Why the Hate for Stan Fischler?

[Hardyvan123]

... you mean Stanleys list from 1988?

1) Howe
2) Gretzky
3) Shore
4) Kelly
5) Boucher
6) Richard
7) Morenz
8) Beliveau
9) Harvey
10) Hall
11) Apps
12) Potvin
13) Orr
14) Hull
15) Trottier
16) Cook
17) Bentley
18) Vezina
19) Clancy
20) Lemieux
etc
etcetera

.... yep. Pretty messed up alrighty. Guaranteed to engender some anger, debate. But thats what he does. I dont know if he genuinely believes it himself, Im assuming so as he wrote it, justifying every single pick, and Lemieux of course still had history to create so I can understand why he'd be down the list but all the way to 20th?! And Orr at 13? WTF is that?!

Maybe he is a bit of a career guy?

Seriously though the recent top Canadians of all time publication had some really weird picks from guys as esteemed as Scotty Bowman.

One writer that people often cite (I forget his name or the player he missed) has a guy not in his top 10 pre 1950 that lamsot everyone else does.

People do similar things and some get slack other get blame, it's all part of the human condition if you ask me.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Seems like Fischler held bizarre opinions, knowing they were bizarre, only because they were bizarre. He smeared his attention-whoring all up the underpants of hockey history. And now that his name is canon, we have to pretend he's worth listening to. Bad!

I'm reminded of the scene at the end of "The Hunt For Red October", with the argument between Ramius and Ryan over whether Bull Halsey was a great admiral or an extremely lucky gambler.

Fischler can give anecdotes and snippets, but I think we and damn near everyone else can derive that his conclusions are largely junk. He's a slightly better version of David Barton.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Maybe he is a bit of a career guy?

Seriously though the recent top Canadians of all time publication had some really weird picks from guys as esteemed as Scotty Bowman.

One writer that people often cite (I forget his name or the player he missed) has a guy not in his top 10 pre 1950 that lamsot everyone else does.

People do similar things and some get slack other get blame, it's all part of the human condition if you ask me.

His main argument against Orr was that he dominated the NHL when the NHL was at it's weakest competitive point. Probably true with expansion and the WHA, but still a ridiculous ranking. IMO it had more to do with sour grapes over Orr's Bruins always beating the Rangers.

 

[Killion]

Fischler can give anecdotes and snippets, but I think we and damn near everyone else can derive that his conclusions are largely junk. He's a slightly better version of David Barton.

Maybe we should start a thread similar to the History Channels website who's chatboard members voted Bartons The Jefferson Lies the Least Credible History Book Ever Written. We could have our own with the Least Credible History of Hockey Books Ever Written. All kinds of candidates, though certainly Fischler's resume, having either co-authored or penned himself some 90+ tomes & reams of articles would just have to be a perennial favourite.... not to mention he'd likely revel in the attention... so no, maybe not... bottom line he's an entertainer insofar as most are concerned. An annoying one at times sure enough but not dangerous, not like Barton.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My favorite Fischler moment was when he wrote in THN that Mike Milbury was a better player than Ray Bourque.

Stan was once on WFAN in New York on their popular drive time show. They rarely had hockey guests because most fans wanted to talk about the Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, or Knicks. Fischler was so arrogant and obnoxious that he was never asked back. The hosts would always refer to future bad interviews as "almost Stan Fischler-like". Serena Williams was the only other guest to even approach Stan's level.

I never heard the Milbury thing before. I do remember when he said that he didn't think Ray Bourque was a top 50 defenseman because abandoned his team so he win a Cup with a stacked team.

 

[seventieslord]

I never heard the Milbury thing before. I do remember when he said that he didn't think Ray Bourque was a top 50 defenseman because abandoned his team so he win a Cup with a stacked team.

it stopped being acceptable to say Bourque was not top-50 around 1982.

 

[reckoning]

One of his arguments about Bobby Orr was that he was supposedly a "defensive liability" who was frequently caught out of position due to his rink long rushes.

In the late-80s he was claiming that Kevin Lowe was the NHL's best defenceman. It could be that he was a traditionalist who felt that Milbury and Lowe played the way a defenceman was supposed to play, but more than likely he was just stirring things up.

He was similar to the Ottawa sports writer Earl McRae, who would often make nonsensical inflammatory comments for no other reason than to generate controversy.

 

[Ola]

I notice when his name is mentioned here there's usually a negative comment or two. I recall he wasn't that popular when I was reading his articles in the Hockey News and magazines back in the 70's. He didn't always follow the popular opinion; I recall once he was advocating a return to 4-on-4 hockey with a rover. He always had good anecdotes about the game from the 50's and 60's and it didn't seem like he was arrogant or a know-it-all. What am I missing?

People are insecure.

If someone like McKenzie brings up a stupid suggestion, I guess I would be irritated. But Fischler? He just isn't that type.

 

[DT77]

Fischler seemed to take Edmonton's dethroning of the Islanders personally. I'm not sure if he still does, but his stuff from the 80's is constantly trying to diminish Gretzky's accomplishments and just run down the Oilers in general. Just an overall lack of professionalism in some of his "opinions". At some point, even an opinion becomes too outlandish to be considered valid and it is clear the author is just trying to be a contrarian to stir people up.

Came to say essentially the same thing. After the Islanders beat the Oilers in '83, he went ON and ON in numerous articles about how the Oilers could never beat a team like the Islanders because they lacked the drive/determination/heart/other standard sports cliches to get the job done. He went on to say that Gretzky could never lead a team to a Cup because of, well... essentially the same reasons as above. Sure enough, when the Oilers do knock the Islanders off, his next articles are written as if he's been gutted. By the end of the decade though, he speaks their praises as if he's always thought they were great. Absolutely painful to read.

In essence, to the OP:

Overly opinionated without any ability to back up his claims despite his incredible knowledge of the history of the game (though, completely biased moreso to the New York area)

 

[Giacomin]

Fischler was very pro Islander during their glory years years and I know most NY Rangers fans can,t stand him

 

[Hardyvan123]

His main argument against Orr was that he dominated the NHL when the NHL was at it's weakest competitive point. Probably true with expansion and the WHA, but still a ridiculous ranking. IMO it had more to do with sour grapes over Orr's Bruins always beating the Rangers.

While I do agree it was the NHL's weakest competitive point, Orr did dominate and was the straw that stirred that drink in Boston and absolutely made Phil Espostio, much as Phil doesn't think so.

I agree that ranking is too low unless one place a really really high value on career value but then it wouldn't make sense with some of the other rankings either.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I seem to remember Fischler had Dale Hawerchuk and Kevin Lowe in his Top 100 too. I remember reading that then and being a bit bemused in spite of being just a kid. It was especially odd because Fischler had little time for current players anyway, so to pick those guys just seemed bizarre.

 

[cam042686]

As a writer myself, the only issues I have/had with Stan Fischler are he has put out a lot of “fluffâ€. Many of his books were about contemporary teams (ie; “The Blazing North Starsâ€, “Bobby Clarke and the Ferocious Flyersâ€, “I have Got to be Me†– ghost written for Derek Sanderson, etc.) They were not very well written and were rushed to market to jump on the bandwagon of a popular team or player.

I take pride in the fact that my 3 books (track me down on Amazon.com) were very detailed and very well researched. Not every book has to be an academic dissertation or like you find with Canadian Football writer Frank Cosentino, they can be very dull. You have to know your audience. But you can take the time to fully research a sports topic and then write an engaging book. (I have attached a review to my book “A Slip in the Rain†to show it can be done. It took me 3 years to write and research it and the end result is a detailed, fun book) But with Fischler I found in many cases (not all – the guy can write) you get a lot of superfluous “fluffâ€.

Craig Wallace


"There are so few books on the Canadian Football League it's always gratifying to come across another and one this good. You can read the title yourself to get an idea on what the book is all about but basically this is about the Leo Cahill coached era of the Argos. Because at that time the CFL could compete with the NFL for top quality players salary-wise, the Argos recruited a lot of high profile U.S. college stars (Joe Theismann, Jim Stillwagon, Jim Corrigall and Leon McQuay). These and other stars, the team's swagger and the fact they were from Tarrana--the city every Canadian not from there hates--was obvious fuel for a great story win or lose.

Author Craig Wallace helps make those seasons come alive with a very engaging writing style as he blends the game-by-game struggles with all the backroom dealings (Cahill's recruiting methods offer up some classic tales). The book also does not stop at this 1972 season. The epilogue gives a short and sweet summation of the Argos through the years afterwards as well as an update "where are they now?" on all the main 1967-72 protagonists.

Lastly, the book gave me a greater appreciation for CFL Hall of Famer Dick Thornton who although primarily a defensive back could do it all from pass receiving to even emergency backup quarterbacking. Thornton did this with a flair for the dramatic and a style that was pretty a reflection of how it was in the '70s."

 

[cam042686]

While I do agree it was the NHL's weakest competitive point, Orr did dominate and was the straw that stirred that drink in Boston and absolutely made Phil Espostio, much as Phil doesn't think so.

I agree that ranking is too low unless one place a really really high value on career value but then it wouldn't make sense with some of the other rankings either.

I have to say Phil Esposito showed in the 72 Summit, and the 77 World Championships that he didn't need Bobby Orr or Bobby Hull. He could carry a team on his own.

Craig Wallace

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I never heard the Milbury thing before. I do remember when he said that he didn't think Ray Bourque was a top 50 defenseman because abandoned his team so he win a Cup with a stacked team.

It was in the early 80s.

Fischler would write a piece in THN that was basically a series of observations on the game. It was easy to read, controversial and was purely opinion with little or no explaination.

His comment was "I'll take Mike Milbury over Ray Bourque any day of the week".

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

While I do agree it was the NHL's weakest competitive point, Orr did dominate and was the straw that stirred that drink in Boston and absolutely made Phil Espostio, much as Phil doesn't think so.

I agree that ranking is too low unless one place a really really high value on career value but then it wouldn't make sense with some of the other rankings either.

There are a lot of us that don't think so.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Fischler was very pro Islander during their glory years years and I know most NY Rangers fans can,t stand him

Before the Islanders became great he was very pro Rangers.

 

[Big Phil]

Like the legendary "Patrick Roy might be worth his salary if it were paid out in Confederate dollars"?

Never heard that one, but it does sound Fischleresque to me. I mean, the guy has some hockey history under his belt, he was at the game where Clarence Campbell got harassed by the Canadiens fans after the Richard suspension. The game was forfeited and it started the famous "Richard Riot". Who among us living today can honestly say we were there? Stan has so much good at his disposal and instead of being a guy we revere he uses it to stir the pot for no good reason.

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

Fischler is usually a waste of time. They bring him on for "expert" commentary, and he fills the time with nice-sounding words that say nothing.

 

[unknown33]

I seem to remember Fischler had Dale Hawerchuk and Kevin Lowe in his Top 100 too. I remember reading that then and being a bit bemused in spite of being just a kid.

Why? Doesn't seem very out of place to me. (BOLDED)

 

[Pominville Knows]

Fischler obviously is on the no-no-list. A bum out to promote his persona.

 

[puck swami]

I can remember in the '80s and '90s that much of the the Professional Hockey Writers Association hated Stan Fischler because most of his work, especially his 100+ hockey books was written by interns and condescendingly passed off by Fischler as his own work.

If you want to piss off fellow hockey writers, that's the way to do it.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

After the Red Wings won the Stanley Cup in 1997 and it was mentioned that Doug Brown was not going to be on the team I remember Fischler in an old Hockey News article saying: "Now the chances of the Red Wings repeating are as likely as Tie Domi winning the Lady Byng." I read that three times to make sure I understood it. What in the world did Doug Brown have to do with that Cup win? It was a strange comment. Brown stayed with the Wings however and won again in 1998, but wasn't a big part of it.

I guess Doug Brown was the new Billy Carroll

 

[The Panther]

I've summarized his idiocy on other threads about him, but my favorites (re: his personal bug-bear, the Oilers) are:
- In 1981, he said Gretzky only scored so many points (164) because his teammates were so bad.
- After 1983, he said Sather and the Oilers were "team arrogance" and would never win the Cup.
- After 1984, he said the Oilers would never win again.
- In 1988 (ish), he compared Mike Gartner and Mark Messier, and decided Gartner was superior.
- He declared that the Oilers had never had a Dynasty, because while they won five in seven years, they never won three in a row.

 

[danincanada]

After the Red Wings won the Stanley Cup in 1997 and it was mentioned that Doug Brown was not going to be on the team I remember Fischler in an old Hockey News article saying: "Now the chances of the Red Wings repeating are as likely as Tie Domi winning the Lady Byng." I read that three times to make sure I understood it. What in the world did Doug Brown have to do with that Cup win? It was a strange comment. Brown stayed with the Wings however and won again in 1998, but wasn't a big part of it.

This was an old post but Doug Brown actually led the '98 Finals in scoring so he ended up contributing more than expected. Not that I'm siding with Fischler in any way. He probably felt good about that remark after the '98 Finals though, if he can even keep track of his ridiculous takes on things.