I Love Sports Violence. Just Not Hockey's Version Of It.
Hockey's love of violence is matched only by its unwillingness to admit it.
You probably already know this, but I enjoy a bit of the ole' ultra violence. My dad was a boxer, thus I grew up on all of its most elegant forms, from the sweet (boxing) to the sour (MMA) science. It's also part of what attracted me to hockey in the first place. But there’s a difference between the violence in one and the other in the same way there’s a difference between Jackass pranks, and the noxious influencer version of it. You might be wondering: "so wait a second. You like the violence in boxing and MMA but you don't like the violence in hockey? Hypocrite much?"
That's right (and that’s right). In prizefighting, while the game is brutal, the rules are not. Every fighter goes into the ring or cage knowing the risks, and every fighter diligently prepares for how to manage that risk. There's nothing unexpected about the violence that two fighters prepare for. Yes, violations occur, but these are immediately assessed by the refs, and the punishment for violating these rules are well-established. So yes, prizefighting is one big violent risk, but it's a risk between two consenting adults with rules that are well-defined, and universally understood. "A man's got to have a code." For men and women in prizefighting, they know that code, and perform as professional athletes within it.
Hockey, conversely, has no such code. That's the point that all of the analysis of whether or not Matt Dumba's hit on Joe Pavelski was legal, missed. INCYMI (not sure what these aren’t auto-embedding like usual):
https://twitter.com/HockeyDaily365/status/1648162202145239041
The legality of Dumba's hit changes from week to week. Jacob Trouba has more or less made a career off predatory hits, becoming so comfortable with it that he’s willing to lead with his elbow now. Sometimes they're called. Sometimes they're not. Meanwhile, hockey has a "dedicated" Player Safety Department spearheaded by former goon, George Parros. The air quotes are to emphasize what a bush league facade the DoPS is. Parros doesn’t seem to watch the games, and the Department itself was turned into an Office Space joke when it went radio silent for Reasons; despite the fact that during this time, one of its biggest stars (and Cup winner) took one of the most blatant cheapshots to the head in recent memory. That's the irony to all this tough guy "it's playoff hockey" macho bullshit. Nobody knows what playoff hockey is. They just know it from the artificial marketing slogans. But what is playoff hockey?
No seriously: define "playoff hockey" for me, right here, right now. Is it something different from regular hockey? If so, why does hockey need to have two different versions of itself? Is it just a heightened version of normal hockey? If so, does that mean it goes by different rules?
That's why Dumba's hit on Pavelski felt so predatory. Not because Dumba is a dirty player, but because the culture itself isn’t interested in clarifying what it’s willing to accept. It’s what makes me feel unclean about playoff hockey despite my willingness to enjoy something far more brutal in a vacuum; nobody knows what to expect. Hockey players are not trained to manage the most violent of risks. They're trained to play hockey. Yes, hitting is a part of hockey, but what kind of hitting? The crosschecks that are otherwise illegal during the regular season but not the postseason? Or Dumba’s “roughing” minor on Pavelski?
Therein lies the difference. In fighting, the professional athlete prepares for cruelty. In hockey, the professional athlete doesn't even know how the cruelty is defined.
That's why I don't see the contradiction between enjoying Israel Adesanya knock out Alex Pereiera last weekend, and feeling sick to my stomach seeing Pavelski laid out on the ice. Pereira knew his violent outcome was a possibility. Pavelski, conversely, never knew what hit him. That's my problem with hockey violence. It wants fans to enjoy the violence, but it's too chickenshit to control it. By letting the players decide, everything becomes permitted; unsuspecting victims included.
I’ve been a hockey fan for over 70 years . That type of hit no longer has a place in hockey . It was a careless , predatory , and BLINDSIDING hit to a vulnerable player !
"Predatory" is exactly right. It's one thing to finish your check, it's another to intend to injury somebody. Anybody doubt MD was *trying* to knock Pavs out of the game?
Couple years ago, in the depths of the pandemic, Ballys had time to fill, and re-ran the whole '99 playoff series (along with Mav's and Rangers' glory days).
On one hand, it was great to relive that run (Jamie Langen... was severely underappreciated at the time!). On the other it was a jolting reminder of how much the game has changed over the past 25 years - I was constantly yelling at the TV "that's interference", "hey, that's slashing", "hooking, you can't do that!".
The big take away, tho, was just how much BETTER the game is now. Speed, skating, free-flowing action...
Please, Bettman, Parros, et al - for the love of God don't let the game slip back to the days of goonery and hooliganism, where predatory hits like Dumba and Trouba's go, not just un(der) penalized, but celebrated. wtf?!? That's a step BACKWARD, you morons.
(Thanks, David. Great article, needed to vent.)