It's this simple: Fighting in hockey necessary, not evil

I'd probably have more luck guessing what's on the mind of one Timothy F. Geithner than I would guessing what the thought process is of the GMs who want to do away with fighting in hockey.

There are only a couple, apparently, who favor removing this part of the NHL game and are talking about it this week while the general managers meet in Florida.

Perhaps the GMs who built soft teams think the game will be less physical or dangerous for their skill players if fighting is removed.

But that thinking is flawed at best, entirely wrong at worst, and is likely to go nowhere.

The threat of fighting - for teams with legitimate heavyweights - keeps skill players safe. Sure, they still get hit, but guess what? Hockey is a physical game.

Draft bigger skill guys or do what the smart GMs do, which is provide a deterrent against the really nasty contact.

Far be it from me to promote the career of Bob Pulford, but the man had his moments, and you can be sure he never allowed his teams to get pushed around.

He always made sure there was an Al Secord looking out for Denis Savard, a Dave Manson watching over Steve Larmer, and a Curt Fraser taking care of everyone.

When you have that protection, your best players don't find lunatics running at them from 30 feet if those clowns know they're going to answer for it.

One Chris Neil or Derek Boogaard is, and always has been, the best medicine.

In the American League, a pitcher can throw a 99 mph fastball at a batter's head and walk quietly to the safety of the bench, but in hockey you're held accountable.

Intimidation through physical play is a valuable part of the game. You remove it and your skill guys are going to be in more danger than they were without it.

You'll see everyone running around with their sticks up and injuries will increase.

I've been hearing the anti-fighting argument since I was in Mites, and it's usually from those who don't care for the game anyway.

But hockey is an emotional game, often a frustrating game, and the anger level can be so severe that if the outlet isn't there, those sticks will become weapons and even "normal'' people can be turned into animals.

That would be truly dangerous.

Unlike baseball - with its bench-clearing brawls and sucker punches - hockey players police the game themselves.

No one wants hits to the head and no one wants to see anyone get hurt, but if the NHL wants to crack down on something, it ought to be hits from behind.

Most players respect each other enough to avoid the real dangerous acts, so generally the more you legislate, the more trouble you make - and the absurd instigator rule is a perfect example.

It actually prevents players from keeping others in line because enforcers won't risk incurring that penalty and hurting their team at the wrong time.

Lest you think me a Neanderthal, I don't believe in fighting for the sake of it, by appointment, or to sell tickets. The game doesn't need it for attendance, and I don't believe those who insist the game would die without fisticuffs.

But fighting does serve a purpose.

Those who don't get it compare it to the Wild West.

Still, you take fighting away and you'll really see lawlessness.

It'll make Deadwood look like the Joffrey Ballet.

Ivan Boldirev-ing

If it's a sore groin that causes Martin Havlat to miss a day or two, is that such a bad thing right now?

He ought to take a week off and save it for April. In fact, there's a couple of players who look like they could use a vacation, but that's the difference between sneaking up on teams and being a target.

When you're in the top tier of the conference, as the Hawks have been for a few months, teams are going to come at you every night, and that wears on players mentally as much as physically.

It shows up in turnovers, defensive zone mistakes and what looks like a lack of effort.

It's a tough time of year for young players, too, when they aren't used to the long, mental grind, and when they can't quite see the finish line yet.

Some sluggish games here were simply inevitable.

Stocking stuffer

If Gordon Beckham continues to impress, don't buy for a second that the White Sox will send him down to start the season.

If GM Ken Williams and manager Ozzie Guillen believe he's ready to play and think he's their best leadoff hitter and second baseman, he will be in Chicago on April 6.

Just asking

Isn't it just a hair early for Lou Piniella to be acting like he's about to flip out? Shouldn't he wait until, I don't know, like May 15 before he becomes wacky Uncle Lou?

Just pondering

They don't make them any better than Dick Jauron, as decent a man as you'll ever run into in pro sports.

And then there's Terrell Owens.

Why does that sound like something less than a match made in Canton?

And finally -

Mike Bianchi of the Orlando Sentinel: "Did you see where the economic crisis and resulting budget crunch may mean thousands of prisoners nationwide getting released from jail? You know what that means? More recruits for SEC schools."

brozner@dailyherald.com