Regardless of whether you agree with them, the opinions of well-know former players and coaches such as Steve Yzerman and Don Cherry hold tremendous weight with the public and media.
Whenever they speak out, especially if it’s contentious, their views get major traction in newspaper columns, online hockey forums and sports radio. But, when it comes to modern issues in the game – and especially the role of fighting – that shouldn’t be the case.
The opinions of former star players are held up with a sort of untouchable reverence.
For example, former Boston Bruin Bobby Orr, considered by many to be the greatest defenceman of all time, wrote in the Globe and Mail an ode to the fighter, which he painted as the great equalizer in an unjust game. In particular, he referenced “the code” he played under, where if “an agitator goes after a skilled player . . . there was always someone waiting to even the score.”
Orr skated in an era when fisticuffs were rampant – there were 753 fights in 1980-81, and they peaked at 1,092 in 1987-88, just a few years after Orr retired. The fighter had a larger role back then – roughing penalties weren’t called as frequently and the 1967 expansion from six teams to 12 meant more room for more pugilists. Compare those fighting numbers to last year’s totals – 377 fights in 721 games – and it’s a steep decline, symptomatic not just of the shrinking role of the fighter but an entire fighting culture shift over the last 40 years.
Simply put, Orr’s opinion reflects traditional values that are out of touch with the realities of the modern game.
Rather, the conversation about rule changes should be rooted in modern evidence that takes into account current science, changes in equipment and the attitudes of a new generation of fans.
Anything else is detrimental to progress.
We want the fundamental core of the game to remain the same, but that doesn’t mean the guard doesn’t need changing every once in a while.
CBC commentator Don Cherry is another often-ridiculed example of tradition gone wonky. In the past few years, Cherry has been consistently supportive of fighting in the NHL and yet strangely critical of equally entertaining aspects, such as over-the-top celebrations or Globetrotter-esque dekes in a blowout game.
Back when Cherry was coaching, you just didn’t celebrate like that, and you didn’t rub salt in the opposing team’s wounds when they’re losing badly – it’s not the way of the old.
But the modern game calls for something different. We should be wary – not of former player opinions in general – but of the rhetoric they use that calls on history and the “way it’s always been” as valid arguments for regulatory and cultural stasis in the NHL.
And yet to say the opposite – that all ex-player opinions are invalid because of the different eras they played in – is equally as unhelpful.
Orr argued hockey has changed in “small, unimportant” ways over time, but that’s far from reality.
Mandatory helmets, sudden-death overtime, a two-referee system: These are all changes that intended to bring the game forward, to inject new life into old habits and to fix what wasn’t working.
Yet again, we’re faced with another critical junction over fighting that will determine the future of our country’s sport. Let’s not let antiquated views tow the game back into the Stone Age.