hockey and as the debate of fighting continues to dominate, the concussion crisis appears to have little importance to the spectator and even the league in some cases and the consequences provided by the crushing hits that provide a substantial amount of entertainment are soon forgotten.

Recent studies in neuroscience have found evidence of a brain disease called Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or (CTE). Cantu and Hyman (2012, p. 90) state that (CTE) “is a progressive degenerative disease of the brain found in people exposed over many years to repetitive brain trauma”.  Signs of CTE have been found in recently deceased hockey players such as Derek Boogard (27) and Bob Probert (45). It is a common discovery in Hockey players and American Football players. Unfortunately the diagnoses for CTE can only be made after the passing of an individual.  Primeau & Goulet  (2012, p. 142) state “Studies indicate that athletes with three or more concussions were nine times more likely to have more concussive symptoms than players with no prior history of a concussion”.

Safety on the ice for players is priority and you could argue that it is contradictory as to what has already been discussed. However as spectators and consumers of the game, we must take a step back and allow ourselves to look at the bigger picture and realise that in today’s game fighting isn’t the main culprit, it is merely the nature of the game itself and the NHL are unable to accept this fact pushing the controversial focus towards fighting deterring any hostility away from the real concern.  

What are your thoughts?

HT24.