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

[ResilientBeast]

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.

I love how you try and construct a framework to make all of this sound okay

 

[Overrated]

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.

How was he an awful father though? He raised a Hall of Famer.

 

[ResilientBeast]

How was he an awful father though? He raised a Hall of Famer.

Yeeeeeesh, are you kidding me? That is such an ignorant comment.

Hull says he always knew that he wanted to be a professional hockey player, but he's gotten his wish without much help from his father. During Brett's formative years, Bobby was constantly on the road. His parents were divorced in 1979, and after the breakup Brett lived with his mother, Joanne Robinson, who remarried and now lives in West Vancouver, British Columbia. He rarely sees or even talks to his father. He says he doesn't even know his phone number.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ll-only/9e4b82cf-242a-425f-b4c3-63abc9baa647/

 

[Overrated]

Yeeeeeesh, are you kidding me? That is such an ignorant comment.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ll-only/9e4b82cf-242a-425f-b4c3-63abc9baa647/

Ok I see but in 79 he was already 15 the formative years he spent with him. He could not have been on the round the whole time if half of the games are played at home.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Ok I see but in 79 he was already 15 the formative years he spent with him. He could not have been on the round the whole time if half of the games are played at home.

You're missing the point. You said "he wasn't an awful father, he raised a Hall of Famer"

Not only was he a shitty father (and husband), just because his kid became a hall of fame level hockey player doesn't absolve him of literally anything. Given everything we know about Bobby Hull he doesn't strike me as someone who participated at all in raising his children. In that same article Bobby says he barely sees and speaks to his own children.

 

[daver]

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.

To what end? This presumes people give a shit what an athlete does off the court/field/ice. I guess if this is kept in this thread and doesn't get brought up randomly in other threads that's OK.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Yeeeeeesh, are you kidding me? That is such an ignorant comment.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ll-only/9e4b82cf-242a-425f-b4c3-63abc9baa647/

@Big Phil

To what end? This presumes people give a shit what an athlete does off the court/field/ice. I guess if this is kept in this thread and doesn't get brought up randomly in other threads that's OK.

Yes, people tend to care when folks become known as serial abusers.

 

[JustNapalmIt]

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.

Congrats

How was he an awful father though? He raised a Hall of Famer.

Oh lord. my god.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Really makes me wonder about other players and the legacies they will leave behind. How much does the negative impact the success they had in hockey? Is it dependent more on the negative things and how people perceive them or does success negate some of that? Everyone has skeletons in their closets. Everyone has done or said stupid/wrong things. Some apologize and move forward and some don't.

Think of players like Theo Fleury and how he will be remembered. Horrible experiences. Dynamite player. Ruffled lots of feathers. And then went off the deep end with conspiracies and whatnot.

Or Craig McTavish. I mean, he freaking killed a woman from drunk driving. Yet, he's more known for being the last player without a helmet than vehicular homicide. Will he be remembered more positively even though he killed a completely innocent person?

Or Ovie. How will his pro-Putin stance impact his records and legacy? Does it completely depend on how everything ends up unfolding? Should it?

I don't know. It's hard to verbalize my thoughts. I'm not trying to feel bad for him or ignore that he did/said a lot of hurtful things. Just feels weird the amount of hate that instantly came about after his passing - even from people that are huge hockey fans.

Ovechkin I think might, or it will fade away as once political views don't tend to override their on ice/field/court success; or at the very least not when it comes to our own countrymen (I don't think you'd find anyone critical of athlete's supportive of the Bush administration during Afghanistan and Iraq invasions (once the lies were known).

My dislike of Hull has less to do with what he may have said and more with the persistent domestic violence. The things he said (even excluding the contentious stuff like Hitler) were bad and probably not uncommon, unfortunately. The Spousal violence is not really up for debate and very bad.

MacTavish and Heatley are tricky ones, although Heatley benefited from the families public forgiveness. I do think it's strange how hush hush the Mactavish incident seemed to be; I'd known him as a coach in the league for years before I heard about it and was kind of shocked.

Dino Ciccarelli is still widely celebrated despite what he may have done, but I guess those situations in general are easier to brush aside or dismiss as uncertain and therefore not quite "real".

I find this is a fork in the road where a lot of people split; the "it's not fair to criticize him because others too have done this/worse" and "those who did or do similar or worse should also be admonished".

I tend to take the good with the bad. No problem mentioning his on ice accolades, no problem (and maybe important) to bring up his off ice abuse. I think my main problem with those who think it wrong to discuss his shortcoming, apply that standard extremely loosely in my experience, all based around who/what they personally like.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

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.

The people that complain that everyone calls people they disagree with "Nazi", are the same people that call everyone and everything they dislike "woke", "virtue signalling", and any left of right wing is 'commy'. It's puzzling and strange that some people can pick up on it when others are doing it, but be oblivious when they do the same.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

More broadly, we're, rightfully, coming to terms with just how abhorrent some historical figures were. From explorers to politicians and athletes won't, and shouldn't, be immune from it, It IS interesting that a vast majority of push back about reconciling with our past is this dishonest notion that there's a desire to erase these people from history. It's hogwash. No one, anywhere, is suggesting Bobby Hull's accomplishments on the ice should be expunged or forgotten, or that his place in hockey history should be erased. What IS being said though, is that you can't talk about his legacy without acknowledging the bad. Anything else is hagiography and myth making.

And we already mythologize athletes. It's why their hometown is always mentioned, why reporters go back to talk to their friends or parents. We cover their trips to children's hospitals and the work that goes into coming back from injuries. We, broadly as fans and those who run the sport or cover it, have decided for a hundred years that who they are as people matters. To suggest the bad doesn't matter is profoundly hypocritical, especially when hyping anything virtuous someone does.

Bobby Hull was a terrible person. He should not have been honoured with on-ice ceremonies after he passed. You don't honour people who beat their wives. Period. I don't care what he did on the ice or for the game, you do something that egregious and that awful you forfeit the right to be mythologized after the fact.

I'm sure it is hard on his family. And I would never go up to them in person or on social and shit all over Bobby. THAT'S crass, but "it upsets his family" can't be a reason to not tell the truth about he, and his legacy, because truthfully, hearing or seeing those things about a family member is never going to be comfortable.

 

[JackSlater]

Ok I see but in 79 he was already 15 the formative years he spent with him. He could not have been on the round the whole time if half of the games are played at home.

I read Brett Hull's autobiography a few years ago. Basically when he was small he had some good experiences due to Bobby, like hanging around NHL rinks and being allowed to skate around with his brothers because he was Bobby Hull's kid, but he wasn't really involved much as a father. After his parents divorced Brett barely saw his father. As in, years between seeing him. I think Bobby had a lunch with him while he was in the BCHL and basically said to stop being a fat lazy slug or something. I had the impression that Bobby was around a lot more when Brett was young but the older he got the less he was around.

Anyway, Bobby gave Brett a great genetic legacy by random chance but considering he was mostly gone and also beat the hell out of Brett's mother various times, I think we can say he was not a good father by any stretch.

 

[daver]

The people that complain that everyone calls people they disagree with "Nazi", are the same people that call everyone and everything they dislike "woke", "virtue signalling", and any left of right wing is 'commy'. It's puzzling and strange that some people can pick up on it when others are doing it, but be oblivious when they do the same.

Great, let's throw some unnecessary politics into the mix. So anyone who seemingly isn't suitably outraged at Hull's off-ice legacy is now right wing?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Professional athletes are selected almost entirely for their physical attributes. Speed, strength, stamina, coordination, etc.

There is practically zero necessary overlap of the attributes that make someone a star athlete and the attributes that make someone a decent person. Sure, leadership is a bonus, but it's far from a prerequisite.

It stands to reason that you're going to have a wide array of characters in any professional sports league, and it's quite possible that they're going to span the full range of the entire population in terms of decency, lunacy, intelligence, extreme political views, etc.

Hull appears to have demonstrated this more than most.

 

[norrisnick]

Great, let's throw some unnecessary politics into the mix. So anyone who seemingly isn't suitably outraged at Hull's off-ice legacy is now right wing?

Sure seems like there is some heavy heavy overlap in that Venn Diagram...

 

[daver]

More broadly, we're, rightfully, coming to terms with just how abhorrent some historical figures were. From explorers to politicians and athletes won't, and shouldn't, be immune from it, It IS interesting that a vast majority of push back about reconciling with our past is this dishonest notion that there's a desire to erase these people from history. It's hogwash. No one, anywhere, is suggesting Bobby Hull's accomplishments on the ice should be expunged or forgotten, or that his place in hockey history should be erased. What IS being said though, is that you can't talk about his legacy without acknowledging the bad. Anything else is hagiography and myth making.

And we already mythologize athletes. It's why their hometown is always mentioned, why reporters go back to talk to their friends or parents. We cover their trips to children's hospitals and the work that goes into coming back from injuries. We, broadly as fans and those who run the sport or cover it, have decided for a hundred years that who they are as people matters. To suggest the bad doesn't matter is profoundly hypocritical, especially when hyping anything virtuous someone does.

Bobby Hull was a terrible person. He should not have been honoured with on-ice ceremonies after he passed. You don't honour people who beat their wives. Period. I don't care what he did on the ice or for the game, you do something that egregious and that awful you forfeit the right to be mythologized after the fact.

I'm sure it is hard on his family. And I would never go up to them in person or on social and shit all over Bobby. THAT'S crass, but "it upsets his family" can't be a reason to not tell the truth about he, and his legacy, because truthfully, hearing or seeing those things about a family member is never going to be comfortable.

What are the terms? If most people could care less what he did off the ice, and more broadly historical figures away from what made them historical, then this revisiting of them isn't necessarily being done "rightfully". Or at least when the revisiting using a lens of present values.

I would presume that anyone who idolized Bobby Hull is not also a proponent of spousal abuse. Same with anyone who promotes him as the #5 player all-time now or moving forward.

Sure seems like there is some heavy heavy overlap in that Venn Diagram...

Can we then connect the pearl clutchers in here to the left wing?

 

[Transplanted Caper]

What are the terms? If most people could care less what he did off the ice, and more broadly historical figures away from what made them historical, then this revisiting of them isn't necessarily being done "rightfully". Or at least when the revisiting using a lens of present values.

It's being done rightfully for their victims. So that, in this case, victims of domestic abuse don't have to watch media, fans, and teams fawn over an abuser.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Can we then connect the pearl clutchers in here to the left wing?

Go for it (keep it to this thread, please, and be consistent with the rules in post #1).

If the "pearl clutchers" you're referring to are the ones who are upset about serial domestic abuse, then I'd say that you probably have a case.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

What are the terms? If most people could care less what he did off the ice, and more broadly historical figures away from what made them historical, then this revisiting of them isn't necessarily being done "rightfully". Or at least when the revisiting using a lens of present values.

I would presume that anyone who idolized Bobby Hull is not also a proponent of spousal abuse. Same with anyone who promotes him as the #5 player all-time now or moving forward.



Can we then connect the pearl clutchers in here to the left wing?

We would have to define "the left" because this is an international website and the spectrum of politics is much more narrow in the US, and often people ascribe left wing indicators to political policy that is more centralist in the broader scope of the political world.
We would have to define pearl clutching because as it stands those you would categorize as "left wing" appear to be clutching their pearls with their criticism/discussion of his abuse no more so than the people outraged over those bringing up facts of Mr. Hulls life. If criticism over a person's continuous domestic violence constitutes 'pearl clutching', I can only wonder what those upset or outraged by that criticism would be defined as.

 

[daver]

Go for it (keep it to this thread, please, and be consistent with the rules in post #1).

If the "pearl clutchers" you're referring to are the ones who are upset about serial domestic abuse, then I'd say that you probably have a case.

I see no need to bring in politics, period, to the discussion, so I could care less who gets associated with what. Meanwhile it is pretty clear what your politics are.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Meanwhile it is pretty clear what your politics are.

Likewise (and the phrase is "couldn't care less").

 

[ResilientBeast]

I see no need to bring in politics, period, to the discussion, so I could care less who gets associated with what. Meanwhile it is pretty clear what your politics are.

 

[daver]

It's being done rightfully for their victims. So that, in this case, victims of domestic abuse don't have to watch media, fans, and teams fawn over an abuser.

Can you please source the media, fans and the team "fawning" over Bobby Hull as a domestic abuser. I would hope that his victims would be able to presume that public mention of Hull is based on his hockey accomplishments, and not a brushing away of his abuse, if they even know about it to begin with.

I suggest you stop supporting pro sports as this scenario will certainly be played out again. If noone cared about pro athletes, they wouldn't get the publicity they do.

 

[daver]

Likewise (and the phrase is "couldn't care less").

No, you are presuming (or hoping) that I lean in a specific direction politically and I think it is completely inappropriate for you to insinuate that I do.

My initial foray into this was to critique the introduction of politics, period. And it is worth noting that I disagreed with the poster who is seemingly being brushed with the "right wing" paint.

Christ, everyone today is so lacking in common sense and critical thinking it is scary.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

No, you are presuming (or hoping) that I lean in a specific direction politically and I think it is completely inappropriate for you to insinuate that I do.

Hey, if the shoe fits. And I guess this wasn't presuming anything when you said it: "it is pretty clear what your politics are".