Bobby Hull legacy thread (see admin warning post #1)

[Coaches Coroner]

Congrats on your 8th post in this thread!

I could care less if people want to mention the bad and, accordingly, those who mention the bad should care less about those who only want to mention the good.

How many more times are you going to say you "could care less" (which are words that literally mean that you do care lol)?

 

[daver]

This thread should have gone this way:

People should have been either liking the 2nd post in this thread or talking about his hockey accomplishments in Post #3.

Instead, we have 10 pages where 99% of the posts have nothing to do with hockey.

 

[MXD]

Congrats on your 8th post in this thread!

I could not care less if people want to mention the bad and, accordingly, those who mention the bad should not care about those who only want to mention the good.

In which case, you should probably use the "Edit" function, or report your own posts for deletion, because, boy, something went horribly wrong with the transfer of your thoughts, from your brain to the screen.

 

[ResilientBeast]

This thread should have gone this way:

People should have been either liking the 2nd post in this thread or talking about his hockey accomplishments in Post #3.

Instead, we have 10 pages where 99% of the posts have nothing to do with hockey.

Be the change you want to see in the world then

 

[daver]

I'd correct "could care less" here, but this seems to be accurate as written. Well said.

Damn it! I literally corrected that within 30 seconds of posting because I knew BOBN was also wearing the grammar police hat with equal vehemence.

Score one for the good side. Well played sir!

Be the change you want to see in the world then

And there is that self satisfaction that comes with making anonymous condemnations of someone they never met.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Damn it! I literally corrected that within 30 seconds of posting because I knew BOBN was also wearing the grammar police hat with equal vehemence.

Score one for the good side. Well played sir!



And there is that self satisfaction that comes with making anonymous condemnations of someone they never met.

You seem to be here because you get self satisfaction out making anonymous condemnations of posters you've never met based on your disagreements with them on this subject. Always accusing others of behaviour you are engaged in.

What is this notion that you must know a person to be able to judge objectively bad things they've committed, not once but consistently. Nonsensical at the very best.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It's bizarre to me that you evidently think that "people with a modicum of critical thinking" can judge situations and come up with an agreement on the severity of it. I don't know what world you're living in, but not the real one.

As an example of what I'm talking about, see: This thread.

Unfortunately, your viewpoint is all too common in discussion of this sort. As you've expressed it, your viewpoint is basically: "I think this way, and other people in my tribe think this way, so therefore everyone should agree with us, and if you don't, there's something wrong with you."

Unfortunately, it doesn't reflect reality. Furthermore, it's a useless viewpoint in a democratic and diverse society.

It's easy for you to say "Bobby Hull beating his wife is bad and therefore Bobby Hull is bad!". But what about more nuanced situations that aren't so black and white (which is the vast majority of them)? And what about the issue of whether we can celebrate athletes solely for their accomplishments or whether we are obligated to also consider their worthiness of celebration according to their personal character? And then, who gets to judge their character? you? me?

You've massively over-simplified these issues into Elementary-school level discourse, and, when challenged on it, you're then accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a fool. But, carry on...

More word salad that doesn't really mean anything. Yeah, there's situations that are a lot more black-and-white. Yes, that includes most situations separated from Bobby Hull, as his situation is pretty terrible.

Again, Beau Knows made the great point above. This conversation never comes up when we talk about how much of a good guy an athlete was - so why isn't the opposite fair game? And yes, I get to judge character based on my own experience and sensibilities. As do you. We do it every day when we choose to be friends and lovers with others or when we do decide to stop being friends and lovers with others around us. These often come down to judgement of personal character. It's done in all aspects of life. Employers do it, voters do it, corporations do it, and so on.

I haven't simplified anything. You're the one who's turning himself into an incoherent pretzel because you're bothered that people are a calling a piece of shit a piece of shit even though he was good at hockey.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I think he is commonly known to be a great playoff performer. He had better years than 1961, in the regular season and in the playoffs. The Hawks had better teams than in 1961 as well. But it all came together that year and they were young and talented and they knocked off the 5-time defending Cup champs. Not bad. By the way, he still had a really good postseason in 1961. 14 points in 12 games is nothing to laugh about. He was integral. I think he had several years just as good in the playoffs. 1971 was probably the biggest dagger to the heart, he had the Conn Smythe trophy in his pocket if the Hawks close out Game 7. Hull is easily an all-time great playoff performer. He just has that nagging part about him with winning just one Cup.




Mick was a known philanderer in his day. Drank a lot, partied a lot, was not a good father to his sons. All this stuff was self-admitted near the end of his life. He was sorry for how he treated people.

This is why I believe there is Hull the hockey legend and Hull the private person. I have no idea the amends Hull made in private, and to be honest I don't need to know. It isn't my business. As a person who puts a lot of stock in repentance I personally hope he did, but I don't know. He seemed to be at peace with at least some of his family at his death, maybe most or all of them. We seem to act like we think we know these things. Kind of like how the media just automatically acts like Tom Brady's marriage fizzled out after he "un-retired" last year and him and Gisele were living the life of "Happy Days" before that happened. Obviously it goes much deeper than that. But I notice that with Hull here too. People assume they know a hell of a lot about his private life and none of us probably know the half of it.

I leave it at that. And besides, I have always followed the Charles Barkley "I am not a role model" train of thinking. I don't think athletes ought to be role models, and there are many that you don't want to emulate. Which is why I focus on how they played the game we love.

I saw that Mickey Mantle talked about being more of a 'drinking buddy' to his sons than a father. That's not great, but that also doesn't sound like anywhere within the realm of what Bobby Hull has done. In short, it seems pretty easy to see why you didn't bring up what Mickey Mantle has done - it seems a gulf away from Bobby Hull's trashcan of a life.

I don't care whether athletes are role models. Nor am I entitled to their private life. But they're not entitled to a restrictions of opinions when their misdeeds become public. It's a two-way street.

 

[Theokritos]

Maybe I am bit rusty, but: What exactly is it that the argument is about? Is it whether we should say "Bobby Hull did horrible things, but he was also a great hockey player" or "Bobby Hull was a great hockey player, but he also did horrible things"? Because it seems to me almost everyone would accept both of those statements, no?

So are we arguing which of the two statements deserves to carry more weight and to be the last word, or is there more to the argument?

 

[MeHateHe]

This thread is an interesting glimpse into celebrity culture.

If one of your friend group had beaten up three separate wives, would you be in a hurry to talk about how nice he kept his garage? My guess is you'd be a lot less eager to call the guy a friend.

But we - this is pretty broad across society - are a lot more accepting of someone who has violated social norms if they have achieved some celebrity status. Outwardly, it might be because we appreciate their art (Eric Clapton) or their athletic prowess (ahem) but famous people get a pass a lot of the time because we sink so much of our own self-worth into the people we lionize.

I don't, for the record, think there's anything inherently wrong with that. Hero worship (for lack of a better term) is extremely powerful and elicits incredibly strong emotions. I was at the Pere Lachaise cemetery in Paris a few years back, and I watched grown adults weeping over the grave of Jim Morrison, someone who likely died before any of those adults were born. There are lots of other examples of that - go back and read through and watch some of the coverage of Princess Diana's death.

People feel a real, nearly familial, connection to the celebrities they're wrapped up in. So the death of that celebrity, for many, is often very deeply felt. You can be cynical all you want, but I can completely respect genuine emotion.

But here's the flip side.

People who have been physically abused, or who have a witnessed the kind of violence Hull inflicted, they will also feel genuine emotion when his attacks on his wives are glossed over or ignored.

Calling Bobby Hull a POS is reductionist and unhelpful. I think it's disrespectful to a lot of people whose only sin is being oblivious to the shitty things the guy did while the cameras were off. But talking only about Hull the hockey player is mindless hagiography and at the end of the day, it's fundamentally dishonest. He did terrible things: let's not pretend he didn't. I think there's a middle ground there somewhere.

 

[daver]

This thread is an interesting glimpse into celebrity culture.

If one of your friend group had beaten up three separate wives, would you be in a hurry to talk about how nice he kept his garage? My guess is you'd be a lot less eager to call the guy a friend.

But we - this is pretty broad across society - are a lot more accepting of someone who has violated social norms if they have achieved some celebrity status. Outwardly, it might be because we appreciate their art (Eric Clapton) or their athletic prowess (ahem) but famous people get a pass a lot of the time because we sink so much of our own self-worth into the people we lionize.

I don't, for the record, think there's anything inherently wrong with that. Hero worship (for lack of a better term) is extremely powerful and elicits incredibly strong emotions. I was at the Pere Lachaise cemetery in Paris a few years back, and I watched grown adults weeping over the grave of Jim Morrison, someone who likely died before any of those adults were born. There are lots of other examples of that - go back and read through and watch some of the coverage of Princess Diana's death.

People feel a real, nearly familial, connection to the celebrities they're wrapped up in. So the death of that celebrity, for many, is often very deeply felt. You can be cynical all you want, but I can completely respect genuine emotion.

But here's the flip side.

People who have been physically abused, or who have a witnessed the kind of violence Hull inflicted, they will also feel genuine emotion when his attacks on his wives are glossed over or ignored.

Calling Bobby Hull a POS is reductionist and unhelpful. I think it's disrespectful to a lot of people whose only sin is being oblivious to the shitty things the guy did while the cameras were off. But talking only about Hull the hockey player is mindless hagiography and at the end of the day, it's fundamentally dishonest. He did terrible things: let's not pretend he didn't. I think there's a middle ground there somewhere.

There is a difference between pretending what he did wasn't terrible (noone on this thread is remotely coming close to inferring this as far as I can tell) and being indifferent to it for reasons that do not need to be explained.

People rightfully get their dander up when terms like "we" and "us" are thrown out as if the moral compass has been set with no room for discussion or nuance.

"You" can talk about Hull the way that you want; "others" can talk about him the way that they want.

 

[MeHateHe]

There is a difference between pretending what he did wasn't terrible (noone on this thread is remotely coming close to inferring this as far as I can tell) and being indifferent to it for reasons that do not need to be explained.

People rightfully get their dander up when terms like "we" and "us" are thrown out as if the moral compass has been set with no room for discussion or nuance.

"You" can talk about Hull the way that you want; "others" can talk about him the way that they want.

There are people on this thread complaining that we're talking about anything non-hockey related. Nothing in what I've written comes close to that, the argument that because this is a hockey board, the most important thing is how he performed on the ice.

Public figures live in more than just their accomplishments. Hull's legacy is all of it, and his assaulting his spouse certainly makes me think less of him overall.

 

[norrisnick]

There is a difference between pretending what he did wasn't terrible (noone on this thread is remotely coming close to inferring this as far as I can tell) and being indifferent to it for reasons that do not need to be explained.

People rightfully get their dander up when terms like "we" and "us" are thrown out as if the moral compass has been set with no room for discussion or nuance.

"You" can talk about Hull the way that you want; "others" can talk about him the way that they want.

There certainly is.

Pretending what he did wasn't terrible at least starts with an internal acknowledgement that it was terrible, otherwise there would be no pretending.

Actual indifference? That's a good sight worse...

 

[daver]

There certainly is.

Pretending what he did wasn't terrible at least starts with an internal acknowledgement that it was terrible, otherwise there would be no pretending.

Actual indifference? That's a good sight worse...

Case in point. That didn't take long.

 

[daver]

There are people on this thread complaining that we're talking about anything non-hockey related. Nothing in what I've written comes close to that, the argument that because this is a hockey board, the most important thing is how he performed on the ice.

Public figures live in more than just their accomplishments. Hull's legacy is all of it, and his assaulting his spouse certainly makes me think less of him overall.

I am not arguing that his on-ice is more important than his off-ice, nor is anyone (as far as I can tell) in this thread arguing that.

I find it strange that people feel it's necessary to view things in a measurement of importance; that not liking a "Hull was a POS" post somehow means his off-ice is viewed as less important.

Again, you are free to talk about Hull as you want, others are free to talk about him as they want. If you choose to see that as diminishing of his off-ice somehow, that is all on you.

 

[seventieslord]

The vocal minority likely will pout and stomp over getting Hull's statue taken down to the point that it might happen, but then you are literally erasing the biggest part of your franchise's history.

This is exactly how NOT to use the word "literally".

No one can erase Bobby Hull. They can, however, decide that he's not worthy of being enshrined in a statue.

Two completely different things.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I am not arguing that his on-ice is more important than his off-ice, nor is anyone (as far as I can tell) in this thread arguing that.

Big Phil actually did a master's thesis on this exact topic early in the thread.

 

[Jets4Life]

Bobby Hull was a true asset to the hockey community, regardless of his indiscretions away from the ice.

Bobby, you were far from perfect. However, tonight I'll toast you for all the kids you took time to help out in the 60s and 70s.

I changed my avatar to honor one of hockey's greats.

God bless you Bobby. Only God can judge you.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Bobby Hull was a true asset to the hockey community, regardless of his indiscretions away from the ice.

Bobby, you were far from perfect. However, tonight I'll toast you for all the kids you took time to help out in the 60s and 70s.

God bless you Bobby. Only God can judge you.

You cast a lot of judgement, and invoked the churches teachings (re: forgiveness) to do so, in this very thread, on those who may criticize him. Something a man of the Lord should know better about, for the consequences are not relegated to earth and will not be met out by anyone on this board, but by Him. Just something I found interesting during this conversation.

 

[MeHateHe]

Again, you are free to talk about Hull as you want, others are free to talk about him as they want. If you choose to see that as diminishing of his off-ice somehow, that is all on you.

I honestly don't know why you're trying to make this point to me. FTR, I have been dispassionate through this entire thread and not once have I said people they should or shouldn't comment on either side of the man's legacy.

Big Phil actually did a master's thesis on this exact topic early in the thread.

Yeah, this.

 

[Hasbro]

. Only God can judge you.

And courts in BC and Florida

 

[The Panther]

Again, Beau Knows made the great point above. This conversation never comes up when we talk about how much of a good guy an athlete was - so why isn't the opposite fair game? And yes, I get to judge character based on my own experience and sensibilities. As do you. We do it every day when we choose to be friends and lovers with others or when we do decide to stop being friends and lovers with others around us. These often come down to judgement of personal character. It's done in all aspects of life. Employers do it, voters do it, corporations do it, and so on.

I haven't simplified anything. You're the one who's turning himself into an incoherent pretzel because you're bothered that people are a calling a piece of shit a piece of shit even though he was good at hockey.

Where did I say the opposite isn't fair game? I didn't say this.

Where did I express bother that people are dissing Hull? I didn't. I'm not a Bobby Hull fan; I've never had the slightest affection for the guy.

What I'm attempting to do is raise the much more interesting and important issue (more interesting than 'Did Bobby Hull like Hitler?' which is a futile discussion point) of whether and to what degree we should celebrate athletes (or anyone) for their notable accomplishments only while ignoring their personal attributes. This is extremely interesting to me, and --- despite what you seem to think --- is a highly nuanced matter, with no clear answer.

THAT was what I was saying.

 

[Jets4Life]

And courts in BC and Florida

This just proves my point.

The true irony is the people that are trying to impose their views that Bobby Hull was a POS human being, that should have people dancing on his graves, says more about them than it does Bobby. It will also drive the silent majority away from your narrative, since people have the habit of pushing back against angry people wanting to cancel Hull.

In fact, it will actually humanise Hull. I've never been more disgusted with some of the "holier-than-thou" crowd that is hell bent on cancelling anyone who has had problems with the law. Excuse me, but this is a hockey forum. For 11 pages, there has been zero talk of Hull's HOCKEY career.

This is just a public lynching.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

This just proves my point.

The true irony is the people that are trying to impose their views that Bobby Hull was a POS human being that should have people dancing on his graves says more about them than it does Bobby.

In fact, it will actually humanise Hull. I've never been more disgusted with some of the "holier-than-thou" crowd that is hell bent on cancelling anyone who has had problems with the law. Excuse me, but this is a hockey forum. For 11 pages, there has been zero talk of Hull's HOCKEY career.

This is just a public lynching.

There is an entire other thread, that the mod has told you about several times, designated specifically to talking about his hockey career and prohibiting talk about his off ice abuses...this thread was made so everything could be discussed, but instead of posting there where you would be be happy, you continue to come here, presumably just to outrage yourself and the righteous indignation you feel in defending Hulls honor.

I think we've reached the heart of the issue; you're stuck in a now outdated twitter culture war, specifically "cancel culture"...but it is very funny that you think a dead guy can be canceled in any way that actually affects them. You are disproving stereotypes though as I thought the only people who ever regurgitated this type of nonsense were edgey teens on twitter. It's interesting seeing an older generation adopt the behaviour and language associated with those.

Calling it a "public lynching" is extreme hyperbole borne from an emotional reaction to a point of view you disagree with....but it will lead people to not take you seriously, which is maybe what you want because it allows you to feel like a martyr.

 

[The Panther]

This just proves my point.

The true irony is the people that are trying to impose their views that Bobby Hull was a POS human being, that should have people dancing on his graves, says more about them than it does Bobby. It will also drive the silent majority away from your narrative, since people have the habit of pushing back against angry people wanting to cancel Hull.

In fact, it will actually humanise Hull. I've never been more disgusted with some of the "holier-than-thou" crowd that is hell bent on cancelling anyone who has had problems with the law. Excuse me, but this is a hockey forum. For 11 pages, there has been zero talk of Hull's HOCKEY career.

This is just a public lynching.

Well, this thread (as I understand it) was specifically created to discuss Hull's legacy on and off the ice, so I think it's quite reasonable that people are discussing Hull's character.

But I agree with you in as much as it's absurd for some people to see things in a black and white binary -- as in: Player X was a POS, but Player Y was wonderful (and then to assume that every reasonable person agrees with his/her standard of that binary).

If we scratch beneath the surface, probably 95% of NHL players have unsavory personal aspects or unsavory past incidents, including the favorite players of everyone on here. But normally we choose to overlook these things, to let the personal be personal, and to focus on the hockey legacy and the more likeable points of a player's public image. (As a good example of this, take my team, Edmonton, and its current popular forward, Evander Kane.)

The "public lynching" thing, as you put it, also happened to Jonathan Toews last year with the Blackhawks' organizational meltdown over the Kyle Beach incident, even though there was no evidence that Toews (six months older than Beach and having never dressed for a single game with him) was aware of the abuse of Beach.

I'd be curious to know what people's standards are on these things, as in, Where do you draw the line? I don't have the answer myself. Like, I can enjoy the music or art of a terrible human being, but there's probably a limit. (If Stalin had been a brilliant artist, I don't want his painting on my wall, regardless.)

I think with high-level pro sports, there's always a problem in trying to appreciate athletes purely as athletes. To celebrate the athlete's achievement, we (literally) applaud them. But do we want to applaud a sketchy human being? But can't we separate sports' achievement from an athlete's personal life? I don't know the answers.