Bobby Hull, Dead at 84

[Phil]

 

[siddious]

Obviously never saw him play but a legendary name. 

 

RIP

[Ozzy]

Legend!

 

Rest in peace!

[Phil]

Legendary name, complicated/checkered personal life, though. I feel bad for his family, because any time a family member dies it's sad, but Bobby has said some horrendous stuff about Nazis (Hitler had good ideas type shit), and effectively admitted to being a racist and not caring (because he's "not running for office.")

 

Hawks are in a tough spot here. They're gonna be torn between wanting to honor the player without championing the person.

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

also had multiple wives accuse him of abuse. All in all, he was known to be a brutally awful human being but a great hockey player

[Dunny]

I dunno. Sad, is how I see it. His views are antiquated, but generally standard fare for his generation. Not really complicated in my view. Probably not the smartest guy.

 

I met him a couple times as a kid at Old Timer travel tournaments in the US. Was clearly hammered all weekend, but friendly and in good spirits. Months after one of those, he rang the house, I picked up, and he wanted to talk to Dad. Dad had a puzzled look when I handed him the phone... he was selling time shares lol. Very sad. 

[Phil]

I don't know that "Hitler had good ideas, he just took it too far," is standard fare for a generation who's parents fought Nazis, but I generally agree that his story is really sad.

[Sod16]

48 minutes ago, Phil said:

I don't know that "Hitler had good ideas, he just took it too far," is standard fare for a generation who's parents fought Nazis, but I generally agree that his story is really sad.

That's not an accurate depiction of the purported quote, which, in any event he denied.

 

His signing with the WHA resulted in dramatically greater pay for all players.

 

My main memory of him as a player: scoring the winning goals of Games 5 and 7 of the 1971 series on the same exact play (quick shot off faceoff).

[Phil]

10 hours ago, Sod16 said:

That's not an accurate depiction of the purported quote, which, in any event he denied.

 

His signing with the WHA resulted in dramatically greater pay for all players.

 

My main memory of him as a player: scoring the winning goals of Games 5 and 7 of the 1971 series on the same exact play (quick shot off faceoff).

 

I'd argue it's pretty accurate. I slightly paraphrased. The original quote, which yes, he denied, reads: “Hitler had some good ideas. He just went a little bit too far.”

 

He was also attributed with saying that the Black population in the U.S. was growing too fast and that eugenics was a good idea. He denied making these claims, and threatened to sue the Moscow Times and Toronto Sun for printing portions of the original Times article, but never followed through on the threat.

 

His own daughter later told ESPN that when she saw the remarks attributed to him, "The first thing I thought was, 'That's exactly like him.'"

 

Oh, and he's also been accused by both of his ex-wives of domestic violence. His second ex-wife, in fact, said he beat her bloody, and held her over a hotel balcony during one incident in which she was sure she was going to die.

 

So, yeah, sorry — while his signing with the WHA, his embrace of the curved stick, and his electric play were all incredibly important moments with regard to the eventual rise of the NHL, it's hard to sit here and praise the man. It's also extremely difficult to separate the man from the player.

[Sod16]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

 

I'd argue it's pretty accurate. I slightly paraphrased. The original quote, which yes, he denied, reads: “Hitler had some good ideas. He just went a little bit too far.”

 

 

I've seen the "quote" quoted differently.  In any event, it's worth mentioning the source, a paper in... Moscow.  

 

I hate it when I give interviews to papers in Moscow and they misquote me.

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Sod16 said:

I've seen the "quote" quoted differently.  In any event, it's worth mentioning the source, a paper in... Moscow.  

 

I hate it when I give interviews to papers in Moscow and they misquote me.

 

That's why I also included the other issues, most notably both of his ex-wives citing abuse. He was also a raging alcoholic and was reported to have shown up to Hawks events hammered. The issues just mounted, which led to the Hawks eventually severing ties with him as a brand ambassador for them.

[Pete]

4 hours ago, Phil said:

It's also extremely difficult to separate the man from the player.

I actually don't agree. It's pretty easy. I'm not inviting him to dinner. I don't want to hang out with him. But he innovated the game. Honor his contribution there and move on.

 

We don't have to have both conversations at once, and that doesn't mean both aren't worth having.

[Phil]

45 minutes ago, Pete said:

I actually don't agree. It's pretty easy. I'm not inviting him to dinner. I don't want to hang out with him. But he innovated the game. Honor his contribution there and move on.

 

We don't have to have both conversations at once, and that doesn't mean both aren't worth having.

 

As an individual/fan? Sure. But that's made more difficult by how you/they (the Hawks) honor him, because "too much" being done to honor the player can quickly backfire on the organization in the eyes of individuals/fans who can't stomach very much of who the man was. I can't really blame fans for having very little tolerance for a guy who reportedly voiced support for Hitler, beat both his ex-wives, and said other anti-Black and anti-Semitic things, no matter his contributions.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

As an individual/fan? Sure. But that's made more difficult by how you/they (the Hawks) honor him, because "too much" being done to honor the player can quickly backfire on the organization in the eyes of individuals/fans who can't stomach very much of who the man was. I can't really blame fans for having very little tolerance for a guy who reportedly voiced support for Hitler, beat both his ex-wives, and said other anti-Black and anti-Semitic things, no matter his contributions.

We don't have to have both conversations at once, and that doesn't mean both aren't worth having.

 

It just ties into the super wokeness of, if a person is of low moral character, should we just ignore every other positive contribution?

 

What if the scientist who cures cancer is a Nazi? Tough corner to paint yourself into.

[Phil]

I'd argue you have to take them case-by-case, and that there are undoubtedly going to be moments when, yes, their positive contributions should be "ignored" or "minimized" so as not to eclipse the impact of their negatives. Not to go full Godwin's Law here, but if Hitler's paintings were artistically groundbreaking, I don't think I'd care very much to discuss the subjects without the context that he was a horrendous human being. Or, in a less extreme case, the same could be said of Slava Voynov. The hockey player was undoubtedly a key component to the Kings' two Stanley Cups with him, but he also nearly beat his wife to death and was effectively chased out of the league (and country) over it.

 

There simply can't be a hard line stance on this because, as you said, you run the risk of effectively cancelling everyone for their worst moment(s) in life. That's untenable, but some people probably shouldn't be celebrated much, if at all, even if their contributions to something were fairly significant. Hull is, to me, an edge case. I'm really not sure how much of an honor he should be getting outside of what's already been done with the NHLPA, Blackhawks, NHL, and others releasing statements announcing his death and speaking to his importance as a historical NHL figure. Should the Blackhawks hold a remembrance night for him, for example? Or wear a patch on their jerseys for a night, or the rest of the season? Helmet sticker? The same Blackhawks who cut ties with him as a brand ambassador over these very issues we're arguing about?

 

I honestly don't know the answer to these things. We don't have to have both conversations at once, but we also don't have to not have them. Sticking our head in the sand as a means to avoid "wokeness" isn't much of an effective solution either.

[Pete]

20 minutes ago, Phil said:

I'd argue you have to take them case-by-case, and that there are undoubtedly going to be moments when, yes, their positive contributions should be "ignored" or "minimized" so as not to eclipse the impact of their negatives. Not to go full Godwin's Law here, but if Hitler's paintings were artistically groundbreaking, I don't think I'd care very much to discuss the subjects without the context that he was a horrendous human being. Or, in a less extreme case, the same could be said of Slava Voynov. The hockey player was undoubtedly a key component to the Kings' two Stanley Cups with him, but he also nearly beat his wife to death and was effectively chased out of the league (and country) over it.

 

There simply can't be a hard line stance on this because, as you said, you run the risk of effectively cancelling everyone for their worst moment(s) in life. That's untenable, but some people probably shouldn't be celebrated much, if at all, even if their contributions to something were fairly significant. Hull is, to me, an edge case. I'm really not sure how much of an honor he should be getting outside of what's already been done with the NHLPA, Blackhawks, NHL, and others releasing statements announcing his death and speaking to his importance as a historical NHL figure. Should the Blackhawks hold a remembrance night for him, for example? Or wear a patch on their jerseys for a night, or the rest of the season? Helmet sticker? The same Blackhawks who cut ties with him as a brand ambassador over these very issues we're arguing about?

 

I honestly don't know the answer to these things. We don't have to have both conversations at once, but we also don't have to not have them. Sticking our head in the sand as a means to avoid "wokeness" isn't much of an effective solution either.

Yeah, I think we fundamentally agree. It's all about the levers you want to pull around the conversation you want to have. 

 

You can't minimize his contributions in every conversation. When you're talking about hockey, you can't. If you want to talk about the impact of athletes on culture, you have to minimize it. It's not a one size fits all solution. There needs to be some kind of weighted scorecard or decision tree on how you look at these things.

 

Regarding this situation in particular, I think you have a night for him, but you don't put a statue up in front of the United Center. 

[LindG1000]

Makes me think of Wernher von Braun. Nazi? Yep. Complicit? Debatably, but yep. Brilliant scientist without whom we have no space program? Also yes. We recognize Wernher von Braun with an appropriate level of skepticism today and it's not an easy balance to master.

 

In Hull's case, it feels simple enough to say that he fundamentally changed the game of hockey for the better, but was an absolute shithead outside of the game. 

[Phil]

27 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yeah, I think we fundamentally agree. It's all about the levers you want to pull around the conversation you want to have. 

 

You can't minimize his contributions in every conversation. When you're talking about hockey, you can't. If you want to talk about the impact of athletes on culture, you have to minimize it. It's not a one size fits all solution. There needs to be some kind of weighted scorecard or decision tree on how you look at these things.

 

Regarding this situation in particular, I think you have a night for him, but you don't put a statue up in front of the United Center. 

 

Well, there already is a statue, so there's no real putting the toothpaste back in the tube on that one, unless you're gonna have it removed, which I'm also not sure should happen.

 

I think we agree more than we don't, though. I think what's been done so far is warranted. You sure as hell can't just erase people from history for being racists or generally shitty people. If the Hawks want to do a night for him, I'd probably be fine with it, but I don't think the league should.

[LindG1000]

5 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Well, there already is a statue, so there's no real putting the toothpaste back in the tube on that one, unless you're gonna have it removed, which I'm also not sure should happen.

 

I think we agree more than we don't, though. I think what's been done so far is warranted. You sure as hell can't just erase people from history for being racists or generally shitty people. If the Hawks want to do a night for him, I'd probably be fine with it, but I don't think the league should.

If we did this, we wouldn't have history. 

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Well, there already is a statue, so there's no real putting the toothpaste back in the tube on that one, unless you're gonna have it removed, which I'm also not sure should happen.

 

I think we agree more than we don't, though. I think what's been done so far is warranted. You sure as hell can't just erase people from history for being racists or generally shitty people. If the Hawks want to do a night for him, I'd probably be fine with it, but I don't think the league should.

I was saying they never should have done the statue. 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I was saying they never should have done the statue. 

 

Gotcha. Timelines in this case just didn't overlap very closely, I'd guess. Statues were unveiled in 2011. They cut ties with him as an ambassador in like '22?

[Pete]

8 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Gotcha. Timelines in this case just didn't overlap very closely, I'd guess. Statues were unveiled in 2011. They cut ties with him as an ambassador in like '22?

But some of this stuff was out before 22 no? 

[lefty9]

What a great player,one of the best winger that ever played 

I did get to see him play ,he was very noticeable on the ice 

[Phil]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

But some of this stuff was out before 22 no? 

 

It was, yeah, and you have to imagine the Hawks knew about at least some of it, too, but how much did they know about in '11, or prior, when they initially decided to build the statue? I'm giving them the benefit of doubt here given the decade of non-overlap.

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

It was, yeah, and you have to imagine the Hawks knew about at least some of it, too, but how much did they know about in '11, or prior, when they initially decided to build the statue? I'm giving them the benefit of doubt here given the decade of non-overlap.

I want to give that org the benefit of the doubt but I don't think they deserve it LOL.