Hockey Today a "Goon Game", says Hall of Fame Goalie Glenn Hall

shabbs wrote:

wprager wrote:It's called "Hockey Stories and Stuff". Just the way Grapes would've said it. I've read it twice

It's pretty funny. It literally is written just the way Grapes says it. Full of grammatical errors and all...

wprager wrote:

shabbs wrote:

wprager wrote:It's called "Hockey Stories and Stuff". Just the way Grapes would've said it. I've read it twice

It's pretty funny. It literally is written just the way Grapes says it. Full of grammatical errors and all...

There are a few instances of "so-and-so" as in "that so-and-so ...". Strachan edits it a little bit

MurderOnIce wrote:I believe the story above gives a somewhat unbiased view that hockey has had violence as part of it's entire history, unfortunately. I think Hall's comments are revisionist at best and at worst a sour former player looking to get his name back in the headlines, either way I lost a bit of respect for him...

davetherave wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:I believe the story above gives a somewhat unbiased view that hockey has had violence as part of it's entire history, unfortunately. I think Hall's comments are revisionist at best and at worst a sour former player looking to get his name back in the headlines, either way I lost a bit of respect for him...

MOI, you have IMHO totally misread this article.

Glenn Hall is not the type of person to want his name in the headlines...just the opposite.

Glenn Hall is simply giving his opinion...as someone who was one of the top players in the game, ever. That's his prerogative.

To qualify his comments as 'revisionist' is inaccurate and inappropriate. He's not trying to ignore or dismiss the violent incidents in the history of hockey.

As for the laundry list of incidents cited above, I draw your attention to the dramatic increase in the instances of major injuries to NHL players in today's game, due to the force of impacts by bigger, heavily armoured players travelling at faster speeds.

This simply was not the case back in the early 60s.

davetherave wrote:MOI, I am not basing my comments on being a Blackhawks fan...I am speaking as a hockey fan who was been following the game for half a century.

I grew up watching hockey in the late 1950s and early 1960s...the era of Glenn Hall and other greats.

Did you watch hockey then?

I posted the Glenn Hall interview and article because I thought it was of interest to our GM Hockey Members, most of whom--including yourself--NEVER saw Hall or his contemporaries.

For you to call his comments self-serving or revisionist is simply incorrect.

Number one: Hall is a Hockey Hall of Fame player who is a reserved sort and shuns publicity. He's already a legend. He has nothing to gain here, especially by taking an unpopular position.

Number two: 'revisionism', in a historical context, is the process of altering--specifically revising--history to suit a particular agenda. Hall does nothing of the sort. He states his view of the game, no more, no less.

He feels the game has become unnecessarily violent. The use of the word 'goon' may inflame some, but clearly Hall is distressed by what he sees, and that's his right.

He doesn't say the players aren't talented.

And why should you find his comments insulting?

Maybe instead of citing a litany of violent events in hockey that stretch back to the 1930s--and by the way, these events have no bearing on what Hall is taking about, as he refers specifically to his era...

...you might want to think about how many head shots you saw this year alone...like the one that put Ryan Shannon of your Ottawa Senators out for several games.

The knee-on-knee hits...which are becoming more and more frequent.

I am against gratuitous violence in the sport of hockey, no matter which team.

And this is not a contradiction. In a contact sport, violence is endemic. But there are acceptable and unacceptable levels.

Do you not agree?

Yes, we talk about 'war on ice' and use phraseology that is unashamedly aggressive...and we have all gotten carried away in our enthusiasm...but there's a difference between the adrenaline of a fan getting excited about a game, and a deliberate act that injures your rival in a sporting event.

This is the very thing Glenn Hall is talking about. He feels there is too much of this attempt to injure in hockey today.

Would you like debate that point?

Be my guest.

davetherave wrote:Murder On Ice:

I hope you will continue the debate on violence in hockey, and that you will respect others' opinions as much as you would like yours to be respected...and that includes those of Mr. Glenn Hall.

You talk about other eras not discussed in the article. Mr. Hall was referring specifically to his own...1952 to 1971...and making a direct comparison of the game in 2009, to that time in which he played.

Mr. Hall, was, may I remind you, a player for three teams...the Wings, Hawks and Blues. So partisanship is irrelevant to this discussion.

If Mr. Hall's opinions are an affront to you, you may certainly write to the author of the article and express yourself directly, rather than venting your anger against me for posting it.

Glenn Hall is outspoken...when asked for his opinion. It was his outspokenness about the rights of hockey players to have a union to protect their interests that got him traded by a furious Jack Adams, trying to squash that voice, from Detroit to Chicago.

Glenn Hall does not draw attention to himself, unlike a Don Cherry for example. You will rarely see Mr. Hall's name in the headlines.

By the way, it was the writer of the article who inferred the relationship between Mr. Hall's nervous habit and hockey today...not Mr. Hall. You may have missed that in your evident eagerness to refute his opinion.

As for suggesting I am trying to 'school' you or anyone else for that matter, nothing could be further from the truth.

I share this information with you and others in this forum with an open mind, and hope you do likewise.

When I say I have been watching hockey for half a century, it is simply a historical context for my remarks. There is no pretension suggested, nor should one be inferred. It entitles me to no special privilege, nor does it make me an expert. I am merely an enthusiastic amateur.

If that information created a certain discomfort, which I sense from the increasingly angry tone of your rebuttal, then it will be difficult for me to participate in any further discussions with you.

You seem to be trying to win an argument.

I am not interested in arguing, simply in sharing ideas and perspectives, expecting that not everyone will agree.

Perhaps, and I say this sincerely, others on this forum will engage you in a way that you find more satisfactory.