Bobby Hull: Ambassador for hockey?

[Sensinitis]

I'll respond more in depth when I can get to a computer at home but the amount of people willing to completely overlook the man, or lack there of, he was during his playing days as well as post career off the ice is telling.

I'm a husband and father. Imaging Hull beating the hell out of multiple women is something that makes my blood boil. It's about as low as a man can get in my book, next to abusing children.

So sue me for thinking he has no business being any sort of ambassador for the sport.

I think the idea some are getting at is that doing bad things doesn't altogether rule you out as someone worthy of respect, or praise. There are no Captain Americas in the real world. Life is difficult for everyone, no exceptions, things happen. Not sure what to say more.
There is no concrete definition of what an ambassador is in my opinion. Hull may be objectively considered as an ambassador if it is clear that he has popularized the sport in a positive fashion, drawn more people towards it, etc. Yet if I feel that he hasn't himself individually drawn me more attracted to the sport, then to me, even though generally he would qualify as an ambassador, I obviously would not share that idea/feeling/thought.

 

[Theokritos]

Imagining Hull beating the hell out of multiple women is something that makes my blood boil.

And rightly so. I actually feel the same and I do believe most people who argue with you argue despite not feeling any other way about this issue.

So sue me for thinking he has no business being any sort of ambassador for the sport.

You've not only got the right to think that way but you're also pretty likely to have the majority of people behind you.

Maybe we can put it the following way: Bobby Hull was a great ambassador for hockey in his time. Nowadays, as domestic abuse is rightfully seen as a much bigger issue than it was back then, he wouldn't and couldn't be an ambassador anymore as he would be a persona non grata to the public.

 

[Crosbyfan]

And rightly so. I actually feel the same and I do believe most people who argue with you argue despite not feeling any other way about this issue.



You've not only got the right to think that way but you're also pretty likely to have the majority of people behind you.

Maybe we can put it the following way: Bobby Hull was a great ambassador for hockey in his time. Nowadays, as domestic abuse is rightfully seen as a much bigger issue than it was back then, he wouldn't and couldn't be an ambassador anymore as he would be a persona non grata to the public.

He was, and to a substantial degree that ended when the stories came out, even back then.

He was a somewhat fallen star, but it doesn't erase all the good he did for the fans, the players and the game. Pre-Hull salaries for example, weren't going to last forever, but no individual got the changes moving more than he did (respect to NHLPA starters included)

I/E may like to read Gare Joyce's book "The Devil and Bobby Hull" (after his blood calms down)

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/a...what-ifs-of-bobby-hulls-career-131379388.html

"Joyce doesn't forgive the man for his problems away from the rink, but refuses to let those problems diminish the hockey player's Hall of Fame talent and his critical role in the history of the game."

 

[puckpilot]

Was Bobby Hull a grad a ass in his day? I doubt any would argue that the answer isn't yes. Was he a good ambassador back in the day? I'd say the answer is yes, too.

I admire his skill as a player and his place in the history of hockey, but I don't admire his past life choices.

NOW. If he has seen the error of his ways, great. I won't judge him any harsher, because you can't go back and change the past.

I'm sure many of us older guys think back at the people we were when we were young and realise that in some parts of our lives we were dicks. And, if given a chance, would slap the taste our of our younger selves's mouths for some of the things we done.

If his attitudes haven't changed, then I'd say screw him.

As for being an ambassador, an ambassador by definition represents something and that something's values. This gets back to if he has changed. If they haven't, he has no business representing the NHL, or anything else decent for that matter.

But he has truly changed, my attitude is no one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. As long as no one is trying to deny Hull's past, cover it up, or diminish the crappiness of it, I'm cool with him being an ambassador. Part of life is about forgiveness and redemption and how neither is ever out of reach if one really wants it.

 

[Killion]

You can almost smell the incense. Give me a break.

... yes indeedy. and the cheap dollar store variety...... "Acadian Breeze" or whatever.... rank......

I'm sure many of us older guys think back at the people we were when we were young and realise that in some parts of our lives we were dicks. And, if given a chance, would slap the taste our of our younger selves's mouths for some of the things we done.

Absolutely. No one a harsher critic of ourselves than ourselves as we grow older, make mistakes in life & hopefully learn from them, mature. I dont know Bobby Hull, but from what Ive seen of him, read etc over the past 25+ years this is a man who has, who had the guts to look in the mirror warts & all, and appalled, disgusted.... change. He doesnt seek forgiveness, I see a guy doing his best to try & make amends, to make up for the pain & anguish he caused to others & to himself in the process and that is an admirable quality. To live out the rest of his days a good person and a good man. He's still got a bit of a profane streak running down his back, wild side, sometimes off-color but hey, he's trying. That much is beyond obvious.

 

[Sanf]

Why was Bobby Hull, a Canadian hockey player, talking about Hitler´s ideology in interview for Russian newspaper. That is something that I have found always strange.

Overall I don´t have deep interest in this subject, but it would be nice to see that full interview.

 

[Killion]

Why was Bobby Hull, a Canadian hockey player, talking about Hitler´s ideology in interview for Russian newspaper. That is something that I have found always strange.

Overall I don´t have deep interest in this subject, but it would be nice to see that full interview.

No "full interview", no tapes, no notes exist. Hull vehemently, vociferously, indignantly refuting & denying he said any of things they claimed & launching suit against the Moscow Times.... That it was a "setup" and a "hit job".... I believe him..... Heres more from an older thread on NHL General Talk.... links to various articles available on-line. google them easily enough...

I remember the Hull/Hitler controversy when it happened, so here's the very quick timeline.

August 26, 1998 - It's reported that Hull made comments to the Moscow Times that included the line "Hitler, for example, had some good ideas. He just went a little bit too far..."

August 27, 1998 - A furious Hull vehemently denied ever making those statements, saying:

""The statements attributed to me by the Moscow Times and now republished by other media outlets are false and defamatory," the retired NHL star said Wednesday in a statement.

November 20, 1998 - Hull files lawsuits against the Moscow Times and the Toronto Sun

I don't know Bobby Hull; he could be the nicest guy in the world or the biggest jackass, but for a member of the media to openly throw this out 15 years later with nary a shred of actual tangible proof is grossly irresponsible. It sounds like Bernstein did research long enough to come up with the actual reported quote, then conveniently ignored both Hull's denial and the filing of the actual lawsuits.

Oddly enough, there weren't any witnesses who came forward to back the newspaper's version of events. I do remember a Russian reporter coming out and saying that it was a conversation more than a formal interview, and that the words "Hitler" and "Nazis" were never uttered by Hull.... By the way, both Hull's lawyer and agent are Jewish. Tim Danson was his lawyer at the time and still is; Ron Arena was the agent at the time, but I can't find information on him.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'll try to put this nicely since this is not a place where toxic language is allowed, but are you really this high and mighty? Someone thinking Hull's off the game/ice behavior is not relevant to his on ice/game behavior is not necessarily condoning domestic abuse racism or child neglect. Frankly, I find it offensive that you hint such a thing. I'm sure your marvelous upbringing gives you the moral high ground to dictate which offense/allegation is terrible enough for you to pass judgement on others for still holding said athlete to high regard due to abilities relevant to the game.

You think Hull was a POS in his personal life? So do I. I don't know him and I don't pretend to know everything involved in his life, but I can't condone abuse. Is there a reason why you single out Hull in this thread? Seeing how much you care about these issues due to your superior upbringing shouldn't you be dishing out these threads to all players who have shady past? I know a star from the past who once drunkenly drove his car and had an accident and it was brushed off by Winnipeg LEO's due to his stature. You should read up on it and make a thread for that fella too. Drunk driving is pretty high on everyone's list of terrible things to do. There are countless of examples, from drugs to violence and drunk driving to tax fraud. Don't focus your moral superiority solely on Hull. Dish it out evenly if you really care.

So I'm back home now, and saw multiple people attack me for being on some "holier than thou train"?

It's amazing how triggered some of you got by me pointing out that Bobby Hull was an absolute disgrace off the ice. Honestly reminds me of Penn State fans around here when I would criticize Joe Paterno for his inaction over the years while Jerry Sandusky repeatedly raped children on Penn State grounds. "Leave the old man alone!" "Times were different", blah, blah, blah. And hell, Paterno wasn't involved directly in the raping of children. I still lost a ton of respect for him after the case was concluded.

I'm sorry but when you have a pattern like he apparently did of brutal physical behavior to women, your own wives no less, you are scum in my book. There is no justification for it, no magic excuse that will rid that stain. He had a bunch of concussions and took a huge beating over his playing career? So, many other players of that time did as well and never had a dark cloud of spouses abuse on their records. I'm a big, big proponent of individual responsibility, especially in an age where there is seemingly always some ******* law loophole or lawyer who will find some other factor to blame poor choices and transgressions on.

It's not me being all high and mighty. I'm not perfect. Far from it. But I can honestly say I've never hit a woman in my life and I'm a "nobody". This is a topic that hits home for me for personal reasons that aren't going to be aired here. But, nobody outside my family circle and small group of long time friends looks to me for moral code. You can suggest that we shouldn't do that for athletes but they are role models, especially to youngsters, whether you (or anyone) like it or not. I choose to teach my children to look towards people who carry themselves with class and dignity on and off the playing field/surface. I'm not going to gloss over and separate horrendous behavior simply because somebody was a magical player on the ice or field (other sports). Sure Bobby Hull was an elite hockey player. He was also seemingly a grade A ******* during his playing days AND after he hung his skates up. I choose not to ignore that.

And why did I bring up Hull? Because I had to hear the nostalgic drivel about how great an ambassador he was to the game in the 60's onward. I simply highlighted that while he was being such an amazing player he was abusing his first wife in the process. But again, "different times", when that, and many other taboo topics were swept under the rug, much more so than today. So who cares? Right?

Hull is long before my time, and I know him only from stats, game-clips from the 60s, and interviews circa 1990 or later. Even before I was exposed to those, I had read about his domestic problems, when I was in junior high school, in Gzowski's The Game of Our Lives (1981). It's been common (hockey) knowledge for many years.

The thing is, though, I don't really have a problem with Hull being a hockey ambassador. What I care about in such matters is how the guy presents himself NOW. I firmly believe every human deserves chances of redemption and opportunities for forgiveness. Hull may have been a total ******* to his wife and kids, but if that's all decidely in the past and he presents himself well now, I am fine with him being an "ambassador". The public face of hockey is not the place for a man to be tried and judged -- I'll leave that to the courts and Hull's own family and friends.

In all the latter-day interviews I've seen with Hull, he's been nothing but class. He's even forgiven the Hawks' organization for their poor treatment over the years. He doesn't badmouth anyone and seems very charitable. I like to think he's turned over a new leaf, of sorts.

I have more of an issue with contemporary players/ex-players in trouble with the law being "ambassadors" (e.g., Patrick Kane). But I'm willing to give them another chance in the future.

I don't disagree that human beings deserve second chances. Hull got that, and apparently still beat the **** out of his 2nd wife on more than one occasion. You have his own children on record talking about it.

The Hitler talk is a much more grey area. It's been disputed by Hull, but I can't find anywhere that shows he won his case against the Russian paper that published the interview.

And who was it who said we should forgive others? It's stated a few times or more in the Bible. He's pretty respected.

And in America the statute of limitations on assault charges is between 1 and 6 years. How many are still being persecuted for such a crime from 30+ years ago? None.

Judgement is between God and us human beings...if you believe in Him in the first place. Hull didn't beat on me or cause me grief directly. Hell, I wasn't even alive. So I have no obligation to forgive him. That's between he and his family.

Not this again. The guy is 78 for Christ sake, and these facts have been known for 20 years. He was no angel, but let's face it, pro athletes usually have a higher rate of depression, substance abuse, and domestic violence than your average occupation.

Did you want to make a list of the transgressions of every single star NHL player out there?

It may take you 6 months but you can start a blog.They are athletes, not priests.

I was particularly interested in responding to this. Why?

Excuses. Do you really think pro athletes are more likely to be suicidal? Beat on their wives? Turn into criminals because they were roughed up over 10-20 years? I'd love to see the %'s that fall into those categories vs the regular public? You know, the people who truly make the world turn, have to often live tight financially week to week, month to month, etc. Most of us aren't making huge money, playing a game sir. Most of us have jobs that are simply that. Jobs. They pay the bills. It's pretty rare for us nobodies to have a job that we truly "love", while being extremely well compensated.

So please, give me a break. This is just more deflection from the real focal point and that is the glorification of somebody who repeatedly beat multiple women and the complete ignorance in terms of how that should impact as human beings as a whole.

But I can see that some disagree. So be it.

Jean Beliveau was a star through the 60's. Every bit as impressive as Hull on the ice and he was a man who seemingly was even more graceful off it. Met his wife at 19. Married a few years later, was always involved in charity. In the 90's he turned down political positions to be with his daughter and grandchildren who's father committed suicide.

THAT is somebody who was a TRUE ambassador for hockey IMO.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/the-jean-beliveau-elise-couture-love-story/

http://montrealgazette.com/sports/h...beliveau-was-a-special-man-on-and-off-the-ice

 

[Killion]

And why did I bring up Hull? Because I had to hear the nostalgic drivel about how great an ambassador he was to the game in the 60's onward....

Well aware of your opinion of Bobby Hull & the motives behind your starting this thread I/E. There are no Sacred Cows, all's fair, we as Moderators will "Moderate", we wont "Censor". It's not for me nor anyone else to tell you to judge less harshly or critically, entitled to your opinion. No ones going to change your mind and your not going to change anyones else's mind on this subject unless perhaps its someone coming in here who isnt familiar with Hull's story.... and in reading the comments, forming an opinion. Making up their own minds..... And thats cool. Your obviously very passionate about this subject and present a certain perspective that is held by many. I dont share it, obviously many others here same but thats life isnt it? No worries. Agree to disagree. Just dont ever misinterpret that as tacit approval of Hull's transgressions.

So that being said.... Is it also your belief that he should be removed from the HHOF & other Halls of Fame, honorariums bestowed taken back, removed? That any "official" NHL biography should also make mention of his troubled off-ice & post retirement existence? Or do you draw the line in entertaining the notion that the NHL (or any team, any league or governing sports body) should set themselves up as the "Moral Arbiters" of conduct beyond the game & that if someone is of a vile moral standing & turpitude & or broken any criminal laws or committed civil fraud.... or someone habitually intoxicated, stoned & wasted away from the rink, womanizing, cruelty towards & abandonment of his spouse.... anything at all that would reflect badly on their careers, on the game... that they should be expelled? Their records expunged, their words Censored by the corporate media & elites who control the game? You do of course realize that in doing so, this would include quite literally "dozens of evictions" yes? Builders Category for sure gonna get hit hard as will the Players. And who decides what constitutes revocation?. Who are you, who are we to Judge really unless of course... beyond heinous.... Bobby on a 3 Province 7 State killing spree.... mat black 66 Olds 4-4-2..... beyond Badass or anything Quentin Tarantino could ever dream up, amateur, but I digress.... now, something like that, yes, yes I do believe you'd have a case. You clearly believe you have one with his history of Domestic Abuse & thats that.

 

[JackSlater]

I'm glad folks think his of ice transgressions set a tremendous example for young people to follow. You can be a raging ******* as long as you are a great player and sign a bunch of autographs....Guess I was raised differently and care more about how our sports heroes carry themselves on AND off the playing surface.

Your obviously tremendous upbringing (you have to be pretty high up to get on that horse) aside, I'm pretty sure that no one said what your first sentence ascribes to several posters in this thread. If you think that Bobby Hull, who brought many fans to hockey and has treated those fans very well, is not a good ambassador for hockey due to his personal life then that is your choice. Your inability to see beyond black and white or recognize that Hull changed doesn't signal some kind of superiority, moral or otherwise, at all though.

 

[Killion]

Your obviously tremendous upbringing (you have to be pretty high up to get on that horse) aside, I'm pretty sure that no one said what your first sentence ascribes to several posters in this thread. If you think that Bobby Hull, who brought many fans to hockey and has treated those fans very well, is not a good ambassador for hockey due to his personal life then that is your choice. Your inability to see beyond black and white or recognize that Hull changed doesn't signal some kind of superiority, moral or otherwise, at all though.

Right, and redemption is the measure of a civilized society. That he should be shunned, castigated, thrown into the 7th Circle of Hell for all Eternity.... I mean, Come. ON. Medieval or what Jack?.... The Redeemer will never be perfect, but he must recognize his imperfections and make atonement, straighten out, straighten up and as I said, I'm certain Hull did that & years ago. He was a brilliant player, absolutely a "Hockey Ambassador" in his prime, turning on new fans & the apple of the eye of traditionalists alike. Lines of Bobby Hull endorsed hockey equipment & sticks. Kids who'd never played asking Santa for a pair of Bobby Hull Skates, Gloves and a stick for Christmas. Idolized beyond just hockey and a guy who willingly & enthusiastically went out of his way to spend time with his public.... still does it to this day. No one can ever take that away from him try as they might. And a fabulous Ambassador at that. Charismatic. Articulate. Patient. Funny.... he cares. He's sincere. For real. Down to earth. No pretensions. Self effacing.... great guy but for, well..... Hope. We must have hope in order to survive & without hope of what becomes redemption?.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Well aware of your opinion of Bobby Hull & the motives behind your starting this thread I/E. There are no Sacred Cows, all's fair, we as Moderators will "Moderate", we wont "Censor". It's not for me nor anyone else to tell you to judge less harshly or critically, entitled to your opinion. No ones going to change your mind and your not going to change anyones else's mind on this subject unless perhaps its someone coming in here who isnt familiar with Hull's story.... and in reading the comments, forming an opinion. Making up their own minds..... And thats cool. Your obviously very passionate about this subject and present a certain perspective that is held by many. I dont share it, obviously many others here same but thats life isnt it? No worries. Agree to disagree. Just dont ever misinterpret that as tacit approval of Hull's transgressions.

So that being said.... Is it also your belief that he should be removed from the HHOF & other Halls of Fame, honorariums bestowed taken back, removed? That any "official" NHL biography should also make mention of his troubled off-ice & post retirement existence? Or do you draw the line in entertaining the notion that the NHL (or any team, any league or governing sports body) should set themselves up as the "Moral Arbiters" of conduct beyond the game & that if someone is of a vile moral standing & turpitude & or broken any criminal laws or committed civil fraud.... or someone habitually intoxicated, stoned & wasted away from the rink, womanizing, cruelty towards & abandonment of his spouse.... anything at all that would reflect badly on their careers, on the game... that they should be expelled? Their records expunged, their words Censored by the corporate media & elites who control the game? You do of course realize that in doing so, this would include quite literally "dozens of evictions" yes? Builders Category for sure gonna get hit hard as will the Players. And who decides what constitutes revocation?. Who are you, who are we to Judge really unless of course... beyond heinous.... Bobby on a 3 Province 7 State killing spree.... mat black 66 Olds 4-4-2..... beyond Badass or anything Quentin Tarantino could ever dream up, amateur, but I digress.... now, something like that, yes, yes I do believe you'd have a case. You clearly believe you have one with his history of Domestic Abuse & thats that.

I'm not misinterpreting anything. I clearly see that there are many who think Hull should be looked at historically as a great ambassador to hockey. And while that is true from a certain point of view (thanks Obi Wan Kenobi ) I choose to look at the entirety of a player/man when it comes to growing the game. I am not denying Hull's greatness as a player. He's 5th all time in my book. But his transgressions are severe enough, IMO, that it removes him from being somebody i would want representing the interests of the NHL and being a role model for anyone, especially young people.

Look at where we are with domestic abuse today. Every sport has a very short fuse when it comes to players abusing anyone (namely women since we're talking about men's sports here). Players are suspended regularly for these transgressions, even in situations where convictions or courts aren't even in play. Like it or not, being a role model is a huge part of being an athlete. Especially those who are stars. That isn't lost on me, but apparently others completely separate what a player does on the ice vs what he does off it and think one has nothing to do with the other IN RELATION TO BEING AN AMBASSADOR.

Now, I think anyone with a sense of history and understanding of societal differences and taboo topics (like domestic violence) understands that hitting a woman was viewed differently when Bobby Hull was playing hockey. And it was even more overlooked the further back you go in human history by and large. Doesn't mean it was any less an egregious act.

And no, I don't think he should be removed from the HOF. That is a different entity and path than talking about being somebody who should represent the league on a host of issues. There are plenty of stars who would be better served in that role. Those who don't have the kind of severe history that Hull does.

Your obviously tremendous upbringing (you have to be pretty high up to get on that horse) aside, I'm pretty sure that no one said what your first sentence ascribes to several posters in this thread. If you think that Bobby Hull, who brought many fans to hockey and has treated those fans very well, is not a good ambassador for hockey due to his personal life then that is your choice. Your inability to see beyond black and white or recognize that Hull changed doesn't signal some kind of superiority, moral or otherwise, at all though.

You know nothing of my upbringing, and yet I've seen it brought up by more than just one poster. But I will say that upbringing is not an full proof excuse to making repeated poor choices as an adult. Again, this hits home for me. It's not something I read about in a book or heard from a babbling professor. And again, I'm not God or some moral policeman. I'm not passing judgement or condemning Hull to the fires of hell. I understand that life isn't black or white. I've been fortunate to have seen a lot of the world (mainly through military service) and walked among many different types of societies and groups of people who range from elitists to humans who don't know if they'll live to see the sun rise the next day for various reasons. It's a period of my life that I'm extremely thankful for as it opened my eyes to the realities of the world outside of our own bubbles. Some have it much easier than others. But as adults, we have free will and the ability to make morally sound decisions. Having an alcoholic father doesn't destine you to being an alcoholic. Just as growing up in the ghetto doesn't doom you to being killed at a young age due to gang violence or being born into a rich family guarantees you'll have the same successes as well. But i digress.

What I'm trying to do is point out that, IMHO, being an ambassador, has more to do with just playing the game. How you carry yourself off the ice is just as, if not more important in building a legacy for not only the individual but the NHL as a whole. One simply does not get a pass in my book because one side of the coin is ripe with glory and elite play.

I pointed out a gentlemen like Jean Beliveau for a reason. He is somebody I feel was the ultimate ambassador in the same time period as Hull no less. Especially if one looked at the man and not just the player.

 

[Killion]

I'm not misinterpreting anything. I clearly see that there are many who think Hull should be looked at historically as a great ambassador to hockey. And while that is true from a certain point of view (thanks Obi Wan Kenobi ) I choose to look at the entirety of a player/man when it comes to growing the game. I am not denying Hull's greatness as a player. He's 5th all time in my book. But his transgressions are severe enough, IMO, that it removes him from being somebody i would want representing the interests of the NHL and being a role model for anyone, especially young people.

Even if the Redeemer is penitent you have no place in your heart for the individual.... no appreciation for having done what he'd done, realized the errors of his ways, and then as an "Ambassador" for the NHL addressing one on one or groups of current players dealing with the same issues.... that a guy like Bobby Hull wouldnt be beyond useful?... Just as others beginning with Derek Sanderson to Theo Fleury havent been or wouldnt be beyond helpful to players who's lives are spiraling out of control due to recreational drug abuse, booze, addictions to prescription medicines & so on as "Ambassadors to the NHL & NHLPA"?....

The minute you first put on an NHL Uniform & Jersey you are "an Ambassador to the Game". Small fry or little fry. Play one game or play 100, 400, 1000. All different shapes & sizes, lengths of tenure, rankings in the Pantheons. Legends like Hull, Sanderson & Fleury are 4 & 5 Star Ambassadors. Top end. High rank. Turk & Theo there reprobate drugs booze & broads hounds of the 1st order who with help turned their lives around. God only knows, one can imagine a 1000 different transgressions they committed while under the influence & no doubt some as equally heinous as anything committed by Bobby Hull if not worse. Just never got caught, never publicized.

But "Role Models" & "Ambassadors" none the less for through the stories of their lives as with Bobby Hull, we find a turning of the page, a story of redemption. How is that not inspiring? Why wouldnt you want your children to know about that, of the pitfalls of money & or celebrity? As "role models", advisors & councilors to the following generations, as cautionary tales, their lives lessons you really dont want to have to put yourself through so smarten up. Too late now for Bobby Hull to be on board in any official capacity, he's up there in years, health issues, and post career busying himself with cattle breeding. Old Timer Games for awhile, Special Guest Appearances, Memorabilia Shows & so on. But there was a time, an opportunity, since passed by...

 

[cupcrazyman]

There's many great players in other sports that aren't perfect either

Tiger Woods
Michael Jordan
Mickey Mantle etc

should we start a new thread for them too ?

 

[tmmr]

Why the microscopic attention to Hull's flaws, real or alleged, when 99% of athletes get a pass? Younger fans may not be aware of the vendetta the NHL has had against Hull for 45 years, since he legitimized the WHA and exploded the NHL salary structure, costing the league (as Hull used to say) a billion dollars (and more by now). Add to that Hull's outspoken criticism of gratuitous violence in the game, and the lack of rule enforcement (which led to the 2004 reset when the NHL finally started enforcing some rules)... and you can see why the NHL never forgave Hull. Even though the Blackhawks forgave him for leaving and he's become their #1 ambassador.

While some are hoodwinked by the NHL's vendetta, the thousands upon thousands of fans in Chicago Winnipeg, and throughout the hockey world who have ever met Hull, know better. I am one of them. Over the years I've run into Hull at least a half dozen times, at benefits, trade shows, (free) autograph signings, etc. I can honestly say that he is one of the most gracious, patient, thoughtful athletes, or human beings for that matter, that you will ever meet. He went out of his way to personally reach out to me, as he has to countless others, in a way I will never forget. Hockey has never seen a greater ambassador than Bobby Hull.

How has the NHL dissed Hull over the years? Well, there's the hit piece done on him by ESPN when they were the NHL's main network (part of their 100 greatest athletes of the century series). While other athletes' foibles were ignored, the hit piece focused on the domestic abuse allegations while only minimally mentioning all Hull had done for the game both on and off the ice. Then there's the Maurice Richard award for the leading goal scorer. The Rocket was a great goal scorer, but Hull still holds the NHL record for most seasons leading the league in goals, despite spending 6 very productive seasons in the WHA!

Then there's the NHL Network's current countdown of the top 100 players of all time. I don't subscribe to NHL Network, and won't, but viewed the program at my health club. I knew the NHL was going to try and slight the Golden Jet but they were more petty than even I could have imagined. Here's a player who unquestionably dominated his era, and is usually in the conversation for top 5 or 6 of all time. In the late 90's the Hockey News ranked him at 5th. Reasonable people will disagree, I would have had him somewhat higher, based on all the abuse he took without significant retaliation. Had Hull been a mean SOB on the ice like Gordie, he likely would have scored 100 goals a season.

But the NHL Network has him ranked at - 20th! How pitiful that they just can't forgive. Some younger fans might be misled but for those of us who saw Hull play, the NHL's troglodyte insistence on continuing the vendetta reflects poorly not on Hull, but on the league.

Is Bobby Hull guilty of all the allegations against him? I don't know the answer to that, there are 2 sides to every story, and I assume that he had his flaws. His first wife Joanne was no saint either, but no one deserves physical abuse. But even in the ESPN hatchet piece that featured her accusations, Joanne says that Hull was a wonderful human being, just not a good husband or father. Meanwhile many great athletes have skeletons in their closet, but they don't have a major league out to discredit them. Hull's fellow Chicago sports icons Walter Payton and Michael Jordan were both revealed to have some unsavory doings in their private life, but neither was subject to the vilification that Hull was.

Finally - about the Russian "Hitler" interview - my recollection is that at the time, Hull owned a ranch and was breeding cattle, one of his great loves. The conversation came around to breeding techniques, eugenics, etc., and the interviewer mentioned something about it sounding like Hitler. Hull - most likely with a few beers in him, which is par for the course - made a crack about Hitler being right about some things. From there it was taken out of context, a classic case of "gotcha" journalism. Should Hull have been more careful? Well maybe, but he's not a politician. Anyone who's ever spent time around Hull knows that he's gracious and giving to every fan who approaches him, whatever their color or nationality. The whole thing is bogus, a crock. Hitler was a vegetarian. I'm a vegetarian. Does that make me a Nazi?

 

[Plural]

So I'm back home now, and saw multiple people attack me for being on some "holier than thou train"?

It's amazing how triggered some of you got by me pointing out that Bobby Hull was an absolute disgrace off the ice. Honestly reminds me of Penn State fans around here when I would criticize Joe Paterno for his inaction over the years while Jerry Sandusky repeatedly raped children on Penn State grounds. "Leave the old man alone!" "Times were different", blah, blah, blah. And hell, Paterno wasn't involved directly in the raping of children. I still lost a ton of respect for him after the case was concluded.

I'm sorry but when you have a pattern like he apparently did of brutal physical behavior to women, your own wives no less, you are scum in my book. There is no justification for it, no magic excuse that will rid that stain. He had a bunch of concussions and took a huge beating over his playing career? So, many other players of that time did as well and never had a dark cloud of spouses abuse on their records. I'm a big, big proponent of individual responsibility, especially in an age where there is seemingly always some ******* law loophole or lawyer who will find some other factor to blame poor choices and transgressions on.

It's not me being all high and mighty. I'm not perfect. Far from it. But I can honestly say I've never hit a woman in my life and I'm a "nobody". This is a topic that hits home for me for personal reasons that aren't going to be aired here. But, nobody outside my family circle and small group of long time friends looks to me for moral code. You can suggest that we shouldn't do that for athletes but they are role models, especially to youngsters, whether you (or anyone) like it or not. I choose to teach my children to look towards people who carry themselves with class and dignity on and off the playing field/surface. I'm not going to gloss over and separate horrendous behavior simply because somebody was a magical player on the ice or field (other sports). Sure Bobby Hull was an elite hockey player. He was also seemingly a grade A ******* during his playing days AND after he hung his skates up. I choose not to ignore that.

And why did I bring up Hull? Because I had to hear the nostalgic drivel about how great an ambassador he was to the game in the 60's onward. I simply highlighted that while he was being such an amazing player he was abusing his first wife in the process. But again, "different times", when that, and many other taboo topics were swept under the rug, much more so than today. So who cares? Right?

Again, you're taking the high and mighty road where you essentially cut the discussion in half in a way that I either have to agree with you (not about Hull being a terrible person, but that it has to be taken in to account when evaluating him as an ambassador for the sport) or I don't care about domestic violence or other horrendous stuff Hull allegedly did. That's about as arrogant as I've ever seen in this forum. And quit with the martyr act, you're the one who brought up how you were raised and used it as a stepping stone over others in this thread. That the way you were raised shaped your morals in that you can't accept man beating his wife and painted it in a way that others here don't care. It's in the first post I quoted from you. It's akin to asking a question "do you still beat your kids"? It's a loaded approach and absolutely involves you trying to occupy the grand stage as some moral compass.

I'm 100% sure nobody here is condoning domestic violence and I certainly am not brushing it off with "times were different". I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you, since it goes without saying that the presumption for all here is that everyone condemns domestic violence and violence in general. This is not the forum where someone needs to defend their stance on these issues. This is history of hockey forum and if you wish to talk about criminal/moral issues professional athletes in general face, that's valid thread. But singling out one guy and going in detail about his past does not read like you actually care about what Hull did. It reads like you have a vendetta against him. There are countless and countless of examples on modern and past players with legal/personal issues.

And lastly, if someone takes the position that what Hull did in his personal life does not effect his stature as ambassador of the sport then that's a valid stance. Not necessarily something you have to agree with, but it sure as hell does not give you the right to start painting everyone with your moral brush while standing in your own pedestal. You can hold Hull's personal life as an important measure in his hockey-greatness, it's a valid position. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I get it. What you can't do however, is to look down upon the rest of us like you're some measure stick for personal and collective moral standards. You're not. This is not about condoning Hull or violence, this is about you acting like you have the authority to call out people in their personal values because they disagree with your definition of what we look in an ambassador of the sport. It's arrogant and obnoxious. And once again, so that it's clear, I'm not condoning Hull's actions nor am I trying to whitewash domestic violence. So spare me from the "triggered much" act.

 

[Theokritos]

Finally - about the Russian "Hitler" interview - my recollection is that at the time, Hull owned a ranch and was breeding cattle, one of his great loves. The conversation came around to breeding techniques, eugenics, etc., and the interviewer mentioned something about it sounding like Hitler.

I have the same assumption as to why their conversation even turned to a subject like Hitler.

There's many great players in other sports that aren't perfect either

Tiger Woods
Michael Jordan
Mickey Mantle etc

should we start a new thread for them too ?

This is a hockey board, so why would we?

Again, you're taking the high and mighty road where you essentially cut the discussion in half in a way that I either have to agree with you (not about Hull being a terrible person, but that it has to be taken in to account when evaluating him as an ambassador for the sport) or I don't care about domestic violence or other horrendous stuff Hull allegedly did. That's about as arrogant as I've ever seen in this forum. And quit with the martyr act, you're the one who brought up how you were raised and used it as a stepping stone over others in this thread. That the way you were raised shaped your morals in that you can't accept man beating his wife and painted it in a way that others here don't care. It's in the first post I quoted from you. It's akin to asking a question "do you still beat your kids"? It's a loaded approach and absolutely involves you trying to occupy the grand stage as some moral compass.

I'm 100% sure nobody here is condoning domestic violence and I certainly am not brushing it off with "times were different". I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you, since it goes without saying that the presumption for all here is that everyone condemns domestic violence and violence in general. This is not the forum where someone needs to defend their stance on these issues. This is history of hockey forum and if you wish to talk about criminal/moral issues professional athletes in general face, that's valid thread. But singling out one guy and going in detail about his past does not read like you actually care about what Hull did. It reads like you have a vendetta against him. There are countless and countless of examples on modern and past players with legal/personal issues.

And lastly, if someone takes the position that what Hull did in his personal life does not effect his stature as ambassador of the sport then that's a valid stance. Not necessarily something you have to agree with, but it sure as hell does not give you the right to start painting everyone with your moral brush while standing in your own pedestal. You can hold Hull's personal life as an important measure in his hockey-greatness, it's a valid position. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I get it. What you can't do however, is to look down upon the rest of us like you're some measure stick for personal and collective moral standards. You're not. This is not about condoning Hull or violence, this is about you acting like you have the authority to call out people in their personal values because they disagree with your definition of what we look in an ambassador of the sport. It's arrogant and obnoxious. And once again, so that it's clear, I'm not condoning Hull's actions nor am I trying to whitewash domestic violence. So spare me from the "triggered much" act.

Very well put!

 

[Jets4Life]

Look at where we are with domestic abuse today. Every sport has a very short fuse when it comes to players abusing anyone (namely women since we're talking about men's sports here).

The NFL certainly does not. They ignored a very serious domestic incident against one of their star players, until it leaked out to the national media. It was only then that they acted on it, after considerable pressure from outside the league.

Now, I think anyone with a sense of history and understanding of societal differences and taboo topics (like domestic violence) understands that hitting a woman was viewed differently when Bobby Hull was playing hockey. And it was even more overlooked the further back you go in human history by and large. Doesn't mean it was any less an egregious act.

Beating up a woman was always frowned upon. In fact most states and provinces have had zero tolerance policies for over 30 years.

You know nothing of my upbringing, and yet I've seen it brought up by more than just one poster.

You were the one who brought up your upbringing. People are calling you on it.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Again, you're taking the high and mighty road where you essentially cut the discussion in half in a way that I either have to agree with you (not about Hull being a terrible person, but that it has to be taken in to account when evaluating him as an ambassador for the sport) or I don't care about domestic violence or other horrendous stuff Hull allegedly did. That's about as arrogant as I've ever seen in this forum. And quit with the martyr act, you're the one who brought up how you were raised and used it as a stepping stone over others in this thread. That the way you were raised shaped your morals in that you can't accept man beating his wife and painted it in a way that others here don't care. It's in the first post I quoted from you. It's akin to asking a question "do you still beat your kids"? It's a loaded approach and absolutely involves you trying to occupy the grand stage as some moral compass.

I'm 100% sure nobody here is condoning domestic violence and I certainly am not brushing it off with "times were different". I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you, since it goes without saying that the presumption for all here is that everyone condemns domestic violence and violence in general. This is not the forum where someone needs to defend their stance on these issues. This is history of hockey forum and if you wish to talk about criminal/moral issues professional athletes in general face, that's valid thread. But singling out one guy and going in detail about his past does not read like you actually care about what Hull did. It reads like you have a vendetta against him. There are countless and countless of examples on modern and past players with legal/personal issues.

And lastly, if someone takes the position that what Hull did in his personal life does not effect his stature as ambassador of the sport then that's a valid stance. Not necessarily something you have to agree with, but it sure as hell does not give you the right to start painting everyone with your moral brush while standing in your own pedestal. You can hold Hull's personal life as an important measure in his hockey-greatness, it's a valid position. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I get it. What you can't do however, is to look down upon the rest of us like you're some measure stick for personal and collective moral standards. You're not. This is not about condoning Hull or violence, this is about you acting like you have the authority to call out people in their personal values because they disagree with your definition of what we look in an ambassador of the sport. It's arrogant and obnoxious. And once again, so that it's clear, I'm not condoning Hull's actions nor am I trying to whitewash domestic violence. So spare me from the "triggered much" act.

Sigh.

YOU and others are the ones who were absolutely triggered by my reference to my upbringing. You interpreted that as me standing on some moral compass above all else. It wasn't. Take it or leave it.

The reason I brought up my childhood is I know firsthand the destruction physical abuse can take on a person. I'm not going to get into a pissing match about what you can or fail to grasp with my writing. I saw multiple people talk about what a wonderful ambassador Bobby Hull was to hockey and I simply highlighted his actions as a pathetic excuse for a human being. Beating women over a period of decades is just that. Pathetic. If you want to paint me as an arrogant ******* for calling out any man that beats a woman, simply because I referenced my own personal experience with it, than so be it.

The NFL certainly does not. They ignored a very serious domestic incident against one of their star players, until it leaked out to the national media. It was only then that they acted on it, after considerable pressure from outside the league.

Beating up a woman was always frowned upon. In fact most states and provinces have had zero tolerance policies for over 30 years.

You were the one who brought up your upbringing. People are calling you on it.

My point exactly. Bobby Hull doesn't play today does he? Maybe if beating women was a more frowned upon practice 50 years ago (and prior) players wouldn't be glorified so easily since we seemingly want to gloss over the terrible choices they make away from the ice or field.

I could be revered as the best trial lawyer in the world, but If i get drunk and kill a person behind the wheel of my car, should I get a pass because I'm incredibly good at my job?

 

[Kant Think]

Finally - about the Russian "Hitler" interview - my recollection is that at the time, Hull owned a ranch and was breeding cattle, one of his great loves. The conversation came around to breeding techniques, eugenics, etc., and the interviewer mentioned something about it sounding like Hitler. Hull - most likely with a few beers in him, which is par for the course - made a crack about Hitler being right about some things. From there it was taken out of context, a classic case of "gotcha" journalism. Should Hull have been more careful? Well maybe, but he's not a politician. Anyone who's ever spent time around Hull knows that he's gracious and giving to every fan who approaches him, whatever their color or nationality. The whole thing is bogus, a crock. Hitler was a vegetarian. I'm a vegetarian. Does that make me a Nazi?

This is also my recollection of the incident.


Also, this was quite the first post. On behalf of people I know nothing about, welcome to HfBoards!

 

[Kant Think]

Beating up a woman was always frowned upon. In fact most states and provinces have had zero tolerance policies for over 30 years.

Yes, and a 20 years gap between policies and application.

I have been to places where beating up women or worse was still covered up by the community, in the past 5 years.

But yes, it's getting better.

Now, back to hockey.

 

[MXD]

It was probably easier for Hull to have been an ambassador 50 years ago than it would've been for him to be such an ambassador today (if he was an active player today, of course).

But of course Hull's behaviour would presumably be different if he was... say... Brett's son, as opposed to Brett's dad. Different education, upbringing, evolving culture...

 

[Plural]

Sigh.

YOU and others are the ones who were absolutely triggered by my reference to my upbringing. You interpreted that as me standing on some moral compass above all else. It wasn't. Take it or leave it.

The reason I brought up my childhood is I know firsthand the destruction physical abuse can take on a person. I'm not going to get into a pissing match about what you can or fail to grasp with my writing. I saw multiple people talk about what a wonderful ambassador Bobby Hull was to hockey and I simply highlighted his actions as a pathetic excuse for a human being. Beating women over a period of decades is just that. Pathetic. If you want to paint me as an arrogant ******* for calling out any man that beats a woman, simply because I referenced my own personal experience with it, than so be it.

I know what abuse can do to you too, first hand. What now?

Maybe you didn't make a conscious choice when you brought up how you were raised, but that's what it meant. There's no way around it and by simply stating you didn't mean it doesn't somehow absolve you. You wrote it in a way that could only be interpreted one way. Then you got all defensive when people called you on it. That's what happened. People didn't get triggered, they called you on your BS moral pedestal. There's a big difference.

I don't fail to grasp anything from your writing. It's not that in depth nor is it that hard to dissect. It's fine that you don't like Hull because of what he did and allegedly did. Neither do I. But that doesn't give me or you the right to act all high and mighty when someone doesn't think his personal life effects his stature as hockey great. But that's what you did. You made it perfectly clear that you consider your values better and anyone who disagrees with your POV is not taking the issues of domestic violence seriously. The fact that you can't see this is astonishing to me. And about as arrogant as it gets.

 

[overpass]

Hull didn't beat on me or cause me grief directly. Hell, I wasn't even alive. So I have no obligation to forgive him. That's between he and his family.

So why dig up old gossip about his personal life? Surely you have no obligation to do so.

 

[MXD]

So why dig up old gossip about his personal life? Surely you have no obligation to do so.

With regards... he kinda started a thread on Hull's suitability as an Ambassador for hockey, that he was Under no obligation to start (duh).

And Hull's personnal life is probably more than just a bit relevant to this.

Of course, RL issues didn't mean he couldn't be an ambassador. Hell, I'm pretty sure BOB PROBERT was something of an ambassador, too, just not at the same level. And it's probably understood that Hull on-ice performance made him an ambassador, because it's not like people in Chicago were purchasing tickets to watch Elmer Vasko.