Are Hockey Pundits Operating under a False Assumption When It Comes to “Dirty” Hits??
Lately, sports op-ed after sports op-ed has opined about the need to punish “dirty” hits more frequently and more severely in the NHL, or at least add “safety measures” like, I guess, wrapping the players in bubble wrap. (For instance, look at this one from THN’s Adam Proteau who refers to those of us who lobby for the need for hard hits in hockey as “militaristic war generals” with “bloodlust.”) It’s odd that hockey pundits should hold this view. Are they not fans like the rest of us? Do these “pundits” not understand that hits are a part of strategy and that most if not all of them are not meant to inflict the kind of damage that at times is the result? (And along those lines, do those calling for the eradication of fighting in hockey not understand that fighting is a noble thing and that if you remove it the game is that much less fraternal and heroic for it?) Perhaps what is most bothersome about this nanny-hockey twaddle (which you would expect from PTA moms, not sports writers) is the supposition that the injuries are due to the “dirty” hits and not some other cause.
It sounds like a strange thing to say, but how do these hockey “pundits” know that the hits they denounce as “dirty” are really what are causing all the damage? Let me explain using an analogy. If, for example, you rear-end a Ford Pinto, the gas tank might explode. If you rear-end a Toyota Camry, the bumper will crumple up but the car itself will probably remain fairly unscathed. My point is, a collision must always be expected, whether you’re on the road or in 4 lanes of hockey traffic. The question is, what kind of car are you driving? Are you driving a car with dubious integrity, or are you driving a car with a track record for solidity? In other words, has anyone ever looked at the soundness of these athletes?
The argument made by “pundits” is that the hits are getting harder or dirtier because the players are getting more burly, but that argument may turn out to be specious. Maybe there are simply too many Pintos out there in sports. (I am not, however, saying it’s necessarily the athletes’ faults.) Look at the bigger picture of sports in general. Can anyone remember seeing so many injuries spanning so many sports? For a local but still very apt example, look no further than the Chicago Bears. The sheer amount of injuries this season is astounding.
So what is it? Is it something in the water? (Like all the birth control pills, antibiotics, and other drugs dumped down the toilet that end up in our water supply?) Is it something in the air? (Like all the air pollution we have to breathe?) Is it our food? (Like all the chemical pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and genetically-modified foods?) All these things are certainly plausible reasons why we’re one of the sickest of industrialized nations; these things are certainly contributing factors if not the reasons themselves.
Former Chicago Cubs pitcher Kerry Wood may believe something similar. When he was having trouble with his pitching arm, and one must assume his health in general, he switched to an organic diet. He lost 30 pounds and went on to pitch for another couple of seasons with the Cubs, and is now a closer with the Cleveland Indians. Clearly Wood was on to something.
So, I leave you to ponder, are sports/athletes really getting more violent like sports pundits claim, or are athletes just less durable thanks to the byproducts of…well…modernity?