| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/01/2007 : 17:18:26
According to fly4apuckguy, Ray Bourque is not an overly popular player in Canada because he didn't always answer the call for Canadian teams internationally. I'm not sure if this unpopularity is true or not but am curious if people (Americans too) think this should be held against him.
Question: Do you think that Ray Bourque not always answering the call for Canadian teams internationally should be held against him?
Anyone who has read some of my posts here probably knows I am a big Bourque fan. Even putting aside my bias though, and I am sure I'll be in the minority here, I think holding this international thing against Bourque is silly.
He played for Team Canada in Canada Cup tournaments in 1981, 1984 and 1987. He didn't want to play in the Olympics towards the end of his career because he wanted to spend time with his family. Gretzky and Messier tried to persuade him but he said no. I think Bourque actually deserves credit for not folding into peer pressure. Good message for the kids!
Of course we should have no problems with players who chose hockey over their families. So why do we have problems with a player who chose his family over hockey? OK - bring it on you "HOCKEY FOR YOUR COUNTRY ABOVE ALL ELSE" fanatics!
|
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 15:21:29
fly4apuckguy - if you are out there, I too hope you do not leave this site. With one exception about 10 years ago, it seems that in my whole life I have never made someone as angry as I have you here on this site. You may not believe this, but I feel bad that I made you so upset that you want to leave. On the other hand, I do feel that some of the ways you said things (particularly in the Gretzky threads), were at least a little "arrogant", to use Willis's word, and needed to be responded to strongly by someone. Though I can't apologize for that, as mentioned in an earlier post by me, I DO respect your hockey knowledge. I would hope that you stay! I will promise this - in the future, no matter how outraged, I'll try my hardest to avoid using any of the labels used in the last few days for you - I'll try to keep the word to "arrogant" if I ever feel it is necessary.
Willus, I get your point about letting it go sometimes. Sometimes I am indeed the type not to give up in debates, but what's funny is that generally speaking in my life I have actually more often been accused by others of being TOO nice a guy in debates or confrontations.
Anyway, hope everyone had a great Sunday! |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 10:41:44
Well Fly, I never intended to be a "board lord"; I am in high school and there are cliques everywhere--I don't like it either. I only debate your posts if I disagree with your opinion, as I do for everyone else on this board. And I don't mean to seem like I'm analyzing every detail you write in precision and making big deals out of little things. Believe me, I don't even have the patience to sit at a computer and do that. Writing in detail in English class is about all I can take. In fact, with most of your posts I say nothing, and often I agree. It's not like I'm thinking "whenever flyguy posts something I have to jump in and refute it!" That's ridiculous, all I'm doing is debating with yet another member if our opinions differ, it's not like I'm targeting your posts. Just want to make that clear. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 07:22:38
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
Actually, I think my work is done here.
I actually assumed this would be a good place to talk hockey, not be called names and have every opinion ganged up upon by a "clique of board lords".
I think you'll agree if you read the bulk of my posts, I'm one of the most knowledgable hockey people around. I'm sure that a few of you will now call me names because I just wrote that, but deep down you know it is true.
I surely did not join to be chased off by a selection of people with no sense of humor and who sit there and analyze every single typed word with Shakesperean precision, but that appears to be the case.
I guess what you really want are people who agree with you and who don't challenge your opionions. That's exactly what you'll get.
I won't be around for you to call me names for saying that, so save your breath.
Mario Lemieux on his off-season training habits: "I don't order fries with my club sandwich."
I don't know about most knowledgeable, but definitely most arrogant. 
Are you saying you're leaving the forum? Do you always give up so easily?
Come on Fly, stick around. I'd like to see you stay. You have lots to say and knowledge to share.
You just have to understand that if you dish it out you will get it back. Both you and Andyhack seem to be the types that need to reply to every response(have the last word). I enjoy debating(arguing) but sometimes it gets to a point where it's tiresome and it's off on a tangent, so much so that you can't remember what the original issue was. Just let it go sometimes guys.
Stick around Fly. As much as you piss me off sometimes I'd still rather you be here and generate discussions.
Cheers,
Willus
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 06:31:13
Actually, I think my work is done here.
I actually assumed this would be a good place to talk hockey, not be called names and have every opinion ganged up upon by a "clique of board lords".
I think you'll agree if you read the bulk of my posts, I'm one of the most knowledgable hockey people around. I'm sure that a few of you will now call me names because I just wrote that, but deep down you know it is true.
I surely did not join to be chased off by a selection of people with no sense of humor and who sit there and analyze every single typed word with Shakesperean precision, but that appears to be the case.
I guess what you really want are people who agree with you and who don't challenge your opionions. That's exactly what you'll get.
I won't be around for you to call me names for saying that, so save your breath.
Mario Lemieux on his off-season training habits: "I don't order fries with my club sandwich." |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 06:15:16
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
I thought you would say that. We agree to disagree on this one, and actually, I believe that I managed to come through this thread without being called insane, ridiculous or a friggin donkey, so you behaved relatively well. Good job, flyguy!
Condescend much?
If friggin donkey is the worst you've ever been called considering how you like to try and initiate problems, I'd say you got off light.
Mario Lemieux on his off-season training habits: "I don't order fries with my club sandwich." |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 02:45:58
I thought you would say that. We agree to disagree on this one, and actually, I believe that I managed to come through this thread without being called insane, ridiculous or a friggin donkey, so you behaved relatively well. Good job, flyguy!
Edit - LAST point before heading off on a Mother's day road trip - again, just to frame your argument properly, what you really should have said is this,
"Between a whiner who HELPS TO deliver my country a gold medal and a stand-up guy that CHOOSES to stay home ONCE IN '96 (AND ONE OR TWO OTHER LESS IMPORTANT OCCASIONS) WHEN HE WAS ALREADY IN HIS MID TO LATE 30s IN ORDER TO SPEND TIME WITH HIS FAMILY (AFTER REPRESENTING CANADA ADMIRABLY, AND WITH HONOR AND LOYALTY, SEVERAL TIMES), I'll take the whiner."
"You are not only insane, but you also hate your kids" fly4apuckguy |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 22:02:12
Between a whiner who delivers my country a gold medal and a stand-up guy that stays home, I'll take the whiner.
Thanks for immortalizing my insane/hate kids line. My best work, really.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 16:19:24
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
[
Last, you people are (as per usual) making a mountain out of a mole hill. Do I think it is un-Canadian to decline an international tournament if you are healthy and everything in your life (dying mothers aside) is fine? Yeah. So what?
It doesn't mean I dislike these guys or won't cheer for them in the future. Don Cherry said it best to the ones that decline for no valid reason..."Shame on you".
I'm actually glad you quoted Don Cherry again, cause this is really the crux of the matter. I think he is just plain wrong, and his choice of words are particularly wrong cause it's one thing to say "I don't like the choice" (which I think Beans was saying for instance) and it is another thing to go the extra step of saying the choice is shameful. Like this choice or not, there was nothing shameful in these circumstances. I love Donny C, but I gotta disagree.
By the way, flyguy, you may remember that this discussion all started with my comment about Gretzky whining in the Sid thread. We veered to Bourque cause you brought him and the Canada thing up when I said basically, "Look at Bourque - he didn't whine". As I said in that thread, I find most sports stars whine so it doesn't bother me that much, though I won't be a big fan of someone who does. BUT, if we are going to label what Bourque did shameful, then, sorry flydude, Gretzky's whining conduct throughout his career has to be looked at as even more shameful.
"You are not only insane, but you also hate your kids" fly4apuckguy
|
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 14:01:37
quote:
I'm not talking about the war at all, in fact. In truth, I was a supporter of the actions after 9/11 (I'm more a Republican than a Democrat, to be honest)..
Ah good. We at least have something in common
quote:
I was speaking more about cultural stuff (the celebrity of people like Paris Hilton, as one example).
Oh, I see. I'm with you on that. I don't understand that either.
quote:
I can't even wrap my head around this :"Nationality and sport is irrelevant".
Hmm, I may have worded that part wrong. I just meant that the fact that Peyton Manning, etc are American wouldn't keep me from criticizing the Americans with a beef toward them. I didn't want to make it sound like I would exempt them from this just because I live in the same country as them.
About dancing in the streets when Canada won in 2002--doesn't seem weird to me. Had I been alive in 1980 I would've done the same when we beat the Soviets and won gold. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 13:52:47
quote:
Originally posted by Mikhailova
quote:
Do I think it is un-Canadian to decline an international tournament if you are healthy and everything in your life (dying mothers aside) is fine? Yeah.
Then how come you never said anything about Sakic and the other guys who didn't play? They didn't have valid reasons, where were the un-Canadian tirades? And you only lost SOME of your love for Sid? You just said his injury wasn't that bad, so since it's not a valid reason, how come you're not saying he's un-Canadian?
And about the hypotheical football World Cup. I' be just as critical of the Americans who held a beef against the guys who didn't go as I am against the Canadians here. Nationality and sport is irrelevant, it's the motive for going and a question of which things are more important that I'm looking at here.
And when you said you didn't understand some stuff the US did, I assumed you were talking about the war (maybe I was wrong). Assuming that's what you meant, all I was saying is you've never been bombed, attacked by terrorists or had Soviet missiles pointed at you, you haven't experienced a threat that'll drive you to fight. If I'm not supposed to criticize Canadian motives for playing hockey, please don't criticize our motives for bigger things. If that's not what you meant, then ignore this whole paragraph and I apologize for having to make you read it. Truce again?
There was never a non-truce, so yes.
I'm not talking about the war at all, in fact. In truth, I was a supporter of the actions after 9/11 (I'm more a Republican than a Democrat, to be honest)..
I was speaking more about cultural stuff (the celebrity of people like Paris Hilton, as one example).
As for Sakic and other guys - I think they should go if they can. I think I'll leave it at that, as I think I"ve exhausted my p.o.v.
I will say this: I can't even wrap my head around this :"Nationality and sport is irrelevant". That's Chinese to me. To me, they are fiercely intertwined. This is undoubtedly the difference in all of our points of view in this thread. I couldn't align those two things any deeper - it's that important to me.
I am a full grown man, but I cried for an hour when Canada lost to Russia in the quarter-finals of the 2006 Olympics. I spent four years waiting for that moment, and then they came out flat and lost. I was devastated.
Is that normal? Probably not. Are there a good number of Canadians who share this passion with me? Yes there is. I'm very proud of that, even if they don't exist on this message board. I know they are out there, because I danced in the streets with them when we won in 2002.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 13:35:17
quote:
Do I think it is un-Canadian to decline an international tournament if you are healthy and everything in your life (dying mothers aside) is fine? Yeah.
Then how come you never said anything about Sakic and the other guys who didn't play? They didn't have valid reasons, where were the un-Canadian tirades? And you only lost SOME of your love for Sid? You just said his injury wasn't that bad, so since it's not a valid reason, how come you're not saying he's un-Canadian?
And about the hypotheical football World Cup. I' be just as critical of the Americans who held a beef against the guys who didn't go as I am against the Canadians here. Nationality and sport is irrelevant, it's the motive for going and a question of which things are more important that I'm looking at here.
And when you said you didn't understand some stuff the US did, I assumed you were talking about the war (maybe I was wrong). Assuming that's what you meant, all I was saying is you've never been bombed, attacked by terrorists or had Soviet missiles pointed at you, you haven't experienced a threat that'll drive you to fight. If I'm not supposed to criticize Canadian motives for playing hockey, please don't criticize our motives for bigger things. If that's not what you meant, then ignore this whole paragraph and I apologize for having to make you read it. Truce again? |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 13:20:36
quote:
Originally posted by Mikhailova
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
Look, I love Sidney Crosby, as you can tell from my many posts on the topic. But I lost a little bit of love for him this year over his refusal to go. I know he said he was hurt, but he also said he could manage on it. My buddy on the World team right now has a really bad shoulder - bad enough that he thought he might need surgery. When he found out he didn't, he was on the first plane to Moscow.
Good point about Sid there. He said his foot wasn't affecting his play during the playoffs, so why, all of a sudden, does it become a problem before the WC? He could've gone, he could've played fine. I know kids who've broken bones in their foot and still played hockey without feeling much pain. Canada's gonna win gold anyway, but Sid still could've gone and played without his foot bothering him too much.
quote:
Yes, it is "un-Canadian" to not participate in hockey events when asked
So I guess Joe Sakic is un-Canadian too then. I guess Crosby is too. I guess anyone who declines to play for Canada when asked to no matter what the reason is un-Canadian? Their mom's dying of cancer in the hospital and the funeral is the same day as the beginning of some international tournament. What do they do? Go to the tournament of course! It's more Canadian! Now, I'm exaggerating here, I don't think you'd agree that doing something along those lines is acceptable. But I just think that if there's a good reason not to go, then what's the crime in not going? Bourque's case is a little debatable I guess, since his kids were in school and he got family time over the summer, I didn't actually think about that. If you want to call Bourque un-Canadian, fine, on second thought I can see that argument. I just don't think hockey, as important as it is, should be put above EVERYTHING else in your life.
quote:
I don't understand a lot of things your country does either.
Perhaps if some buildings were blown up in Ottawa by terrorists, you'd understand some of those "things" too.
Couple things about this post...
First, I never said anything about 9/11. Not sure where that came from.
Second, how can a non-Canadian tell me what is un-Canadian? I think I know my culture, thanks.
Third, your "exaggeration" is ridiculous, and you knew I would say so.
Last, you people are (as per usual) making a mountain out of a mole hill. Do I think it is un-Canadian to decline an international tournament if you are healthy and everything in your life (dying mothers aside) is fine? Yeah. So what?
It doesn't mean I dislike these guys or won't cheer for them in the future. Don Cherry said it best to the ones that decline for no valid reason..."Shame on you".
I agree with him. Maybe if the Americans believed a little more like me, you wouldn't be fighting it out for seventh right now.
Let me put it in Americanized terms. Let's pretend there is a World Cup of Football (I know, there wouldn't be, you're the best...just go along), and Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Ladainian Tomlinson all decline because they wanted to go to the beach with their families, or because they didn't want to stay in a foreign hotel. Would any Americans be a little ticked off?
Please don't say no or I will be forced to laugh my ass off for the next four hours.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 12:50:06
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
Look, I love Sidney Crosby, as you can tell from my many posts on the topic. But I lost a little bit of love for him this year over his refusal to go. I know he said he was hurt, but he also said he could manage on it. My buddy on the World team right now has a really bad shoulder - bad enough that he thought he might need surgery. When he found out he didn't, he was on the first plane to Moscow.
Good point about Sid there. He said his foot wasn't affecting his play during the playoffs, so why, all of a sudden, does it become a problem before the WC? He could've gone, he could've played fine. I know kids who've broken bones in their foot and still played hockey without feeling much pain. Canada's gonna win gold anyway, but Sid still could've gone and played without his foot bothering him too much.
quote:
Yes, it is "un-Canadian" to not participate in hockey events when asked
So I guess Joe Sakic is un-Canadian too then. I guess Crosby is too. I guess anyone who declines to play for Canada when asked to no matter what the reason is un-Canadian? Their mom's dying of cancer in the hospital and the funeral is the same day as the beginning of some international tournament. What do they do? Go to the tournament of course! It's more Canadian! Now, I'm exaggerating here, I don't think you'd agree that doing something along those lines is acceptable. But I just think that if there's a good reason not to go, then what's the crime in not going? Bourque's case is a little debatable I guess, since his kids were in school and he got family time over the summer, I didn't actually think about that. If you want to call Bourque un-Canadian, fine, on second thought I can see that argument. I just don't think hockey, as important as it is, should be put above EVERYTHING else in your life.
quote:
I don't understand a lot of things your country does either.
Perhaps if some buildings were blown up in Ottawa by terrorists, you'd understand some of those "things" too. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 15:44:41
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Anyway, even if I were to agree with you and hold a small beef against Bourque for this, I'd still say that, overall, character-wise, there was no better role model for kids in the 20 year period that he played the game.
True enough.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 15:32:29
Flydude! I am not making it seem like anything involving Goblins and cliffs! I am just clarifying your position on this, which clearly is based on your admitted "near obsession" (I think we can drop the "near") with Canadian hockey. That's an obsession which has brought you to an opinion which is writing off all of Bourque's contributions to Canadian hockey, writing off any consideration of his obvious right to decide how he spends his personal time, a right which, in my opinion, supercedes his obligation as a great defenceman (not the best anymore in '96 by the way) and also writing off the possibility that there may have been some specific reason why he turned down those tournaments (or at least the one in '96).
Anyway, even if I were to agree with you and hold a small beef against Bourque for this, I'd still say that, overall, character-wise, there was no better role model for kids in the 20 year period that he played the game.
|
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 14:07:24
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
4. Main point - On Bourque - Of course you are entitled to your opinion. All I am saying though is that you should understand that if you are calling Bourque "un-Canadian" you are calling a guy who played hard for his country (at least 4 times that I know of) "un-Canadian". And if you are calling the act of staying home for his family in '96 "Un-Canadian", then you are calling the act of putting your family above hockey "Un-Canadian". --------- Your opinion on this question is different than mine obviously. That is fine. But, to me, the thinking behind your opinion, particularly the "Un-Canadian" stuff, is very questionable.
Dude, you are making it sound like the Green Goblin was holding his wife and kids over a cliff and telling him to make a choice. The times I am talking about were World Championships (early May - kids are in school), and the World Cup (summer holidays - after a month or two at home with the kids, I think they'd understand).
How may times did he have to go before I'd give him props? Pretty much every time. Let's face it, there's a difference also between, say, Steve Staios not going and Ray Bourque not going. Bourque could be the difference, he was our best defenceman at the time. Therefore, a heightened obligation.
Look, I love Sidney Crosby, as you can tell from my many posts on the topic. But I lost a little bit of love for him this year over his refusal to go. I know he said he was hurt, but he also said he could manage on it. My buddy on the World team right now has a really bad shoulder - bad enough that he thought he might need surgery. When he found out he didn't, he was on the first plane to Moscow.
I admit an INTENSE pride when it comes to Canadian hockey, bordering on obsession.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 12:19:55
Okay, you raise a number of things but I only have time for these now:
1. Glad to hear you are a balanced guy - haven't seen much of it here though
2. Agree that waffling can be dangerous too - but there is a difference between waffling and understanding that there are a number of factors to any discussion. Also, between waffling and becoming radical about one's strong opinions, I personally wonder whether waffling isn't indeed the better of the two errors.
3. Don't worry - not taking this seriously - I find this fun and interesting
4. Main point - On Bourque - Of course you are entitled to your opinion. All I am saying though is that you should understand that if you are calling Bourque "un-Canadian" you are calling a guy who played hard for his country (at least 4 times that I know of) "un-Canadian". And if you are calling the act of staying home for his family in '96 "Un-Canadian", then you are calling the act of putting your family above hockey "Un-Canadian". --------- Your opinion on this question is different than mine obviously. That is fine. But, to me, the thinking behind your opinion, particularly the "Un-Canadian" stuff, is very questionable. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 09:55:31
Finally, my last words on the Bourque thing...
I have a friend who plays in the NHL. He is just starting a family. As a metter of fact, he is in Russia with Team Canada right now.
His attitude is this - I have 10-15 years in this sport. When it's all said and done, I don't want to look back and say "I wish I had done this and gone there..."
His family (like most NHL families, I suppose) completely understand this philosophy. I don't think Bourque's kids would have been permanently scarred had he missed a few weeks here and there to play for Team Canada when he had the chance. In fact, they may have respected him for playing for his country in the long run (maybe not right away, because kids are generally short-sighted and self-centred).
Do I think a player should go if he's asked? Yes, unless he's injured or has something so pressing that he can't miss (one guy was getting married - that's okay I guess  ).
It's a player's choice not to go, just like it's mine to like him less for what I think is an improper choice.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 09:48:01
Oh, and as for the religion part, I really think some of you guys need to take yourselves (and message boards) a little less seriously. Not everything is meant to be taken literally.
With that said, hockey is more than a sport to me. Without it I would feel very incomplete as a person. That's semi-spiritual.
If you don't feel that way, great, I don't care. I'm not sure I know anyone who loves it like I do. If that makes me weird, then call me weird. I'm fine with it.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 09:45:00
You have never really addressed the "why" I said if you think that hit was okay, you are insane and hate your kids. You just bring up the literal words - the what, I suppose
I'm a dad. If someone hits my kid like that, I'm furious. I'm actually a calm guy at the rink, but I wouldn't be in that case.
Anyone who has kids would respond with anger to that hit. If you didn't, and you sat in your seat and rationalized how your kid got creamed from behind five feet from the boards onto his face because he was sort of turned a little, then yes, I stand by my statement.
Fact is, you wouldn't. You be furious too. You wouldn't say, "Oh, it was a matter of degrees." That's what I mean by insane and you'd have to hate your kids. Now, with that said, I can call someone insane on a message board without thinking they truly need psychological assistance. Please note the difference.
Gretzky is not my kid, but he was/is my hero. Someone does that to my hero, especially a semi-dirty player like Suter, I'm going to say it was cheap and he should have paid for it (fines, suspension, punch in the face, whatever). I'm not going to say, "Oh, it was kinda from the side a little, and Gretzky should have worked out more to have a stronger back, and Suter didn't really cross-check him, it was more of a push...."
If you knew me, I'm sure you'd say I am very "balanced". I always look at things from all sides. But once I make up my mind, especially when I think I'm right, I'm going to defend that position. I'd rather be called rigid than be a waffler.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 08:29:16
Yes, last time I checked I was still a Canadian.
You know, fly4apuckguy, my Dad has a saying that I think you may want to think about. It's this,
"Balance is the most important word in the English Dictionary"
I don't think that means that you can't take a strong position on something. BUT, there are always shades to any argument. There are always DEGREES. That concept comes very much into play on all the threads here where we seem to be finding ourselves in "disagreement". I put it in quotes because, with a slightly different attitude on your part, we go from "disagreement" to finding a number of areas where we probably can agree on.
For instance, in this thread, we can find some probably very important common ground. I would agree with you, for example, that a Canadian should feel that playing for his country is an honour. That hockey, though not a religion, is somewhat like a "religion" in Canada (beware of "religious nuts" though!). I agree with you that IN THE COURSE OF THEIR CAREERS a player should try to play, and play hard, for their country.
Where we differ is simply on the degrees. I say that "in the course of their careers" does not necessarily have to mean "always"! Bourque did play for his country, and he did play hard. He did it many times! The decision not to play certain times has to be looked at in that context, before even discussing the merit of the reason he opted not to play. And, again, in my opinion, the fact that others played more times or ALL the time is irrelevant. It does not make them more Canadian, more loyal, more honourable, etc. To argue so seems arrogant to me.
Anyway, I think all of these threads are coming down to the same thing -lack of balance in your thoughts, and even more lack of balance in the way you express your thoughts. The Gretzky hit, for instance. I actually agree it was dirty (and not calling it "incredibly dirty" or whatever doesn't mean I am justifying it), but nevertheless according to you I am "not only insane but hate my kids". Again, seems to be a little lack of balance in your thinking there.
Beans, I'll tell you what, between an entertaining Mr. Chooch and an incredibly rigid Mr. fly4apuckguy, I'll take Mr. Chooch, and in my opinion, Mr. fly4apuckguy makes your side look a lot worse than Mr. Chooch does for the "Non-Gretzky" camp. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 06:35:10
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
I'm just going out on a limb here, but are you guys all American?
Because to question my values (and I am Canadian) in regards to hockey is wrong. I don't criticize your religious beliefs.
Yes, it is "un-Canadian" to not participate in hockey events when asked, and no, I don't expect you to understand that. I don't understand a lot of things your country does either.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz
Andyhack and myself are Canadian. Hockey is not Canada's religion by the way. Though it may be yours.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 22:33:50
quote:
[i] It's just a game!
BLASPHEMY!
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 22:32:43
I'm just going out on a limb here, but are you guys all American?
Because to question my values (and I am Canadian) in regards to hockey is wrong. I don't criticize your religious beliefs.
Yes, it is "un-Canadian" to not participate in hockey events when asked, and no, I don't expect you to understand that. I don't understand a lot of things your country does either.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 13:33:02
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
I love my family but if Steve Yzerman wanted me to play for Canada in the World Championships for a couple of weeks, I'd give them a hug and be out the damn door in a second.
Well you spend the year round with your family (I'm guessing), and aren't travelling across the continent to play games. Plus, you're not a professional hockey player. You've never played in an international tourney so of course it would seem much more exciting to do so to you because you'd get to play with the pros and it'd be a first-time experience. Bourque played tons of NHL games and knows what it's all like. It's not new to him, the thrill of novelty isn't there in his case. Plus he doesn't see his family as often because of travelling. So there's a difference in your eagerness to play for Canada and his.
And guys, geez. It's not like he's dodging military service. It's just a game! Just because he declines a few doesn't make him guilty of treason or "un-Canadian" or something. Sakic didn't play for Canada in the WC this year, is he a traitor too? |
| BigShow |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 07:00:33
I'm not sure what the school schedule is like in Boston, but here kids aren't back in school until the Labour Day weekend. Which would put that tourney and training camp covering half of his kids' summer vacation.
Who knows, maybe his kids were in year round classes, where they get 3 weeks off every 3 months instead of a big summer vacation. And that happened to overlap when his kid were off.
Maybe his kid has a big tournament of his own. Maybe he promised one of them something. Simple fact of the matter is we don't kow, and we have no reason or right to know.
Who are you to be judging a great man, because you think he could have been greater? Would you have preferred he went and had his heart and mind elsewhere? You realize that at that point he had been playingthis game for close to 20 years as a way of life.. perhaps some years he needed to make sure he was recharged, and emotionally ready for the regular season, his job, that he gets paid for, that he has contractually and ethically bound himself to be as ready as possible for?
When you are living out of a suitcase from late September until potentially the end of June i would seriously consider having some down time too!
This is not a call to duty, where there is some choice to 'do what is right', to 'help those who can't help themselves'. It isn't like he was jumping from the military before deployment.
I can't believe anyone would question Bourque because of this. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 06:10:48
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
quote:
Yeah, well you also said in another post that you've lost relationships because of your fanaticism. It's not surprising you don't quite get the family thing. No offense.
I always get a kick out of people who say something offensive and then say "no offense".
Well, I do take offense. I "get the family thing", because in the end, they understand me, and I am the best dad a kid could want (I have 4 - all well-adjusted). I just happen to have a hockey addiction. Better than drugs or gambling.
The "lost relationships" thing was for comedic effect. Sorry if you missed that one. I often write/say things that sound funny to some, odd to others. My sense of humor is multi-layered, much like bs contained in your post.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz
Happy to entertain! And if you haven't noticed, I will say things to get a rise out of people and get them fired up as it usually gets the conversation going. Hence the disclaimer "no offense".
Personally I think you put too much weight in international competition. It's a game, not a war. If he chose not to participate it is entirely his decision and he shouldn't be faulted for it. Do you hold it against Lemieux for not playing in the Olympics when he was retired for a few years. He said it wouldn't have been fair to the active and younger guys if he played. He would have been the best player on the ice but he didn't play. To knock Bourque for choosing to be with his family above playing in a game is indicative of a world where values are out of whack.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 23:57:35
quote:
Yeah, well you also said in another post that you've lost relationships because of your fanaticism. It's not surprising you don't quite get the family thing. No offense.
I always get a kick out of people who say something offensive and then say "no offense".
Well, I do take offense. I "get the family thing", because in the end, they understand me, and I am the best dad a kid could want (I have 4 - all well-adjusted). I just happen to have a hockey addiction. Better than drugs or gambling.
The "lost relationships" thing was for comedic effect. Sorry if you missed that one. I often write/say things that sound funny to some, odd to others. My sense of humor is multi-layered, much like bs contained in your post.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 23:33:11
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
I never said Ray Bourque is unpopular in Canada because of his refusal to play for Canada in certain events (you missed a couple of World Championships he was invited to and declined, but I digress)...
I said it "hurt" his popularity.
How do I know? I don't like him because of it. That's one.
I guess I am correct again.
Seriously, I know that there are more than a few people out there who were disappointed with his decision not to play in the World Cup, Olympics and several World Championships. (I believe Don Cherry said something to the affect of, "He should be ashamed of himself" when it happened in 1996.
I believe that he made these decsions in part because he is French Canadien, and there is a lesser degree of loyalty to Canada than if he were from, say, Alberta.
Let's get off the "family man" wagon for a second. Lots of NHLers have families. Most do, in fact. Does that mean they dislike their families more than Bourque does? Please. I love my family but if Steve Yzerman wanted me to play for Canada in the World Championships for a couple of weeks, I'd give them a hug and be out the damn door in a second.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz
Yeah, well you also said in another post that you've lost relationships because of your fanaticism. It's not surprising you don't quite get the family thing. No offense.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 22:37:41
Yes I meant 2002, but I stand corrected. You are right, he retired in 2001, I believe.
In regards to underestimating the intelligence of people on this board, no, I don't think I'm underestimating anything.
That sounds harsh, but there are hockey fans, and then there are hockey fans. Yes, some guys know a bit about hockey and can talk about the game, but that does not make them Liam Maguire. Not that I am Liam Maguire when it comes to encyclopedic knowledge...
But when you read enough "Gretzky sucked" and "Crosby is a loser" posts, you know where you stand.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 22:23:51
True, your point was that it "hurt" his popularity. I maybe could have worded that part a bit better but the question itself still stands the same - should there be a beef or shouldn't there. Of course my opinion on this question is not based on the reason that you mention - that I think other players "dislike" their families more than Bourque did. That line of reasoning would be just as silly as you basing your opinion on the notion that a guy who played 4 times for his country didn't have a sense of loyalty to his country.
Anyway, I just think Bourque had the right to make his family a priority. As simple as that.
Don Cherry - sure, he would say that. I love Don Cherry but that doesn't mean I always agree with him (there are certain other issues too by the way where I definitely WOULD NOT want to be in the same opinion boat as Don Cherry). I still love him though.
As for giving comments right away, I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the people posting here, BUT, next time I'll avoid doing that just in case there is any merit to your point.
p.s. What Olympics did he miss then? Do you mean 2002? He retired before that. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 21:41:07
BTW, the way you set up your question with the comments after creates bias.
It's like asking a question about whether it is okay to steal bread and then writing five paragraphs about how the thief needed it to save his starving family who were left homeless after skinheads burned their house down.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 21:37:20
I never said Ray Bourque is unpopular in Canada because of his refusal to play for Canada in certain events (you missed a couple of World Championships he was invited to and declined, but I digress)...
I said it "hurt" his popularity.
How do I know? I don't like him because of it. That's one.
I guess I am correct again.
Seriously, I know that there are more than a few people out there who were disappointed with his decision not to play in the World Cup, Olympics and several World Championships. (I believe Don Cherry said something to the affect of, "He should be ashamed of himself" when it happened in 1996.
I believe that he made these decsions in part because he is French Canadien, and there is a lesser degree of loyalty to Canada than if he were from, say, Alberta.
Let's get off the "family man" wagon for a second. Lots of NHLers have families. Most do, in fact. Does that mean they dislike their families more than Bourque does? Please. I love my family but if Steve Yzerman wanted me to play for Canada in the World Championships for a couple of weeks, I'd give them a hug and be out the damn door in a second.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 20:47:00
Beans - Even if I bring myself to buy your last edit (which I don't), I'd still say this:
Ray Bourque was, even with this decision and even with whatever World Championship tournaments he also turned down, an excellent ambassador to Canadian hockey serving 3 times for Canada in the '80s and at the '98 Olympics, and generally playing pretty well in those series (including starting the play that led to what I think was the late tying goal in Game 2 in '87, without which there wouldn't have been any Gretzky-Lemieux heroics later on).
Okay, the part in brackets is solely from the Bourque fan in me, I admit!
Time to sleep! Fun battling in the corners with you as always! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 20:19:26
Also, as for travelling with the family, my guess is that he simply wanted to relax at home. There's a huge difference in "quality family time" between the two scenarios.
And I am 777% sure that Ray Bourque is fully aware of the "huge honour" it is to play for your country - and that he was very appreciative of the offer. The fact that, in this situation, he chose his family, should not lead us to believe that he has any less of an understanding of that honour than Gretzky, Messier, etc. It just means that, at certain times, he valued his time with his family more than that honour.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 20:17:39
See, I guess I look at it differently. If it was a tourney in July and it was over seas, I think I have no issue with his choice. The fact that the games were in North America and in a time when it shouldn't have impacted his family life as his kids were more than likely in school already, I think it's a little weak.
As a professional athlete, there are certain responsibilities. I think a guy like Bourque, for his fans and for the game, has to play in a tourney like this. You could look at it in the way that he was saving himself for the Olympics in 98. I look at it in the way that it would be the last time he could play in an international tournament on his home soil.
I know that as a 10 year old kid watching Lemieux score from Gretzky in 87, I was a hockey fan for life. If Gretzky would have stayed home to be with his kids, you are arguing with a basketball fan.
And if you disagree, that's fine. However, as a pro hockey player, I believe that there are things that are part of the responsibility. When you are the best defensemen of your generation and it is the last international tourney you can play on your home soil, and your kids are more than likely in school?? He should have played.
But yet, I would never disagree with a father spending time with his kids.
So, as a father and a man, I honor his choice. As a hockey player, this choice didn't make him a bad player. As an ambassador to the Canadian Game, pretty weak choice.
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 19:41:20
Beans,
I thought about your post for a few seconds actually. Now I will attack.
As we don't actually know for sure his reasons, let's say, hypothetically , that Bourque just wanted to stay home and watch non-stop reruns of the A Team for a few weeks. In that case, I'd personally be a little disappointed in him (and question his taste in TV ) but I wouldn't really let it take much away from everything else that he did in his career, including what he already did for Canada (I can't stress this enough - its not like he never "served time"). I also wouldn't let it affect my views on the character of a guy who did one of the nicest things a hockey player has ever done for another player - ask Phil Esposito, a very pro-Canadian guy, what he thinks about Ray Bourque.
Now, replace the A Team scenario with wanting to spend time with his wife and his kids. And we don't even know if that was it - who knows what may or may not have been going on with his family.
And I know the counter-argument - Gretzky and others had families, but they didn't hesitate to go. Fine, that's their personal choice and we shouldn't criticize them for it even if one of their kids desperately needed their daddy's help with their math homework for those three weeks.
My guess, by the way, is that Bourque calculated into his decision that he would have a chance again to "play for his country" in the '98 Olympics two years later.
Anyway, I just don't think, given his right to put his family first, and given all the things we know about the guy, and finally, given his past "service to the country" , that there is any justifiable beef here.
Edit - Beans - I know you said you are taking nothing away from him as a hockey player - and fly4apuckguy said something similar - so what we are really talking about is simply should we have a beef against him as a guy. I say not only no, but just the opposite. This story is yet another example of him being a really good guy.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 18:58:38
quote:
But to think of how many millions of Canadian Kids grow up dreaming to play for Team Canada and he snubs it for what??? I don't like his decision in this case.
Perhaps when you have a family with cherished little children of your own one day you may understand.
Ever thought about how much he wouldn't have seen his kids through the regular season playing hockey? It's not an insignificant amount.
"If you're travelling in a vehicle at the speed of light and you turn your lights on, do they do anything?" - Steven Wright |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 18:25:49
Bourque staying home is kinda weak to me in this specific situation.
Before you attack, think about this for a second.
1) The Tourney ran from August 29 to September 14. Wouldn't his kids be in school for most of that time anyway? Even consider a training camp for team Canada for what a week?? 10 days??? Please.
2) Every single game that Canada would have had to play was in North America(Vancouver, Montreal, Philladelphia, New York, or Ottawa). It's not like the travel would have been that bad to bring his family if he wanted.
3) The season starting in early October, so he could have used it as a part of his training camp for that year.
4) He was 36 and played another 6 seasons in the league after that. It's not like he was hurt or so old that he couldn't do it.
To play in that tourney, which was what used to be the Canada Cup should have been a huge honor. But is guess it wasn't enough. I personally think that it is kinda weak considering the situation around this tourney.
Taking nothing away from Ray Bourque, who I would say is one of the top three defensemen of all time and one of my favorites growing up. But to think of how many millions of Canadian Kids grow up dreaming to play for Team Canada and he snubs it for what??? I don't like his decision in this case. |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 15:52:09
OK, consider me the neutral party here. It depends on why he was not answering the call. If it was because he wanted to spend time with his family, then I don't see anything wrong with that. Heck, Joe Sakic and several other guys aren't going to the Worlds to play for Canada internationally and no one is questioning THEIR patriotism. Just because they don't represent their country in an international hockey competition doesn't mean they're traitors or something. Now, just why he wouldn't want to play in these hockey tournaments I don't know, especially since he can spend time at home over the off-season; if I had the chance to play internationally I'd take it in a heartbeat. However, as exciting and important as hockey is to Canadians (and Americans!), one would have to agree that your family comes before sport. If family is the reason he declined, that seems OK. If there was some other reason, I'd have to know what it is first before saying anything. |
|
|
