Don Cherry HHOF worthy as a builder? (Read mod notes #320, #323)

[KingArthursCourt]

The difference being that John Madden:

a) Was easily worthy of HOF induction as a coach in his own right. Cherry is not even close to that, unless we’re planning to trot out HOF arguments for Marc Crawford someday.

b) Madden built by far and away a larger media platform around his persona. He is a 16-time Emmy winner; his name is synonymous with THE definitive sports video game series which launched an entire industry. Even little kids who don’t like sports know that “Madden” means football. Cherry’s influence on hockey was more limited to begin with, is already largely eroded because he chose regressive stances on most issues, and is now marked by being completely toxic to a lot of people.

c) Madden never put the HOF in a position where his induction would be perceived as a tacit endorsement of a divisive political stance. Which is where we are now with Cherry.

Note that Madden was inducted into the HOF purely on the strength of his coaching resume, not as a “contributor” which is their equivalent to a “builder”. There are no inductees in the football HOF based entirely on a broadcasting career; the only one in the HHOF is Foster Hewitt, who clearly outstrips the field as a builder.

While I guess there’s a reasonable cultural comparison to be made between Madden and Cherry, the comparison doesn’t work as a HOF argument.

Great post. I think one of the easiest ways to see the difference is that "all-Madden team" was basically synonymous in football with "all-star", i.e. Madden was that respected by the general football community as an evaluator of talent. Whereas an "all-Cherry team" would likely be looked at as a joke by many serious hockey fans and observers.

 

[illpucks]

What statistical evidence is there to support this? In particular, to suggest that Cherry has a causal link to the effect and one that's distinguishable from others.

Every hockey player in the NHL from Canada from that generation knows about him and was influenced by him in some way. Look at how many players/former players say they watched coaches corner.

Even a Russian player knows the importance of it, and how important he is.

 

[KingArthursCourt]

Every hockey player in the NHL from Canada from that generation knows about him and was influenced by him in some way. Look at how many players/former players say they watched coaches corner.

Even a Russian player knows the importance of it, and how important he is.

I think you misunderstood me, I was looking for actual statistical evidence of some sort, not an unsupported anecdotal claim offered as a truism and some random YouTube video.

 

[Voight]

He's had no impact on growing the sport, or on the actual sport itself. The trajectory of the NHL over the last 30 years has been one that has consistently left Cherry and his ilk behind while they complain about "kids these days" and engage in "back in my day..." nostalgism.

His only real tangible contribution relates to highlighting the issue of icing-related injuries, and he's far from the only person who noticed the problem and suggested doing something about it. But that's one of the very few places where he's made something of a positive contribution to the NHL.

He put a stop to them at the grassroots level. Literally nobody pushed for it to stop in minor hockey until he lent his celebrity and voice to the cause.

He also has been big in the promotion of the CHL prospects, including the game he coaches every year to show case them and bring in a big audience.

 

[MeHateHe]

He put a stop to them at the grassroots level. Literally nobody pushed for it to stop in minor hockey until he lent his celebrity and voice to the cause.

He also has been big in the promotion of the CHL prospects, including the game he coaches every year to show case them and bring in a big audience.

Minor hockey in Canada has had no-touch icing for (at least) 40 years. I'm not aware that touch-icing was ever a thing in minor hockey in this country.

 

[scott clam]

Don Cherry is probably the biggest outlier HOF case in the history of the sport. Any sport really.

This might not be a popular opinion but I think in Don's case his infamy is too great for the hall of fame to ignore.

Only Grapes could have got away with what he did for so long, so in a somewhat perverse way he has, in my opinion, transcended the standards that the Hall should apply to literally anyone else.

EDIT:

f*** it, I take it back.

Once you get over the whole "icon" thing, Don Cherry really did more harm than good. The game is better off without his bully pulpit, and his true legacy- aside from bigotry, is the glorification of hockey players punching eachother in the head. And calling people who opposed it "wimps"(although I guess that counts as bigotry too.)

I think we were all kidding ourselves even before the poppy thing: that Don even had a chance at the HOF after the concussion scandal broke.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

tbh maybe the most valuable thing to be gleaned from this thread is that some production company missed out bigtime by not licensing cherry's name for don cherry's rock 'em sock 'em hockey video games.

the nhl in the prime video game years wanted to deemphasize violence in hockey, but more than anything else a string of super violent cherry hockey 2001, 2002, 2003, etc could have grown the game and really vaulted hockey into the "big four." hundreds of millions of dollars could have been made by all parties involved. there's your unrefutable HHOF case right there.

like, know your audience: violence-hungry adolescent males looking for an outlet for their excess testosterone and senses of frustration (literal adolescents or maybe more importantly the perpetual kind).

 

[scott clam]

tbh maybe the most valuable thing to be gleaned from this thread is that some production company missed out bigtime by not licensing cherry's name for don cherry's rock 'em sock 'em hockey video games.

the nhl in the prime video game years wanted to deemphasize violence in hockey, but more than anything else a string of super violent cherry hockey 2001, 2002, 2003, etc could have grown the game and really vaulted hockey into the "big four." hundreds of millions of dollars could have been made by all parties involved. there's your unrefutable HHOF case right there.

like, know your audience: violence-hungry adolescent males looking for an outlet for their excess testosterone and senses of frustration (literal adolescents or maybe more importantly the perpetual kind).

EA could have easily appropriared Don's image and left the games pretty much thd same lol

 

[Big Phil]

Pretty sure the guys at Rogers had been planning to axe Coach's Corner for some time now, the poppy rant just gave them the excuse they needed.

I would say, since, well, they've ALWAYS tried to get rid of him.

The difference being that John Madden:

a) Was easily worthy of HOF induction as a coach in his own right. Cherry is not even close to that, unless we’re planning to trot out HOF arguments for Marc Crawford someday.

b) Madden built by far and away a larger media platform around his persona. He is a 16-time Emmy winner; his name is synonymous with THE definitive sports video game series which launched an entire industry. Even little kids who don’t like sports know that “Madden” means football. Cherry’s influence on hockey was more limited to begin with, is already largely eroded because he chose regressive stances on most issues, and is now marked by being completely toxic to a lot of people.

c) Madden never put the HOF in a position where his induction would be perceived as a tacit endorsement of a divisive political stance. Which is where we are now with Cherry.

Note that Madden was inducted into the HOF purely on the strength of his coaching resume, not as a “contributor” which is their equivalent to a “builder”. There are no inductees in the football HOF based entirely on a broadcasting career; the only one in the HHOF is Foster Hewitt, who clearly outstrips the field as a builder.

While I guess there’s a reasonable cultural comparison to be made between Madden and Cherry, the comparison doesn’t work as a HOF argument.

Madden is the more successful coach, of course. I think you are downplaying Cherry though too. Give Madden the credit, I don't want to downgrade him here, but I was comparing who else was a coach who went onto a career as a more well known personality after that.

The impact Don had was very much culturally. People that hated him still cared what he had to say. Cherry from a controversial level was closer to Howard Stern than Madden, although WAY far below from Stern, but there were just things that people associated with Don Cherry. The 1997 playoffs, Colin Campbell is asked why Wayne Gretzky got up so quickly after a hit. Colin's response: "He probably thought about Don Cherry." No, this reason alone is not why he should be inducted, but it tells the story of his impact. Those types of things were said all the time. He made 30 Rock Em Sock Em videos that were very good and coined the term.

Impact and influence in the hockey culture with a pretty good coaching career should get you in. The guy has been off of TV, for now, just a week and we are already forgetting that he would pull in 3 million or so (last I heard) Canadians each week?

 

[illpucks]

I think you misunderstood me, I was looking for actual statistical evidence of some sort, not an unsupported anecdotal claim offered as a truism and some random YouTube video.

If you want statistical evidence then do a poll of all the players of Crosby's generation. Ask the following question 'Did Don Cherry have any influence on you' and you will have your answer.

 

[Jedub]

Don Cherry was an icon. His cultural impact was just as big if not bigger than Gretzky and Mario. Theres no one else in hockey like him and he should be in the hall.

And if he's kept out because of the HHOF's supposed morals, they should go through their inductees and remove everyone who doesnt measure up. Because I guarantee you could make a hell of a hockey team out of the racist, sexist, violent, criminal types they have in there already.

 

[scott clam]

I would say, since, well, they've ALWAYS tried to get rid of him.

Maybe so, but Don has arguably survived worse controversies than this one (ie the Iraq War). But of course those were the days before Twitter and Facebook and even Hfboards.

I do think most people, regardless of their political views, would agree that there has been a definite decline in the quality of Coach's Corner in recent years.

I think it has been apparent to those watching for the last 5 or so years that Ron, judging by the sullen look on his face and the exasperated tone in his voice, wanted out, but didn't have the guts to say so. Nobody had the guts.

Rogers dragged their feet in re-signing Don this year but gave way to the Twitter outrage machine. It's just that last week the mob was on the other side, and so they had their window of oppurtunity.

 

[Staniowski]

I don't think Cherry will ever be inducted. He's already been eligible for induction as a builder for decades. So, now after being notoriously fired for conduct variously referred to as xenophobic, racist, discriminatory, etc., he's going to be inducted in a category where the attributes considered include sportsmanship and character?

I don't think the HHOF is going to want to touch Cherry with a 10-foot pole.

 

[ESH]

I would say, since, well, they've ALWAYS tried to get rid of him.



Madden is the more successful coach, of course. I think you are downplaying Cherry though too. Give Madden the credit, I don't want to downgrade him here, but I was comparing who else was a coach who went onto a career as a more well known personality after that.

The impact Don had was very much culturally. People that hated him still cared what he had to say. Cherry from a controversial level was closer to Howard Stern than Madden, although WAY far below from Stern, but there were just things that people associated with Don Cherry. The 1997 playoffs, Colin Campbell is asked why Wayne Gretzky got up so quickly after a hit. Colin's response: "He probably thought about Don Cherry." No, this reason alone is not why he should be inducted, but it tells the story of his impact. Those types of things were said all the time. He made 30 Rock Em Sock Em videos that were very good and coined the term.

Not sure why you would think that after seeing what everyone has said in this thread. Tons of people don’t really care what Don Cherry has to say about hockey, and it’s been that way for a long time now.

Impact and influence in the hockey culture with a pretty good coaching career should get you in. The guy has been off of TV, for now, just a week and we are already forgetting that he would pull in 3 million or so (last I heard) Canadians each week?

Was it Don Cherry that pulled 3 million viewers in or was it the fact that a lot Canadians watch a lot of hockey?

What is this supposed impact and influence you suggest he’s had that makes him worthy as a builder in the HHoF? I’ve seen mention that a couple players said they liked him when they were kids, but is that really what makes a guy influential enough to be a builder?

You very obviously support Don Cherry, but that sure doesn’t mean that he’s some special icon to every Canadian hockey player/fan.

 

[Barnum]

No one is cheapening anything about those Bruins teams. They were good and Cherry had a system that came dangerously close to unseating the greatest dynasty of all-time. The fact that for several years no one else came close to beating them tells you all you need to know about the Habs of that era.

As for the builder thing, yes, he belongs. His coaching and analytical career are more than enough. I have said it before, his career is very similar to John Madden. There were people who got driven nuts by John Madden, but like Cherry, most people in the sport liked him, or at least were entertained.

That's a lot of impact, have a pretty good coaching career and then have a career where you are a ratings bonanza every week for 40 years. Like it or not, the guy had a serious following and still would if he gets back on TV. Who knows what happens, TV execs are a complicated bunch. The ratings could be so bad they could ask him back. Ask Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien about that with NBC.

No, Harry Sinden built a contender and gave everything Cherry needed to put a very good Boston team out on the ice. All Cherry had to do was put lines out and he failed in 1979 when the game was just about all over, he blew it. The Lunch Pail Gang mentality was already in Boston before Cherry got there, thx to the Flyers. He was gifted great teams and was unable to win a Cup.

Let’s talk about Cherry’s f*** up. Huge f*** up. You want to give him credit for not naming the player to the press or publicly? Lol all coaches do that, Donny’s not special in that category nor should he be applauded for it because there’s not a coach alive that does it. We know who the player (s) were and Donny admits he thinks Nifty heard him say “go out there”. It was Donny’s strategy and game plan to shadow Lafleur for the series. Donny sees Lafleur jump back out and he didn’t wait for Jonathan to come back. It’s that simple. Either way Donny was in charge of the bench, he f***ed up. There’s no defending that night and probable Cup. Instead, the Coach’s Clown put on a show with a few minutes left serenading the Montreal crowd with his stupid antics. Donny ate major crow. I remember my dad telling me that night after the OT, this is why you don’t gloat until the clock reads 0:00.

Stop trying to find little silver linings in Donny’s lacklustre coaching career. Fastest to 250....big whoop. As I said, after what Sinden gave him for a roster, anyone could have coached that team.

 

[illpucks]

I hope that being liked is not a prerequisite for the hall. Bettman is always booed, but he is the most important person to the league in the last 3 decades. Would be funny to hear people say that Bettman has done nothing for the sport.

 

[Barnum]

[MOD]

I’m talking 1979. They had the Habs up against the ropes but lost because Donny couldn’t manage a bench. In that series, it was Montreal that got lucky.

But in the end, Donny has nothing. Zero Zip Nada, Zilch. No individual awards, or a trophy. Instead he was shown the exit after 6 years in the NHL and never looked at again. Wonder why that was?

 

[scott clam]

[MOD]

I’m talking 1979, keep up. They had the Habs up against the ropes but lost because Donny couldn’t manage a bench. In that series, it was Montreal that got lucky.

But in the end, Donny has nothing. Zero Zip Nada, Zilch. No individual awards, or a trophy. Instead he was shown the exit after 6 years in the NHL and never looked at again. Wonder why that was?

Well he does have a Jack Adams award. But otherwise his coaching career, and his career as a Bruin, is pretty unremarkable.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Madden is the more successful coach, of course. I think you are downplaying Cherry though too. Give Madden the credit, I don't want to downgrade him here, but I was comparing who else was a coach who went onto a career as a more well known personality after that.

The impact Don had was very much culturally. People that hated him still cared what he had to say. Cherry from a controversial level was closer to Howard Stern than Madden, although WAY far below from Stern, but there were just things that people associated with Don Cherry. The 1997 playoffs, Colin Campbell is asked why Wayne Gretzky got up so quickly after a hit. Colin's response: "He probably thought about Don Cherry." No, this reason alone is not why he should be inducted, but it tells the story of his impact. Those types of things were said all the time. He made 30 Rock Em Sock Em videos that were very good and coined the term.

Impact and influence in the hockey culture with a pretty good coaching career should get you in. The guy has been off of TV, for now, just a week and we are already forgetting that he would pull in 3 million or so (last I heard) Canadians each week?

I do agree with all of that. To me it’s just hard to stretch from there to the Hall of Fame.

Did he really coin the term “rock em sock em”? I always assumed it was an idiom, didn’t realize it was that recent.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots is a two-player action toy and game designed by Marvin Glass and Associates and was first manufactured by the Marx toy company in 1964. It features two dueling robotboxers, the Red Rocker and the Blue Bomber, mechanically manipulated by the players, and the game is won when one player knocks the head off of the opponent.

Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots - Wikipedia

 

[scott clam]

Don Cherry was an icon. His cultural impact was just as big if not bigger than Gretzky and Mario. Theres no one else in hockey like him and he should be in the hall.

And if he's kept out because of the HHOF's supposed morals, they should go through their inductees and remove everyone who doesnt measure up. Because I guarantee you could make a hell of a hockey team out of the racist, sexist, violent, criminal types they have in there already.

You could, but some of those violent criminal types were just so good at Hockey most people don't really care all that much about their brownie points, or lack thereof. I mean they may say do, but they'll find excuses for their favorite player or franchise hero.

Since Don Cherry was a shitty hockey player and an average coach he's not going to be judged based on "performance". His case is really just a sentimental one at this time.

 

[Barnum]

Well he does have a Jack Adams award. But otherwise his coaching career, and his career as a Bruin, is pretty unremarkable.

Correct. However, that team was the last hurrah of the early 70s powerhouse teams. While Orr only played 10 games, Espo played 77, the return of Cheevers and alot of the roster was still stacked from those days. However, it also shows how much more important Harry Sinden was to the Bruins than Cherry’s terrible ice management and style. Not only did Sinden fleece the shit out of the Rangers in one of the most lopsided trades in NHL history but also drafted one of Cherry’s favorite “Lunch Pail Gang” members that year.

I don’t care who it is or who was behind the bench but from the late 60’s to somewhere around the Joe Thornton’s trade, any Bruin team during that timeframe is basically a Harry Sinden team.

 

[Barnum]

I do agree with all of that. To me it’s just hard to stretch from there to the Hall of Fame.

Did he really coin the term “rock em sock em”? I always assumed it was an idiom, didn’t realize it was that recent.

Cherry didn’t coin the term rock em sock em, that’s big time nonsense. It was a hugely popular children’s toy at the time. My brother’s and I played the shit out of that toy. It was created in the early 60s and by the the time the late 70s rolled around, every kid had one.

 

[Barnum]

You could, but some of those violent criminal types were just so good at Hockey most people don't really care all that much about their brownie points, or lack thereof. I mean they may say do, but they'll find excuses for their favorite player or franchise hero.

Since Don Cherry was a ****ty hockey player and an average coach he's not going to be judged based on "performance". His case is really just a sentimental one at this time.

If this was a normal HOF discussion about a player/coach’s entrance in the Hall. The first 20 posts would have been “lack of longevity” and “lack of hardware” which would have ended the thread. Me thinks there is another reason why people are calling for his induction and it has little to do with hockey.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

"In 2004, Cherry was voted by viewers as the seventh-greatest Canadian of all-time in the CBC miniseries The Greatest Canadian. In March 2010, his life was dramatized in a two-part CBC movie, Keep Your Head Up, Kid: The Don Cherry Story, based on a script written by his son, Timothy Cherry. In March 2012, CBC aired a sequel, The Wrath of Grapes: The Don Cherry Story II."

Seems to me some posters here have no idea how much of an Icon Don Cherry is in Canada.