Opinion: Hockey - Grace, Fast Skating and “Shots” to the Groin, A Brief Evolution of a Sport

Pixabay ImagePhoto byby Keithjj

Do you remember Fred and Ginger dancing gracefully across the silver screen in many of the great musicals of the 1930s? Great music, and incredible dance routines, (many filmed in one take) with both making it all look so effortless.

I watched them years later and brought this same sense of appreciation for elegant motion with me when I watched my first NHL hockey game in the 1970s. I thought - damn, what these guys are doing is incredible and they’re doing it all on skates 3 mm wide. I was hooked.

Then as the years passed and the game evolved that appreciation began to fade. The elegant dance that the forwards engaged in against defensemen - one moving forward the other moving backward in perfect symmetry - was slowly being replaced by brute force and colossal checks into the plexiglass.

The game moved further away from Fred and Ginger and closer to the World Wrestling Federation (WWE). More crashes into the glass, more fights showcased as two men dropped their gloves and awkwardly tried to punch each other out - made more difficult with the thick padding they wore and the fact that they were on ice.

With Refs watching, fans watching, and everyone seeming to forget the old artistry and elegance that made the game special - everything was changing.

In 2000 a defenseman named Marty McSorley, an athlete better suited as an NFL linebacker, was making a name for himself as an NHL “enforcer,” until he was suspended by the league for one year for slashing a player across the side of the head, causing a grade-three concussion. He said he was aiming for the other player’s shoulder.

What made this incident memorable, besides the lengthy suspension was that McSorley was charged with assault in a British Columbia court and given 18 months probation. He never played another game in the NHL.

Some say the game has always been rough and tough. Hard skating, hard checking working hand in hand.

Eventually, I stopped watching.

A few days ago, Philadelphia Flyers defenseman, Tony DeAngelo “speared” Corey Perry, a Tampa Bay Lightning forward, “below the belt.” Translated, he shoved a hockey stick at reduced speeds into the other guy’s groin.

The result was what you might expect. More fighting, sure, but the fighting was already ongoing, this was collateral damage.

He was given a major penalty and game misconduct and was eventually given a two-game suspension, costing him about $54,000.

Concerning the incident, the league said DeAngelo, “did not engage with Perry in any way prior to spearing him, choosing to deliver the strike while Perry was not looking," and that the "premeditated nature" of the offense and the force with which it was delivered to the groin area were deserving of the suspension.”

The thing is, DeAngelo later admitted that he was just trying to give the guy a “shot” for some perceived slight earlier in the game.

Kind of like an MLB pitcher giving a batter, a “tap” on the head with a fastball - to say, don’t crowd the plate. Or a cornerback “aiming” for the receiver’s shoulder, but you know, he dropped a bit, and I hit him in the head instead.

Over the years we’ve become more reliant on euphemisms to explain away our sports getting more violent.

Or downplaying the emerging ethos in modern sports that says the game is the game, but since it's competitive and we all want to win, pushing the envelope is okay. That a helmet to the chest and face is fine if the guy gets up again.

And though the “shot” from DeAngelo brought with it a two-game suspension, the league did not say outright that all such behavior needed to be eliminated. Just that DeAngelo hadn’t engaged with Perry prior to delivering it. Because maybe that would have made it more okay?

Perhaps this is why athletes earning tens of millions each year are accepted by fans because at the end of the season or the end of one’s career - often the same thing - an athlete is left much worse for the wear.

Frequent hits to the head; the weekly pounding in practice and game time, leaves a human body battered and in constant need of maintenance.

As sporting news covers the passing of once-great athletes, we often hear about their last few years. The early onset of dementia. The knees that no longer supported them. The mood swings. The last days in a motel room far from home. The donation of their brains to science and the ongoing research into CTE.

Other sports can become violent even if they’re not inherently so, like soccer or lacrosse, or hurling in the UK. The violence there often comes with increased performance demand, higher expectations, and perhaps lax refereeing in an attempt to make the game faster-paced and more exciting.

Hockey was once skill and grace. Tough sure, but they skated just as hard 50 years ago and they didn’t wear helmets. That changed thankfully, but as the “protection” improved (not just in hockey) the tempo of the game changed; the hits, the use of lower-paid “enforcers” who prowled the ice looking to even scores, keep players honest and entertain the fans with a little fighting in the center of the ice.

Why this progression became inevitable, I’m not sure.

The average height, weight, and muscle mass of today’s athletes are greater than their predecessors and perhaps that has made it okay to up the ante. Increase the rewards, and increase the competition with millions of football, basketball, and baseball kids trying for the big leagues so the stakes have grown ever higher.

The need to be different, tougher more willing to leave the ground in a tackle, improves one’s chances of making it to the Show and staying there.

But at what cost?

DeAngelo spearing Perry in the groin is not the worst sports has to offer and in the big picture, not the real problem.

I remember when the average NFL offensive linemen were around 6’2” and 260 pounds. Today that would be a linebacker or a rumbling fullback. The bar now is set around 6’3 or 6’4” and 330-350 pounds.

And they’re running faster 40 yards dashes than the fullbacks did in the 1960s.

Better athletes, sure. Better trained and conditioned, absolutely. Less violence, fewer injuries, fewer chances of career-ending plays - no. Not from where I sit.

Are the games more exciting as a result? Depends on what you’re looking for.

Watching baseball on TV was arduous in the 1970s and still is today, but great in person. The same for football, hockey, and everything else.

Up close and personal things are exhilarating. The energy is contagious, and the atmosphere is electric. It’s just fun. But when the crowd cheers the replay of a receiver’s helmet popping off his head because of a hit from the cornerback or the opposing QB being sacked by three defensive players as he limps to the sidelines, what are we saying about the game and what we’re demanding to see?

Fred and Ginger on ice? We’ve already got that covered in the Winter Olympics. NFL Flag Football - every Sunday? Maybe not.

Not sure what the answers are. But watching both dugouts empty as 40+ players and coaches start swinging because of a beaning is getting old. And seeing $20 cups of beer soaking NBA players courtside - also not so amusing.

When a team has a $300+ million payroll plus millions in luxury tax and is willing to spend it - I think there’s far more money involved than sense and there’s certainly a little room left to improve the game.