The headlines were everywhere. Sports radio was abuzz. Replays rolled continuously on ESPN. The Dodgers and the Diamondbacks had brawled. Last week, a relatively meaningless regular season baseball game was transformed into a front-page story for one reason and one reason only: Blood had been spilled.
Like most sports fans, I was drawn to the headlines, the radio shows and the replays. After two full days of coverage, however, I couldn’t help but ask myself, isn’t this a little over the top? Could violence and brutality in sports possibly be a good thing? When can we, as fans, accept overtly violent acts as being “part of the game?”
After considering the culture of individual sports, the threats posed to player safety by violence, and the entertainment value that violence provides to fans, I reached a surprising conclusion. Although violence in sports might not always be a good thing, it is a necessary thing. As absurd as this might sound, baseball needs pitches to be hurled at the heads of batters, hockey needs fights and the mixed martial arts need brutal knockouts. Sports need blood.
VIOLENCE PLAYS: SPORTS CULTURE DEMANDS IT
After Diamondbacks pitcher Ian Kennedy hit Dodgers rookie sensation Yasiel Puig in the face with a pitch during the sixth inning of a June 11 game, there was little doubt that the Dodgers would retaliate. Retaliate they did the following inning when Dodgers pitcher Zach Grienke drilled Diamondbacks catcher Miguel Montero in the back. Before all was said and done, two more players were hit by pitches, both teams’ benches emptied and a full-scale brawl erupted on the field.
For those unfamiliar with the game of baseball, the plunk, the retaliation and the brawl probably seemed absurd. After all, a sphere travelling upwards of 90 mph could end a player’s career. Before jumping to conclusions, however, it is important for fans to recognize that in some instances, throwing at a player is as much a part of baseball as bats and balls. From the time that players are young, coaches teach “unwritten rules” of baseball. One of those rules requires players to protect their teammates. If a pitch hits a star player, that player’s teammates have a duty to retaliate. By upholding this duty, players honor the game of baseball’s unique culture.
As a fan, a part of me wishes that the phenomenon of pitchers throwing at other players could be taken out of the game. After all, why put a player’s career in jeopardy over some ridiculous notion of retributive justice? At the same time, I recognize that I am a fan, not a baseball player. I will never completely understand the intricacies of baseball’s culture. I do understand, however, that baseball’s culture is part of what makes the game what it is. To interfere with a game’s culture interferes with the game itself. Therefore, I believe that non-players must grant players leeway in policing their games. As with any police action, there must be limits, but by allowing athletes monitor their respective games, we ensure that the sanctity of the games remains intact.
VIOLENCE HURTS: SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
On so many levels, Derek Boogard was the epitome of an NHL enforcer. Big, strong and always willing to fight, Boogard amassed 589 penalty minutes during his 6-year career. Beloved for his propensity to perpetuate fights and protect teammates, Boogart routinely received ruckus cheers the moment he stepped onto the ice.
In May 2011, at age 28, Boogard died after overdosing on prescription drugs.
Like many NHL enforcers, Boogard suffered from depression and mood swings.
In recent years, doctors studying the brains of the NHL’s most notorious fighters have found evidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disorder that is caused by blunt force trauma to the head. Medical studies investigating the effects of CTE have linked the disorder to depression, substance abuse and suicide. While it is impossible to definitively prove that Boogard’s substance abuse issues were caused by the head trauma he suffered while fighting, medical evidence suggests that a connection was likely.
Supposing that a connection does exist, a question arises as to whether fighting needs to be phased out of the game of hockey. Yes, fighting is an integral part of hockey culture. Yes, fights are entertaining. But can cultural considerations and our love of entertainment justify a player like Boogard losing his life?
At first glance, the answer would seem to be a resounding no. Players should never lose their lives as a result of sports related violence, right? Not exactly. Players like Boogard are paid to fight. Their place in the NHL is predicated on their willingness to engage in violence and in doing so they assume certain risks. Don’t get me wrong, player deaths are never wanted, but at the same time, it’s not as if players put their bodies in harm’s way unknowingly.
In the same way that we must allow players to police their own games, we must allow players to accept their own risks. That is not to say that player safety should not be a concern. It is to say, however, that if players want to fight and get paid to fight, they should be allowed to fight. Professional athletes are grown men and women. If they want to put their safety at risk, they should be allowed to do so.
VIOLENCE SELLS: FANS WANT BLOOD
Over the last five years, the sport of mixed martial arts (MMA) has transformed from a fringe sport to a cultural phenomenon. Once considered too violent to be mainstream, fighters are now signing large endorsement deals and fights are being shown on network television. While a multitude of factors have contributed to the growth of MMA, no single factor has had more of an impact than the sport’s unparalleled violence.
To many people, MMA is the equivalent of human cockfighting, yet there is little doubt that violence is the reason that the sport thrives. Fans crave violence, fans cheer violence and fans buy violence. Fans provide sports leagues and athletes with their paychecks. In return, sports leagues, and sports in general, must satisfy the fans. Therefore, until fans indicate that they want something different, violence must remain present in sports.
In closing, I should point out that I neither enjoy violence nor condone it. In writing this article, I wanted badly to argue that violence has no place in sports. Making such an argument proved impossible, however. Without brawls like the one between the Dodgers and Diamondbacks, sports culture would be unalterably changed, the choice to engage in violent acts would be taken out of the hands of athletes and fans would be left disappointed.
For now, at least, in a culture that craves violence, certain expressions of violence within sporting arenas must be allowed.
imaclaren@cortezjournal.com