Clay wrote:
 
> >> I agree with Ben that a fight is a spectacle,
> >> and that (at least in the games I see) players are rarely injured in
> fights.
> >> Where I differ with some folks is that they believe that it's an
> inevitable,
> >> harmless, or useful spectacle, or a spectacle that enhances the game, while
>
> >> I believe that it is a useless spectacle that detracts from the game.
 
 
Clay, I think that was well stated.  I couldn't help but wonder, taking it a
step further, what variety of responses would surface if each person explained
his most basic understanding of what "the game" should be, what it's rightful
purpose(s) are, what justifies its continued existence.  I suspect there's a
broad range of basic philosophies that underlies the diversity of conclusions on
this topic.
 
At a much earlier stage in life, I reasoned that one justified need for sports
games in society is the preparation they give, without using actual shell
blasts, for performance in the foxhole.  Presumably, the quarterback or team
captain would be the *guy* most prepared to lead charges "through a hail of
bullets, with utter disregard for his own safety, etc., etc., etc.,.".
 
That was probably justified for a kid growing up after barely-completed WWII and
Korea (to younger people, that's not a Maine hockey player) and during the Cold
War.  But, since we've converted our military to a mercenary force, social class
wise, and the main threat to our college-athletics-trained "leaders" lies in
getting a bad sports agent, it may be time I rethink those ideas.
 
Bob
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.