Matt PoyntingKing Hits and Dull Wits
April 23rd 2008 05:29
What is the King Hit?
Commonly, a King Hit is known as an unexpected, aggressive attack on another individual, usually a punch of some form. Why does one feel the need for a King Hit? Well, the general excuse for one of these vicious blows is some kind of disorientation - not knowing what one is really doing - or, in some cases, inebriation. We often don't see such acts of brutality unleashed by a player. But when we do, it is fairly safe to say that they take place in the Rugby League arena. I don't believe any fans of the game will forget the horrific example applied by Melbourne's Danny Williams in 2005 (knocking out Wests Tigers' Mark O'Neill and ultimately contributing greatly to his retirement from the game that year). Recently, we saw Canberra's Michael Weyman punch Gold Coast's Daniel Conn, leaving the latter with eye damage.
These acts, however as of recently, are not exclusive to Rugby League. The most famous 'King Hit' of recent was the alleged attack by swimmer Nick D'Arcy on former swimming great Simon Cowley. The alleged attack was witnessed by a number of other swimmers and friends of both D'Arcy and Cowley. The aggressor is currently facing various assault charges in court and if found guilty, potentially faces 10 years in jail.
In the meantime, D'Arcy has been thrown off Australia's Olympic Swimming team that will head to Beijing. Ironically, D'Arcy qualified for the Games on the night just hours before the alleged assault.
In another incident, we saw Sydney Swans' forward Barry Hall suspended for 7 weeks after an unprovoked left hook on West Coast's Brent Staker in the AFL.
Now that we know the background and some examples, I want to ask the question why?
Why have we seen a sudden emergence of these attacks recently? Why do some sportspeople resort to this method to settle their differences? And why, why is it referred to by the name 'King Hit'?
We'll start with question 1.
What happened to the days of toe to toe fighting? Now in no way do I personally condone fighting in sport. Personally, I think it taints the games. But I understand that for many reasons, players get agitated - if their team is losing, if an incident occurs that they are not pleased about etc - but I believe that disputes between players need to be settled in an orderly manner. A couple of even punches to and fro but never, I repeat NEVER, should we see a player launch a completely unexpected attack on another. Even Hitler himself warned Poland. (In no way am I endorsing Hitler or the Nazi Party's actions at any stage. The preceding comment is entirely used for argument's sake). Sometimes the King Hits are unprovoked acts of thuggery: in Barry Hall's case for example. Now where has this mentality come from? I have a few theories. Firstly, there is a lot more emphasis placed these days on winning. Winning means money. Money means status. These sportspeople are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to play their sport. They are given bonuses for winning. Simple as that. When things aren't going their team's way, they become anxious and this can lead to that "disorientation" that I mentioned before. Because of this desire to win and be the best at the game, many players don't do as well in school as they concentrate particularly hard on their chosen sport, thus missing out greatly on the hugely advantageous effects of academia. These players also fail to learn other important aspects of life including basic conflict resolution, anger management and dealing with one's self in a sustainable manner. This is why we see such football players as AFL's Gary Ablett Sr, Wayne Carey and more recently, NRL's Tim Smith, metaphorically 'go off the rails' with drugs and alcohol. On the same note, I think this is a factor in the 'King Hit' issue. Some players aren't educated in the aforementioned areas basically because they have never needed to be. They have lived their whole lives as good footballers, swimmers, soccer stars etc. The emerging young talent need the proper education and guidance necessary to produce their own methods of dealing with conflict/anger rather than the 'King Hit'.
Now on to question 2...
I have partially answered the question of "why is this the chosen method of conflict resolution by some players?".
In my opinion, the individuals that engage in this 'activity' of King-Hitting are plain dumb. Whether it be due to lack of education or lack of positive air flow to the brain, these individuals simply do not have the capacity to comprehend their actions or the consequences. Barry Hall, Nick D'Arcy, Michael Weyman and Danny Williams all have one thing in common, they "didn't really know what they were doing". This, I believe, is one of the weakest excuses for this kind of attack. These players need to come right out and say, "yes, I did it. It was foolish, stupid, idiotic...I knew exactly what I was doing and it was unacceptable. But I did it and I regret it." Too often are we subjected to the same old recycled statement, "I sincerely regret my actions. I was unaware at the time of the impact of my actions and (sometimes) I do not remember doing it". This is what we heard from Wayne Carey after he groped a woman in 1992, Barry Hall recently and Danny Williams in 2005. Nick D'Arcy has seemed to show the same remorse as a cat who has just neatly diposed of a bird. The excuse must be available on Google or something.
Finally, why is the term King Hit used?
Surely the term is not appropriate. If you are familiar with Boxing or the Australian male who enjoys a 'good biff', you will know that an individual who is hit with a decent punch that is landed with some force, the thrower of that punch and subsequently, the punch, are all described as a number of different things: 'he got smashed; he belted him; he thumped him; what a hit; a nice hit; a solid hit; a mad punch" etc. These terms are all used to describe a popular and effective punch. Some people revel in the excitement of a "good, decent hit". This is why I believe the 'King Hit', is so-called. The name King suggests royalty, obviously. Not so much these days, but in the past the King was at the top of the order of being. He was God's chosen representative and therefore the term 'King Hit' refers to greatness and high order. The reason behind the naming of this punch then can be defined as either of two things: A. The punch is thought of as a good, solid, 'top of the list' and almost honourable hit or B. the punch is defined as the greatest in force and therefore the "King of Punches". Either way, I think the naming is inappropriate. I get the sense that when a punch of that nature is described as a "King" of all things, it is almost being subliminally applauded. Even though it is looked down upon in sporting circles and general society, one cannot seem to shed the idea of the 'King Hit' being somewhat celebrated as just a bigger and better version of this wonderful thing called the 'blow'. This may just be my interpretation but I often wonder what some of the lower forms of society (or more commonly "bogans") think when they see a punch like this. It scares me.
I believe the only way that this 'King Hit' nature can be toned down and hopefully one day eliminated is if proper action is taken against those responsible. Nick D'Arcy is currently in court over his alleged assault and could face a lengthy prison term as well as being kicked off the Olympic team - in my opinion, great work. The man, if found guilty, deserves nothing more than a cold, hard prison bed and his Olympic dream to be taken away. In the midst of all this, Barry Hall receives a 7 week suspension? To me, 7 weeks is simply too short. If you witnessed the footage of the 'King Hit' on Staker, you will understand how brutal it was. Hall also broke his hand and will be out for 6 weeks anyway after colliding with an advertising sign. Essentially, this means that for an attack as vicious as his, he will be sidelined for one measly game. What would my verdict have been? - the season.
Finally, the youth of sport must be taught how to act. I understand that there is a very minute percentage of young sportspeople that grow into thugs and 'King-Hitters'. But surely, if coaches from, say, Under 12 teams in the main offending sports of AFL and Rugby League were to implement some sort of education program that teaches these youths about violence in sport and why it is unacceptable, we would be a much greater step forward than we are by just sanctioning these acts when they occur. The same could be taught in schools during PD/H/PE.
Maybe, just maybe, the 'King Hit' can be eliminated from our culture before it becomes more of an issue than what it is already.
Commonly, a King Hit is known as an unexpected, aggressive attack on another individual, usually a punch of some form. Why does one feel the need for a King Hit? Well, the general excuse for one of these vicious blows is some kind of disorientation - not knowing what one is really doing - or, in some cases, inebriation. We often don't see such acts of brutality unleashed by a player. But when we do, it is fairly safe to say that they take place in the Rugby League arena. I don't believe any fans of the game will forget the horrific example applied by Melbourne's Danny Williams in 2005 (knocking out Wests Tigers' Mark O'Neill and ultimately contributing greatly to his retirement from the game that year). Recently, we saw Canberra's Michael Weyman punch Gold Coast's Daniel Conn, leaving the latter with eye damage.
These acts, however as of recently, are not exclusive to Rugby League. The most famous 'King Hit' of recent was the alleged attack by swimmer Nick D'Arcy on former swimming great Simon Cowley. The alleged attack was witnessed by a number of other swimmers and friends of both D'Arcy and Cowley. The aggressor is currently facing various assault charges in court and if found guilty, potentially faces 10 years in jail.
In the meantime, D'Arcy has been thrown off Australia's Olympic Swimming team that will head to Beijing. Ironically, D'Arcy qualified for the Games on the night just hours before the alleged assault.
In another incident, we saw Sydney Swans' forward Barry Hall suspended for 7 weeks after an unprovoked left hook on West Coast's Brent Staker in the AFL.
Now that we know the background and some examples, I want to ask the question why?
Why have we seen a sudden emergence of these attacks recently? Why do some sportspeople resort to this method to settle their differences? And why, why is it referred to by the name 'King Hit'?
We'll start with question 1.
What happened to the days of toe to toe fighting? Now in no way do I personally condone fighting in sport. Personally, I think it taints the games. But I understand that for many reasons, players get agitated - if their team is losing, if an incident occurs that they are not pleased about etc - but I believe that disputes between players need to be settled in an orderly manner. A couple of even punches to and fro but never, I repeat NEVER, should we see a player launch a completely unexpected attack on another. Even Hitler himself warned Poland. (In no way am I endorsing Hitler or the Nazi Party's actions at any stage. The preceding comment is entirely used for argument's sake). Sometimes the King Hits are unprovoked acts of thuggery: in Barry Hall's case for example. Now where has this mentality come from? I have a few theories. Firstly, there is a lot more emphasis placed these days on winning. Winning means money. Money means status. These sportspeople are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to play their sport. They are given bonuses for winning. Simple as that. When things aren't going their team's way, they become anxious and this can lead to that "disorientation" that I mentioned before. Because of this desire to win and be the best at the game, many players don't do as well in school as they concentrate particularly hard on their chosen sport, thus missing out greatly on the hugely advantageous effects of academia. These players also fail to learn other important aspects of life including basic conflict resolution, anger management and dealing with one's self in a sustainable manner. This is why we see such football players as AFL's Gary Ablett Sr, Wayne Carey and more recently, NRL's Tim Smith, metaphorically 'go off the rails' with drugs and alcohol. On the same note, I think this is a factor in the 'King Hit' issue. Some players aren't educated in the aforementioned areas basically because they have never needed to be. They have lived their whole lives as good footballers, swimmers, soccer stars etc. The emerging young talent need the proper education and guidance necessary to produce their own methods of dealing with conflict/anger rather than the 'King Hit'.
Now on to question 2...
I have partially answered the question of "why is this the chosen method of conflict resolution by some players?".
In my opinion, the individuals that engage in this 'activity' of King-Hitting are plain dumb. Whether it be due to lack of education or lack of positive air flow to the brain, these individuals simply do not have the capacity to comprehend their actions or the consequences. Barry Hall, Nick D'Arcy, Michael Weyman and Danny Williams all have one thing in common, they "didn't really know what they were doing". This, I believe, is one of the weakest excuses for this kind of attack. These players need to come right out and say, "yes, I did it. It was foolish, stupid, idiotic...I knew exactly what I was doing and it was unacceptable. But I did it and I regret it." Too often are we subjected to the same old recycled statement, "I sincerely regret my actions. I was unaware at the time of the impact of my actions and (sometimes) I do not remember doing it". This is what we heard from Wayne Carey after he groped a woman in 1992, Barry Hall recently and Danny Williams in 2005. Nick D'Arcy has seemed to show the same remorse as a cat who has just neatly diposed of a bird. The excuse must be available on Google or something.
Finally, why is the term King Hit used?
Surely the term is not appropriate. If you are familiar with Boxing or the Australian male who enjoys a 'good biff', you will know that an individual who is hit with a decent punch that is landed with some force, the thrower of that punch and subsequently, the punch, are all described as a number of different things: 'he got smashed; he belted him; he thumped him; what a hit; a nice hit; a solid hit; a mad punch" etc. These terms are all used to describe a popular and effective punch. Some people revel in the excitement of a "good, decent hit". This is why I believe the 'King Hit', is so-called. The name King suggests royalty, obviously. Not so much these days, but in the past the King was at the top of the order of being. He was God's chosen representative and therefore the term 'King Hit' refers to greatness and high order. The reason behind the naming of this punch then can be defined as either of two things: A. The punch is thought of as a good, solid, 'top of the list' and almost honourable hit or B. the punch is defined as the greatest in force and therefore the "King of Punches". Either way, I think the naming is inappropriate. I get the sense that when a punch of that nature is described as a "King" of all things, it is almost being subliminally applauded. Even though it is looked down upon in sporting circles and general society, one cannot seem to shed the idea of the 'King Hit' being somewhat celebrated as just a bigger and better version of this wonderful thing called the 'blow'. This may just be my interpretation but I often wonder what some of the lower forms of society (or more commonly "bogans") think when they see a punch like this. It scares me.
I believe the only way that this 'King Hit' nature can be toned down and hopefully one day eliminated is if proper action is taken against those responsible. Nick D'Arcy is currently in court over his alleged assault and could face a lengthy prison term as well as being kicked off the Olympic team - in my opinion, great work. The man, if found guilty, deserves nothing more than a cold, hard prison bed and his Olympic dream to be taken away. In the midst of all this, Barry Hall receives a 7 week suspension? To me, 7 weeks is simply too short. If you witnessed the footage of the 'King Hit' on Staker, you will understand how brutal it was. Hall also broke his hand and will be out for 6 weeks anyway after colliding with an advertising sign. Essentially, this means that for an attack as vicious as his, he will be sidelined for one measly game. What would my verdict have been? - the season.
Finally, the youth of sport must be taught how to act. I understand that there is a very minute percentage of young sportspeople that grow into thugs and 'King-Hitters'. But surely, if coaches from, say, Under 12 teams in the main offending sports of AFL and Rugby League were to implement some sort of education program that teaches these youths about violence in sport and why it is unacceptable, we would be a much greater step forward than we are by just sanctioning these acts when they occur. The same could be taught in schools during PD/H/PE.
Maybe, just maybe, the 'King Hit' can be eliminated from our culture before it becomes more of an issue than what it is already.
| 160 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Tyronne
Sydney Fun
Melbourne DiaryStar
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Check this out...