Say.... is Don Cherry in the HOF?

[chooch*]

a new low even for Cherry

With Koivu lying in a hospital bed last night, eye damaged and career in jeopardy; having beaten stomach cancer and returned; captain of the Canadiens.

The Coaches Corner last night was the most repulsive moment in HNIC's history in my opinion.

Utterly shameful.

 

[oilers_guy_eddie]

Perhaps I should clarify: when I say colour commentator, I'm talking about a Dick Irvin Jr. or Harry Neale type, a guy who works in tandem with the play-by-play announcer over the course of the full game. Cherry doesn't do that.

Cherry is the off-colour commentator.

 

[Toonces]

With Koivu lying in a hospital bed last night, eye damaged and career in jeopardy; having beaten stomach cancer and returned; captain of the Canadiens.

The Coaches Corner last night was the most repulsive moment in HNIC's history in my opinion.

Utterly shameful.

I didn't get the CBC feed last night, what did he say?

 

[revolverjgw]

Didn't he just hold up Koivu's helmet/visor and explain what went wrong? And that the best thing to do if you ARE going to wear a visor would be to wear the kind of visor Dany Heatley wears, which is much more protective? I don't see the repulsion, seems perfectly reasonable.

And on topic, if it's the Hockey Hall of FAME, I think it would be pretty silly to leave out a guy pretty much synonymous with hockey. He's a name even in the States, which is more than you can say for... pretty much every other Canadian HOFer member of the media/broadcasting/building/whatever.

 

[Big Phil]

One thing about Cherry is that he's pretty steady. He has the same opinions that he had way back when. He doesnt sway to which ever way the wind goes like say the Liberal/Democratic Government. A couple of weeks back he was on Coach's Corner telling players not to use the Lord's name in vain, ever. He said even though its not good to say the other "stuff" dont ever use the Lord's name in vain. I heard him say that back about ten years ago too.

Also if you were going to war, would you not want Cherry on your side? I would. If he's on your side he stands up for you all right.

 

[chooch*]

One thing about Cherry is that he's pretty steady. He has the same opinions that he had way back when. He doesnt sway to which ever way the wind goes like say the Liberal/Democratic Government. A couple of weeks back he was on Coach's Corner telling players not to use the Lord's name in vain, ever. He said even though its not good to say the other "stuff" dont ever use the Lord's name in vain. I heard him say that back about ten years ago too.

Also if you were going to war, would you not want Cherry on your side? I would. If he's on your side he stands up for you all right.

ummm...no.. I'd want Bowman on my side. And David Duke doesnt sway either....


To Revolvergw - if you didnt hear it/didnt get it, I got no explanation for you. Try to hear it slowly on CBC.com if they have it. Maybe thats your best chance.

The whole episode was the most vicious thing I've ever seen on HNIC.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

ummm...no.. I'd want Bowman on my side. And David Duke doesnt sway either....

To Revolvergw - if you didnt hear it/didnt get it, I got no explanation for you. Try to hear it slowly on CBC.com if they have it. Maybe thats your best chance.

The whole episode was the most vicious thing I've ever seen on HNIC.

this isn't a political forum, it's the history of hockey- politics have their own board and are supposed to be limited to it.

 

[ClassicHockey]

Your standards of selection criteria aren't very high. The Hanson brothers are also 'famous' but I wouldn't think they should be in the Hall of Fame.

What exactly has Cherry contributed to the building of the game - in a positive sense?

All those Cherry lovers out there have to realize that his rants and opinions have more effect because there is no counter argument presented. Coach's Corner is a one opinion show, unlike Satelite Hot Stove where an opinion expressed can be debated.

How effective would Cherry be if there was actually another voice countering his outrageous thoughts and opinions? Cherry might be made to look more foolish than he already is if some of his beliefs were attacked with some established facts or common sense right on the air.

You can put any blowhard on the air with a 7 minute rant every week with no opposing opinion and some viewers wouldn't know any better and believe him.

Didn't he just hold up Koivu's helmet/visor and explain what went wrong? And that the best thing to do if you ARE going to wear a visor would be to wear the kind of visor Dany Heatley wears, which is much more protective? I don't see the repulsion, seems perfectly reasonable.

And on topic, if it's the Hockey Hall of FAME, I think it would be pretty silly to leave out a guy pretty much synonymous with hockey. He's a name even in the States, which is more than you can say for... pretty much every other Canadian HOFer member of the media/broadcasting/building/whatever.

 

[Hedberg]

Looking at HHOF members, if Al Strachan is a hall of famer, Don Cherry is

 

[Verbal Kint*]

He'll get in with the broadcasters, I have little doubt of that.

I always hate the argument "well he only played 1 nhl game in the 50's". Well had their been 21 teams or 30 teams, he would've been a longtime NHL regular.

Had the NHL only continued to be 6 teams then you'd have never heard of guys like Glen Healy, Nick Kypreos, Darren Pang, Kelly Hrudey,John Davidson etc. They wouldn't have played, either.

You might also want to keep North America's population in mind too.

 

[ClassicHockey]

Al Strachan is in the Media section - not as an 'Honoured Member'. There is a difference.

So, if you are using the standard of Strachan being admitted to the Hall, then you are basing your opinion on low standards that use cronyism. I can think of a lot of others that can match those low standards.

Shouldn't you be using the standards that got people like Foster Hewitt and Danny Gallivan inducted?

Looking at HHOF members, if Al Strachan is a hall of famer, Don Cherry is

 

[God Bless Canada]

Al Strachan is in the Media section - not as an 'Honoured Member'. There is a difference.

So, if you are using the standard of Strachan being admitted to the Hall, then you are basing your opinion on low standards that use cronyism. I can think of a lot of others that can match those low standards.

Shouldn't you be using the standards that got people like Foster Hewitt and Danny Gallivan inducted?

Al Strachan is also a daily beat writer. Like him or not, he works every day, and has worked to have some pretty good sources. (And I am not a Strachan fan at all). During the regular season, Cherry does a five-to-seven minute segment during the first intermission once a week, and offers analysis in between the first and second games of the double header. During the playoffs, he works three or four nights a week.

I'm a big Cherry fan, but he doesn't belong in the HHOF. He wasn't around long enough to be inducted as a coach, and he doesn't work enough to be inducted as a broadcaster. There are many announcers out there who are more deserving.

Ron MacLean, on the other hand, is deserving of enshrinement, not just in the HHOF, but the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame. (If there is a media wing).

 

[chooch*]

Ron MacLean, on the other hand, is deserving of enshrinement, not just in the HHOF, but the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame. (If there is a media wing).

Ron Maclean will go down in HNIC history as a facilitator for Cherry's shameful rants and nothing more than that. He just sat there like the compliant dolt that he is while Cherry called Saku "Sake" and "Sako" a half dozen times and then blamed him for his own injury. These guys are a disgrace to hockey broadcasting and Americans certainly wouldnt stand for it. HHof, CHoF - no way.