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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
This is entirely incorrect. It was taken down to stop glorifying Saddam Hussein. He is still very much a part of history and will continue to be taught, just in the proper context of the whole man and not as some demi-god dictator. Actually great comparison, just not how you intended it to be.

Also someone in here just learned about the situation with Gilmour. They only learned about it here because no one talks about the whole man. This is why talking about the whole man is important, to put into context who they are beyond just some great hockey player OR those terrible things are forgotten and we are just left with a hockey player to make a statue out of.
 
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.

Well, you’re right. There’s a sort of an inkblot test quality to these sorts of discussions. 50% of it is genuine insight into the man’s legacy—both the good and the bad, and both on-ice and off-ice—while the other 50% is, really, just a reflection of one’s one own personal tastes, experiences, emotions, and preconceived notions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Filthy Dangles
Well, you’re right. There’s a sort of an inkblot test quality to these sorts of discussions. 50% of it is genuine insight into the man’s legacy—both the good and the bad, and both on-ice and off-ice—while the other 50% is, really, just a reflection of one’s one own personal tastes, experiences, emotions, and preconceived notions.

I agree.

For comparison's sake, I'll bring up Evander Kane. Kane wore the #9 like Hull, and his problems have been well documented. However, for the past year he seems to have emerged from rock bottom in Edmonton. If Kane reformed, and became a model citizen, then I certainly am willing to forgive him for his transgressions in Winnipeg, Buffalo, and other places.

What kinds of society would we be, if one were to behave poorly for a number of years, then attempt to turn the page, and better themselves, only for society to slam the door on their face, and prevent them from the tools to rehabilitation? Wab Kinew may be our next Premier, and he certainly was no choir boy for a prolonged period of time.

Hull was a God-like figure in Manitoba in the 70s and 80s. His flaws started to emerge after the Russian newspaper interview and the ESPN documentary, where his ex-wife went public in regards to the domestic abuse allegations. I could be wrong, but it appears the last time Bobby Hull was in any kind of trouble with spousal abuse was the mid 80s, nearly 40 years ago.

Hopefully he reformed later in life, but I was not close to him and will never know. I don't see the point of trashing anyone in death, unless one were to go out of their way to make Hull look like a role model and pillar of the community. The man obviously had problems and personal demons throughout his life. However, he did do many good, charitable things, and interacted well in the community for most of his life.
 
I agree.

For comparison's sake, I'll bring up Evander Kane. Kane wore the #9 like Hull, and his problems have been well documented. However, for the past year he seems to have emerged from rock bottom in Edmonton. If Kane reformed, and became a model citizen, then I certainly am willing to forgive him for his transgressions in Winnipeg, Buffalo, and other places.

What kinds of society would we be, if one were to behave poorly for a number of years, then attempt to turn the page, and better themselves, only for society to slam the door on their face, and prevent them from the tools to rehabilitation? Wab Kinew may be our next Premier, and he certainly was no choir boy for a prolonged period of time.

Hull was a God-like figure in Manitoba in the 70s and 80s. His flaws started to emerge after the Russian newspaper interview and the ESPN documentary, where his ex-wife went public in regards to the domestic abuse allegations. I could be wrong, but it appears the last time Bobby Hull was in any kind of trouble with spousal abuse was the mid 80s, nearly 40 years ago.

Hopefully he reformed later in life, but I was not close to him and will never know. I don't see the point of trashing anyone in death, unless one were to go out of their way to make Hull look like a role model and pillar of the community. The man obviously had problems and personal demons throughout his life. However, he did do many good, charitable things, and interacted well in the community for most of his life.
It just sounds like you're an advocate of white washing history...which is pretty ironic given the pearl clutching about "erasing him from history"; seems those in that camp are the ones advocating the erasure of part of his legacy.
 
Also someone in here just learned about the situation with Gilmour. They only learned about it here because no one talks about the whole man. This is why talking about the whole man is important, to put into context who they are beyond just some great hockey player OR those terrible things are forgotten and we are just left with a hockey player to make a statue out of.

Are we happier that way? We don't seem to be. No one is perfect and the same thing Gilmour was accused of (and settled out of court with) Mario Lemieux also was accused of doing in arguably his greatest NHL season ever. Key word "accused". I don't think the "guilty until proven innocent" society we live in today is better for continually looking into the past of an athlete. You'll find something on everyone if that's all you want to focus on. And again, how is that better? I think you just factor in that these legends are also human beings. I've never worshiped a player, so it has always been an non-issue to me when I see them fail outside of the game.
 
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.
Indifferent to him beating up several women?

What a gross comment.

Had the pleasure of meeting him. Had some great conversations. Great guy. RIP legend
Good for you, unfortunately the ex wives he beat up don't feel the same way.
 
Key word "accused". I don't think the "guilty until proven innocent" society we live in today is better for continually looking into the past of an athlete. You'll find something on everyone if that's all you want to focus on.
Two things

- Innocent until proven guilty only means something in the court room. The court of public opinion is completely separate. And you act like this hasn't been the standard for centuries of human civilization
- The old everyone has skeletons in the closet argument, I'm sure there are plenty of players who haven't beaten multiple wives let's start there
 
Yeah but just because someone is good to you doesn't mean they're a good person.

Yes, and just because somebody had a positive interaction with a person and decided to share, doesn't mean they must immediately be reminded of that person's negative aspects.

I too met Bobby Hull and it was fantastic, for me, in that moment. I don't think I need to include a disclaimer that he did terrible things off the ice every time I re-tell that story, lest I be accused of condoning domestic violence. But that seems to be the direction some would have us go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel and daver
I understand how some people feel it's disrespectful to bash somebody in a R.I.P. thread about them. I totally get that. But at the same time, what Hull did went beyond just a few indiscretions.

When Alan Eagleson dies, I don't think anyone on this board will be mourning him. I wouldn't be surprised to see some people celebrate his death, though his crimes were not nearly as bad as Hull's. What about if Bob Goodenow died? I can't imagine a R.I.P. thread for him staying very respectful. And he never committed a crime. So it should be fair game for people to talk about Hull's dark side in a thread about him as a person.

I would prefer though that any conversations about him as a hockey player stay focused on hockey. If there was say a vote on greatest goal scorers of all time, is somebody always going to say " You can't choose Hull because of what he did."? Just like being good at something doesn't make you a good person, being a bad person shouldn't mean there's no worth in other things you've done.

On a slightly related note, I really like Roman Polanski films. I own most of his stuff on DVD or Blu-ray. But we all know what he did. And if I were to go on the entertainment board and start a thread about his movies, the discussion wouldn't stay on the topic of his movies for very long. It sucks for fans of somebody's work that this happens, and keyboard warriors are annoying. But if somebody is mostly remembered for doing something terrible, there's ultimately one person to blame for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daver
Time will prove this view to be inaccurate. Just look at Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh as examples (both were Nazi sympathisers). It ruined their legacy.

Putin is doing things to Ukraine that has not been seen in Europe since the 1940s. He can conceivably come out of this war looking as bad as Hitler. People will definitely remember Ovechkin for his support of Putin, especially if the war crimes against Ukrainians get worse.

The second bolded sentence is just incomprehensible hyperbole to me. Honestly almost laughable.....

And I don't see American's sympathizing with Nazi's as comparable to a Russian supporting their (albeit evil as f***) president. My understanding is if you're a powerful Russian figure, like Ovechkin is, you're playing with fire if you are disloyal or vocally unsupportive of Vladimir Putin.

Is there a trove of Russian hockey players who have voiced their disapproval of Putin? I know Panarin did, good on him. But i recall he had to step away from hockey and the Rangers for a little bit, as there was concern for his family and stuff.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and just because somebody had a positive interaction with a person and decided to share, doesn't mean they must immediately be reminded of that person's negative aspects.

I too met Bobby Hull and it was fantastic, for me, in that moment. I don't think I need to include a disclaimer that he did terrible things off the ice every time I re-tell that story, lest I be accused of condoning domestic violence. But that seems to be the direction some would have us go.
He called him a great guy which clearly isn't true hence my comment that you quoted. Quit being so dramatic.
 
Yeah but just because someone is good to you doesn't mean they're a good person.
We don't celebrate athletes because they're good people. McDavid isn't 1st All Star selection over MacKinnon because Connor is nicer to old ladies and puppies.

What do you think: Does an athlete have to be "a good person" in order to be celebrated? Then, who decides what "a good person is"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: daver
We don't celebrate athletes because they're good people. McDavid isn't 1st All Star selection over MacKinnon because Connor is nicer to old ladies and puppies.

What do you think: Does an athlete have to be "a good person" in order to be celebrated? Then, who decides what "a good person is"?
What are you talking about? I didn't say he wasn't a great athlete. He's a top ten player of all-time. He was also definitely not a good person. You can celebrate him as a player and admit he wasn't a good guy.
 
He called him a great guy which clearly isn't true hence my comment that you quoted. Quit being so dramatic.

Maybe to that poster, he was. He was a great guy to me in the 2 minutes I spent with him. Sounds like he was a great guy to many fans. Him being a shitty guy to his family doesn't change the details of my personal interaction with him. People can point out his bad side without it being a "correction" of others who experienced the good side.
 
Maybe to that poster, he was. He was a great guy to me in the 2 minutes I spent with him. Sounds like he was a great guy to many fans. Him being a shitty guy to his family doesn't change the details of my personal interaction with him. People can point out his bad side without it being a "correction" of others who experienced the good side.
That's fine that he was nice to you and the other poster but that doesn't make him a great guy. Cherish your moment you had with him all you want, there's certainly no one stopping you but don't claim he's a great guy because of it.
 
Let's ask Michelle, his daughter, what she thinks?

Hull's daughter, Michelle, was outspoken about the treatment her mother received.

"A lot of bad memories stem from how my dad acted when he was drinking," said Michelle, now a lawyer who works with battered women because of her father. "When he had been drinking, you'd just know that you didn't want to be around here."
 
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.
Wrong. I can judge him...anyone can. The world is a much better place. THREE? Not one...not two...now three...wives...

"His ex-wife Joanne said that Hull beat her with a steel-heeled shoe on a trip to Hawaii. "

He is a coward. A bully. The world is a much better place to those he beat. Dude is ROASTING down below. No ice hockey where he is at. How's that for judgement?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Filthy Dangles
What are you talking about? I didn't say he wasn't a great athlete. He's a top ten player of all-time. He was also definitely not a good person. You can celebrate him as a player and admit he wasn't a good guy.
Who's saying otherwise??

Wrong. I can judge him...anyone can. The world is a much better place. THREE? Not one...not two...now three...wives...

"His ex-wife Joanne said that Hull beat her with a steel-heeled shoe on a trip to Hawaii. "

He is a coward. A bully. The world is a much better place to those he beat. Dude is ROASTING down below. No ice hockey where he is at. How's that for judgement?
Nice. You know you're being judged too, right?
 
The second bolded sentence is just incomprehensible hyperbole to me. Honestly almost laughable.....

And I don't see American's sympathizing with Nazi's as comparable to a Russian supporting their (albeit evil as f***) president. My understanding is if you're a powerful Russian figure, like Ovechkin is, you're playing with fire if you are disloyal or vocally unsupportive of Vladimir Putin.

Is there a trove of Russian hockey players who have voiced their disapproval of Putin? I know Panarin did, good on him. But i recall he had to step away from hockey and the Rangers for a little bit, as there was concern for his family and stuff.
First off, it's well known that Charles Lindbergh's status as an American hero was permanently tarnished when he became a Nazi sympathizer. Just google it and find out. I thought this was common knowledge.

Secondly, the reason that Ovechkin has been vilified lately more so than most Russian celebrities, is he had always been pro-Putin to the point where he is close friends with the man, and has avatars of himself and Putin, after the invasion of the Ukraine. It's one thing to not speak up about the Ukraine situation, it's quite another to be a cheerleader for the man responsible for the invasion.
 
- Innocent until proven guilty only means something in the court room. The court of public opinion is completely separate. And you act like this hasn't been the standard for centuries of human civilization
- The old everyone has skeletons in the closet argument, I'm sure there are plenty of players who haven't beaten multiple wives let's start there

Look at how Bill Gates and Gerorge Soros are vilified, despite not really doing anything to deserve it.
Tell that to Richard Jewell, or better yet the Jews of Europe for centuries, or people who were lynched throughout history in America and Europe.

Public opinion means nothing. The rule of law is paramount to a civil society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad