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

[norrisnick]

I was there, just the other night, nothing has changed, people still want to see a good tilt. No matter what the media says.

Don and the old boys club was never the establishment. CBC tried to fire Don back in 1980, and probably every year after that. The "old boys" of hockey were always the outliers. Hockey itself was not like other sports. Don was the same 40 years ago, he didn't grovel and try to be likeable.

What are you trying to say here though, do you like the bland style we see these days? Heck, add something interesting again. Put Brett Hull in there and call it "Hullie's corner" or something. Jeremy Roenick. Maybe give John Tortorella a gig the next time he gets fired. You are telling me you wouldn't watch that? Of course you would. There was a reason 3-4 million people a week tuned into Cherry.

Who said anything about the media? I don't like fighting in hockey. The moment you lose your cool, you lose your competitive edge. If you play on that edge and you've got the other side so mad they want to fight you? You've won. Just skate away and let them throw a tantrum and keep taking penalties.

My favorite player of all time is Nick Lidstrom. I wish I would have saved it, I don't remember what agency took the picture but my favorite picture of him is from one of the playoff battles with Calgary after the lockout and him standing with his stick at his waist just calmly looking at Iginla who is quitely literally spitting mad screaming at him from maybe 1 foot away. Calm, cool, unflappable, professional.

And no, I wouldn't watch a segment with Hull, Roenick, and/or Torts. Talk less play/coach more.

 

[seventieslord]

I was there, just the other night, nothing has changed, people still want to see a good tilt. No matter what the media says.

You're in your 50s and you went to a hockey game hoping to see minors get into a fistfight.

We all grew up liking a good fight. And the NHL is one thing. But I still remember the moment I realized how awkward and indefensible it was to be cheering for a fight in a junior hockey game. I was 27.

 

[Jets4Life]

You're in your 50s and you went to a hockey game hoping to see minors get into a fistfight.

We all grew up liking a good fight. And the NHL is one thing. But I still remember the moment I realized how awkward and indefensible it was to be cheering for a fight in a junior hockey game. I was 27.

That is your opinion. Not necessarily what the majority of fans think. Fighting has been in the game since its inception. "Awkward and indefensible?" Oh please.

PS...what does Phil being in his 50s have to do with anything? You do realize that the demographics for people who are into MMA, tend to be disprportiantly young people.

 

[norrisnick]

That is your opinion. Not what the majority of fans think. You seem to be implying that you are on some kind of moral high ground for not caring for fighting, which has been in the game since its inception.

I'm pretty sure 70s isn't implying it but flat out stating that wishing kids would fight for fans' enjoyment is,.. I'll let you pick one of the many descriptors, but I think 70s put it pretty good with awkward and indefensible as a nice middle ground.

 

[Jets4Life]

I'm not Canadian and only marginally more of an atheist than you are.

What on earth does being atheist have to do with anything? FTR, I am not an atheist.

 

[norrisnick]

What on earth does being atheist have to do with anything? FTR, I am not an atheist.

All the God/judgement nonsense in your posts.

And sure you are. There are literally thousands of gods, both old and current that you don't believe in. I don't believe in them either. There is just one more that I don't believe in.

 

[Jets4Life]

All the God/judgement nonsense in your posts.

And sure you are. There are literally thousands of gods, both old and current that you don't believe in. I don't believe in them either. There is just one more that I don't believe in.

Actually you're the one judging people. Why bring up what one believes at all, as its irrelevant? You seem to have an issue with religious people. Maybe try accepting people as they are, rather than imposing your atheist views upon the forum.

 

[norrisnick]

Actually you're the one judging people. Why bring up what one believes at all, as its irrelevant? You seem to have an issue with religious people. Maybe try accepting people as they are, rather than imposing your atheist views upon the forum.

The irony of this post couldn't be greater if you tried. Alas we are off the bend of this thread.

 

[seventieslord]

That is your opinion. Not necessarily what the majority of fans think. Fighting has been in the game since its inception. "Awkward and indefensible?" Oh please.

PS...what does Phil being in his 50s have to do with anything? You do realize that the demographics for people who are into MMA, tend to be disprportiantly young people.

Phil's age is relevant because the further removed one gets from the ages of the "combatants", the sicker it is to go to a junior hockey game and hope to see youngsters risk brain injury fist fighting each other to try to get into a league most of them will never play in. Awkward and indefensible was putting it very lightly. It's sick.

Men fighting men? Fine, go ahead. I specifically drew the line between that and junior hockey fights in my post, which you ignored.

So basically you're off on a tangent, arguing something no one said.

 

[DaaaaB's]

He was insanely popular with "poor" fans too. Do you even know his story? He was actually very much on the hard luck side before his big break with Boston. Yeah, the guy was beloved a heck of a lot more than he was loathed. People related to him, he was honest. It isn't something you see in the modern analyst. Always too careful with their words, etc. Cherry was authentic, that's what made people like him.

He was on a television station for 39 years that never stopped trying to get him off the air. Even starting in 1980. You have to be liked by a lot of people for something like that to happen.

Ironically arguably Cherry's two favourite players of all-time are in your profile pic

Yes, I know everything there is to know about his story. I respect what he did as the Bruins coach and liked him as a kid. As a adult I realized how arrogant he is and that the game passed him by decades ago. His analysis was awful along with his bigotry. He really wasn't that honest and was always quick to pat himself on the back if he predicted something correctly but would never mention his many wrong predictions. He's definitely did great charity work but so has MacLean who you seem to despise.

I was there, just the other night, nothing has changed, people still want to see a good tilt. No matter what the media says.

Don and the old boys club was never the establishment. CBC tried to fire Don back in 1980, and probably every year after that. The "old boys" of hockey were always the outliers. Hockey itself was not like other sports. Don was the same 40 years ago, he didn't grovel and try to be likeable.

What are you trying to say here though, do you like the bland style we see these days? Heck, add something interesting again. Put Brett Hull in there and call it "Hullie's corner" or something. Jeremy Roenick. Maybe give John Tortorella a gig the next time he gets fired. You are telling me you wouldn't watch that? Of course you would. There was a reason 3-4 million people a week tuned into Cherry.

Man, you're so blind you can't see the forest because of the trees. The old boys club wasn't the establishment lol.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I loved Don Cherry through college - had all of the Rock 'Em Sock 'Em videos and wore out most of them. I can still sing most of the songs - including that so-called rap that I believe was in #4. As a goalie, most of my seasons ended with an odd number in the penalty minute column.

And then you get older and you start looking under the rocks. I own my past and I've learned from it; I've matured. The concussions have helped (none from fighting, but a mix of knees to the head and pucks to the head).

How'd this end up on Cherry, by the way?

 

[MeHateHe]

After all Don Cherry has done for this country, you should be ashamed. He has donated to countless charitable causes, supported our armed forces, and has been a first class spokesman for the game of hockey. Luckily, the general public still thinks Don got a raw deal, and if one were to conduct a poll as to who Canadians respect more: Don Cherry or Ron MacLean, it may surprise you.

Don Cherry is neither a hero nor a victim. He was an entertainer, a glorified carnival barker by the end, and paid very well to be outlandish in outrageous clothes.

He was, by many accounts, very gracious in person, and kind on a one-to-one basis. But this goes back to the point of the thread: legacy of an influential hockey person. We don't generally judge people as if they're a balance sheet. If your ratio of good things to bad things is 9-1, you don't often get credit as a 90-per-cent good person, especially if the bad things are very bad or highly visible. I won't get into whether or not that's fair,.

When you live in the public eye, and get handsomely rich doing so, (like, say, Hull, B or Cherry, D) people will react more strongly to bad acts, and they will cloud their opinion of you. So yeah, Hull's legacy is what it is: he was a good hockey player who did terrible things, and people remember the terrible things. Cherry's legacy is what it is: he was a very entertaining guy, who probably hung around too long, who said vaguely (sometimes not so vaguely) racist things and never really accepted responsibility for what he did.

Getting along in the world is not that hard. Try not to step on the toes of the people you're around. If you step on their toes, apologize and try harder next time. Sometimes individuals have different levels of pain response, true. Some people aren't offended by slights. But it costs you nothing to acknowledge someone in pain and it can actually go a long way in making sure you are thought of in a positive light.

How'd this end up on Cherry, by the way?

FTR, I keep trying to drag it back to Bobby Hull's legacy.

 

[Jets4Life]

Bobby Hull did tryout for the NY Rangers in 1981, hoping to be reunited with his former teammates Ulf Nilsson and Anders Hedberg. By all accounts, Hull still was impressive, even at 42. However Hull and the Rangers could not come to an agreement.

It's a Damm shame, considering that line was arguably the best line in hockey during the 70s.

 

[Big Phil]

You're in your 50s and you went to a hockey game hoping to see minors get into a fistfight.

We all grew up liking a good fight. And the NHL is one thing. But I still remember the moment I realized how awkward and indefensible it was to be cheering for a fight in a junior hockey game. I was 27.

The only reason I would wish this is that I would be closer to retirement. Anyway, no I am not that old, sorry.

That being said, you really ought to attend a hockey game. If a fight starts and people get out of their seats and walk out in disgust then you are right. But I am afraid you are in the minority. That's fine, you don't have to like fighting in the game, but most fans do.

Who said anything about the media? I don't like fighting in hockey. The moment you lose your cool, you lose your competitive edge. If you play on that edge and you've got the other side so mad they want to fight you? You've won. Just skate away and let them throw a tantrum and keep taking penalties.

My favorite player of all time is Nick Lidstrom. I wish I would have saved it, I don't remember what agency took the picture but my favorite picture of him is from one of the playoff battles with Calgary after the lockout and him standing with his stick at his waist just calmly looking at Iginla who is quitely literally spitting mad screaming at him from maybe 1 foot away. Calm, cool, unflappable, professional.

And no, I wouldn't watch a segment with Hull, Roenick, and/or Torts. Talk less play/coach more.

Lidstrom was a great defenseman, and had the temperament of someone similar such as Red Kelly. It was his style, nothing wrong with that. Some people played harder the more worked up they were. The more angry they were.

 

[norrisnick]

Lidstrom was a great defenseman, and had the temperament of someone similar such as Red Kelly. It was his style, nothing wrong with that. Some people played harder the more worked up they were. The more angry they were.

And some played hard all the time regardless of emotion.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

That being said, you really ought to attend a hockey game. If a fight starts and people get out of their seats and walk out in disgust then you are right. But I am afraid you are in the minority. That's fine, you don't have to like fighting in the game, but most fans do.

Bless your heart for thinking that unless someone "walks out in disgust" during a hockey game that they must like fighting in hockey.

I understand how you reach your conclusion if that's how you are counting.

 

[Felidae]

Phil's age is relevant because the further removed one gets from the ages of the "combatants", the sicker it is to go to a junior hockey game and hope to see youngsters risk brain injury fist fighting each other to try to get into a league most of them will never play in. Awkward and indefensible was putting it very lightly. It's sick.

Men fighting men? Fine, go ahead. I specifically drew the line between that and junior hockey fights in my post, which you ignored.

So basically you're off on a tangent, arguing something no one said.

I can't say I ever cared much for fighting in hockey or watching junior sports, and I do think watching a junior hockey game for the sole purpose of anticipating a fight is... odd. (Which is not what Phil said)

But i don't see much of a difference between enjoying a hockey fight and a junior mma match besides one having a higher likelihood of concussion.

But if it's the risk of brain injury that makes you draw the line, there are a few sports with a higher concussion rate than hockey despite the lack of fighting, so would watching junior matches of those sports cross the line?

 

[seventieslord]

The only reason I would wish this is that I would be closer to retirement. Anyway, no I am not that old, sorry.

That being said, you really ought to attend a hockey game. If a fight starts and people get out of their seats and walk out in disgust then you are right. But I am afraid you are in the minority. That's fine, you don't have to like fighting in the game, but most fans do.

Forgive me for thinking you were at least 9 years older than me. When talking about players from the 70s and 80s, you used to regularly use your age as a cudgel against me, saying I just could couldn't possibly "get it " because I "wasn't there" like you were. I've got to say it's surprising to hear you're 8 or fewer years older than me.

As for the rest:

1. I didn't say I had a major problem with fighting in hockey. I made that very clear in my first post and my follow-up.
2. I do attend hockey games.
3. Fighting in junior hockey is morally dubious considering what we know about brain injuries today and the likelihood of any player actually getting to the league they're fighting to get to.
4. If you go to a junior hockey game hoping to see a bare-knuckled fight between two players, one of whom is usually a minor, you're sick.
5. Appealing to the majority does not make one right. If the majority of hockey fans want to see two kids fight, they're sick, too.

 

[MXD]

I must admit I had started to have serious issues with fighting in junior hockey roughly at the same age as 70ies, and I was raised to QJMHL hockey at the time my home team had like 3 or 4 guys who ended their seasons with 200+ PIMs, year in year out (...and, also, Georges Laraque). We also had a NAHL/QSPHL team, and you kinda have to like fights to see those games.

But nowadays, watching teens fight, or an OA fight a 16 years old, feels weird to me. Not cheering for that. Not one bit.

 

[Big Phil]

Yes, I know everything there is to know about his story. I respect what he did as the Bruins coach and liked him as a kid. As a adult I realized how arrogant he is and that the game passed him by decades ago. His analysis was awful along with his bigotry. He really wasn't that honest and was always quick to pat himself on the back if he predicted something correctly but would never mention his many wrong predictions. He's definitely did great charity work but so has MacLean who you seem to despise.


Man, you're so blind you can't see the forest because of the trees. The old boys club wasn't the establishment lol.

The game passed him by "decades" ago - apparently - and yet if he were on TV right now he'd still be the most watched personality. As he was in 2019 when he was fired. I mean, say you dislike the guy all you want and there were those who did, but acting as if he was irrelevant is just a false memory. There is a reason no one pays attention to the 1st intermission anymore. You act as if no one paid attention to him after 1992 or something. My dad never liked him, sort of, at least. He always called him an idiot, in a playful way. Yet he watched him all of the time. It was because Cherry was relatable to people, they knew he was authentic, one of them, etc. You don't get that with the wooden announcers/analysts these days.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

and yet if he were on TV right now he'd still be the most watched personality.

The earthquake in Turkey is getting a lot of people's eyes right now, too, and I wouldn't want the earthquake's opinions on hockey either.

Given what you said earlier about how only people who don't walk out in disgust must not like fighting in hockey, I agree that this statement is consistent with your view on things.

 

[Big Phil]

Forgive me for thinking you were at least 9 years older than me. When talking about players from the 70s and 80s, you used to regularly use your age as a cudgel against me, saying I just could couldn't possibly "get it " because I "wasn't there" like you were. I've got to say it's surprising to hear you're 8 or fewer years older than me.

As for the rest:

1. I didn't say I had a major problem with fighting in hockey. I made that very clear in my first post and my follow-up.
2. I do attend hockey games.
3. Fighting in junior hockey is morally dubious considering what we know about brain injuries today and the likelihood of any player actually getting to the league they're fighting to get to.
4. If you go to a junior hockey game hoping to see a bare-knuckled fight between two players, one of whom is usually a minor, you're sick.
5. Appealing to the majority does not make one right. If the majority of hockey fans want to see two kids fight, they're sick, too.

So I tell you that fans still like to witness a fight and you assume that I - and I guess most fans - solely go to a game to see a fight happen? You need to watch other sports. MMA, the NFL, College football, high school football, etc. if you think junior hockey is dangerous. A fight in hockey is always something that was part in parcel of the game we love. It is like seeing a highlight reel goal, a save, a hit, etc. It is exciting. Nothing has changed when it comes to fan viewing in that regards. It doesn't mean the fans are barbaric animals because of it.

The earthquake in Turkey is getting a lot of people's eyes right now, too, and I wouldn't want the earthquake's opinions on hockey either.

Given what you said earlier about how only people who don't walk out in disgust must not like fighting in hockey, I agree that this statement is consistent with your view on things.

Cherry was watched week after week with high ratings. I have no idea why an earthquake on the news is your comparable.

You should attend a hockey game in 2023. It might not be the reaction you'd like, but the fans still like the emotion in the game. I saw it as early as Friday night. Sorry, I don't know what to tell you. Now, the good news - for you - is that the powers to be, the anti-Don Cherry types I guess you can say, have sprinkled enough soy in the game today that it doesn't have anywhere near the emotion or fighting or anger or animosity that it used to and is less entertaining.

In 2015 Connor McDavid got into a fight in his draft year of the OHL. He hurt his hand in the fight. This is why he only played 47 games that year. When NHLers were asked about it, it was unanimous respect towards him as a player. Are they barbarians too?

 

[Felidae]

Also, I wouldn't mind a thread discussing Don Cherry's legacy. I imagine much of the same talking points would be brought up. But he's sort of the opposite of Hull in that his "TV persona" is what's scrutinized while he's generally beloved outside of it.

His flaw is also less severe than Hull, so that might murky the waters a bit.

And of course, while he's still alive. So there won't be any talking points about the "timing" of discussing his legacy.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Cherry was watched week after week with high ratings. I have no idea why an earthquake on the news is your comparable.

You should attend a hockey game in 2023. It might not be the reaction you'd like, but the fans still like the emotion in the game. I saw it as early as Friday night. Sorry, I don't know what to tell you. Now, the good news - for you - is that the powers to be, the anti-Don Cherry types I guess you can say, have sprinkled enough soy in the game today that it doesn't have anywhere near the emotion or fighting or anger or animosity that it used to and is less entertaining.

Honestly, you dropping "soy" as a pejorative tells me more than anything else you could have written. Thank you!

Congratulations on conflating your own personal joy bubble with what mainstream hockey fans prefer.

And for framing everything as a big conspiracy, I guess!

 

[Big Phil]

Honestly, you dropping "soy" as a pejorative tells me more than anything else you could have written. Thank you!

Congratulations on conflating your own personal joy bubble with what mainstream hockey fans prefer.

And for framing everything as a big conspiracy, I guess!

Don't be so sensitive. There is a serious lack of testosterone in the game today. This didn't happen overnight.