Fighting in the NHL

The NHL is like no other sport out there in the sense that the players can literally police themselves on the ice. In basketball, if you get fouled hard and take exception to it, there is nothing you can do. In baseball if you get hit by a pitch, you can charge the mound and get kicked out of the game and suspended. But in the NHL if you fight you get 5 minutes in the box. That’s it. The people who don’t like fighting in hockey are usually the ones who don’t understand it. They probably think it’s just a bunch of macho guys trying to show who is tougher, but that’s not it. Fights in hockey are caused by two main reasons. 1) To shift momentum of the game. If you team is looking sluggish and or losing in the game, the team “enforcer” sometimes can pick a fight with the other team “enforcer” to try and get the guys on the bench going. And 2) to protect fellow teammates. If someone on the other team hits (legally or illegally) your teams star player, the enforcer will usually step up and say “were not going to have any of that” and thus “standing up” for his fellow teammate. This can get guys on the bench pumped up and bring the team closer together. I for one love fighting in hockey and there is nothing better than seeing Mike Rupp (of the Devils) square off with Colton Orr (of the rangers) in a battle of heavyweights.

There is debate on if they should take fighting out of the game or at least put some rules in to help prevent major injury. The usual injury you’d see in a fight is a bloody face or a busted up hand (most of the punches landed are on the helmet and that has to hurt), but you could also fall and smash your head on the ice. Some people think you should have to keep your helmet on during a fight to prevent a serious head injury from falling. Overall I think fighting is a good thing and fans eat it up. Aside from scoring a goal, the fans are never louder then when a fight breaks out. Allowing guys to fight and settle their “beef” with each other right away, not letting it linger, is a good thing. After the fight is over both buys go to the box and that’s that. If you didn’t let guys fight you would see more cheap shots, like Todd Bertuzzi’s attack on Steve Moore (in which Bertuzzi sucker punched Moore from behind and drove his head into the ice, which broke Moore’s neck. Let the guys fight and sit in the box for five minutes. I can say for sure that more people enjoy the fights then not and I can’t see anyone not watching a hockey game because of fighting. Fighting has been a part of hockey forever and taking it away would be like making the NFL a touch football league.

-Matt

Federer vs Nadal

Federer vs Nadal is one of today's top sports rivalry's. Being a Yankees fan and living through the Yankees - Red Sox rivalry, I must say that this is just as exciting. For a while there I thought Roger was going to dominate mens tennis for the next decade. The man just seemed to never lose. Five straight Wimbletons, five straight US Opens and three Aussie opens put him at 13 majors. Just 1 shy of Pete Sampras' all time record of 14. For most people reaching the semis at the Aussie open, finals at the French, finals at Wimbleton and winning the US Open would be a great year, but not for Federer. Last year, in what most call the greatest tennis match of all time, Federer fell for the first time in 5 years at Wimbleton to Nadal. He did manage to rebound and win the US Open later that year, but the Roger Federer we knew is no longer with us. His kryptonite is one Rafael Nadal. Nadal's great defense, speed, and lefty spin is just too much for Roger to handle. I am often awake at 3:30 in the morning anyways, so I was able to watch a ton of the Aussie open and after Federer destroyed Andy Roddick and Nadal survived a tough test from Fernando Verdasco the dream final was set. I watched the entire match from 3:50am to around 8ish and it didn't fail to live up to the rivalry. Now it wasn't the Wimbleton match from last summer, but I was very entertained and into it. Rafa had just gone over 5 hours only 2 days before and throughout the first 4 sets you could see he was tired.

The key moment of the match was the tie break in the 3rd set that Nadal won. I feel that if Roger had one that, he would have won the match in 4 sets. But he gave Nadal life and he could see the Aussie open title just 1 set away. Roger did battle back and win the 4th set, so it came down to a 1 set match. I mean, would you want it any other way? No of course not, but the 5th set was very dissapointing, especially for a Federer fan like myself. By watching Nadal, you'd never know he went over 5 hours just 2 days before the final. He looked as fresh as ever in the 5th set. It seemed like Roger lost his nerve and got completely destroyed in the final set to give Rafa his first hard court major. With the exception of the French open, their matches usually go the distance and never dissapoint. As a tennis fan I would sign up for a Federer vs Nadal final every major, but as a Federer fan who wants to see him break Sampras' record I wouldn't. I honestly dont see Roger ever being able to beat Rafa again. I think its in Rogers head and we are going down the road of a one sided rivalry. If you don't watch tennis or find it boring, watch one of their matches. The extensive rallies and amazing points will get you totally hooked. Here's to a Federer - Nadal final at the French Open this year and hopefully a Federer win to give him 14 majors and his first at the French. Nothing will ever equal Yanks vs Sox, but this comes as close as you can get.

-Matt