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

[MasterofGrond]

In America, a public lynching is a brutal torture and murder most often perpetrated on the most marginalized members of society with the intent to maintain power and control of those people.

Bobby Hull, a very rich and famous white man, who, I must remind you, is dead, cannot in any way shape or form be publicly lynched after his death. Saying a person did bad things is merely an acknowledgment of facts, and claiming otherwise is the type of hyperbole that renders any coherent argument impossible.

In my opinion.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

He's the greatest thing that happened to the Blackhawks in their history. He's going to have a statue/number retired in that franchise. People will get over it, normally in a situation like this it only takes a week for people to find another thing to wring their hands about.

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.

I don't want to spill on Mickey or anything, I am just saying he and Hull have some similar lives outside of their sports. Not sure if Mickey had the domestic violence side, but with him he was the philandering drunk who ignored his family. Not good. Neither were role models, and the media covering them at the time would have known about their indiscretions, but they were still beloved by the fans. Mickey did make amends at the end of his life. I am not sure if Hull did. I hope he did, but I don't know and I am the rare person on this thread who acts like he DOES know who Bobby Hull the person was. We don't. We know what he did, we don't know how much or who he reconciled with.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

Evander Kane isn't my idea of a role model, if we believe his ex-wife he was involved in gambling on games. No proof of it though (then again gambling is plastered over ads in every sport these days and promoted by everyone in the game). However, I am a sucker for 2nd chances. Third chances even. I'm not the modern type that demands a public apology and then STILL doesn't forgive the person just to give them the cancel culture treatment. Personally I prefer the more dignified quiet way of privately dealing with it with the person you hurt.

But it never seems to matter in 2023 if a person is genuine anymore. Like you mentioned, the Hawks mess from last year. No doubt there are plenty of them who would have done something different but people aren't even allowed to have the benefit of the doubt anymore that perhaps they didn't have the blessing of hindsight that we have today. We just live in a cold, calculating and quite frankly unforgiving society these days. Social media has NOT made us better or brought out great qualities in us.

 

[Big Phil]

I think a big part of why Bobby Hull's life outside of hockey sticks out is because overall the NHL has a pretty clean image. There aren't a lot of players who have a history of being on the wrong side of the law. Here is an example. Joe Mixon, running back for the Cincinnati Bengals had a warrant for his arrest for allegedly pointing a gun at a woman on January 21st, the day before the Bengals beat the Bills in a playoff game. This charge was dropped today while it gets reviewed again and it could be refiled in the future.

Mixon was a field goal away from playing in the Super Bowl next week. Now, I am not one of those guilty until proven innocent types, I'm always the opposite. But this is par for the course for a week in the NFL. Most don't even bat an eyelash.

But in the NHL......................

 

[norrisnick]

I think a big part of why Bobby Hull's life outside of hockey sticks out is because overall the NHL has a pretty clean image. There aren't a lot of players who have a history of being on the wrong side of the law. Here is an example. Joe Mixon, running back for the Cincinnati Bengals had a warrant for his arrest for allegedly pointing a gun at a woman on January 21st, the day before the Bengals beat the Bills in a playoff game. This charge was dropped today while it gets reviewed again and it could be refiled in the future.

Mixon was a field goal away from playing in the Super Bowl next week. Now, I am not one of those guilty until proven innocent types, I'm always the opposite. But this is par for the course for a week in the NFL. Most don't even bat an eyelash.

But in the NHL......................

Interesting example when Josh Sills whose team made the SuperBowl was indicted for rape/kidnapping this week.

And Andrew Brunette for DUI.

 

[seventieslord]

He's the greatest thing that happened to the Blackhawks in their history. He's going to have a statue/number retired in that franchise. People will get over it, normally in a situation like this it only takes a week for people to find another thing to wring their hands about.

wait, did you think I was disputing your claim that he was the biggest thing to ever happen to the franchise??

No, I was pointing out the absurdity of you referring to the removal of a statue as "literally erasing" him.

 

[yada]

There was a whole spreadsheet posted a while back, in another thread, listing the long history of horrible off-ice incidents that have stained the NHL.

One that always comes to mind for me is Doug Gilmour's molestation of an underage girl while he was in St. Louis. Went on to win a Cup in Calgary and also remains a legend here in Toronto for his play with the Leafs. Either most fans simply aren't aware of what he did, or they don't care.

For what it's worth, I'd say what Bobby Hull did and said, over the years, pales in comparison to an act like that. But that's just my .02

Wow never heard that about Gilmour.

 

[daver]

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.

A thread on the main board is not the reasonable alternative to one on the HOH. If that was the case, then we wouldn't need the HOH. The HOH was set up for a reason.

It would have been perfectly reasonable to set up two Hull legacy threads with two set agendas as to what each thread was about.

 

[daver]

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.

Fair enough. I join you in your sense of dispassionate. I was mainly commenting on your "let's not pretend he wasn't a POS". I think people are going to be disappointed as many will do just that, or appear to, for different reasons.

I personally am dispassionate about his off-ice legacy as I did not know the man nor anyone associated with him, and seemingly unlike many people, do not feel the need to change what I may or may not say in the "real" world once I am on the internet. As another poster pointed out, it's OK to publicly call him a POS within 24 hours of his death because it's not like they are saying it directly to his family members.

He was a celebrity, and is clearly getting the attention that goes with that on the wide spectrum of disproportionate adoration for doing nothing other than being really good at hockey and intensified judgement of anything other than his hockey career.

 

[daver]

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

Their first post in the thread certainly in no way indicated that his hockey achievements were more important than his off-ice behaviors. I saw someone making the reasonable separation of the two which makes trying to place his on-ice and off-ice on the same scale of "importance" a moot point.

The comment on the advent of social media and celebrity culture was not unreasonable and was maybe taken out of context to be seen as minimizing the expected reaction to spousal abuse, or accusations of it.

The irony in this thread is that a few posters, including myself, commented exclusively on his hockey achievements, and were not quoted by anyone stating that those posts needed the "Hull was a POS" qualifier. The only posts that have been responded to by those in that corner have been those to posts that tried to interject an opinion on his off-ice legacy that wasn't suitable to another's opinion on how "everyone" should feel.

 

[Big Phil]

wait, did you think I was disputing your claim that he was the biggest thing to ever happen to the franchise??

No, I was pointing out the absurdity of you referring to the removal of a statue as "literally erasing" him.

And I was saying there would be people quite happy with that. There certainly will be the attempt.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

A thread on the main board is not the reasonable alternative to one on the HOH. If that was the case, then we wouldn't need the HOH. The HOH was set up for a reason.

It would have been perfectly reasonable to set up two Hull legacy threads with two set agendas as to what each thread was about.

That is literally what they did, your endless torrent of complaining is all because the separate threads aren't both in the same area of the website...that's pretty silly, but ok.

 

[daver]

That is literally what they did, your endless torrent of complaining is all because the separate threads aren't both in the same area of the website...that's pretty silly, but ok.

A thread on the main board is a cesspool at the best of times and everyone in the HOH knows this. Stop thinking you are making a big point here.

 

[daver]

No, I was pointing out the absurdity of you referring to the removal of a statue as "literally erasing" him.

Keeping this in as light of a tone as possible, which it should be since we all are anonymous posters on a hockey discussion board.

The taking down of Saddam Hussein's statue certainly was intended to try to erase him from history. As is the taking down of statues of figures from previous centuries as a symbolic gesture of moving that person away from their position in history.

Perhaps moving forward we shouldn't be immortalizing anyone in stone. I certainly do not see the reason for it.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

A thread on the main board is a cesspool at the best of times and everyone in the HOH knows this. Stop thinking you are making a big point here.

We're not going to re-litigate the decision (and you really need to stop your bullshit conspiracy theory on whether we've been "bullied" into this decision).

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Keeping this in as light of a tone as possible, which it should be since we all are anonymous posters on a hockey discussion board.

The taking down of Saddam Hussein's statue certainly was intended to try to erase him from history. As is the taking down of statues of figures from previous centuries as a symbolic gesture of moving that person away from their position in history.

Perhaps moving forward we shouldn't be immortalizing anyone in stone. I certainly do not see the reason for it.

Interesting strategy of comparing Bobby Hull to Saddam Hussein.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Keeping this in as light of a tone as possible, which it should be since we all are anonymous posters on a hockey discussion board.

The taking down of Saddam Hussein's statue certainly was intended to try to erase him from history. As is the taking down of statues of figures from previous centuries as a symbolic gesture of moving that person away from their position in history.

Perhaps moving forward we shouldn't be immortalizing anyone in stone. I certainly do not see the reason for it.

Newsflash: Statues aren't how we remember history, they're used to idolize and lionize figures. By taking down the statue of Hussein (what a hilarious comparison) they are removing a item intended to praise him. That can't literally erase him from history. That's such a stupid and disingenuous argument but I wouldn't have expected much more.

 

[daver]

Interesting strategy of comparing Bobby Hull to Saddam Hussein.

What's your point?

Other than to show your virtue by inferring I don't take Hull's off-ice legacy as serious as anyone else would.

 

[seventieslord]

And I was saying there would be people quite happy with that. There certainly will be the attempt.

Again, I'm not disputing whether or not there would be people happy with removing a statue. Or whether Hull was the biggest thing to ever happen to the Hawks.

I'm only commenting on the ridiculous dramatization of what removing a statue would actually mean for Hull. You said that would be "literally erasing" him.

Look up the definition of the word "literally". Now imagine what it would take to literally erase a person.

 

[Big Phil]

Again, I'm not disputing whether or not there would be people happy with removing a statue. Or whether Hull was the biggest thing to ever happen to the Hawks.

I'm only commenting on the ridiculous dramatization of what removing a statue would actually mean for Hull. You said that would be "literally erasing" him.

Look up the definition of the word "literally". Now imagine what it would take to literally erase a person.

It was an exaggeration to make a point that I just assumed people didn't need me to explain. I obviously know the meaning of the word "literally"

 

[norrisnick]

Again, I'm not disputing whether or not there would be people happy with removing a statue. Or whether Hull was the biggest thing to ever happen to the Hawks.

I'm only commenting on the ridiculous dramatization of what removing a statue would actually mean for Hull. You said that would be "literally erasing" him.

Look up the definition of the word "literally". Now imagine what it would take to literally erase a person.

Not to mention that it is the critics that want to ensure that nothing is erased from history regarding Hull. Maintain the full story.

 

[MXD]

LOL Imagine thinking an eventual teardown of Bobby Hull's statue is akin to getting damnatio memoriaed.

 

[seventieslord]

LOL Imagine thinking an eventual teardown of Bobby Hull's statue is akin to getting damnatio memoriaed.

nearly every one of the 1000 publications on my shelves would need to be confiscated by the authorities. And what to do about the people who remember him?

 

[MXD]

On the topic of Hull statue : I don't consider myself qualified to answer this due to a total lack of standing or vested interest, as I am :
- Not a Chicago native or resident
- Not a Blackhaws fan

I wouldn't want a Bobby Hull statue in my hometown or my residence town, but as far as I know there's absolutely nothing linking Hull to it either (now that it's not called Hull anymore), hence no point of erecting a statue in the first place. I wouldn't want Bobby Hull kicked out of the HHOF either, because you just can't tell the History of Hockey without Hull. And because, frankly, he's very clearly amongst the best 15 players to play the game.


For the record : There is a Maurice Richard statue in my residence town, and while I'm not quite sure what links Richard to it, as far as I know, no one has an issue with it. Even the 7 angry Leafs fan.

 

[Big Phil]

I always found this interesting with Hull. Not many players dominated their position quite like him at Left wing.

Hull - 12 season end all-stars (10 First team, 2 second team)
Gretzky - 15 (10 First team, 5 second team)
Howe - 21 (12 First team, 9 second team)
Lidstrom - 12 (10 First team, 2 second team)
Richard - 14 (8 First team, 6 second team)
Bourque - 19 (13 First team, 6 second team)

Best among goalies:
Hall - 11 (7 First team, 4 second team)

Even Ovechkin only has 11 year end all-stars. Crosby 8. McDavid might eventually get past 12, but when you think of Orr and Lemieux and their dominance you can see that it is hard to hang around that long and be great for that long. Hull was 33 when he left the NHL and was a 50 goal scorer the year he bolted to the WHA. No doubt he has more of these after 33.