Telly33 Posted January 27, 2012 Author Posted January 27, 2012 Lighten up a little man. It's just a hockey fight.
SiouxForever Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 I was at that game as a little kid, let's just say Alex Brooks regrets dropping the gloves on that dual. I remember my dad explaining to me that Mike Commodore (fan favorite at UND) really messed that guy up. I guess the guy's (Alex's) face after that fight was a sight to be seen once the swelling kicked in. True Story.
fightingsioux4life Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 I was in the student section that night. There was blood all over the ice. From that day forward, nobody in the conference dared screw around with Mr. Commodore. He became one of the most feared players in the WCHA.
SIOUXFAN97 Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 no one made mr brooks play d1 hockey...much less make mr commodore angry? fighting is a necessity in hockey and if you don't like it watch soccer.
Telly33 Posted January 28, 2012 Author Posted January 28, 2012 It's just amazing all of the fights "poor" Alex finds himself in. Type his name into YouTube. He must be the unluckiest bastard ever. Get real, guy.
tnt Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 Fighting is NOT a necessity in hockey. On the contrary, it is a sideshow that detracts from the game and attracts an undesirable element to the fanbase of our great game. Bloodthirsty people who crave that barbaric nonsense can watch MMA/UFC, leave the neanderthal behavior out of hockey. Just because somebody makes you angry does not give you the right to assault them. For example, I could say that your post just made me angry... that doesn't give me the right to attack you physically and inflict gory injuries to your face. Commodore was way out of line to do what he did on that night. Honestly I wouldn't have had a problem with seeing him serve a lengthy prison sentence for that horrifying act, and I feel the same way about any other hockey player who intentionally inflicts such horrifying injuries to another player. It was a sickening and disgusting act, and anybody who tries to rationalize it or worse yet celebrate it is sick and demented in my opinion. No, it is not a necessity, but if you watch that tape, Brooks almost was taunting Commodore to do something. Not smart.
tnt Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 I do not have a copy of that game, and while I don't remember it I'll take your word on the taunting. However, just because somebody is taunting you does not give you the right to go into meltdown mode and rearrange their face to the point of requiring reconstructive surgery. Words and/or gestures are NEVER justification for assault under any circumstances. Anybody who does to another person's face what Commodore did to Brooks's face on that night is a sick and twisted individual who should be locked up for the safety of all civilized human beings. Commodore may have played for my favorite team, but I do not respect him solely because of what he did on that night. So if somebody comes up to you and slaps you several times, or if somebody slaps your kid several times, you will always turn the other cheek?
tnt Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 I do not have a copy of that game, and while I don't remember it I'll take your word on the taunting. However, just because somebody is taunting you does not give you the right to go into meltdown mode and rearrange their face to the point of requiring reconstructive surgery. Words and/or gestures are NEVER justification for assault under any circumstances. Anybody who does to another person's face what Commodore did to Brooks's face on that night is a sick and twisted individual who should be locked up for the safety of all civilized human beings. Commodore may have played for my favorite team, but I do not respect him solely because of what he did on that night. I can't respect somebody that obviously has problems with the game of hockey such as it is, yet continues to watch the sport. I would think you should boycott the sport and if you and enough people do that, then the game will get cleaned up. Put your money where your mouth is.
siouxkid12 Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 No, fighting is a must have in hockey (in certain situations). Fighting lets players know that "if they FU&* with my teammate" they will have to answer to me. The refs do nothing to protect players from cheap play, if the Buffalo Sabers would've faught the guy that ran Ryan Miller over it would never happen to Miller again without that player knowing there would be hell to pay. If I was a player and knew that all I would get was a two or a five min penalty for cheap shoting another player, I would take that over dropping the gloves with ol' Mike but if I had to answer to Mike for all my cheap shots I would diffenetly think twice about it.
tnt Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 I don't think your example applies to my statement that "words and/or gestures are NEVER justification for assault under any circumstances". The only time I believe in hitting another human being is in self defense situations. Self defense, so a slap would constitute a reason to retaliate? What about several crosschecks? I believe you rule out words and gestures, because that is what you do, you taunt people, then wonder why people retaliate in kind.
siouxkid12 Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 You are 100% wrong. Fighting is the ultimate show of disrespect for the game, and the refs do protect players from cheap play. It's called PENALTIES, genius. Vigilantism is not effective in society, and it is even less effective in hockey. Anybody who subscribes to the "fighting reduces dirty play" mentality is naive. I see much more dirty play in the NHL than I see in college hockey. Spare me your false information. how is it showing disrespect for the game when it has gone on for so many years? who are they disrespecting? if you watch hockey you know that not all cheap shots are called and each player is going to press their luck to as far as they can get away with it. i don't tune into a hockey game expecting to see a fight but when i see cheap play going on, i expect to see that player having to answer to that teams enforcer! my question to you though is, how many checking from behinds do you see in the NHL vs College hockey? or how many broken necks because of it?
LeftyZL Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 No, it is not a necessity, but if you watch that tape, Brooks almost was taunting Commodore to do something. Not smart. I was at the game...I thought Brooks even took the first swing at Commodore that night. It went downhill fast after that. Or am I mistaken?
tnt Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 Rightly or wrongly, fighting has been a part of hockey and some fan's entertainment forever. Is boxing any different? The fact that there is more trauma in boxing because it is a cumulative effect should mean that boxing is a more brutal affair. We have had deaths in boxing. Everybody knows that hitting in hockey results in much more injury than fighting, in fact you would be hard pressed to find many bad injuries from fighting. Does that make it right? No! But let's not be naive, it is part of the entertainment value for some fans, much as boxing is. The thing about hockey is you don't have to fight if you don't want to, it is up to the individual, and we see some that instigate, then get the heck out of there. What happened to Brooks is an example of somebody who chose to instigate but chose to engage also. Is what happened to him regrettable? Definitely! But he knew what the consequences could be when he chose to engage, just as a boxer knows from examples like Muhammed Ali what the consequences could be if he chooses that as a career path.
petey23 Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 Fighting is NOT a necessity in hockey. On the contrary, it is a sideshow that detracts from the game and attracts an undesirable element to the fanbase of our great game. Bloodthirsty people who crave that barbaric nonsense can watch MMA/UFC, leave the neanderthal behavior out of hockey. Just because somebody makes you angry does not give you the right to assault them. For example, I could say that your post just made me angry... that doesn't give me the right to attack you physically and inflict gory injuries to your face. Commodore was way out of line to do what he did on that night. Honestly I wouldn't have had a problem with seeing him serve a lengthy prison sentence for that horrifying act, and I feel the same way about any other hockey player who intentionally inflicts such horrifying injuries to another player. It was a sickening and disgusting act, and anybody who tries to rationalize it or worse yet celebrate it is sick and demented in my opinion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY 2
tnt Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 Yes!!! There is a very good reason for that, and it is a little something called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I have the right to say whatever I want to whoever I want, and if they attack me physically I can press charges. It's called assault. I'm supporting something that is protected by law, while you appear to be advocating something that is against the law. So you're saying that Commodore was being assaulted, so he had the right to fight back? Or is self defense only acceptable outside of the game?
Blackheart Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 So he was under some sort of mind control? Moore was hit from behind by that puke Bertuzzi...not much of an option to fight there...iirc, Moore hit a Vancouver guy earlier in the game that lead to Bertuzzi hitting from behind...too chicken !@#$ to face him straight up...
tnt Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 Oh really? Try telling that to Steve Moore. I don't think that was deemed to be a fight and a lengthy suspension proves that you will be punished for attacking somebody like that. Like I said, if you have a problem with hockey as it stands now, maybe you should boycott it to effect change. By the way, have you ever watched boxing, and do you advocate that sport be banned?
siouxkid12 Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 The problem with that concept is that in any given hockey game one team is going to have an enforcer that is bigger and badder than the other team's enforcer. Therefore, the team with the bigger and badder enforcer has a free pass to bully the other team into submission according to the concept of "players policing themselves". That is why the refs are the ONLY people who should be allowed to enforce anything in a hockey game. do you not watch hockey dave? the refs never enforce anything in games (besides ticky tack calls) and that is why you end up having players police themselves. if the refs would've policed the Sioux/Gopher game a few weeks ago ben blood would probably be wearing his A still and three gophers would have gotten 5 min major and kicked out of the game, but that was not the case. we get it dave, you dont like fighting. here is the thing though,it is never leaving hockey, there will always be enforcers protecting star players whether you like it or not. if you don't like fighting in hockey go watch peanuts or pee wees (where they are not allowed to even touch other players).
Goon Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 I was at the game...I thought Brooks even took the first swing at Commodore that night. It went downhill fast after that. Or am I mistaken? I believe you're right, I think that Brooks instigated the fight if I am not mistaken.
Goon Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Oh really? Try telling that to Steve Moore. Funny you should mention that he was jumped
Redneksioux Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 If YOU have a problem with hockey as it stands now (with what the pro-fighting crowd likes to refer to as "stickwork"), maybe YOU should boycott it to effect change. See, that argument works both ways. THINK before you make such a dumb comment next time. By the way, I don't like boxing. But what is even worse than boxing is that UFC/MMA garbage. Now that stuff should be banned. Probably boxing too, but it is the lesser of those two evils. In mma if a fighter receives multiple blows to the head and cannot defend himself the fight is stopped. In boxing the fight is stopped when one is knocked out, usually after a concussion has occured. How do you consider boxing the lesser of two evils? In hockey fighting is and always has been part of the game. Dave you knock people on this board for their opinions and it is hilarious.
tnt Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Where did I ever say that Commodore was being assaulted? I thought he was the aggressor in that particular incident. Exactly, you didn't even see the incident, yet you are spouting off like you are an expert. You said that in society if somebody slapped you, you could respond in self defense, yet you think because you are in a game you shouldn't be allowed to do so. I think everybody can see where you are coming from now since you think boxing should be banned.
Recommended Posts