A history of racist incidents (and false alarms) in hockey...

[BobbySmithFan]

I myself love Cherry, sure he has overstepped the boundaries of political correctness. But keep in mind he has been on air for 31 years, since 1980. The stuff he said in the early 1990s or the 1980s are a different time. Could he say "Chicken Swede" nowadays? Not sure, but I don't remember him trying it lately.

I think Don's patriotism actually gets held against him a bit if you can believe it. Canadians for some reason are afraid to be proud about things. I think Don's idea of a Canadian player is that of pride. I don't think you are far off at all when you suggest there is an extra gear in the hearts of Canadian players, the Conn Smythe Trophy results are a reflection of this. So I think sometimes his emphasis on Canadians gets held against him and sometimes the fact that he's loyal to Canadians bothers people

It couldn't be because the majority of players are Canadians could it?

Look how many Americans have been Superbowl MVPs.

 

[BobbySmithFan]

To be fair there really is an Alpo dog food.

And if someone went on TV and compared Cherry to a part of the female anatomy, because it can be used as a euphamism for hymen, wouldn't be criticized?

 

[tarheelhockey]

those, of course, are also racist stereotypes associated with jewish people.

That's the tricky part, right? The connotations change depending on your background. Personally, I might describe someone as a "New York lawyer type" and not have the slightest clue that it carries a racial tone (well, not NOW, but two days ago...).

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Thats not racist! They are all WHITE! Caucasian. The word you are looking for is xenophobia.

As I said, the definition of race is not established. It doesn't have to be only about skin colour. In biology I believe it refers to groups that have common heritable traits, which would certainly include skin colour but would not be limited to it.

even if we abstain from judging whether one is worse than the other, they are different kinds of prejudices, NOT the same thing.

I'm not convinced they're different, and even if they are that seems to be nitpicking. Prejudice is prejudice.

Saying Europeans and French guys wear shields more than Canadians and Americans is only the truth.

There's the presentation of the facts, and then there's the implications as to what these facts reveal about the players in question. Cherry certainly didn't present these facts in a neutral, disinterested way. They were presented to say something about francophone and European players.

You have to take him with a grain of salt. I mean, Archie Bunker was on TV for 10 years with excellent ratings and many races/cultures found him entertaining.

Archie Bunker was a fictional character, of course; a parody. Don Cherry is also a parody, but he doesn't yet realize it.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

It couldn't be because the majority of players are Canadians could it?

Indeed and only five of the last nine winners have been Canadian, which is about what you'd expect given the number of Canadians in the league.

 

[Killion]

I'll never forget the time I first encountered a player from Newfoundland at the old Orr-Walton Sports Camp in Orillia Ontario. This kid could skate like the wind, was oversized for his age, had a shot that could kill. Tough as nails. Arrived on a Scholarship. At that time, Newfoundlanders' had been & were still the object of many a joke, thanks to the nature of their resource based economy & long lay-offs' between seasons of productivity; the death of the shipbuilding industry & so on.

My "Counsellor" at the time was all of 5 foot nothing Rick Curran, playing on a scholarship out of Bowling Green or somewhere, who went on to and still is a Player Agent, with Eagleson in the 70's, Branada Sports Group from the early to late 80's with Bill Watters & Bobby Orr; relocating from Toronto to PA in the early 90's and still representing a sizeable stable of former & current players. Anyway, I'll never forget Ricks' speech to us "spoiled kids" lucky enough to be there, that it wouldnt be "wise" to be making "Newfie Jokes" or "testing" this particular player unless we wanted a trip to the infirmary, never mind the fact that it was not only disrespectful, it'd be bigoted (against the Irish in this case), narrow minded and beyond despicable. Ricky wasnt about to stand for it. "This is a linguistically & socially challenged individual from the outports with a big chip on his shoulder. Do not try it on".

Well Sir, first scrimmage, the idiots just couldnt help themselves. The player, who shall remain nameless & went on to the NHL and a decent career, had quite possibly the shortest fuse Ive ever seen in a human being. Challenged by a slow skating rock-jawed 6'3"-220lb defenceman (who also went on to play pro) knocking him out, cold, in the blink of an eye, with one punch. Greased lightning. Unexpectedly, with barely a shake of the wrist, at about 5'10" & 185lbs his left hand glove was off & BAM!. See ya. Several others, in a daisy chain of bigotry tried the same, every one of them hitting the deck. Hard... trash talking themselves out of a career while being watched by the creme de la creme of NHL scouts, players & coaches of that time.

I encountered similar sentiments against the french, Europeans. Its inbred. Its in the game. It hasnt disappeared. Its just a lot more subtle. We classify & categorize. Bountys' placed on Maurice Richards Head. Sweeney Shriner was treated to some doozies. Willie O'Rea couldnt buy a break. If you were from Nova Scotia, PEI or New Brunswick; dont bother. Salming took it on the chops.
Not a pretty history....

 

[buffalowing88]

Very interesting, never thought of it to be that way. Look, I've gotten out of hand once at a game, just once, but it happened. In 2004 after a heated game with the London Knights and the Kitchener Rangers in the OHL the Knights were bragging to the Rangers fans on the way off the ice. Corey Perry (yes THAT Corey Perry) was at the heart of the fan's rage and I had choice words for him, Dennis Wideman (yes THAT Wideman) and Dale Hunter the Knight's coach who we all know his reputation.

Hunter just walked off the ice and didn't even look up but Perry and the rest of the Knights whooped it up. This enraged a lot of fans and there were a few empty water bottles hurled their way. I was so mad I threw a wrapped up hotdog wrapper towards him. He knew it was coming at him but it missed him and hit another Knight on his chest. Perry knew full well I was aiming it at him and he tried to draw the attention of the usher, to no avail. Anyway, it is a funny memory in a way but I was the adult I should have known better of course. So yes I once "snapped" at a game and did something I totally hate when others do.

So what does this mean? Well, it was a knee jerk reaction from rage on my part. I didn't even think of what I was throwing. So could the fan have felt this same way? Was he just looking for the first thing to throw on the ice at Simmonds hoping to distract him? Was it a mere coincidence that Simmonds is black?

I tend to want to believe that version but I don't think I can. For starters, where in the world can you even get a banana at a hockey game? I've never so much bought fruit from a game in my life. Which makes me think that this might have been a pre-meditated prank meant solely for Simmonds. I mean who wants to carry a banana around the whole game even for a prank?

So I tend to fall on the fact that it's probably racism and meant to be. However, remember those moron fans in Toronto last year who came up with the idea to throw waffles? Luke Schenn I believe is the one who wondered if the ACC even SOLD waffles. So that means someone intentionally brought waffles to a game with the intention to throw them.

So there is the slim chance that a person brings a banana, like a waffle, to a game and doesn't even think of the ramifications of having Simmonds be that player. I'd say there is an 80% chance this was racism intentionally (my own number out of the air) and about 20% likely that the fan was oblivious to how thie may be perceived.

Excellent post and I appreciate all your posts in this thread in general for providing a logical and thought-out argument.

 

[Killion]

Excellent post and I appreciate all your posts in this thread in general for providing a logical and thought-out argument.

Yes, we all appreciate our "Big Phil". Pretty hard to disagree with the guy unless your a complete idjiit. Very much a quieting presence on defence, or is that up-front?. Im confused.... Worrisome... Anyhooo. An Orr avy combined with an Espo handle?. WTF is dat?!...

kinda like hauling a trailer behind a Bentley no?... putting a 9.5hp outboard Evinrude on a Greavette. Dont get it.

 

[jcbio11]

Great thread and a good read.

Racism (and xenophobia since some smart ass was quick to point out Cherry shouldn't be considered a racist if he spews prejudices against white Europeans) is one of the worst things in today's society.

Felt good to read that Cherry doesn't get a free pass from all the canadians.

Now to some concrete cases -

Iginla - I consider this to be one of the false alarms. Iginla always did well in Hart voting and he just wan't that good that year.

Banana - coming from a country where racism at soccer stadiums is way too common for my liking (incidents of groups of fans mimicking the ape sounds when a black player touches the ball - unfortunately a staple of European racism at soccer stadiums), I don't consider this a random action. Premeditated. This time the whole media outrage is actually spot on. Hope the person who did it gets caught and punished.

 

[tjcurrie]

Cherry is definitely popular (as well as infamous), but I think many would disagree that he has been good for the game.

Someone like that will always have their detractors but I'm willing to bet that if you weigh the good and the bad that the good far outweighs the bad. The people that don't like him are juts a little sensitive and don't know how to take him. But even out of the ones that don't like him, alot of them still watch him.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

That's the tricky part, right? The connotations change depending on your background. Personally, I might describe someone as a "New York lawyer type" and not have the slightest clue that it carries a racial tone (well, not NOW, but two days ago...).

THH, i think i addressed this in my original post. a lot of people say things that have racial or racist connotations without realizing it, and without intending it to be dehumanizing or hurtful. i get that.

. . . i also accept that this is just something people say without thinking what it suggests, and probably isn't meant to be actively racist or hurtful, even though the suggestion is racially motivated.

even if the intention is completely innocent, the phrase itself isn't. just like i have heard a lot of people use the word "schyster" (forgive me for typing that ugly word, but i want to make this point) and a lot of these people have no idea that it is in fact a racial slur for jewish people and has historically been used as such. i think in our lives we will all at some point unintentionally offend people, though i think most good people try to limit this as much as possible. but that's why i pointed at a guy like kypreos, or cherry. when they say "new york lawyer," there is little doubt to my ears that they use it in a much less innocent way than you do.

I'm not convinced they're different, and even if they are that seems to be nitpicking. Prejudice is prejudice.

iain, i respect what you are saying in this thread. and i don't want to keep harping on this point, but i think it needs to be made, so i'll try it one last time.

i think it's offensive to minority groups who have been the target of racism and at times sustained racial abuse to suggest that "prejudice is prejudice." and again, this is not to claim that one kind of oppression is worse than the other, or that one kind of indignation is more valid than the other, just that these are different problems and should be treated in our society as such if we want to see these problems for what they are and work towards a better and less oppressive world.

i have never in my life ever heard anyone say, "i don't want to shake the hands of a swede because swedes are dirty people." (having spent most of my life in north america of course; might i hear this in certain parts of europe? i don't know. what constitutes a stigmatized race is obviously society-dependent, not empirical fact.)

but even just in the context of hockey, i have heard this same sentence spoken about afro-canadians, east indians, and first nations people. kids spitting on their hands before entering the handshake line after a game when we played a team from a part of town with a predominantly punjabi-canadian population. i've heard this from parents, saying they didn't want their kids shaking hands with a first nations person. very common. even in a society as international and with as normalized a jewish population as vancouver, i have heard the same sentence spoken about jewish people (in non-hockey contexts).

i do think it's hard for people who may have been discriminated against at certain points in their life, but not in the sustained, everyday way that a visible minority is, to fully understand the difference between the cultural discrimination that caucasian immigrants often face, and the racially-motivated discrimination, abuse, and institutional neglect that visible minorities face.

this kind of racism presupposes that the non-caucasian races are inherently inferior, that they are less than human. less than human. think about that for a second. consider being afro-canadian and every time you walk into a store, you are assumed to be trying to steal something or stick up the place. or being first nations and every time you walk down the street people are wondering whether you are drunk and about to do something crazy like blindly throw punches. to have people think that you are an animal-- what do you think the banana thrown at wayne simmonds is supposed to mean?

to the bigot, maybe thomas steen is a lesser hockey player because of his heritage, but his son can become a heart and soul player. more to the point, this bigot probably wouldn't mind having alex steen over at his house for dinner, or steen taking his daughter out on a date. what would this same bigot say about wayne simmond's son? that's the difference, and i don't think it's splitting hairs.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

iain, i respect what you are saying in this thread. and i don't want to keep harping on this point, but i think it needs to be made, so i'll try it one last time.

i think it's offensive to minority groups who have been the target of racism and at times sustained racial abuse to suggest that "prejudice is prejudice."

Hold up, I'm not talking about actions, I'm talking about attitudes. Clearly the things that have been done with racist/prejudices motivations vary greatly in their severity. And there are clearly degrees of prejudice. But that doesn't excuse any of it. Saying he's not as prejudiced as others have been is faint praise.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not looking at it from the "victim" side, but from the "perpetrator" side. Some victims of prejudice are far worse off than others. That doesn't make being "just a little" prejudiced okay.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Hold up, I'm not talking about actions, I'm talking about attitudes. Clearly the things that have been done with racist/prejudices motivations vary greatly in their severity. And there are clearly degrees of prejudice. But that doesn't excuse any of it. Saying he's not as prejudiced as others have been is faint praise.

we definitely agree on this.

i just wanted to distinguish the different motivating factors behind (and implications of, attitudes underlying) what i see as two different kinds of prejudice. both are obviously inexcusable. but they are in fact different attitudes insofar as they regard the minority (one cultural or national, the other racial) in very different ways (you are not like us but could one day be if you subscribed to our values and way of life; you are an animal and beneath human concern).

but anyway, yes we agree. i appreciate your position and i'll drop this now.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'll come to Cherry's defense here. I'm in the minority, but he and Mike Milbury are my favorite analysts.

Cherry is of the opinion that Canada generally produces the toughest, most heart and soul hockey players. If you disagree with this, you're probably going to disagree with most of his opinions, since many stem from this basic premise.

The politically correct among us will scoff and suggest that a player's birth place makes no difference in how they play the game. But come on. What is a more likely occurence: two guys from Saskatoon dropping the gloves or two guys from Stockholm doing so? We all know it's the guys from Saskatoon. It's a fact.

Fighting, hitting, and grinding it out in the trenches are the traits inherently associated with tough, heart and soul hockey players. If you want to disagree with that, then fine, but it's a whole different issue. Is anybody going to suggest that there is a nationality of players more likely to fit that stereotype than Canadians?

That's the type of player guys like Cherry and Milbury appreciate. It's not "racism" to suggest the kid from Medecine Hat is more likely to show these characteristics than the kid from Prague. It's not always the case of course. That's why it's stereotypical. But stereotyping is a long, long way from racism.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'll come to Cherry's defense here. I'm in the minority, but he and Mike Milbury are my favorite analysts.

Cherry is of the opinion that Canada generally produces the toughest, most heart and soul hockey players. If you disagree with this, you're probably going to disagree with most of his opinions, since many stem from this basic premise.

The politically correct among us will scoff and suggest that a player's birth place makes no difference in how they play the game. But come on. What is a more likely occurence: two guys from Saskatoon dropping the gloves or two guys from Stockholm doing so? We all know it's the guys from Saskatoon. It's a fact.

Fighting, hitting, and grinding it out in the trenches are the traits inherently associated with tough, heart and soul hockey players. If you want to disagree with that, then fine, but it's a whole different issue. Is anybody going to suggest that there is a nationality of players more likely to fit that stereotype than Canadians?

That's the type of player guys like Cherry and Milbury appreciate. It's not "racism" to suggest the kid from Medecine Hat is more likely to show these characteristics than the kid from Prague. It's not always the case of course. That's why it's stereotypical. But stereotyping is a long, long way from racism.

Excellent!

 

[DetRedWings109*]

Great thread and a good read.

Racism (and xenophobia since some smart ass was quick to point out Cherry shouldn't be considered a racist if he spews prejudices against white Europeans) is one of the worst things in today's society.

Not smart ass. Its true.

 

[Big Phil]

Cherry is definitely popular (as well as infamous), but I think many would disagree that he has been good for the game.

A well known face is good for the game. A non-robotic voice is good for the game. He isn't wooden, which is a good thing. Jeremy Roenick, Brett Hull and even Mike Milbury with their honest approaches are good for the game, refreshing even. I think it is that type of resentment about Cherry that has somehow kept him out of the Hall of Fame as a builder

Conn Smythes since the lockout:

2006: Cam Ward (Canada)
2007: Scott Niedermayer (Canada)
2008: Henrik Zetterberg (Sweden)
2009: Evgeni Malkin (Russia)
2010: Jonathan Toews (Canada)
2011: Tim Thomas (United States)

That's 3 out of 6 but you sure don't use a very big sample size do you?

Since 1965 all but 5 of the Conn Smythe winners have been Canadian. Yeah, yeah, there wasn't Europeans in the NHL in 1965. Okay let's be fair and start it from 1990 then. 16 out of 21 since 1990 have been Canadian. Two Americans, a pair of Swedes and a Russian. That's about 80% since the European explosion. Not bad.

Just for the record too, this isn't to say that there haven't been some Europeans and the odd American who are great playoff performers. Of course not. But this does tie into the belief that there is an underlying level that Canadians can often reach. Call it tradition, call it something in our blood, I don't know but maybe its just the never-say-die attitude and never quitting until the whistle blows. Maybe its the more physical gritty game in the postseason but whatever it is I think there is a good reason why the Stanley Cup winners are so often littered with Canadian players.

Even post lockout:
Canes - lots of Canadians. Best players were Ward, Staal, Stillman and BrindAmour
Ducks - heavy, heavy Canadian prescence. Basically a Canadian team with Selanne and Pahlsson
Red Wings - heavy on the European talent, best players were non-Canadian
Penguins - heavy on the North American talent with Gonchar and Malkin as Russians
Hawks - Very high Canadian percentage
Bruins - Almost all the team was Canadian

Now these are recent examples and you know as well as I do the further we go back in the NHL the more Candian-central it gets. So we're talking about 4 Cup winning teams being almost exclusively Canadian. The other (Pens) had more Americans than usual and a couple of Euros and the other was the Red Wings a very Euro-laden team.

So I tdon't think its discriminating to suggest that when the chips are down a Canadian team has a better chance at finding a way to win. Ask the 2011 Canucks.

 

[Hasbro]

Very interesting, never thought of it to be that way. Look, I've gotten out of hand once at a game, just once, but it happened. In 2004 after a heated game with the London Knights and the Kitchener Rangers in the OHL the Knights were bragging to the Rangers fans on the way off the ice. Corey Perry (yes THAT Corey Perry) was at the heart of the fan's rage and I had choice words for him, Dennis Wideman (yes THAT Wideman) and Dale Hunter the Knight's coach who we all know his reputation.

Hunter just walked off the ice and didn't even look up but Perry and the rest of the Knights whooped it up. This enraged a lot of fans and there were a few empty water bottles hurled their way. I was so mad I threw a wrapped up hotdog wrapper towards him. He knew it was coming at him but it missed him and hit another Knight on his chest. Perry knew full well I was aiming it at him and he tried to draw the attention of the usher, to no avail. Anyway, it is a funny memory in a way but I was the adult I should have known better of course. So yes I once "snapped" at a game and did something I totally hate when others do.

So I tdon't think its discriminating to suggest that when the chips are down a Canadian team has a better chance at finding a way to win. Ask the 2011 Canucks.

Where's Milbury when you need him?

 

[Big Phil]

I'll come to Cherry's defense here. I'm in the minority, but he and Mike Milbury are my favorite analysts.

Cherry is of the opinion that Canada generally produces the toughest, most heart and soul hockey players. If you disagree with this, you're probably going to disagree with most of his opinions, since many stem from this basic premise.

The politically correct among us will scoff and suggest that a player's birth place makes no difference in how they play the game. But come on. What is a more likely occurence: two guys from Saskatoon dropping the gloves or two guys from Stockholm doing so? We all know it's the guys from Saskatoon. It's a fact.

Fighting, hitting, and grinding it out in the trenches are the traits inherently associated with tough, heart and soul hockey players. If you want to disagree with that, then fine, but it's a whole different issue. Is anybody going to suggest that there is a nationality of players more likely to fit that stereotype than Canadians?

That's the type of player guys like Cherry and Milbury appreciate. It's not "racism" to suggest the kid from Medecine Hat is more likely to show these characteristics than the kid from Prague. It's not always the case of course. That's why it's stereotypical. But stereotyping is a long, long way from racism.

Very well done, the world doesn't understand the difference between stereotypes and actual downright rude racism. I mean you can lose count how many times a stereotype is actually true. Stereotypes in hockey, much like in our world, are derived from observations from our society. Observing the percentages of something or the likelihood of something is not racism. It is a general stereotype which quite often is correct.

For example, black men are faster then white men right? Hold on, that racist! Right? Well........is it? Look at the fastest men in the world at the Olympics down the line. Then look at the men who are racing in the final 100m race. They come from Kenya for example, not Norway. A person who doesn't know any better thinks that is racist. An enlightened person sees it for what it is, factual. You can flip flop that by using Figure Skating if you want.

Yes, we all appreciate our "Big Phil". Pretty hard to disagree with the guy unless your a complete idjiit. Very much a quieting presence on defence, or is that up-front?. Im confused.... Worrisome... Anyhooo. An Orr avy combined with an Espo handle?. WTF is dat?!...

kinda like hauling a trailer behind a Bentley no?... putting a 9.5hp outboard Evinrude on a Greavette. Dont get it.

Hey who doesn't love Orr? Plus part of my last name is "Phil" so.............I try to be creative

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A well known face is good for the game. A non-robotic voice is good for the game. He isn't wooden, which is a good thing. Jeremy Roenick, Brett Hull and even Mike Milbury with their honest approaches are good for the game, refreshing even. I think it is that type of resentment about Cherry that has somehow kept him out of the Hall of Fame as a builder



That's 3 out of 6 but you sure don't use a very big sample size do you?

It's 5 out of 9 if you go back to 2002. How far back do you want us to go if we are talking about what the state of the game is right now, rather than how it was in the past?

A lot has changed in a mere decade - I'm sure you remember 2002 well and what a huge deal was made out of the fact that Lidstrom became the first European to ever win the Conn Smythe. Fast forward a mere 7 years to 2009 - Malkin becomes the second European in a row to win the Smythe and... nobody even notices.

So I tdon't think its discriminating to suggest that when the chips are down a Canadian team has a better chance at finding a way to win. Ask the 2011 Canucks.

Who were beaten by a team whose American goalie won the Conn Smythe and whose captain and best skater was Slovakian.

 

[jcbio11]

A well known face is good for the game. A non-robotic voice is good for the game. He isn't wooden, which is a good thing. Jeremy Roenick, Brett Hull and even Mike Milbury with their honest approaches are good for the game, refreshing even. I think it is that type of resentment about Cherry that has somehow kept him out of the Hall of Fame as a builder



That's 3 out of 6 but you sure don't use a very big sample size do you?

Since 1965 all but 5 of the Conn Smythe winners have been Canadian. Yeah, yeah, there wasn't Europeans in the NHL in 1965. Okay let's be fair and start it from 1990 then. 16 out of 21 since 1990 have been Canadian. Two Americans, a pair of Swedes and a Russian. That's about 80% since the European explosion. Not bad.

Just for the record too, this isn't to say that there haven't been some Europeans and the odd American who are great playoff performers. Of course not. But this does tie into the belief that there is an underlying level that Canadians can often reach. Call it tradition, call it something in our blood, I don't know but maybe its just the never-say-die attitude and never quitting until the whistle blows. Maybe its the more physical gritty game in the postseason but whatever it is I think there is a good reason why the Stanley Cup winners are so often littered with Canadian players.

Even post lockout:
Canes - lots of Canadians. Best players were Ward, Staal, Stillman and BrindAmour
Ducks - heavy, heavy Canadian prescence. Basically a Canadian team with Selanne and Pahlsson
Red Wings - heavy on the European talent, best players were non-Canadian
Penguins - heavy on the North American talent with Gonchar and Malkin as Russians
Hawks - Very high Canadian percentage
Bruins - Almost all the team was Canadian

Now these are recent examples and you know as well as I do the further we go back in the NHL the more Candian-central it gets. So we're talking about 4 Cup winning teams being almost exclusively Canadian. The other (Pens) had more Americans than usual and a couple of Euros and the other was the Red Wings a very Euro-laden team.

So I tdon't think its discriminating to suggest that when the chips are down a Canadian team has a better chance at finding a way to win. Ask the 2011 Canucks.

Misleading. They were led by their Slovakian captain, a Czech led them in scoring and their American goalie put on an absolute show between the pipes.

Take Chara and Thomas off that team and you've got a non playoff team. Who cares how many third or fourth line bums were Canadian.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Archie Bunker was a fictional character, of course; a parody. Don Cherry is also a parody, but he doesn't yet realize it.

Archie Bunker fictional? Truth is so hard to tell, it sometimes needs fiction to make it plausible (Bacon). Bunker was a fictional character who mirrored the values of the larger American public at the time. Cherry and his values represented the larger Canadian public for a long time as well.

 

[Big Phil]

It's 5 out of 9 if you go back to 2002. How far back do you want us to go if we are talking about what the state of the game is right now, rather than how it was in the past?

A lot has changed in a mere decade - I'm sure you remember 2002 well and what a huge deal was made out of the fact that Lidstrom became the first European to ever win the Conn Smythe. Fast forward a mere 7 years to 2009 - Malkin becomes the second European in a row to win the Smythe and... nobody even notices.

I wouldn't say 2002 is much different than today. There wasn't the KHL then either and I would guess that the number of Europeans since the late 1990s hasn't gone up either percentage-wise. So as far as I am concerned it is pretty accurate to talk about the 1990s as well.

There are a lot of fans, smart fans, that can't understand why Yzerman didn't win the Smythe in 2002. I would have picked Yzerman if I had a vote personally. However, I can realize this offsets perhaps Fedorov not winning in 1997. But other than that when is there a year since 1990 that a Euro was robbed of a Conn Smythe? So it seems to me the Conn Smythe winners are a reflection of the players who play the best when the chips are down, no?

If you want to talk about recent history we can also bring this up. The percentage of Canadians on each Cup winner who played in the postseason.
2011 Bruins - 16 of 21 (76.1 %)
2010 Hawks - 16 of 24 (66.6%)
2009 Pens - 12 of 23 (52.1%)
2008 Wings - 10 of 23 (43.4%)
2007 Ducks - 23 of 28 (82.1%)
2006 Canes - 14 of 23 (60.8%)

and prior to the lockout........
2004 Bolts - 17 or 24 (70.8%)

All but two of those Cup champs were above the league average for Canadians per team. Some overwhelmingly. So that proves that the teams had depth with Canadians.

Also, the major players who played a role on Tampa, Carolina, Anaheim, Chicago and Boston were Canadian in the majority. The Pens were about half and half while the Red Wings were dominated by Europeans. That's a pretty good study.

Misleading. They were led by their Slovakian captain, a Czech led them in scoring and their American goalie put on an absolute show between the pipes.

Take Chara and Thomas off that team and you've got a non playoff team. Who cares how many third or fourth line bums were Canadian.

Well those "bums" won them the Cup too. I have counted all but 5 members of the Bruins as Canadian. You can't see that they also played a much more "Canadian" style of game during those playoffs as opposed to the Canucks? This is what I see. Watching the entire 2011 playoffs it is obvious to me that among the Bruins skaters none of them stood out, no one was picking Krejci for the Conn Smythe. So that must mean it was a very well rounded team effort, which it was and the proof is looking at how many players had 10+ points - 12 of them. 9 were Canadian. So if I can give credit where it is due when the champs have a Euro-laden team (2008 Wings) why shouldn't I do the same when they are littered with Canadians like most of the post lockout champs have been?

 

[TyMy57]

I'm not trying to say America > Canada, but to me, it seems like this is a Canadian problem. More than half of these incidents are with teams in Canada. Also I don't understand why Canadian players hate on French Canadian players...YOU'RE ALL CANADIAN!!! Hockey has come a long way with the racism over the years, but they still have a long way to come as well to catch up to other sports.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

All but two of those Cup champs were above the league average for Canadians per team. Some overwhelmingly. So that proves that the teams had depth with Canadians.

Also, the major players who played a role on Tampa, Carolina, Anaheim, Chicago and Boston were Canadian in the majority. The Pens were about half and half while the Red Wings were dominated by Europeans. That's a pretty good study.

If you expand to look at finalists as well, most teams that have made the final over the last decade have been loaded with Canadians. As you say, it's pretty much a rule of thumb that you need Canadian depth if you want to win the Cup.

Comes back to my comment that most of those tough, heart and soul type players that you need to win a Cup are Canadians. Cherry points this out constantly, and I'm sure it annoys his detractors to no end that they really can't refute it. The numbers back Don up.