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

[Big Phil]

Dude is ROASTING down below. No ice hockey where he is at. How's that for judgement?

I think this post wins for the most extreme opinion/judgement.

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

Let's start out with something we are all pretty sure we know. The last reported time Hull assaulted his wife was, what, 1986 right? That's 4 decades ago. No, it never was right, and no time passing ever does make it right. Let's just all pretty much agree on this.

What my question is, would be what did he do since then? Did he ever come to terms with the things he did? Did he ever get over his alcoholism that certainly triggered all of this stuff? Did he apologize to his wives, get back on good terms with them? Take responsibility? Have tons of regrets? I highly doubt a thrice divorced man goes through his life without regrets. Now, he may have been unrepentant right up until his death. My father in law was, and he had a lot of people to apologize to that he never did. But from what it seems with reconciling with some family members he definitely did make up with them. How far it went, who knows. But I'm not interested in pretending I know this stuff myself, because then I just end up in a crossfire in the middle of the virtue signaling Olympics that think they DO know the whole story. Hull certainly seemed private to me, so I don't think he would tell people about that. Not the media anyway. For me, things like repentance go a long way with a person's legacy. So I personally can't say I know that part of Hull's life. Nor act like I do.

 

[daver]

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.

Do you have access to the school teaching material in Iraq? I am sure if there was motivation to erase him, or anyone seen as against the political agenda of a government, teaching material would be adjusted accordingly.

In any event, I am indifferent to a statue being put up and feel the same about one being torn down, To equate Hull's statue, or glorifying his hockey achievements without context, with excusing or a diminishment of his off-ice behaviour is a choice. Just as one chooses to take offense.

Again, one can choose to accept that what a player does off-ice is out of their control or you can choose to be indifferent to and focus only on their athletic achievements. I certainly do not look to athletes to set or confirm my moral compass.

Indifferent to him beating up several women?

What a gross comment.

That's because you choose to take it that way. I am sure that a poll of HFboard users would see an overwhelming majority pick the "spousal abuse is bad" option. Presuming that anyone who is not bleating that Hull was POS over and over would tick off the "Spousal abuse? Meh, what are you going to do?" option or worse is hilarious.

I guess we will have to now qualify that Hull was a serial spousal abuser every time he gets mentioned on HFboards lest anyone gets offended.

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.

It sounds like he is a human being, one that can take the apparently unusual stance of giving a person a chance to right the wrong steps they may have taken in life.

It is scary that you equate the word "forgiveness" with "white washing.

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

No, the "standard" for centuries has been to give someone accused of a criminal act the chance to defend themselves in court.

Not sure what is more shocking; that you do not know this or the apparent promotion of judgement through the court of public opinion.

 

[norrisnick]

I think this post wins for the most extreme opinion/judgement.



Let's start out with something we are all pretty sure we know. The last reported time Hull assaulted his wife was, what, 1986 right? That's 4 decades ago. No, it never was right, and no time passing ever does make it right. Let's just all pretty much agree on this.

What my question is, would be what did he do since then? Did he ever come to terms with the things he did? Did he ever get over his alcoholism that certainly triggered all of this stuff? Did he apologize to his wives, get back on good terms with them? Take responsibility? Have tons of regrets? I highly doubt a thrice divorced man goes through his life without regrets. Now, he may have been unrepentant right up until his death. My father in law was, and he had a lot of people to apologize to that he never did. But from what it seems with reconciling with some family members he definitely did make up with them. How far it went, who knows. But I'm not interested in pretending I know this stuff myself, because then I just end up in a crossfire in the middle of the virtue signaling Olympics that think they DO know the whole story. Hull certainly seemed private to me, so I don't think he would tell people about that. Not the media anyway. For me, things like repentance go a long way with a person's legacy. So I personally can't say I know that part of Hull's life. Nor act like I do.

Except you are and have. You've spent this entire thread pretending that Hull made up with his family for the last couple decades and everything is hunky dory.

 

[Jets4Life]

Except you are and have. You've spent this entire thread pretending that Hull made up with his family for the last couple decades and everything is hunky dory.

We don't know what Hull's family thinks of him at the time of his passing, outside of the tweet from his grandson, that is critical of members of the public that were pretty much trashing him in the immediate aftermath of his death.

A bigger question is why is it any of our business, as to the personal relationship with Hull and his immediate family.

 

[Felidae]

We will likely never know if Hull privately repented for his actions or not. So I think it's totally fine for people to have their negative opinions of the man based on his domestic abuse history, because that's something we actually do know.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

It sounds like he is a human being, one that can take the apparently unusual stance of giving a person a chance to right the wrong steps they may have taken in life.

It is scary that you equate the word "forgiveness" with "white washing.

It is scary how badly you misunderstand half the posts you respond to with borderline incoherent arguments and vague platitudes. Forgiving someone doesn't mean no one else should be allowed to mention their darker side, which is what they (and you now) were advocating for at this point, despite seemingly being oblivious about it...also very funny you and they fail to see the irony in them invoking the virtues of forgiveness for a wife beater, but are unable to forgive those you disagree with on a hockey message board regarding Hulls legacy.

 

[daver]

Except you are and have. You've spent this entire thread pretending that Hull made up with his family for the last couple decades and everything is hunky dory.

We don't know what Hull's family thinks of him at the time of his passing, outside of the tweet from his grandson, that is critical of members of the public that were pretty much trashing him in the immediate aftermath of his death.

A bigger question is why is it any of our business, as to the personal relationship with Hull and his immediate family.

We will likely never know if Hull privately repented for his actions or not. So I think it's totally fine for people to have their negative opinions of the man based on his domestic abuse history, because that's something we actually do know.

These three posts are very telling:

The first one is missing the point being made by Jets4Life completely but since Jets4Life isn't clearly stating the accepted narrative, the poster assumes the worst.

Jets4Life clarifies their opinion, one that hopes for the best of the situation -possible redemption and acceptance - so people can move on with their lives.

The 3rd post goes to back to assuming the worst of the situation so it is OK to hold the most negative opinion possible.

 

[daver]

It is scary how badly you misunderstand half the posts you respond to with borderline incoherent arguments.

Usually one precedes this type of comment with an actual response.

Are you denying that the other poster was promoting the opportunity for forgiveness and for people bettering themselves?

As opposed to unapologetically painting Hull with a one colour of paint in perpetuity.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Usually one precedes this type of comment with an actual response.

Are you denying that the other poster was promoting the opportunity for forgiveness and for people bettering themselves?

As opposed to unapologetically painting Hull with a one colour of paint in perpetuity.

Yes I am. They claim to be promoting that, but their words and behaviour in this thread betray the notion that the person fully embraces the ide of forgiveness. They're guilty of false peity, not an insignificant thing if you are a person of God as they have intimated.

They can forgive a wife beater but not posters on a message board who haven't forgiven the wife beater; and they invoked the concept of forgiveness primarily to judge and condescend to other posters if you've been following along...what one colour of paint? I maintain he's a great hockey player and a bad person, but adding the second part is what outrages Jets, and you evidently.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

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.

Agreed. This all started because people weren't willing to solely focus on his hockey career and set everything else aside (erasure).

It's so weird that the people complaining about everyone painting him with 1 brush, are the ones getting mad at anyone who mentions anything outside of just his hockey career...and yet they think they are preserving history and being righteous Christians in forgiving him and sitting in judgement of anyone who brings up any non-hockey aspect of his life. Truly bizarre.

 

[daver]

Agreed. This all started because people weren't willing to solely focus on his hockey career and set everything else aside (erasure).

It's so weird that the people complaining about everyone painting him with 1 brush, are the ones getting mad at anyone who mentions anything outside of just his hockey career...and yet they think they are preserving history and being righteous Christians in forgiving him and sitting in judgement of anyone who brings up any non-hockey aspect of his life. Truly bizarre.

His grandson got "mad" too. Was that "truly bizarre" also?

And noone has forgiven him, they were merely point out the possibilty of it and why it is anyone's business if that happened or not. See this post:

We don't know what Hull's family thinks of him at the time of his passing, outside of the tweet from his grandson, that is critical of members of the public that were pretty much trashing him in the immediate aftermath of his death.

A bigger question is why is it any of our business, as to the personal relationship with Hull and his immediate family.

 

[daver]

Post #1. "Hull's a POS"

Post #2. Nuance

Post #3. "You don't think Hull is a POS?"

Post #4. Explanation of nuance

Post #5. "I don't understand nuance so I will assume you don't think Hull is POS"

 

[Felidae]

The 3rd post goes to back to assuming the worst of the situation so it is OK to hold the most negative opinion possible

Where are the assumptions in my post? We know that he has a history of domestic abuse. What we don't know is whether Hull repented for his actions and bettered himself.


So with the information available to us, you don't think it's right for people to think negatively of Hull as a person based on his domestic abuse?

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Post #1. "Hull's a POS"

Post #2. Nuance

Post #3. "You don't think Hull is a POS?"

Post #4. Explanation of nuance

Post #5. "I don't understand nuance so I will assume you don't think Hull is POS"

Oh I know you think you've explained nuance, but the gulf between your confidence in your ability to understand and explain nuance, and your actual ability is wide.

 

[norrisnick]

These three posts are very telling:

The first one is missing the point being made by Jets4Life completely but since Jets4Life isn't clearly stating the accepted narrative, the poster assumes the worst.

Jets4Life clarifies their opinion, one that hopes for the best of the situation -possible redemption and acceptance - so people can move on with their lives.

The 3rd post goes to back to assuming the worst of the situation so it is OK to hold the most negative opinion possible.

 

[T REX]

Who's saying otherwise??


Nice. You know you're being judged too, right?

Let's just say I am not worried one bit...I was raised a certain way.

I am cool with where I am and how I got here. Some people are good people...some people are not. And that's ok.

I think this post wins for the most extreme opinion/judgement.

Naw....this is for sure...

His second wife, Joanne McKay, issued the following graphic description of an incident that occurred while the two vacationed in Hawaii in 1966.

“I looked the worst after that Hawaii incident. I took a real beating there. [Bobby] just picked me up, threw me over his shoulder, threw me in the room, and just proceeded to knock the heck out of me. He took my shoe — with a steel heel — and proceeded to hit me in the head. I was covered with blood. And I can remember him holding me over the balcony and I thought this is the end, I’m going.”

 

[TopG]

Textbook sanctimonious. You don't get to choose to how that person is supposed to feel about Hull.

Pretty much how I feel. Why I don’t bother engaging in arguments about it. To me, he was a great guy. To others, he wasn’t. I’m able to accept that. Others in this thread, not so much. From both perspectives.

 

[Bocephus86]

Do you have access to the school teaching material in Iraq? I am sure if there was motivation to erase him, or anyone seen as against the political agenda of a government, teaching material would be adjusted accordingly.

In any event, I am indifferent to a statue being put up and feel the same about one being torn down, To equate Hull's statue, or glorifying his hockey achievements without context, with excusing or a diminishment of his off-ice behaviour is a choice. Just as one chooses to take offense.

Again, one can choose to accept that what a player does off-ice is out of their control or you can choose to be indifferent to and focus only on their athletic achievements. I certainly do not look to athletes to set or confirm my moral compass.

*Snipped as I am only replying to your reply to me*

Do you? Not sure how else they plan on handling the period from 1979 to 2003 in their history, which involved at least two major wars and then ended with a third that completely changed their nation.

I give no shits about athletes conforming to my moral compass. I do think that when a man is talked about and being lionized by a segment of a fan base that their whole life should be put into context when appropriate. Like Hull was a wife beating POS and an exceptional hockey player. Those that want to avoid one half of the story are the ones that actively want to ignore a piece of reality to suit their agenda. Those actions were real. They happened. Pretending they didn't serves no one but the man who perpetrated them.

 

[DaaaaB's]

Who's saying otherwise??

Well, you and several others in here get bent out of shape everytime someone mentions him being a bad person. Besides that, you were the one putting words in my mouth not the other way around.

 

[Warden of the North]

Awful human being who happened to be good at hockey.

 

[Warden of the North]

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"?

If someone is a noted "bad person" then I don't think they should be celebrated.
If they are not noted good or bad then go ahead and celebrate them until otherwise shown differently.

 

[DaaaaB's]

That's because you choose to take it that way. I am sure that a poll of HFboard users would see an overwhelming majority pick the "spousal abuse is bad" option. Presuming that anyone who is not bleating that Hull was POS over and over would tick off the "Spousal abuse? Meh, what are you going to do?" option or worse is hilarious.

I guess we will have to now qualify that Hull was a serial spousal abuser every time he gets mentioned on HFboards lest anyone gets offended.

What a bunch of nonsense. You said were indifferent to his terrible actions. That's a gross comment, simple as that. Now go ahead and move the goal posts around like usual.

 

[Big Phil]

Let's just say I am not worried one bit...I was raised a certain way.

I am cool with where I am and how I got here. Some people are good people...some people are not. And that's ok.


Naw....this is for sure...

His second wife, Joanne McKay, issued the following graphic description of an incident that occurred while the two vacationed in Hawaii in 1966.

“I looked the worst after that Hawaii incident. I took a real beating there. [Bobby] just picked me up, threw me over his shoulder, threw me in the room, and just proceeded to knock the heck out of me. He took my shoe — with a steel heel — and proceeded to hit me in the head. I was covered with blood. And I can remember him holding me over the balcony and I thought this is the end, I’m going.”

It is official. Hfboards now makes assurances who is in Hell now with former players. Okay, do Beliveau, Shore, Howe, Lindsay and Richard next.

Except you are and have. You've spent this entire thread pretending that Hull made up with his family for the last couple decades and everything is hunky dory.

The fact we don't know, is enough for me not to join in the ugliness I have seen on the main boa.........I mean HOH.

The man played some insane hockey, that much I know, I don't know the rest, and I am glad he did what he did in the NHL.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

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.

As for the hyperbole remark, i meant the part about Putin being or coming out as bad as Hitler, just to clarify.

Ovechkin has been careful and much less vocal about Putin since the whole Ukraine situation. And the fact that other Russians aren’t vocally against it and him shows you how you have again to tread very carefully in his opposition.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

It is official. Hfboards now makes assurances who is in Hell now with former players. Okay, do Beliveau, Shore, Howe, Lindsay and Richard next.

Phil, you've been here how long, and you still can't figure out the difference between one poster and the entire board?