Professional sports? You mean, where you sit in your living room and watch a bunch of other guys play a game? It’s just a fad; it’ll pass.
Thus speaketh the gaming geek.
Chess.
(runs far and fast)
Hey, we’re getting pretty far afield here. I never said people didn’t have a right to not like hockey. I only said I didn’t understand them. And I’m only advocating pimp-slapping those who would rather watch other people bowl than watch a hockey game. 
As for fighting, I find it exciting. But then, I’m a violence-loving troglodyte. 
I certainly see it as less ugly than a nasty, intentional high stick; spear with the hockey stick; or check from behind into the boards. But that could be just my conditioning, growing up with the game and fighting as a part of it.
The idea that fighting couldn’t be completely removed from the game is more or less bullshit, I have to admit. As an example, I’d cite the eradication of bench-clearing brawls in hockey. In the mid-70s, I’d see at least five a season on TV. You’ll never see one now. Why?
Because of NHL Rule 72, which states the first two people off the bench during a fight for either or both teams will be ejected from the game, suspended for 10 games for the first player; suspended for five games for the second player; and fined the maximum allowable under the Collective Bargaining agreement. The coach of the team whose player left the bench may also be suspended.
Players standing to lose one-eighth of their salaries put the kibosh on this practice in a big ol’ hurry. (Incidentally, if a team is caught compensating a player suspended for this on the side, the rule states the fine is $100,000.)
If people wanted to eliminate fighting, similar zero-tolerance penalties could be imposed, and, after what would no doubt be an extremely difficult adjustment period, it would go away.
Two things stand in the way of it:
A. Hockey purists don’t want fighting to go away. And the NHL still must cater to them. For all the expansion into the Sun Belt, the long-timers are still the league’s bread and butter.
B. Unless you also get just as zero-tolerant of deliberate high-sticking, spearing and boarding, those far more potentially injurious or even deadly practices will increase exponentially.
It’s a razor’s edge. Part of what makes the game so great is its aggression and physical play. Making so many things that could happen on the ice in a heated moment worthy of a long suspension would tend to make players more cautious and less aggressive. And the quality of play would suffer.
All things considered, fighting is better than the alternative. It’s still a very effective way of making it so no-talent hacks can’t rough up the Paul Kariyas and Sergei Fedorovs of the league.
And I don’t really know how to explain this to a non-fan, but my beloved Detroit Red Wings won their first Stanley Cup in 45 years in 1997, and it was this major, multiple-player fight against their fierce rival the Colorado Avalanche that gelled the Wings as a team and made that Cup victory possible.
Isn’t one of you purists going to defend giving that token point to the losing team?
Hey–I’ve already said that I like hockey. I’ve even been known to get a thrill from a good mano-a-mano. I have never, though, walked out of a game talking about the fights and thought that was a good thing for the sport. And hockey will trail along behind bowling, golf and woman’s billiards for so long as the sideshow is more involving than the contest. (On the other hand–it seems to be working for women’s billiards. Who said life, or television, was fair.)
If, despite the tremendous physical exertion during the game, hockey players still need to fight to release tension, then they should go bowling after the game.