It's the oldest argument in hockey: Should the NHL crack down on fighting? The debate has spanned decades, filled thousands of newspapers pages, and dominated TV and radio broadcasts.
In recent years the stakes have gone up, as research into head injuries seems to suggest that fighting could contribute to long-term health problems in players. Combine that with the diminishing role of enforcers in the modern game, and some opponents of fighting feel the time is right to finally abolish it.
While the debate always leads to plenty of heated rhetoric, there's little evidence of anyone ever actually changing his mind on the topic. But maybe it doesn't have to be that way. I've spoken to experts on both sides of the issue, and I've captured their best arguments below.
For the first time, here are both sides of hockey's greatest debate presented side by side. Maybe, just maybe, we can settle this once and for all:
Pro-fighting: Banning fighting would eliminate the chance of a fight between Brad Marchand and Raffi Torres that the linesmen could just “forget” to break up.
Anti-fighting: Fights are nothing more than quasi-exciting but ultimately demeaning sideshows that don't showcase any actual hockey skills and have no place in the game—and these days we have the shoot-out for that.
Pro-fighting: Without the threat of fighting, noble enforcers like Arron Asham and Trevor Gillies would be unable to protect their teammates from despicable cheap-shot artists like Arron Asham and Trevor Gillies.
Anti-fighting: Let's face it, nobody really likes having fighting in the game except for ignorant know-nothings like fans, most general managers and coaches, and virtually every single player.
Pro-fighting: Getting rid of fighting would just result in every episode of Coach's Corner being nothing more than a seven-minute diatribe about no-touch icing.
Anti-fighting: If punching somebody in the face at a hockey game is outlawed, only outlaws will punch somebody in the face at a hockey game. And Flyer fans. Actually, mostly Flyer fans.
Pro-fighting: If we just hold off on doing anything to address the rapidly growing list of players lost to concussions for another year or two, all of us will eventually get to play in the NHL for a few games.
Anti-fighting: Fighting is an outdated concept that may have made sense for previous generations, but has no place in the modern game, like goalies playing without masks or an NHL team in Quebec City.
Pro-fighting: The inability to regularly write simplistic and condescending anti-fighting columns could spell the end of the already struggling newspaper industry.
Anti-fighting: Studies have shown that a total ban on fighting would increase hockey viewership by 20 percent in the southern United States, because Tom says he's pretty sure he'd start watching.
Pro-fighting: Hey, remember when they had fighting in NHL 93 and then they took it out for NHL 94? Which one did you like better? Exactly.
Anti-fighting: In addition to being overpaid and overrated based on his Stanley Cup run, Niemi is known to snore loudly on team flights and often plays bad Finnish pop music on the Sharks' team stereo. (Author's note: Wait, sorry, this should have been listed as an “Antti-fighting” argument.)
Pro-fighting: Players engaging in fights face the possibility of devastating injury and even long-term disability, which is a risk that I as a fan sitting on my couch at home have decided I am willing to accept.
Anti-fighting: Eliminating fighting would send a strong message to impressionable children that settling a dispute by knocking somebody unconscious with your fists is unacceptable; instead, use your rock-solid shoulder pad like a gentleman would.