Should Don Cherry get into the Hockey Hall of Fame ?

[Auston'sWilly]

I voted no, but to be honest, I was also surprised he wasn't in yet. For me, he's just wasn't enough of a journalist or broadcaster for inclusions in the media category. He didn't write columns or do play-by-play day in and day out, he just spoke for 5 minutes on Saturday nights. I understand, though, that many (most) here will feel that his long-term presence and popularity should be enough (it is after all, a hall of FAME).

I also have difficulty putting someone in as a builder who seemed, often, to be working against much of the forward progress of the game (particularly in regards to Europeans and "tough" hockey/concussions) . I get that he promoted elements of the game (women's hockey in particular), but so much of his approach was about keeping hockey where it had been when he was a player. I guess that a lot of you feel that he helped bring new fans to the sport, I'm not sure that I agree that was the case, but maybe he did. Even watching him as a kid 25+ years ago he seemed like a throw-back sideshow that was always just part of HNIC. I get that many fans cared about his opinions and that he did set a fair bit of the (hockey fan) public discussion about the sport over the years.

I certainly don't think he would be the least deserving inclusion ever, it seems like every long-term owner gets in a a builder eventually, and I don't even think he's necessarily undeserving. But if you are asking if I think he should, the answer is no (although I also think a lot of the players and builders currently in shouldn't be in either). But I completely understand why people think he should be.

Sincere kudos to you for backing up your vote. #thumbsup

[agentzero]

I voted no, but to be honest, I was also surprised he wasn't in yet. For me, he's just wasn't enough of a journalist or broadcaster for inclusions in the media category. He didn't write columns or do play-by-play day in and day out, he just spoke for 5 minutes on Saturday nights. I understand, though, that many (most) here will feel that his long-term presence and popularity should be enough (it is after all, a hall of FAME).

I also have difficulty putting someone in as a builder who seemed, often, to be working against much of the forward progress of the game (particularly in regards to Europeans and "tough" hockey/concussions) . I get that he promoted elements of the game (women's hockey in particular), but so much of his approach was about keeping hockey where it had been when he was a player. I guess that a lot of you feel that he helped bring new fans to the sport, I'm not sure that I agree that was the case, but maybe he did. Even watching him as a kid 25+ years ago he seemed like a throw-back sideshow that was always just part of HNIC. I get that many fans cared about his opinions and that he did set a fair bit of the (hockey fan) public discussion about the sport over the years.

I certainly don't think he would be the least deserving inclusion ever, it seems like every long-term owner gets in a a builder eventually, and I don't even think he's necessarily undeserving. But if you are asking if I think he should, the answer is no (although I also think a lot of the players and builders currently in shouldn't be in either). But I completely understand why people think he should be.

He did a lot to advance important game safety items such as no touch icings, boards and glass with give, hard plastic equipment, longer gloves to prevent wrists injuries, often spoke about how to block shots safely... he may have had a penchant for old time hockey (as I do) but he did a lot to advance many progressive items, namely player safety.

Dude did a lot of good and on the balance more good than bad in my opinion. To be made out a monster of some sort is plain shortsightedness and on some counts I think jealousy. And I’m a European first gen, a French guy who happily wears a visor.

[Hoopo]

An aside, but I do find it interesting how many media outlets chose to run the Cherry Video starting with the "you people" segment, ignoring the run up to his comments as if they didn't exist. Context is everything. It's clear that at worst he misspoke - the willingness of people to see the worst and pile on to the "he's a racist!" mantra without even appreciating that context or even considering that he perhaps misspoke is, sadly, not surprising.

He didn't misspeak. And frankly a lot of media is going easy on him just quoting "you people", which indeed could have been a misstatement if said by someone else, instead of "you people that come here" for our "milk and honey". The Land of Milk and honey is language from the Bible referring to the Promised Land -- a place people leave their countries for.

now speaking of "context", we have to take comments from Cherry in the context of his own body of work. His views on immigrants have been expressed before:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1643626563968

to me this couldn't be more clear

[Axeman33]

He didn't misspeak. And frankly a lot of media is going easy on him just quoting "you people", which indeed could have been a misstatement if said by someone else, instead of "you people that come here" for our "milk and honey". The Land of Milk and honey is language from the Bible referring to the Promised Land -- a place people leave their countries for.

now speaking of "context", we have to take comments from Cherry in the context of his own body of work. His views on immigrants have been expressed before:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1643626563968

to me this couldn't be more clear

Why do I have a deja vu feeling?

[ericdaoust]

At some point the world is going to have to move on.

[agentzero]

At some point the world is going to have to move on.

It’s been a week lol. He was on the air for 38 years... Give the grievors some time...

[lobo1969]

At some point the world is going to have to move on.

It would be nice to move on but 4 different threads about Cherry have sprung up on these boards in the last week mainly by Cherry supporters that keep wanting to pick at this scab...

[Hoopo]

Sorry guys, I didn't know you'd all been over this a hundred times already, I was just responding to a single comment that showed up in my email. I don't want to start another fire if the last one was put out already.

Feel free to ignore my comment or if a moderator wants to go ahead and delete it. This topic probably doesn't warrant going back in to the reasons for the firing

[The Comish]

Sorry guys, I didn't know you'd all been over this a hundred times already, I was just responding to a single comment that showed up in my email. I don't want to start another fire if the last one was put out already.

Feel free to ignore my comment or if a moderator wants to go ahead and delete it. This topic probably doesn't warrant going back in to the reasons for the firing

Meh, no need to apologize. Within reason, you are most certainly allowed to rebut/respond/reply as you see fit! I like fire. And I have popcorn.