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

[Bear of Bad News]

To me it is just bad taste and lacks class to pile on the way people have even before the body cools. Look, Jude Hull, Brett's son, seems to have enough of it. I'm with him on this, its just ugly hearing the way people talk about him.

Hey, people were pissed off that we didn't allow this sort of discussion yesterday (I was specifically called a Nazi by multiple people).

We're now allowing this here, and people are still upset that we're not doing this on the main board (I can't even imagine the level of discourse that would be going on in the main board - actually, I can, because I can see deleted posts). I've once again been called a Nazi for this decision, but only by one poster today (I've been called other things). Kind of hoping to be called a "communist Nazi" to get the requisite squares on the bingo card. There seem to be a few posters who won't be happy unless we send a note to everyone's e-mail address, titled "BOBBY HULL IS AN ASSHOLE". We won't be doing that.

We're allowing this here, and I've posted a warning at the start of the thread. If this discussion isn't for you, the door's that way.

In short, we're doing our best. Both sides of this discussion appear to be gleefully eager to take it out on me personally, but hey, I'm a goalie - I can take it.

 

[The Panther]

I don't think whether Bobby Hull liked Hitler is is really what we're debating in this thread. None of us can prove that one way or the other.

Bobby Hull is notable as a hockey player and that's the only reason we're even discussing him on this forum. I think we all agree on that.

So, what we're really having a debate about is whether sports figures should be celebrated / remembered for their (a) sports accomplishments alone or for (b) a combination of their sports accomplishments and their personal lives / characteristics.

This is really the crux of this discussion, in which Bobby Hull specifically is really neither here nor there.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

..whether Bobby Hull beat his wife/wives is really what we're debating in this thread. None of us can prove these things one way or the other.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, we sure as hell can prove this.

 

[The Panther]

Beyond a reasonable doubt, we sure as hell can prove this.

Right, so I'm going to have to edit my post (above) lest everyone jump on that detail to ignore my point...

 

[Big Phil]

Hey, people were pissed off that we didn't allow this sort of discussion yesterday (I was specifically called a Nazi by multiple people).

We're now allowing this here, and people are still upset that we're not doing this on the main board (I can't even imagine the level of discourse that would be going on in the main board - actually, I can, because I can see deleted posts). I've once again been called a Nazi for this decision, but only by one poster today (I've been called other things). Kind of hoping to be called a "communist Nazi" to get the requisite squares on the bingo card. There seem to be a few posters who won't be happy unless we send a note to everyone's e-mail address, titled "BOBBY HULL IS AN ASSHOLE". We won't be doing that.

We're allowing this here, and I've posted a warning at the start of the thread. If this discussion isn't for you, the door's that way.

In short, we're doing our best. Both sides of this discussion appear to be gleefully eager to take it out on me personally, but hey, I'm a goalie - I can take it.

Nobody is a Nazi (arguably the most overused word ever).

We can post what we'd like, it is just an observation, not just here but the media too. I posted a while back that Mickey Mantle near the end of his life once he knew he didn't have much time left started saying how sorry he was for the life he had led. How rotten he had treated the ones he loved the most (Bob Costas interview is where he says a lot of this). People loved Mickey before that, but seemed to love him even more when he genuinely opened himself up and seemed fallible. This was 1995. We all remember his actions on the field to this day if we talk about him.

I get the feeling that in modern times in 2023 if Bobby Hull had done the same thing there would be a significant less amount of forgiveness and goodwill sent his way. I think these days people demand a public apology and then STILL don't have the grace to forgive a person. I think it reveals the constant pessimism and keyboard warrior mindset we have in this social media day and age.

 

[buffalowing88]

Hey, people were pissed off that we didn't allow this sort of discussion yesterday (I was specifically called a Nazi by multiple people).

We're now allowing this here, and people are still upset that we're not doing this on the main board (I can't even imagine the level of discourse that would be going on in the main board - actually, I can, because I can see deleted posts). I've once again been called a Nazi for this decision, but only by one poster today (I've been called other things). Kind of hoping to be called a "communist Nazi" to get the requisite squares on the bingo card. There seem to be a few posters who won't be happy unless we send a note to everyone's e-mail address, titled "BOBBY HULL IS AN ASSHOLE". We won't be doing that.

We're allowing this here, and I've posted a warning at the start of the thread. If this discussion isn't for you, the door's that way.

In short, we're doing our best. Both sides of this discussion appear to be gleefully eager to take it out on me personally, but hey, I'm a goalie - I can take it.

In 2023, people toss around the word Nazi as if it means anyone they don't agree with 100 percent is the worst.

You're doing your best and I really appreciate it.

Bobby Hull was a dick. Probably a wife beater...probably more than once.

I think by now his statements on other people and minority groups have been largely debunked.

At the same time, he's maybe the best pure goal scorer not named Wayne or Mario. Nuanced people can separate that from the person. Unusual people need to continue to virtue signal on these message boards and say otherwise.

The real question I want to know is why Hull doesn't get more credit for that Cup win on a team that wouldn't get one again for another several decades. That is an insane outlier for the O6 Era. You don't see the Rangers winning around then.

 

[JustNapalmIt]

Not sure why in a thread talking about a hockey player so many have a problem with the pointing out what an asshole he often was, minimizing it by calling it "virtue signaling " and "woke" and the like.
Guess thats the world we are in. pointing out the wretchedness of someone is now offside to some.

 

[SympathyForTheDevils]

In 2023, people toss around the word Nazi as if it means anyone they don't agree with 100 percent is the worst.

You're doing your best and I really appreciate it.

Bobby Hull was a dick. Probably a wife beater...probably more than once.

I think by now his statements on other people and minority groups have been largely debunked.

At the same time, he's maybe the best pure goal scorer not named Wayne or Mario. Nuanced people can separate that from the person. Unusual people need to continue to virtue signal on these message boards and say otherwise.

The real question I want to know is why Hull doesn't get more credit for that Cup win on a team that wouldn't get one again for another several decades. That is an insane outlier for the O6 Era. You don't see the Rangers winning around then.

Not that it's Hull's fault, but one single Cup for a team that probably had the most high-end talent in the 60s can be seen as an underperformance. Also, despite the Cup, 1961 wasn't his strongest playoff showing; Pierre Pilote actually led the Hawks in scoring during those playoffs.

As a sidenote, this thread really seems to be going in circles. Does anyone actually disagree that Bobby Hull was a shitty, horrible person? Doesn't everyone know that at this point? What are people even arguing about here? Who even cares about the Hitler quote; that's downright trivial compared to him being a serial wife beater and an awful father.

 

[daver]

delete

 

[daver]

Not that it's Hull's fault, but one single Cup for a team that probably had the most high-end talent in the 60s can be seen as an underperformance. Also, despite the Cup, 1961 wasn't his strongest playoff showing; Pierre Pilote actually led the Hawks in scoring during those playoffs.

Taking a closer look:

In '61, the 3rd place Hawks win the Cup as the two best RS teams are upset in the SFs. The Hawks has been moving into the 3rd best team slot for the previous two seasons but were expected to challenge for the Cup. Hull has an impressive playoff, but Pilote is the clear Smythe winner.

In '62, the 3rd place Hawks reach the SCF, arguably another over achievement, with Mikita having one of the era's best playoff runs, Hull is very good with 8 goals in 12 games.

In '63, the 2nd place Hawks lost to the 4th place Wings in the SF, not a really an upset as the Wings were only four points behind in the standings. Hull has his best playoff run of his career with 8 goals in 5 games.

In '64, the 2nd place Hawks lose again to the 4th place Wings in the SF, but is an upset and really the first time you start to question Hull, who had two goals and seven points, and the Hawks,

In '65, the 3rd place Hawks got revenge on the 1st place Wings in the SF while Hull had one of the era's best single series performances putting up 8 goals and 13 points in seven games. They lost in 7 to the 2nd place Habs with Hull getting 4 points but still leading his team in scoring.

In '66, another disappointing SF loss to the Wings, Hull had 2 goals and 4 points while Mikita was worse.

In '67, the Hawks finished in 1st for the first time in the Hull/Mikita era and had the highest RS goal total in NHL history. They were upset in SF by the Leafs with Hull being solid with 4 goals as Mikita notably underproduced again.

In '68, the Hawks fall to 4th as their offense and defense both regress. They lose to the #1 Habs in the SFs. Hull is solid offensively.

In '69, they fall farther back in the standings and miss the playoffs.

In '70, they rebound to finish first in the league with a notably strong defense. They lose in the SFs to the Bruins. Hull is great in the QF and shut down with no goals in the SF.

In '71, the 3rd place Hawks reach the SCF only to lose another seven game series to the Habs, an especially bitter one as they were up 2-0 in Game 7. Hull is great throughout the playoffs.


So from the 60/61 season to the 70/71 season, the Hawks were the 2nd best regular season team, had the 2nd most playoff wins, and had the 3rd best winning % in the playoffs, slightly behind the Leafs,

They had 1 Cup and 3 other SCF appearances.

The Habs had 5 Cups in 5 SCF appearances.

The Leafs had 4 Cups in 4 SCF appearances.

The Wings had 4 SCF appearances.

Hull had 28 points and 13 goals in 26 SCF games while being the better playoff performer than Mikita.

That the Hawks did not win at least one more Cup is certainly up there with notable other team disappointments like the OV-era Caps but Hull's individual play is above critique, IMO.

He doesn't lose any points for his playoff resume but does not gain anything unlike Beliveau, Richard and Crosby.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Not sure why someone's death should change the usual context in which a player is discussed in the HOH section; that being exclusively their contributions on the ice.

Is there some sort of unwritten rule that off the ice behavior has to be discussed? Unless you are directly associated with the player or were affected by their off the ice behavior, why should anyone care?

Not talking about it =/= acceptance or approval of his off the ice behavior. Sports are supposed to be a break from all the shitty news happening in the real world.

The context has been established, people are interested in participating, and if you don’t want to discuss it, we won’t require you to participate.

 

[daver]

The context has been established, people are interested in participating, and if you don’t want to discuss it, we won’t require you to participate.

So you have no issue with the other poster? Their only post in the thread is to who come in and create a strawman to ironically "virtue signal" and make a political statement about "wokeness".

Why not ask them to quote the exact post/poster that prompted them to make their post.

On another subject, is it OK to create a Bobby Hull legacy (hockey only) thread? This may save a lot time for the folks who do are not interested in the 95% of posts in this thread that are not hockey related.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

On another subject, is it OK to create a Bobby Hull legacy (hockey only) thread? This may save a lot time for the folks who do are not interested in the 95% of posts in this thread that are not hockey related.

It’s stickied in the general nhl board. Enjoy:

Bobby Hull passes away (MOD #23- stay to hockey- see Admin warning within)

forums.hfboards.com

 

[daver]

It’s stickied in the general nhl board. Enjoy:

Bobby Hull passes away (MOD #23- stay to hockey- see Admin warning within)

forums.hfboards.com

What's wrong with doing it in the HOH given it's higher standards?

 

[NoMessi]

So many calling him a closet-nazi without any sufficient proof. Russian newspaper interview bla bla, come on really. Open a russian newspaper and use google translate, its more fiction than Star Wars.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

What's wrong with doing it in the HOH given it's higher standards?

We aren’t going to re-litigate this decision.

 

[Jets4Life]

No one is gonna think about Vladimir Putin when reflecting on Ovechkin's great career.

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.

 

[Jets4Life]

What’s been eye opening for me on the Bruins board is seeing a number of people who absolutely lost their minds about Mitch Miller heaping so much praise upon Bobby Hull.

I think that may have something to do with Miller's ability to relate to what Hull is going through. Not saying it is right, but a young hockey prospect that has been a social pariah for the past 2.5 years may be more sympathetic to a hockey legend that also become somewhat of a social pariah in the last decade of his life.

 

[MXD]

Not sure why someone's death should change the usual context in which a player is discussed in the HOH section; that being exclusively their contributions on the ice.

Is there some sort of unwritten rule that off the ice behavior has to be discussed? Unless you are directly associated with the player or were affected by their off the ice behavior, why should anyone care?

Not talking about it =/= acceptance or approval of his off the ice behavior. Sports are supposed to be a break from all the shitty news happening in the real world.

Read the first post.

 

[norrisnick]

Nobody is a Nazi (arguably the most overused word ever).

We can post what we'd like, it is just an observation, not just here but the media too. I posted a while back that Mickey Mantle near the end of his life once he knew he didn't have much time left started saying how sorry he was for the life he had led. How rotten he had treated the ones he loved the most (Bob Costas interview is where he says a lot of this). People loved Mickey before that, but seemed to love him even more when he genuinely opened himself up and seemed fallible. This was 1995. We all remember his actions on the field to this day if we talk about him.

I get the feeling that in modern times in 2023 if Bobby Hull had done the same thing there would be a significant less amount of forgiveness and goodwill sent his way. I think these days people demand a public apology and then STILL don't have the grace to forgive a person. I think it reveals the constant pessimism and keyboard warrior mindset we have in this social media day and age.

I think the issue is more that people's patience for assholes has dramatically eroded. Now if someone is an asshole their entire life and then at the point when their life starts falling apart it's a little late to say "my bad" and expect any sympathy.

Hull made his bed with the actions during his life. He doesn't get to magically upgrade right as he's about to lie down.

 

[daver]

I get the feeling that in modern times in 2023 if Bobby Hull had done the same thing there would be a significant less amount of forgiveness and goodwill sent his way. I think these days people demand a public apology and then STILL don't have the grace to forgive a person. I think it reveals the constant pessimism and keyboard warrior mindset we have in this social media day and age.

Not a great take because social norms have progressed in the last 50 years to where Hull may not be as ready to do what he did with a more enlightened upbringing. If he did these things while playing, he likely gets suspended.

Probably best you not read this thread any more given the openness of this thread to dive into things non-hockey related and the keyboard mindset that accompanies it.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

You may, however, be missing a larger point that's being made. Your opinion (as stated) is coming from a position of moral certainty, and you are equally certain that you, and everyone else, can be the arbiter of what is morally acceptable and what isn't. For example, your post that I quote here shows you stating that "abusing a partner" is morally unacceptable and that "verbally abusing and bullying a kid with developmental disabilities" is morally unacceptable, whereas "ma(king) mistakes" is okay.

Now, it may indeed be the case that 90% (or 100%, or 65%, or whatever) of people in a given society agree with you that verbally abusing a kid with disabilities is morally unacceptable. But I am certain that several people who agree with you on that have, in fact, verbally abused kids---maybe some with developmental disabilities---when they were kids. Is any of us free of what you would label morally unacceptable behavior? In other words, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

But the larger point you may be missing is that you are constructing a binary of morally acceptable/unacceptable behavior and assuming that there are clear lines between one and the other, when in fact there is a continuum. And when there is a continuum, there is NEVER mass agreement on what is "okay" and what "isn't okay". There is no clear line.

So, according to you and some on here, Bobby Hull's actions are morally unacceptable and thus we should castigate him. But then what a Hall of Famer who did one incident of spousal abuse but otherwise has a clean, upstanding record? Then, what about another Hall of Famer who didn't sympathize with Hitler or his his wife, but abandoned his kids? What about another who did none of the preceding things, but committed a robbery when he was 17? What about another who did none of the above but got his high school girlfriend pregnant and pushed her into having an abortion? What about another who spilt some milk once at age 12?

What I'm saying is, the line between 'absolutely okay" and "not okay whatsoever" isn't as certain as you think. Likewise, the great divide between hockey players of great reputation and ones of dark reputation is not as clear as you think.

Which brings me to my next point...

You act is if people with a modicum of critical thinking can't judge each situation on a case-by-case basis based on a multitude of factors such as recurrence of misdeeds, reform, context, consequences to the victim (s), severity of the incident, etc.

This is done all the time. Often well, sometimes not.

Jesus, this must have really sounded a lot smarter in your head.

 

[daver]

Noone should be chastised for wanting to celebrate Hull exclusively for his hockey achievements. Looking for moral guidance from what athletes may or may not do is certainly not top of mind for me.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Noone should be chastised for wanting to celebrate Hull exclusively for his hockey achievements. Looking for moral guidance from what athletes may or may not do is certainly not top of mind for me.

Well, great. I told you where you have a safe space to do that.

We aren't going to debate this decision.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Nobody is a Nazi (arguably the most overused word ever).

We can post what we'd like, it is just an observation, not just here but the media too. I posted a while back that Mickey Mantle near the end of his life once he knew he didn't have much time left started saying how sorry he was for the life he had led. How rotten he had treated the ones he loved the most (Bob Costas interview is where he says a lot of this). People loved Mickey before that, but seemed to love him even more when he genuinely opened himself up and seemed fallible. This was 1995. We all remember his actions on the field to this day if we talk about him.

I get the feeling that in modern times in 2023 if Bobby Hull had done the same thing there would be a significant less amount of forgiveness and goodwill sent his way. I think these days people demand a public apology and then STILL don't have the grace to forgive a person. I think it reveals the constant pessimism and keyboard warrior mindset we have in this social media day and age.

I'm not a baseball guy. What did Mickey Mantle do? You keep bringing up his name but you never mention what he'd done.

Noone should be chastised for wanting to celebrate Hull exclusively for his hockey achievements. Looking for moral guidance from what athletes may or may not do is certainly not top of mind for me.

No one's looking for guidance for them. We're just pointing it out when they're garbage human beings, even if they're good at putting the puck in the net.