the toucan kid wrote:
I don't want to dismiss you post, but they aren't saying anything about toughness. They're talking about grit, which is working hard and effort. That has nothing to do with roughness. The problem is you can't distinguish the two. I can apparently, and yes, trying hard, being a pro and playing with pain, and having the oft used word "passion" are all BIG elements in winning, but have nothing to do with big hits (which aren't practical) and fighting.
I would say that the expert opinions override the opinion of fans who say things like
You haven't even addressed my point...
I believe that I have addressed your point.
In order to carry on an intelligent conversation or debate, it's vital that the parties actually read all the information provided.
If you in fact took the time to read my post before dismissing it, you'd see that the comments that I quoted from the experts include "get their nose dirty", "Play mean", "play very physical", "finishing their checks", "grit is all about toughness" and "finish your checks". All of those quotes are examples of toughness.
If you would have clicked on the link you might have read, "Even in the new NHL, toughness hasn't gone out of style for the postseason."
And you might have noticed, "In playoff time, everybody hits and guys who don't hit in the regular season are finishing their checks."
Also, "Sometimes grit comes in the form of just winning puck battles. Sometimes it comes from punishing checks."
and "Grit covers a lot of things from toughness to persevering for 60 minutes or longer,"
All of these quotes came from "hockey people". People who've been there and done that. As you can see, they believe that grit includes many things, INCLUDING TOUGHNESS. They also believe, even in the "new NHL", that toughness is a requirement in the playoffs. I've never heard anyone who's actually played the game say otherwise. You DO say otherwise.
trying hard, being a pro and playing with pain, and having the oft used word "passion" are all BIG elements in winning, but have nothing to do with big hits (which aren't practical) and fighting.
I never said anything about fighting being important in the playoffs.
You can choose to ignore the pertinant parts of my posts if you wish, but in doing so, you're doing yourself no favours in the debate.
As Blob said earlier, I think you just like to argue. You clearly won't concede any parts of your arguments even when confronted with irrefutable evidence.
How about digging up some arguments or quotes from some reputable sources, as I have done, to support your contentions like:
I'm watching a game where contact has largely been taken out of the flow of the game and that it only rears its head in a penalty or an injury. We're getting to the point where it is almost irrelevant.
I don't deny that there is MORE hitting in the playoffs, I deny that it any longer is as valuable to the game as it had been in the past. You can effect the game less with it, unless you mean taking penalties. Physicality has been much marginalized.
The playoffs are more intense, but whoa, I honestly can't buy the exaggerating about how apparently rough and tumble it is (or really, isn't).
You're really the only one saying these things (with Arbour in support but not to the same extent). I'd like to hear a player, ex player, coach or manager agree with your statements before I'd even think about giving them any credence.
I've yet to hear anyone who's played or coached competitive hockey spout off with anything close to the drivel you're coming up with.