Talk:Enforcer (ice hockey)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). Edit this message Ice hockey Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

I, personally, wouldn't call Joe Thornton or Derian Hatcher enforcers. Joe is more of a powerforward and Derian is more of a big tough d-man. Just my thoughts. Masterhatch 26 July 2005

Joe Thornton an enforcer? Laughable.

Matthew Barnaby? His rise to the NHL is a cinderella story for sure but an Enforcer he is not! And niether is Jordan Tootoo. Chris66 22 June 2006

To this note, I would suggest the creation of a Rat (hockey) or Pest (hockey) page. Barnaby is not an enforcer; his role is not to fight or to retaliate. His role is to bait people into fighting him or retaliate by playing dirty while the refs aren't looking. Rat or pest, not enforcer. Marimvibe 08:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with such an article. Go ahead and create it. Croctotheface 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Added - Pest (hockey) Marimvibe 02:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many enforcers listed

If people want a complete list of enforcers, that could be an article unto itself. This article should just have a small handful to illustrate the concept. I'll wait a bit, then make the change. Croctotheface 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the list shojld be limited, but the fact that McSorely's fourth all time in PIM alone should get him on the list. Throw in the slash on Brashear, and he's certainly notable. Marimvibe 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Would there be tremendous opposition to paring the list down to maybe five or six names? There's already a category that functions as a list. My issue is that there really isn't any grounds for excluding any name with the list there is now. However, an extremely long list of names isn't really all that useful for an encyclopedia article, and there's no need to have two lists of enforcers--one on the page and also the category. Croctotheface 00:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No opposition here. Ray, Domi, Williams, McSorely, Laraque? Marimvibe 03:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - there's no reason to have both a link to the category in the See also, and a list on the page, particularly when the two don't match. 64.81.240.233 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony Twist NEEDS to be on this list. From his Wikipedia page: "Despite a relatively short career, Tony Twist was arguably one of the best enforcers of his generation. He spent most of his time with the Blues as the protector of Brett Hull. That his yearly accumulated penalty minutes were never as high as most of the other noted NHL pugilists attests to the fact that many of them respected his prowess and were wary of going toe to toe with him. At the end of his career "The Twister" joked that his job could have been done by a cardboard cutout of him on the end of the bench because his reputation was so scary to opposing teams."  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The list is, again, not intended to be a complete list of enforcers. Not including someone on the list does not make him "less" of an enforcer. We as editors of this article have to choose between either trying to have an exhaustive list of enforcers (a list that would totally overwhelm the article and serve little purpose because it would be redundant with the category), having a small number of samples, or having no list at all. I'd rather have no list on the article at all than see it bloat. Just because there is a bunch of glowing pro-Twist POV at his article doesn't mean that he is more deserving than any other enforcer. Croctotheface 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but Tony Twist was only known as an enforcer, and well known at that. Maybe we should cast a vote? That would be the fairest way I can think of, instead of having an edit war.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're edit warring. I mean, there are two other editors who contributed to the consensus for paring down the list, as you can see above. All of the people who used to be on the list were "known as enforcers". I mean, this isn't a huge deal to me in the abstract (I don't really care a whole lot about whether Twist as an individual is on the list), but if we don't draw the line somewhere, then the article becomes a huge list of names without any context. Would it be wrong of me to think that you want to privelige Twist over the other names in the Enforcers category? I don't really see why he should be. Croctotheface 01:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, because Twist was pretty a fan favourite wherever he played, still is in the hockey business doing post game shows, and his job on the Blues was to protect Brett Hull and fight anybody that messed with him. I think it should go by who has the most PIMs, in a way, and Twister had 1121. I agree though, there really shouldn't be a big list, but it should be bigger than it is, maybe 10? I don't know, nor do I really care, but anything over 10 would be too much.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  02:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony Twist never fought more than 15 times in a season. How can you argue for the inclusion of Twist, when guys like Rob Ray (5 seasons of 20 or more fights protecting Hawerchuk, Mogilny and Lafontaine), and Dave Semenko (an obvious inclusion that was somehow overlooked) are omitted? And that's not even mentioning active enforcers like Donald Brashear (protecting Ovechkin and Koivu). I've removed Twist and replaced him with Semenko. I'd love to see your reasoning why Twist is in this very small list of examples and Semenko isn't. 216.191.73.124 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Because Twist is a MUCH bigger name. Twist even said that since he was so good at what he did, the players were so scared fo him, you could put a cardboard cutout of him on the bench and they'd still be scared. Youtube him. Enforcing isn't just fighting, its more than that. If it were just fighting, DJ King would be on the top of the list.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  22:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks like an opinion more than actual fact. Rob ray was a much more feared than tony twist, had a much longer career, and was just as revered in Buffalo as twist was in st. Louis, and semenko practically invented the bodyguard tag in hockey, no way is Twist a bigger name. Adding tony twist to this article looks like fancruft, rather than reality. 74.13.129.135 00:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If Ray, who is 6th all time in PIM, had a storied rivalry with Domi, had a rule written because of him (and an interesting, "why would they ever need that rule" type of rule, and was the quintessential enforcer isn't worthy of making the list, I have a hard time agreeing with Twist. Perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to put players from their favorite team on the list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marimvibe (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Twist didn't just play for St. Louis, I hope you know. Seriously, YouTube him. Once again though, Fighting is not even half of being an enforcer, you need to hit well, and be respected. More than I think twist is a great enforcer. [1] [2] [3] Joe Sakic, when asked what NHL Enforcer he wanted in his corner? Tony Twist. [4] "The NHL's reigning toughguy, Tony Twist." [5] A lot of people consider Tony Twist to be one of the best if not the best enforcer of his time. Whoever thinks he doesn't belong is just being biased. Tony Twist is a PRIME example of an NHL Enforcer. Doesn't get a whole let better than that. 445 Career Games. 10 Goals. 18 Assists. 1121 PIMs. If that doesn't speak for itself I don't know what does. Having Georges Laraque on there is a little pre-mature if you ask me. I think you should have a list of 10, and Tony Twist should without question be on that 10.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding Twist is pure fancruft and certainly not worthy of mention over guys like Jim Schoenfeld, Tim Hunter, Chris "Knuckles" Nilan or even Terry O'Reilly. Please stop edit warring. I see you've already been tagged as a sockpuppet for a user that has been blocked for more than a week - so don't push the 3RR with edit warring. 74.13.129.135

Kid, that was all a mistake, don't stalk me over the internet please. I could hate Tony Twist and still think he needs to be on here. I'm not a fan of Tiger Williams because of his infamous cheap shot, but he should be on here. Nor do I like Marty McSorley, but not gonna argue if he should be here or not, because he should. You obviously have a personal vendetta with either me or Tony Twist, and are just making things difficult, all of your edits are anti-Tony Twist, sounds like some PesonalPOVto me, and this whole topic should be NPOV. Just because I happen to like the guy doesn't make him any less of an enforcer, for christs sake.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  04:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

JimSchoenfeld, no mention of him being an enforcer on his page, just a disgrace to the NHL officials. Tim Hunter was able to score goals, so isn't your stereotypical enforcer. Lets face it, the old NHL was full of enforcers, theres no need to limit the page to a small number, there should be a whole page with just a list of them. BUT, if you're going to list people who fit the enforcer role to a t, Tony Twist is a PRIME EXAMPLE. Couldn't score. Couldn't get an assist, could only fight and hit and be feared.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  04:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Try watching hockey before your birth year - what was that? 1990? Look at the arguments above - you're the only person who is insisting on inserting their POV into this article. Wikipedia works by consensus and verifiability, not because one lone editor who is has an obvious agenda wants the edit inserted. you're a blocked editor using a sockpuppet to get around a block - you should be blocked again. 74.13.129.135 04:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked because idiots like you can't handle the truth. Just because you don't like him, doesn't mean hes not an enforcer. I only like Twist and Domi on that list, but am not about to edit it over and over like you just because I don't argee with ONE NAME. I personally think D.J. King is the best fighter in the league right now, but am not gonna put it up there.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i'm not interested in why you were blocked, and i don't care anything about Tony Twist either way, other than the fact that his name does not belong with those that are listed, especially when you consider all the other enforcers in league history who are not there. you're clearly not editing with a neutral point of view, and kiddy name calling isn't going to change that. and as an aside, just the fact that you can't see Tim Hunter was an elite enforcer shows that your viewpoint is limited when it comes to hockey. 74.13.129.135 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Kiddy" Insults, calling a name there. "Reverted FanBoy Edits", theres another name. Please don't be hypocritical. I never said Tim Hunter wasn't an "elite" enforcer, I said he wasn't your stereotypical enforcer because he could score goals. Please learn to comprehend common everyday english. Remove Tony Twist again, just because you're a biased person who doesn't like real hockey enforcers, and likes the old ones. This is about current ones. If you're a new fan to hockey, you would like to know the current or enforcers from a couple years ago, not players that didn't even wear helmets.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  05:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

keep reaching- look up the meaning of fanboy. Show me one source that shows Twist is worthy of this list over the guys listed above - Ray, Nilan, Hunter, Semenko etc. Because if as you claim Twist is MUCH bigger name it should be no problem. Again you're a blues fan trying to add a player you like, whether he belongs or not - a clear case where a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. It also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. - otherwise known as WP:FAN - fancruft. I'm waiting for some sources. 74.13.129.135 05:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcer List

Listing any enforcer on the page without citing a reliable source leaves the information open for removal and/or tagging with {{Fact}} or ^{[original opinion?]} tags. Obviously anyone who was labeled a goon could be added as long as someone "thinks" they fit the criteria. I think we need to show examples that have been reported by a reliable source which is what Wikipedia calls for. According the this 2005 ESPN article [[6]] the top enforcers include Tie Domi, Dave Semenko, Bob Probert, Dave Schultz and Tiger Williams from the list currently on the page. They also list Tim Hunter and Terry O'Reilly from the argument above. Tony Twist does not appear, or does Jim Schoenfeld, Rob Ray or Chris Nilan. MSNBC has Georges Laraque tagged as a top enforcer.[7]. We should stick to those who have overwhelming evidence supporting their inclusion or otherwise everyone from Stu Grimson, Joey Kocur, and Rudy Poeschek, to Todd Fedoruk, Andrew Pters and Derek Boogard will be in this article, and this talk page will end up looking pretty ugly. Quartet 05:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why Laraque is on there then, and nobody has any problem with it?  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see above - I picked one of many sources that list him as an elite enforcer. Quartet 05:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So a headline that says "Veteran to provide scoring depth; Laraque one of NHL's top enforcers" that was written when the enforcer role was basically done for the time being includes him as one of the best enforcers of all time? I see. I thought wikipedia was for factual information. My mistake.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  05:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There are an overwhelming number of articles from reliable sources that tag Laraque as a top enforcer. Again that was just one of many sources. Quartet 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Laraque has about as many PIM's as a girl scout, but ok.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your opinion on number of penaltly minutes or number of fighting majors - I'm not defending Laraque, I'm looking to determine what decides who makes this list - and I'm starting to think a list is a bad idea for this article without something to quantify who belongs and who doesn't. Quartet 05:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how the user above has been indef blocked, are there any other (perhaps more informed) opinions on this? Quartet 02:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing the list. As I said before, the choices are basically all, some, or none. "All" would be redundant with the category and overwhelm the article. "Some" would perhaps be a bit more informative, as it would let readers click the links and see the kind of careers that enforcers have. The downside, as we've seen here, is that there's no way to objectively select a list. "None" has the advantage of avoiding the need to make a decision. It would be marginally less informative, but it may be the fairest solution and make the most sense. Croctotheface 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the list has value. I'd suggest some measure to reduce potential fanboism creeping into the list, for example freezing the list as it is now (which I think provides 99% of the value the list could have.) As it stands, the list provides a few of the more notable enforcers over a decent time frame, and includes I'd say about the most notable current enforcer in Laraque for a current state of the role. My 2 cents. Marimvibe 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. All of the individuals listed can be justified with a reliable source if needed. Quartet 14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that the people on the list are enforcers. The issue is that many other players are enforcers as well. As you said yourself, it's very hard to determine who should and should not be on the list. The question is whether the list adds enough value to the article to have to go through the process of determining who should and should not be on it. It may be the case that eliminating the list and therefore eliminating that problem is the best thing for everyone involved. Croctotheface 04:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this before with other articles and agree with Croctotheface. Eventually if left unchecked the article will have a huge list full of fan additions similar to how the sideburns article looks right now. If the article is written properly and cited properly, a list is redundant. Also, we'll avoid petty conflicts over one minor addition like the one above. This isn't a vote, but if it were, I'd vote remove, and incorporate the list into well-written prose. Yankees76 04:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've pulled the list until consensus is reached on this. Quartet 15:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree on something like this ==

[edit] List Of Enforcers

For a list of enforcers, please see Category:Enforcers.

75.40.63.139 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if everyone would agree on this, but I think it's OK. It's a little bit sloppy/makeshift, but I agree that most people won't think to click the category link unless we tell them it's there. This seems as good a way as any to do that. Croctotheface 08:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)