[On March
3rd, 1875, the first organized ice hockey game was played. So this
week for the sport’s 150th anniversary I’ll AmericanStudy a handful
of hockey histories, leading up to a weekend post on some SportsStudiers we can
all learn from!]
On the way
not to argue for a sport’s violent tradition, and a possible way to do so.
First, in
the interest of full disclosure: of the four major sports, I know by far the
least about hockey. And that’s especially true of hockey history—other than a
few big name players and the
occasional interesting
story (both of those hyperlinked pieces focus on Boston-related topics, which is
likely why I know a bit more about them than I do other hockey histories), what
I know about the history of hockey can be fit inside a box much smaller than
the penalty one. Researching this week’s series has helped with that to be
sure, but I know I’ve only scratched the surface still. So as always, and
especially when it comes to topics like this one on which I am generally and
admittedly ignorant, I’ll very much appreciate any responses and challenges and
other ideas in comments (or by email). I don’t
think I’m ever gonna get to full octopus-on-the-ice level
hockey fandom, but there’s no topic about which I’m not excited to learn more,
this one very much included.
So with
all of that said, it’s my understanding that one of the most heated debates in
the hockey world is over whether fighting is a central
and beloved element of the sport that must be preserved or an outdated
and dangerous aside that should be discarded to attract more
widespread fan support. Obviously I don’t know enough to have a strong opinion
(I’m opposed to
fighting-based sports, but this is somewhat of a different story of
course), but I will say this: from what I can tell, many of the arguments in
favor of fighting seem to come from what we could call hockey
traditionalists. And having had more than my share of experiences with baseball
traditionalists, I’d say that “This is how we have always done things” is an
incredibly ineffective way to argue for any aspect of a sport (or most anything
else for that matter). For one thing, such an argument would by extension make
any change impossible, and anything that is going to endure over time needs to
evolve in at least some ways in order to do so. And for another thing, there
are many cases where we learn things that require specific changes in the way
we do things—and it seems to me that what we now know about
head injuries, for example, just might make that the case when it comes to fighting in hockey.
I’m pretty
serious about CTE (although I haven’t been able to give up
football yet), so if I were to weigh in more fully on the fighting in
hockey debate, I’d likely be in the opposition camp. But I try to be open to
different perspectives of course, and in a debate like this what I’d be
interested to hear is how pro-fighting perspectives might argue for its role in
how the sport is played. That is, when it comes to fighting
in baseball (something I know a lot more about), fights represent an entirely
unsanctioned and illegal element, one that always leads to ejections and
suspensions and fines and so on. Whereas fighting
in hockey is more or less entirely sanctioned, with the two fighters surrounded by
the referees and allowed to complete their fight before the regular gameplay
resumes. So perhaps there are reasons beyond tradition alone, ways that
fighting contributes to the play of hockey within games, within a season, as a
sport. After all, all rules in sports are arbitrary and constructed, and don’t
necessarily need changing as a result. This one features violence to be sure,
but so for that matter does hockey overall—so I’m open to hearing (including
here if you’d like!) for how this element of hockey might also feature other
sides to this sport, past and present.
Next
hockey history tomorrow,
Ben
PS. What
do you think? Hockey histories you’d highlight?
