The iceman brawleth

Reports on a study done by George M. Engelhardt on the effects of physical intimidation on winning hockey games. No relation to how a team makes out; Counted the number of fights; Intimidation as the cause for a team's poor standing; Details.

By PT Staff, published on January 01, 1992

Puck Yuck

It's hockey season, and you plunk yourself down in front of the TV to watch...fistfights, stick-swinging duels, bench-clearing brawls, and wrestling matches on ice. The conventional wisdom, pushed by coaches, is that these are effective tactical strategies.

Foul, says a Michigan psychologist. Coaches who believe that physical intimidation makes for winning hockey games are skating on very thin ice. Such mayhem may keep the fans inflamed but bears no relation to how a team makes out.

George M. Engelhardt, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist in West Bloomfield, actually counted the fighting penalties National Hockey League teams accumulated and then looked at their final standing in the league during the 1989-90 season. He found a relationship between the number of fights and team rank alright, but an entirely negative one: The greater the number of fighting penalties, the lower a team's standing.

It may be, says Engelhardt, that intimidation on ice is the cause of a team's poor standing. In any case, he concludes, "physical intimidation does not have the significance often attributed to it."

If teams are really interested in winning, as opposed to, say, grandstanding, it's time to ditch physical intimidation in favor of strategies that have proven effective. Engelhardt stresses improving individual attributes such as visual memory, attention span, and relaxed concentration. Then there are group elements, such as interaction, cohesiveness, and team awareness. And then there are playing strategies like the development of more complex offensive and defensive systems.

PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Fire and Ice: Not a winning combination.