HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jpc@philabs.philips.com (John P. Curcio)
Subject: Re: Gil STein will change the NHL
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:49:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.193354.21507@erg.sri.com> vlad@erg.sri.com (vlad) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.103510.5179@philabs.philips.com> jpc@philabs.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:
>>In article <smw.711412142@alcor> smw@alcor.concordia.ca ( Steven Winikoff ) writes:
>
>>>Think about it.  If you tried to do on the street what some players
>>>do on the ice, you'd be jailed for assault and battery.
>
>>O.K., if this is the case, then I guess boxing should be out-and-out
>>banned tomorrow. 
>
>>I move that it be banned in the name of political correctness.
>
>You miss the point. The point is that violence is illegal on the streets
>but legal in a war. Just read the law books and you will see that i am right.

No, I don't miss the point, and I also don't understand why you brought
wars into this....  

>Similarly, the rulebook of boxing says that fighting and headbashing were
>both legal and necessary. Thus, a person who becomes a boxer knows exactly
>what he is getting into.

O.K., great.....  but a hockey player doesn't?!?

>On the other hand, the rulebook of hockey and of the NHL clearly states
>that violence is illegal. That's the law. And all we are asking is that the
>law be upheld. If you think that fighting is a part of hockey, then change
>the rules and make fighting legal. 

The rulebook says that fighting is illegal in hockey.  You do it, and
you sit in the penalty box.  End of story.  The laws of the sport ARE
being upheld.  Again, I believe that stick violence and clutch-and-grab
crapola are worse for the game than fighting-- that's where to start
the overhaul.....

-JPC

-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
John P. Curcio                  Go Bruins!                 Philips Laboratories
jpc@philabs.philips.com                                    345 Scarborough Road
(914) 945-6442                                       Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: std_gibson@hg.uleth.ca (Jason Gibson)
Subject: Re: Dark jerseys cause more penalties (was Re: Flyers jersey?)
Reply-To: std_gibson@hg.uleth.ca
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:10:46 GMT

I found the reference for the article about the effects of black uniforms on
performance. Here it is:

Frank, M. G., & Gilovich, T. (1988). The dark side of self- and social
	perception: Black uniforms and aggression in professional sports. 
	"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", 54, 74-85.

(This journal is a standard in psychology, and can be found in any university
library.)

--->Jason
From: etxonss@ufsa.ericsson.se (Staffan Axelsson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Comparison of injuries (was: Gil Stein)
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:01:28 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden

allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan) writes:
>
>I believe hockey in North America is a more emotionally intense
>game. This is in part due to the smaller rinks (which encourages
>more body contact),

Correct. This is the #1 reason.

>in part due to having more money in the league
>(more money gives more incentive to win),

I think this is a minor reason if even a reason at all. Players in European
leagues may not make as much money winning but I don't think they are any
less eager to win because of that. Maybe it's a reason for X-Soviets though,
due to their financial status.

>and partly due to the
>roots of hockey (Canadians are used to more physical sporting 
>games than the Europeans).
>
I agree.

>If we removed much of the intensity from the game (use bigger rinks,
>maybe even eliminating all body contact if you want to go to extremes)

No, absolutely not. I have never advocated eliminating all body contact.
That would be plain stupid and it couldn't be called hockey anymore.

>you could eliminate fighting and stickwork, BUT the game would probably
>be much less interesting to watch.
>
The game would be much less interesting to watch if you prefer a fight over
a nice pass, that's correct.

>So, to keep the high intensity level of North American hockey, you
>have to expect the occasional incident to occur.

Sure incidents will happen. Look, I like NHL hockey because of the high
intensity. I like European hockey because of the skating and the passing.
I only believe that hockey could be improved by combining the two.
Take the best parts from both and we would get:

 * Hard and clean hitting from the NHL
 * Good skating from European hockey
 * High intensity from NHL
 * Nice passing from European hockey
 * Hard and precise shooting from NHL
 etc

>Given the choice,
>I would prefer a fighting incident to a high-sticking incident.
>(But then, that's just my preference.)

That's also my preference. I don't like sticking incidents because they
are dangerous and ugly (I think we agree) and I don't like fighting
because it serves no purpose (I don't think we agree). I agree with 
(sorry can't remember your name) that stickwork needs to be taken care
of first (priorities man :-). I also believe that with a different
attitude, from both the audience and the referees, both stickwork and
fighting can be reduced (note: reduced, not eliminated because elimination
is not possible) without taking too much intensity away from the game.

Staffan
--
  ('_   _ _                 Staffan Axelsson             r.s.h contact for the
 \_)|/\|-|-/\|\|        etxonss@ufsa.ericsson.se         Swedish hockey league
From: darling@cellar.org (Thomas Darling)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: "New Age" Flyers?? ( Was Re: A Lindros prediction...)
Date: 27 Jul 92 10:09:35 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

gomer+@pitt.edu (Richard J Coyle) writes:

> >Prehaps I'm wrong. Maybe these cheers were because the beaten,
> >bloodied recipient wasn't injured. I'm not sure. 
> 
> I'd drop this subject if I were you, Brian.  The Flyers folks don't
> like to be reminded of their past.  If you even mention it, one idiot
> around here will start vehemently denying it and demand immediate
> apologies.
> 
> rick

Haw!  And everyone's favourite Dick will blame Flyers fans for personally
committing all manner of violent crimes, and whine pitifully when he gets
called on it, his neck veins bulging and his net.credibility going down in
insult-sputtering flames.

Nice to see your bottom is still sore, Dick.  Don't go changin'.

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^\\\^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Thomas A. Darling \\\ Fact HQ Studio * record production * dance re-mixing
darling@cellar.org \\\ music for film * The Cellar BBS:215/654-9184 * FACT
v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~\\\~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich)
Subject: Re: Penguin logo
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:25:53 GMT

> Actually, Iron City Light isn't that bad.  Thank goodness.  I like
> to support local business; at least IC Light is drinkable.

You're right there, Anna, IC Light is a lot better than Iron City.  I
was thinking of regular old Iron when I made my post.

> The Scotty Burgher (the highest priced burger in the NHL)
> The Tommy Burgher (if you don't like the price, sit out)
> The Jaro Burgher (you have the option to renegotiate the price)
> The Mario Burgher (one bite and you're a life-time Pittsburgher)

And of course:

The Ulfie Burgher (gives you severe gastric distress at the thought of
		   going to Boston)
The Stanton Burgher (very heavy; makes you skate like a traffic pylon)
The Jennings Burgher (a slight variation of the Stanton Burgher)
The Pitts Burgher (in honor of the perennially losing pre-Mario pens
		   and the quality of their play)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: umturne4@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Daryl Turner)
Subject: Re: TEAMS TO WATCH
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:49:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.184942.8180@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>The WHA teams were only allowed to protect two skaters and two
>goaltenders off their WHA rosters...so they came in rough shape
>like all the other expansion teams.  The Oilers were able to
>make the playoffs mainly because the number of teams in the
>playoffs was expanded from 12 to 16 with the merger...and the
>then perenniel ineptitude of the Washington Capitals.

Everyone keeps saying that it was 2 and 2 that the teams were able to
protect...my question is, does anyone know the second goaltender that
the Jets were able to protect?  I know Morris Lukowich, Scott Campbell
and Markus Mattsson were the two skaters and one goaltender, but for the
life of me, can't recall the second goalie.

>
>The Oilers actually only ended up with three players...they
>tried protecting Bengt Gustafsson in addition to Gretzky, but
>Gustafsson was later ruled not eligible for protection by the
>Oilers.
>
I don't recall this, why was Gustafsson ruled ineligible?  (This ought
to be good...considering Gretzky should have been ineligible as well,
since no other team had had the other chance to draft him.)

>

===============================================================    
Daryl Turner : r.s.h contact for the Winnipeg Jets 
Internet: umturne4@ccu.umanitoba.ca -or- dturner@mailbox.bison.mb.ca 
FidoNET: 1:348/701 -or- 1:348/4  (please route through 348/700)
Ulanov up to Davydov, over to Zhamnov, he shoots, he scores! 
The Jets win the Cup!  The Jets win the Cup!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Renegotiation
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:43:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.162058.3617@uwm.edu> paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger) writes:
>  I was also wondering if anyone had any information on the possibilities
>  of an NHL franchise coming to Milwaukee. It seems like we, and the Petits,
>  have been waiting forever for it to happen.

Bill Wirtz had two main goals in life...to keep hockey off American 
television and out of Milwaukee!

The Pettits actually would have had a pretty good chance in the last
expansion, but like most of the smart businessmen realized the financial
terms the NHL were asking were exhorbitant and refused to lie like
the owners of Ottawa and Tampa Bay did.

Gerald

Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard)
Subject: Re: TEAMS TO WATCH
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:19:04 GMT

In <1992Jul24.184942.8180@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>The WHA teams were only allowed to protect two skaters and two
>goaltenders off their WHA rosters...so they came in rough shape
>like all the other expansion teams.  The Oilers were able to
>make the playoffs mainly because the number of teams in the
>playoffs was expanded from 12 to 16 with the merger...and the
>then perenniel ineptitude of the Washington Capitals.

>The Oilers actually only ended up with three players...they
>tried protecting Bengt Gustafsson in addition to Gretzky, but
>Gustafsson was later ruled not eligible for protection by the
>Oilers.

Gretzky didn't have to be protected I don't think.  Wasn't he on a personal 
services contract? 

rm

>Gerald

-- 
roger maynard                    
91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: TEAMS TO WATCH
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:49:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.153154.18407@bnr.ca> dwarf@bcarh601.bnr.ca (W. Jim Jordan) writes:
>
>Edmonton made it to the playoffs in 1979-80, but I would hardly call
>that their first season, given their existence in the WHA.  Calgary made
>it in 1980-81, but they had just moved from Atlanta.  San Jose we
>already know about.  Kansas City (New Jersey) and Washington were
>abysmal their first season; Atlanta advanced in their second season
>while the Islanders wallowed; Buffalo and Vancouver missed in their
>first go-round, too.  That leaves the first expansion, where they
>guaranteed four of the six new teams playoff spots.  I think the four
>teams were St. Louis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Minnesota.
>

The WHA teams were only allowed to protect two skaters and two
goaltenders off their WHA rosters...so they came in rough shape
like all the other expansion teams.  The Oilers were able to
make the playoffs mainly because the number of teams in the
playoffs was expanded from 12 to 16 with the merger...and the
then perenniel ineptitude of the Washington Capitals.

The Oilers actually only ended up with three players...they
tried protecting Bengt Gustafsson in addition to Gretzky, but
Gustafsson was later ruled not eligible for protection by the
Oilers.

Gerald

Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: mrein3@CFSMO.Honeywell.COM (Matt Rein #3)
Subject: GOPHERS, STARS, and SHARKS NEWS
To: rec.sport.hockey
Posted-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 12: 41:28 cdt
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:41:28 GMT
Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 12: 41:37 CDT



Word has it Doug Zmolek, (defenseman out of Rochester MN) will skip his senior
year as a Gopher because of a four year deal with the Sharks reportedly
worth 1 million dollars.  The Gophers will miss him back on the point but
every year a couple of their best seniors are lost to the NHL.

Also I heard the Sharks got Trent Klatt, (forward Osseo, MN) from the
North Stars.  (Klatt also would be a senior this year at Minnesota.
He played in the playoffs for the stars last year after the Gophers season
was over).

Gee, I wonder if these two deals had anything to do with Chuck Grillo and
his Minnesota roots?!?

Another gopher note - Larry Olimb (Warroad, MN) Gopher's MVP last year and
my pick for the Hobey Baker award is close to signing with the North Stars.
This would be ideal because I also heard jersey No. 17 for the Stars is
now vacant so me and the rest of the unofficial Larry Olimb fan club won't
have to trade in our "Larry hankies", just change thier colors.  Olimb is
fun to watch because when he has the puck the game is played at his pace.
He has made more than one Gopher and Warroad Warrior look good out in
front of the net.
My only question is when did the Stars get his rights back?  Was it in
the Klatt deal?  I had a class with Larry the spring the Sharks expanded
and aquired his rights; he didn't have much to say about it then.  (That
was an interesting class, another guy who sat by us is a WCHA linesman)
With Grillo there I doubt they gave his rights away.  Anybody there know
what happened?

--
 Matt Rein
 mrein3@CFSMO.Honeywell.COM

Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: zeke@meadow.uucp (Samuel Lee)
Subject: Re: Gil STein will change the NHL
Summary: "Wanna fight?"	 
Keywords: hockey, fight, TV, penalties, outlaw, ban
 
Reply-To: zeke@meadow.UUCP (Samuel Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Distribution: na 
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 18:12:09 GMT


In article <2A644BDF.28214@noiro.acs.uci.edu> assist@orion.oac.uci.edu (ASSIST Coordination Site) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.142042.13758@sei.cmu.edu> sad@sei.cmu.edu (Susan Dart) writes:
>>
>>It looks like Gil Stein will change hockey in a very positive way.
>>Last night I heard that he will outlaw fighting in the NHL. He's also
>>going to get national TV contracts (not just the sportschannel
>>nonsense).
>>
>    ** How can a ban on fighting be positive for hockey?  Part
>       of the excitement of going to hockey games is some of the
>       tension between the players.  I agree with the rules about
>       extra penalties for a third man entering the fight, charging,  
>       etc.  However, a one-on-one fight between two players as long
>       as it is not continual and is not too disruptive of the playing 
>       of the game often gives the game some added spark.  (And I have 
>       never seen the players do any real harm to each other while
>       fighting!  In fact, I've seen more injury done on slashing
>       and high-sticking infractions then in any fight).  I would
>       like to hear what others think . . . ** Kris **

Well, it depends on your point of view.  Hockey is the only professional sport  
in which fighting is allowed insofar as you do not get ejected automatically
for throwing a punch.  Naysayers will say that this is a unique aspect of
hockey and is the basis of its appeal, like you feel.  Whether this feature
is a positive or negative as far as impact on its popularity goes is debatable.
I think that you have a good point in that the stick is a more dangerous weapon
than players' fists and is perhaps more of a problem in terms of serious injury.
However, Stein's responsibility is in promoting the game and making the league
a success from a financial viewpoint.  Indisputably, the only way to do this is
to land a major network deal, and with it the big bucks.  Do you really think
that fighting is the only reason that hockey doesn't have a major network deal?
I don't.  It's all in the image.  Hockey needs to broaden its mass appeal in 
order to be more marketable and thus more profitable.  This may take the form of
some radical changes, but the survival of the league depends on it.  I agree 
that fighting shouldn't be eliminated, but the success of the league is  
important as well.  It may have to go for the sake of the NHL.  What we need
are constructive ideas like your one about stick infractions to clean up the
game.  RIGHT ON!  We should preserve hockey as a Canadian institution.

-- Zeke. 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger)
Subject: Re: Most impressive arena?
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:08:31 GMT

In article <Bs7rrI.H8@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>In article 16470@uwm.edu, paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger) writes:
>>   This is reaching a little since Milwaukee doesn't even have an NHL team
>>   yet
>    ^^^
>    Hope springs eternal, eh?
>
     You Bet! ;)   Never say die!

>---
>gak
>107/H/3&4
>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: IHL ON PRIME TICKET
From: gjl@phx.mcd.mot.com (George Lloyd)
Date: 20 Jul 92 23:35:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Tempe, Az.
Summary: IHL has TV the NHL doesn't (NANA NANA!)


One of our two great papers in town announced the the IHL and Prime Ticket
have reached an agreement to show 10 IHL games this season.  It didn't have a 
schedule but it did go on to say the the Phoenix Roadrunners would be involved
in at least one of the games.

HAY NHL GET OFF YOUR ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Opps sorry, The Zieg is already gone)

More  news to come as I hear of it.

*******************************************************************************
When I asked a Chinese Malay if he was going to give blood for a Blood Drive 
he said:
"What is inside a Chinaman should stay inside a Chinaman....
                               .....Unless there's money to be made from it!"
Ditto for Motorola's opinions!

George James Lloyd 
Motorola Microcomputer Division
2900 S. Diablo Way       DW234
Tempe AZ 85282
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
From: allan@cs.UAlberta.CA (Allan Sullivan)
Subject: Dark jerseys cause more penalties (was Re: Flyers jersey?)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:00:10 GMT

std_gibson@hg.uleth.ca (Jason Gibson) writes:

>I think I can put the black uniform "thing" in perspective. It seems that teams
>that wear black are more agressive, which is a plus in hockey. Although a down
>side to this seems to be that teams wearing black also tend to get more
>penalties called against them. (I can't recall the source of this off-hand, but
>if anyone is interested e-mail me and I'll get back to you.)

Hmmmm.... I'd be interested in knowing the source of that.

If my memory serves me right, some of the most penalized teams in the NHL were
the Blackhawks (red jerseys, but they have 'black' in their name :-)
the Flames, etc. Detroit was also an aggressive team, who didn't wear
black.

Maybe players wear black because they stand out against the ice better,
to make them easier targets for body checks...
From: steve@cs.hw.ac.uk (Steve Salvini)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Who are the greatest European hockey players
Date: 29 Jul 92 09:43:48 GMT
Distribution: rec.sport.hockey
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <CLARK.92Jul24174328@canuck.harvard.edu> clark@canuck.harvard.edu (James J. Clark) writes:
>
>I got to thinking, who do the people in the various European
>countries think are their all-time great hockey players.

O.K., here goes, 'neck-on-the-block-time' - the greatest British players of all-time, well,
from the 80's & 90's really...

(C) Tony Hand    - only GB born, bred & trained player to be drafted by an NHL
		   team (even if it was 256th. out of 256 :-)
(W) Derek Reilly - now joint owner of Murrayfield Racers
(W) Gordon Latto - played in Sweden for a couple of season at his peak
(D) Steve Cooper - perpetual winner of Alan Weeks trophy for best defenceman
(D) Paul Hand    - was good before his knees gave up!
(G) Choose any one from Moray Hanson, David Graham, Andy Donald, Mike Ward, 
    Frankie Killen...

Honourable mentions to Scott Neil, the Johnson Brothers (& dad
'Jonkers'!) and the up-and-comings - Nicky Chinn, David Longstaffe,
Paul Dixon, Les Millie, Iain Robertson, Lachlan Coombe and many more
who will soon be far better players than any of the above selections as
GB hockey continues to expand and improve.

O.K., that should stir up the "uk-hockey" mailing list folk! :-)


Steve.

"Racers, Racers"  <repeat ad nauseam>
From: kolasinski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Rebell ohne Schlips)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Renegotiation
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:04:59 +0100
Organization: Dynamics of Laser-Surface Interactions

In article <1992Jul21.230601.3677@leland.Stanford.EDU>, claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.183241.2221@cs.cmu.edu> lli+@cs.cmu.edu (Lori Iannamico) writes:
> 
>>Because unlike Barry "King of the Choke" Bonds, Barrasso and Jagr proved
>>they can handle the pressures of the playoffs and perform well.  If Barry had
>>just shut up and put up during the playoffs, no one would be complaining about
>>his salary demands and calling him greedy.  But for 2 years in a row, he's been
>>a bust during the playoffs.  In the opinion of a lot of fans, he's done nothing
>>to prove he's worth 30 million.  And that's why they're complaining.
> 
> Lori, no offense intended, but I think this is a *very* unfair characterization
> of Bonds' performance.  Remember, first of all, 4 teams make the playoffs in

	Nelson, you obviously haven't watched him play the past two years.  
When somebody goes about .080 with runners in scoring postion for two years 
after having 2 MVP style seasons, there's a problem with his performance.  
Could anyone say that Jagr was the best player on the ice consistently 
throughout the playoffs?  No.  But he also scored three game-winning goals in 
a row (if memory serves.  Is that some kind of record?)  It's that kind of 
performance that fans look for at the big moments that seperates the Mike 
Gartners from the guys you want to have on a breakaway in a tie game late in 
the third period.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Wolfgeng Kolasinski
Fritz-Haber-Institut	Abteilung physikalische Chemie