| Author |
 Topic  |
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2010 : 09:27:11
|
For, as I stated in my previous post...
The Hall should be based solely on on-ice performance. Not off-ice mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, including being an alcoholic.
Is that really the end all, be all? I mean, really. How many more players do you think in the NHL have been addicted to drugs/alcohol? Including that of cocaine. I could name 3 NHL players right now, who I have witnessed personally, doing cocaine at a club. I won't, of course.
It's just silly to me. This guy did what he had to, on the ice. And he did it very well. Hall of Fame vote for me. He made off-ice mistakes, which, should not affect the HOCKEY Hall of Fame. Not the OFF-ICE Hall of Fame.
Irvine/prez. |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 10:07:04
|
See, I disagree that the Hall has nothing to do with off ice stuff. I want the guys in my Hall of Fame to be classy, did good stuff for their communities, and left the game better than they started with.
Fleury, a few years ago, did not fit that mold at all. However, not only did he do magic on the ice, but he has turned around a lot off the ice and is doing good things. Maybe he didn't when he played but he is making up for it.
Unfortunately for everyone, I don't make these decisions.  |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 19:28:43
|
I'm with Irvine on this one. The non-hockey stuff . . . well, if he screws up in those areas of life, he pays the consequences for them there. Why should he have to pay double?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 20:41:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I'm with Irvine on this one. The non-hockey stuff . . . well, if he screws up in those areas of life, he pays the consequences for them there. Why should he have to pay double?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
He/She doesn't have to pay double.
You don't see many alcoholic, drug user, degenerate gamblers getting the Man of the Year in many communites are you??
All I am saying is that to be put in the same groups the the best of all time you better be a good person too. Or in Fleury's case, seen the light and turned it all around to be a good person.
Allen Eagleson anyone?? No one can argue that he did a ton of positive things for the NHL(players union, international hockey) but his actions were also very unbecoming a HOFer. |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 22:31:38
|
I agree with Bean's sentiments about being a good person, or at least making an effort to be a good person, not just a good hockey player to be considered the best and HHOF worthy.
In fact, the HHOF Bylaws agree, notice this excerpt from Bylaw 21 of HHOF, taken from http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/indByLaw21.htm, a website that is linked to hhof.com:
quote:
BASIS OF SELECTION OF CANDIDATES
Candidates for election as Honoured Members in the player category shall be chosen on the basis of their playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to their team or teams and to the game of hockey in general.
Notice that sportsmanship and character are requirements for a candidate of the HHOF.
Therefore, a player's off-ice actions, or at least their reputation, if not what they really do, will have an impact on their getting into the Hall of Fame, regardless of their on-ice talent, abilities and accomplishments.
That is why I think that Fleury will not be inducted immediately when he is eligible, as there many others with similar abilities and without Fleury's negative or positive controversies.
It would be easier for a member of the HHOF selection committee to justify a player with similar or slightly lesser hockey resume than that of Fleury if they lived a quieter life outside of hockey.
But again, maybe the controversy will sway the vote in Theo's favour, wanting to honour his hockey career in light of his recent positive turnaround. I don't think so, but l echo beans in saying: "I don't make these decisions."
|
Edited by - polishexpress on 05/19/2010 22:38:53 |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 23:52:16
|
I understand about character factoring in.
But, to me, I just feel like if the guy has redeemed himself, and is showing that he can be a productive member of society now. Why not?
He did a lot for the game and the city of Calgary, despite his drug addiction.
He was not the one to molest those young kids, he was the victim in that, sadly.
He did not murder anyone, did nothing of a violent, sadistic nature.
He had, what many, many people have. A drug/alcohol addiction. That seems to be cured. Which in it self, takes a lot of hard work and dedication.
Fluery to me, deserves to be in the Hall. For his on-ice antics, not the ones off the ice.
He has learned from his mistakes, it seems. Which, is all you can ask of a man. We all make them, the main thing is to learn from them, fix them as best of your ability, and not make the same one twice.
That to me, makes the man. Not what he has done in the past, but he is doing now after realizing what he had done.
I'm not for punishing those who have already been punished. And, Fleury punished himself by living that life. It took his tole. He finished his career very, very early because of it.
Now, let us atleast, let him be where he deserves. For what he did, during his time.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 11:22:41
|
I enjoyed reading your comment Irvine, especially this part: quote:
That to me, makes the man. Not what he has done in the past, but he is doing now after realizing what he had done.
I wish more people felt that way. |
|
|
|
Guest5052
( )
|
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 13:31:04
|
For me Fleury is a really tough call. I tend to think I have a high threshold for who ought to get into the Hall. I think that you have to have been a great player for a reasonably signifcant period of time. To me, Fleury was close to that and is in a group of guys that may or may not get in. Oates, Gilmour etc. Having said that his stats are pretty close to Steve Larmer's and worse than a few guys not in. I m not sure I ever really remember him necessarily being a top ten forward in the league for a long period of time. i prefer to think that the Hall is reserved for Greats, and ought not to be watered down.
I dont really care that a guy was short or not, its whether he was effective on the ice (although admittedly there may be some narrow sentiment for the little guy .... I am convinced that J. Mullen was inducted ahead of Hawerchuk because he was born in Hell's Kitchen as opposed to being a better hockey player- which I disagree with).
With respect to his off ice problems, i think yeah they ought to be given some consideration (but if Gretzky had those same problems, its a none issue) but I also think he has made efforts to right wrongs and so they ought to be mitigated to some extent.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hall of Fame or Not: Theoren Fleury 
