| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
 Posted - 04/25/2007 : 21:46:25
|
Poll Question:
Fly4apuckguy raised this again in another thread. I've stated my opinion on it in another thread as well but since it was brought up again...
Is this hit dirty, clean, or marginal but blown out of proportion? Please explain you conclusion.
Woops, forgot the link. You have to listen to Cherry rant for awhile the hit is at the end of the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pmY1HGlrqA
"Go chase headlights!"
|
|
Edited by - willus3 on 04/26/2007 06:33:35
|
|
|
Guest4462
( )
|
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 00:22:22
|
| Hey Willus, what hit? |
 |
|
|
Saku Steen
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1102 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 03:29:11
|
Maybe hook up a link because I dont know which one hit your talking about.
I've figured it out, the guys gotta play like girls! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 07:30:14
|
Here you go Willus, from the President of the Gretzky Club:
What makes the hit questionable is not the hit but the location on the ice where the hit took place. In open ice, that is a great clean hit. But two feet off the boards makes it boarding. I still don't think the hit was dirty in intent, but it was a 2 minute penalty. |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 07:52:37
|
I searched the internet, and all my hockey books and I can not find any stats to back me up on this one so I will just give you my opinion...
Any time you go to hit a player, and you can see the number plain as day on the back of his jersey, and you make any contact at all with his back, then it is a hit from behind, and that player should be in the box...
As seen on the video Suter could see his number "99" plain as day, and he makes contact on his back, therefore he should be in the box...What makes it worse is it is a hit into the boards...
 OUCH
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 09:28:35
|
I disagree that it was a hit from behind. Suter may have been able to see Gretzky's 99 but if you look at the position of his feet and Suters feet, they are parallel. Gretzky had his shoulder down toward the boards. His back was twisted slightly and when he was hit that's probably what caused the injury.
This kind of hit occurs quite regularly in games. It's a marginal boarding call at worst. It wasn't even that hard a hit!!
It's tragic that he was hurt but it was certainly blown out of proportion.
"Go chase headlights!" |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2007 : 11:58:25
|
| I completely agree with Cherry - Clear cross-check right in the back. This is where the beginning of Gretzky's lower back problems started. Suter always had a little dirtiness in him. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2007 : 14:42:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
I completely agree with Cherry - Clear cross-check right in the back. This is where the beginning of Gretzky's lower back problems started. Suter always had a little dirtiness in him.
It's one of the least offensive cross checks i've seen. It looks like more of a cross check on the second angle but still, that's fairly routine for the NHL.
Suter was definitely a dirty SOB. And it seems he got worse later in his career. It's too bad because otherwise I like his defensive abilities.
It's actually funny how many different ways people are seeing the hit as dirty. One says boarding, one says hit from behind, one says crosscheck....
Possibly people are reaching on this...
"Go chase headlights!" |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2007 : 14:52:25
|
quote:
[It's actually funny how many different ways people are seeing the hit as dirty. One says boarding, one says hit from behind, one says crosscheck....
It's not strange. It was cross-checking. It was boarding. (hit from behind into the board *is* boarding btw).
It was hard enough to give Wayne a permanent back injury.
I wouldnt say this is happens 'regularly' in the NHL, but I agree that this is not an isolated incident. What makes Suter's hit a bit worse is that cross-check to the lower back which is worse than just a hit into the boards.
I dont know why there is an attempt to make nothing out of something. :) |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2007 : 16:18:41
|
| It was definitely boarding. But I would only call it boarderline hitting from behind. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2007 : 16:32:04
|
If there were a fourth category called, "A little dirty but also a little blown out of proportion too", I'd vote for that. But a little dirty is a bit like being a little pregnant so I think I am going to have to vote "dirty" on this one. Willus, if we agreed all the time, the world would be an awfully boring place! 
|
|
|
|
GOWINGS19
Rookie
USA
232 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2007 : 19:40:52
|
definitely looked like gretzky was gonna end up in the seats on that one...or at least his face would have been a bit disorganized
You find that you have peace of mind and can enjoy yourself, get more sleep, and rest when you know that it was a one hundred percent effort that you gave - win or lose. -Gordie Howe |
|
|
|
PENSFAN8771
Rookie
USA
114 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2007 : 20:29:55
|
| I don't understand how one can argue that the hit was not from behind. All contact was made to Gretzky's back. He couldn't see it coming. He was in the danger zone. This is how careers are ended. Higher levels of hockey need to begin paying more attention to this kind of hit. How far do these hits need to go before they will be properly punished? Does an NHL star need to break his neck, die, what is it? Does a little 2 minute penalty serve as a meaningful deterent? I don't think so. I think it deserved a suspension, not because it was Gretzky, but because it was cheap. What message does this send to kids learning to hit? This is just one of many examples of this type of hit. I believe in protecting all players. This means encouraging clean, strong hits and demanding accountability for cheap shots. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2007 : 19:40:18
|
So watching the Sabres - Rangers game and I notice Avery hit Numinen. It was very similar to the Gretzky hit, far more from behind, and there was no call. And that's in today's NHL. 
"Go chase headlights!" |
Edited by - willus3 on 05/01/2007 19:41:34 |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 21:26:21
|
Anyone who says this wasn't a dirty hit needs to get their sanity checked. It was clearly dirty. Possibly legal at the time, but definitely dirty (this was before checking from behind was enforced).
For those of you who don't think it was all that bad, pretend it was not Gretzky and it was not Suter. Let's pretend it was your son getting hit by a guy on another team.
If you still think you'd be okay with that hit, you are not only insane, but you also hate your kids.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 22:43:32
|
So let me get this straight. Basically, you are saying if we agree with you, then we are sane. But if we disagree with you, even if it is only a matter of degrees, then we are insane. I got that, right?
Hmmm. Interesting world you live in there fly4apuckguy.
Edit - man, I am not with it - I got it wrong, didn't I? We are insane AND we hate our kids. Ok. Good night. |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/03/2007 22:46:17 |
|
|
|
Guest5221
( )
|
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 10:41:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
So let me get this straight. Basically, you are saying if we agree with you, then we are sane. But if we disagree with you, even if it is only a matter of degrees, then we are insane. I got that, right?
Hmmm. Interesting world you live in there fly4apuckguy.
Edit - man, I am not with it - I got it wrong, didn't I? We are insane AND we hate our kids. Ok. Good night.
That wasnt even a medium hit; Gretzky was known as a diver and faker and whiner. He should have come back sooner from that hit. He wasnt in shape weighing 160 pounds and didnt work out enough. He didnt take hockey seriously and spent his time on $$. |
|
|
|
Guest4462
( )
|
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 10:52:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5221
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
So let me get this straight. Basically, you are saying if we agree with you, then we are sane. But if we disagree with you, even if it is only a matter of degrees, then we are insane. I got that, right?
Hmmm. Interesting world you live in there fly4apuckguy.
Edit - man, I am not with it - I got it wrong, didn't I? We are insane AND we hate our kids. Ok. Good night.
That wasnt even a medium hit; Gretzky was known as a diver and faker and whiner. He should have come back sooner from that hit. He wasnt in shape weighing 160 pounds and didnt work out enough. He didnt take hockey seriously and spent his time on $$.
You are absolutely right. He should have taken that hit like a man, and after that sand kicking in the face incident, he should have teamed up with Charles Atlas and come back 247 lbs and kicked the crap out of Suter, stomped on his head, and spit on his remains. |
|
|
|
GOWINGS19
Rookie
USA
232 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 21:35:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5221
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
So let me get this straight. Basically, you are saying if we agree with you, then we are sane. But if we disagree with you, even if it is only a matter of degrees, then we are insane. I got that, right?
Hmmm. Interesting world you live in there fly4apuckguy.
Edit - man, I am not with it - I got it wrong, didn't I? We are insane AND we hate our kids. Ok. Good night.
That wasnt even a medium hit; Gretzky was known as a diver and faker and whiner. He should have come back sooner from that hit. He wasnt in shape weighing 160 pounds and didnt work out enough. He didnt take hockey seriously and spent his time on $$.
You are absolutely right. He should have taken that hit like a man, and after that sand kicking in the face incident, he should have teamed up with Charles Atlas and come back 247 lbs and kicked the crap out of Suter, stomped on his head, and spit on his remains.
he got his face driven into the boards...what the hell were you guys watching?
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 22:03:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
So let me get this straight. Basically, you are saying if we agree with you, then we are sane. But if we disagree with you, even if it is only a matter of degrees, then we are insane. I got that, right?
Hmmm. Interesting world you live in there fly4apuckguy.
Edit - man, I am not with it - I got it wrong, didn't I? We are insane AND we hate our kids. Ok. Good night.
Now you got it straight, yep.
Dirty hit. Very dirty. Like I said, if someone did that to you or your kid, you wouldn't be talking about "degrees" like there is some way to justify a hit from behind. If you can rationailze that hit, then you can rationalize anything.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 22:17:54
|
Cherry said it himself,
"Suter back-stabbed Gretzky" and "He was never the same after that".
100% brutal, no degrees, no maybes, no "from the side" bs. Just plain cheap. I wish Semenko had been on the ice with Team Canada just for that shift. Suter would still be eating with a straw.
Guest 5221 is pretty smart.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 06:41:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
I wish Semenko had been on the ice with Team Canada just for that shift. Suter would still be eating with a straw.
Yes it's too bad his bodyguard couldn't watch his back there. Sure is a good thing he had him in the NHL though. Imagine what he would have been able to do without protection. Boy would that have been something to see.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Guest9911
( )
|
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 09:44:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
I wish Semenko had been on the ice with Team Canada just for that shift. Suter would still be eating with a straw.
Yes it's too bad his bodyguard couldn't watch his back there. Sure is a good thing he had him in the NHL though. Imagine what he would have been able to do without protection. Boy would that have been something to see.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
While I agree that Gretzky did have Semenko and McSorely riding shotgun for a large portion of his career, we must also concede that Gretzky played much of hi s career without much protection at all, particularly in the instigator rule era. And he held up just fine, for the most part. Just ask Wendel Clark and Joel Otto or Denis Potvin how easy it was to hit Wayne Gretzky. They all said something to the effect of it being like trying to hit confetti.
The only reason Suter hit Gretzky in the 91 Canada Cup is because Gretzky put himself in a bad position. This is something that Gretzky almost never did, with or without protection. Yes, it was a dirty hit, but dirty or not, Gretzky rarely found himself that vulnerable. On the replay you can see Gretzky miraculously avoided being hit by the first guy. He had very little time to dodge the second hit....which is why, I think, he found himself in the danger zone to that extreme. He usually thinks at least two or three steps ahead. This time he only thouight one step, and it cost him.
In conclusion, there were two forces that came together which cost Gretzky that back injury -- one was Gretzky's mistake; the other was Suter's dirtyness, both proving to be a lethal combination in the post 30s Gretzky era. Must have cost him about 250 to 400 points and an easy shot at breaking 3000 regular season points. |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 09:59:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9911
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
I wish Semenko had been on the ice with Team Canada just for that shift. Suter would still be eating with a straw.
Yes it's too bad his bodyguard couldn't watch his back there. Sure is a good thing he had him in the NHL though. Imagine what he would have been able to do without protection. Boy would that have been something to see.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
While I agree that Gretzky did have Semenko and McSorely riding shotgun for a large portion of his career, we must also concede that Gretzky played much of hi s career without much protection at all, particularly in the instigator rule era. And he held up just fine, for the most part. Just ask Wendel Clark and Joel Otto or Denis Potvin how easy it was to hit Wayne Gretzky. They all said something to the effect of it being like trying to hit confetti.
The only reason Suter hit Gretzky in the 91 Canada Cup is because Gretzky put himself in a bad position. This is something that Gretzky almost never did, with or without protection. Yes, it was a dirty hit, but dirty or not, Gretzky rarely found himself that vulnerable. On the replay you can see Gretzky miraculously avoided being hit by the first guy. He had very little time to dodge the second hit....which is why, I think, he found himself in the danger zone to that extreme. He usually thinks at least two or three steps ahead. This time he only thouight one step, and it cost him.
In conclusion, there were two forces that came together which cost Gretzky that back injury -- one was Gretzky's mistake; the other was Suter's dirtyness, both proving to be a lethal combination in the post 30s Gretzky era. Must have cost him about 250 to 400 points and an easy shot at breaking 3000 regular season points.
Excellent post - I can agree with all of that.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 07:41:11
|
fly4apuckguy, I'll try to address the reasons behind your comment.
First off, again, I think the hit was dirty. But would I call it one of the dirtiest hits I have ever seen in the NHL? No. I think, to a certain extent, a defenceman in Suter's position has to take the man in those circumstances. Now I agree, there are ways to take the man, and his can be classified as dirty. But when I compare it to some hits where the guys clearly didn't even have to touch the other player in the circumstances, and clearly were trying to severely injure the other player, I put this one on a slightly lower scale of "evilness". That is basically all I was saying.
As for "hating ones kids", look, I think we are all basically good people here. One's views on a topic should not be classified in a way like that in my opinion, even on a fun message board where we will likely never meet. And as for the comment itself, if it were my kid, I actually would sincerely hope that I would indeed have the grace and dignity of some parents of NHL players who have suffered the ultimate loss, and still found a way to be objective and understand all the factors that go into a given situation (I think you may know who I am alluding to). I don't think those parents hated their kid just because they had a forgiving and reasonable perspective on what happened to him at the hands of another NHL player. |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/12/2007 14:52:38 |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 08:24:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
As for "hating ones kids", look, I think we are all basically good people here. One's views on a topic should not be classified in a way like that in my opinion, even on a fun message board where we will likely never meet. And as for the comment itself, if it were my kid, I actually would sincerely hope that I would indeed have the grace indignity of some parents of NHL players who have suffered the ultimate loss, and still found a way to be objective and understand all the factors that go into a given situation (I think you may know who I am alluding to). I don't think those parents hated their kid just because they had a forgiving and reasonable perspective on what happened to him at the hands of another NHL player.
With all due respect, you are way over-analyzing the "hate your kids" thing, bro. It was a comment on a message board, not a statement made at the U.N.
Please don't compare a car accident between two buddies with smashing a guy from behind into the boards. While that incident was terrible, those two guys were both young, rich, and in a car that they should not have been driving that fast. More over, they were friends!
If I was Dan S's parents, I would be devastated, but also wise enough to look at the whole situation, and realize that these young men (p articularly Dany) made a bad mistake. But a mistake and an attempt to harm someone are two different things.
Example - in Regina, when I was a teenager, a guy by the name of Brad Hornung of the Regina Pats was hit from behind by a Moose Jaw Warrior player named Troy Edwards. It broke his neck, wrecked his spine and he has been paralyzed from the neck down ever since. The hit was very similar to the one on Gretzky.
The family sued everybody - Troy Edwards, the Warriors, the WHL, the guy selling popcorn - everybody. They were terribly angry, and rightly so.
Interestingly, I actually played hockey against Troy Edwards a couple of years after that hit. He was still a dirty player. In fact, he hit a teammate of mine from behind into the boards (he did not get injured, thankfully).
I am sorry if I have extra anger for guys who hit from behind, but it's the dirtiest play in hockey. When it was done to my hockey hero, Gretzky, I have never seen it as anything but cheap, dirty, gutless, and disgusting.
If someone did that to my kid, my first response wouldn't be in the stands explaining to everyone that my now-paralyzed son should learn to forgive the guy who greased him, and that I plan on reaching a level of "grace and understanding". To think a parent would is ridiculous.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
|
|
|
Guest5221
( )
|
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 08:31:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
As for "hating ones kids", look, I think we are all basically good people here. One's views on a topic should not be classified in a way like that in my opinion, even on a fun message board where we will likely never meet. And as for the comment itself, if it were my kid, I actually would sincerely hope that I would indeed have the grace indignity of some parents of NHL players who have suffered the ultimate loss, and still found a way to be objective and understand all the factors that go into a given situation (I think you may know who I am alluding to). I don't think those parents hated their kid just because they had a forgiving and reasonable perspective on what happened to him at the hands of another NHL player.
With all due respect, you are way over-analyzing the "hate your kids" thing, bro. It was a comment on a message board, not a statement made at the U.N.
Please don't compare a car accident between two buddies with smashing a guy from behind into the boards. While that incident was terrible, those two guys were both young, rich, and in a car that they should not have been driving that fast. More over, they were friends!
If I was Dan S's parents, I would be devastated, but also wise enough to look at the whole situation, and realize that these young men (p articularly Dany) made a bad mistake. But a mistake and an attempt to harm someone are two different things.
Example - in Regina, when I was a teenager, a guy by the name of Brad Hornung of the Regina Pats was hit from behind by a Moose Jaw Warrior player named Troy Edwards. It broke his neck, wrecked his spine and he has been paralyzed from the neck down ever since. The hit was very similar to the one on Gretzky.
The family sued everybody - Troy Edwards, the Warriors, the WHL, the guy selling popcorn - everybody. They were terribly angry, and rightly so.
Interestingly, I actually played hockey against Troy Edwards a couple of years after that hit. He was still a dirty player. In fact, he hit a teammate of mine from behind into the boards (he did not get injured, thankfully).
I am sorry if I have extra anger for guys who hit from behind, but it's the dirtiest play in hockey. When it was done to my hockey hero, Gretzky, I have never seen it as anything but cheap, dirty, gutless, and disgusting.
If someone did that to my kid, my first response wouldn't be in the stands explaining to everyone that my now-paralyzed son should learn to forgive the guy who greased him, and that I plan on reaching a level of "grace and understanding". To think a parent would is ridiculous.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz
Gretzky exaggerated the injury - the way he started skating back to the bench and then gave an oscar winning performance. He's a better actress than Janet. He had a slight bruise.First time in his career.
When Mario had his wrist broken or sternum bruised because there was no unwritten rule for him and he played in the East, they always said he could have come back sooner/ he wasnt all that hurt. |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 09:44:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
If there were a fourth category called, "A little dirty but also a little blown out of proportion too", I'd vote for that. But a little dirty is a bit like being a little pregnant so I think I am going to have to vote "dirty" on this one. Willus, if we agreed all the time, the world would be an awfully boring place!
I concur 100% : it is a little dirty, therefore it IS dirty. Not the most egregious hit ever but wrong is wrong. |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 10:02:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5221
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
As for "hating ones kids", look, I think we are all basically good people here. One's views on a topic should not be classified in a way like that in my opinion, even on a fun message board where we will likely never meet. And as for the comment itself, if it were my kid, I actually would sincerely hope that I would indeed have the grace indignity of some parents of NHL players who have suffered the ultimate loss, and still found a way to be objective and understand all the factors that go into a given situation (I think you may know who I am alluding to). I don't think those parents hated their kid just because they had a forgiving and reasonable perspective on what happened to him at the hands of another NHL player.
With all due respect, you are way over-analyzing the "hate your kids" thing, bro. It was a comment on a message board, not a statement made at the U.N.
Please don't compare a car accident between two buddies with smashing a guy from behind into the boards. While that incident was terrible, those two guys were both young, rich, and in a car that they should not have been driving that fast. More over, they were friends!
If I was Dan S's parents, I would be devastated, but also wise enough to look at the whole situation, and realize that these young men (p articularly Dany) made a bad mistake. But a mistake and an attempt to harm someone are two different things.
Example - in Regina, when I was a teenager, a guy by the name of Brad Hornung of the Regina Pats was hit from behind by a Moose Jaw Warrior player named Troy Edwards. It broke his neck, wrecked his spine and he has been paralyzed from the neck down ever since. The hit was very similar to the one on Gretzky.
The family sued everybody - Troy Edwards, the Warriors, the WHL, the guy selling popcorn - everybody. They were terribly angry, and rightly so.
Interestingly, I actually played hockey against Troy Edwards a couple of years after that hit. He was still a dirty player. In fact, he hit a teammate of mine from behind into the boards (he did not get injured, thankfully).
I am sorry if I have extra anger for guys who hit from behind, but it's the dirtiest play in hockey. When it was done to my hockey hero, Gretzky, I have never seen it as anything but cheap, dirty, gutless, and disgusting.
If someone did that to my kid, my first response wouldn't be in the stands explaining to everyone that my now-paralyzed son should learn to forgive the guy who greased him, and that I plan on reaching a level of "grace and understanding". To think a parent would is ridiculous.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz
Gretzky exaggerated the injury - the way he started skating back to the bench and then gave an oscar winning performance. He's a better actress than Janet. He had a slight bruise.First time in his career.
When Mario had his wrist broken or sternum bruised because there was no unwritten rule for him and he played in the East, they always said he could have come back sooner/ he wasnt all that hurt.
Now that is just ridiculous. In fact, your whoile post was ridiculous. You have zero cred with me now.
I will agree that Janet wasn't much of an actress, though.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 10:16:33
|
| i couldn't agree more with fly - that was non-sensical. |
|
|
|
Guest5221
( )
|
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 11:40:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
i couldn't agree more with fly - that was non-sensical.
You ever see Flamingo Kid? |
|
|
|
Guest9911
( )
|
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 12:36:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5221
Gretzky exaggerated the injury - the way he started skating back to the bench and then gave an oscar winning performance. He's a better actress than Janet. He had a slight bruise.First time in his career.
When Mario had his wrist broken or sternum bruised because there was no unwritten rule for him and he played in the East, they always said he could have come back sooner/ he wasnt all that hurt.
Your point about Janet's acting notwithstanding, you couldn't be more off base. Gretzky was out for almost the entire season with an inherniated disc in his back. Doctors told him he may not even be able to be physically active again, let alone play hockey. There were times when the pain was so bad, he couldn't walk. They credit that injury back to the hit on Suter. And I don't think it's a coincidence that Gretzky was never again the superstar he was after that hit. He went from scoring 160+ point seasons with LA to scoring 120+ seasons following the Suter hit. I shudder to think how many points Gretzky would have accumulated over his career if he hadn't have been hit by Suter. 3200? 3300 regular season points? I guess we'll never know.
Many experts have concluded that Gretzky was actually lucky to have gotten away with as little injury as he did. Doctors have said that if it were't for Gretzky's superiour reflexes, he wouldn't have been able to protect himself with his arms at the last second and avoid possible paralysis. |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 13:27:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9911
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5221
Gretzky exaggerated the injury - the way he started skating back to the bench and then gave an oscar winning performance. He's a better actress than Janet. He had a slight bruise.First time in his career.
When Mario had his wrist broken or sternum bruised because there was no unwritten rule for him and he played in the East, they always said he could have come back sooner/ he wasnt all that hurt.
Your point about Janet's acting notwithstanding, you couldn't be more off base. Gretzky was out for almost the entire season with an inherniated disc in his back. Doctors told him he may not even be able to be physically active again, let alone play hockey. There were times when the pain was so bad, he couldn't walk. They credit that injury back to the hit on Suter. And I don't think it's a coincidence that Gretzky was never again the superstar he was after that hit. He went from scoring 160+ point seasons with LA to scoring 120+ seasons following the Suter hit. I shudder to think how many points Gretzky would have accumulated over his career if he hadn't have been hit by Suter. 3200? 3300 regular season points? I guess we'll never know.
Many experts have concluded that Gretzky was actually lucky to have gotten away with as little injury as he did. Doctors have said that if it were't for Gretzky's superiour reflexes, he wouldn't have been able to protect himself with his arms at the last second and avoid possible paralysis.
Unreal. Finally another voice of reason. Thanks!
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 14:48:20
|
Man, one quick post before we went out for the day sure got a lot of milage with you guys!
Guest 5221 is not me by the way. It's Chooch. I disagree with his comments.
Flyguy - as for my comments about parents also trying to look at even their own tragedies in a reasonable way being "ridiculous", I can only say at this point that we have to agree to disagree. I meant that I would hope to be able to do so in time by the way (of course at first it would be very difficult to do so). Also, I never said anything about preaching things to others. I do acknowledge that what happened in a car crash is very different, but the general concept of trying to be reasonable and think about all factors is the same in my opinion. I never said it would be easy to do so either. Lots of good, right things are not easy.
p.s. If I am overanalyzing your words, quite frankly, with all due respect, it is because I find your way of expressing your opinions rather sad and disgusting. Having said that, I respect your knowledge and passion on hockey and enjoy debating with you even despite your poor manners, lack of balance and total absolute non-flexible way of thinking, so I hope to have more debates with you in the future.
p.s. 2 - curious what your thoughts are on that 1972 thread? Maybe you could answer there if you have some time.
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 15:32:05
|
Also, I just remembered why I analyzed the "hate your kids" comment in the first place. You basically asked me to (in the Bourque thread) when you said something like "you haven't looked at the reason behind my words yet".
Flyguy, maybe you have been told this before, but I think you really like combat and sometimes create ones that aren't even there.
Anyway, to 99pickles who quoted me earlier and said he concurred, thanks big guy. As fly4apuckguy would say, "finally a voice of reason!" |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 23:01:25
|
I don't have poor manners. I have what is commonly called "a sense of humor". Something that appears to be missing from "the clique".
Am I sarcastic? Yes.
Am I ocassionally outrageous? Yes.
Do I enjoy stirring the pot? Yes.
Would I ever call someone sad and disgusting? No.
If you get the chance, boys and girls, andyhack invites you to push his kids headfirst into the boards while he tells those around him he forgives you. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 02:16:56
|
Now now flyguy! Careful. I did not call "you" sad and disgusting. I called the way you expressed your opinions sad and disgusting. There is a huge difference.
Of course I don't invite what you are suggesting in your tagline.
Oh, and you are not the only guy with a sense of humor, flyguy. But the fact is, and this is actually one of my main points since I joined here, SOME of you Gretzky guys are fanaticals on the Gretzky topic. YOU ARE VERY SERIOUS!
p.s. This "clique" thing you have come up with is also silly as I have disagreed with just about everybody on this site a number of times, including Willus on your hit issue by the way. But granted, you don't see me calling Bean's or TC's way of expressing their opinions sad and disgusting. There is a reason for that.
p.s. 2 - And, I know you would never call someone sad and disgusting. You prefer the phrase, "friggin donkey".
"You are not only insane, but you also hate your kids" fly4apuckguy |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/13/2007 04:56:20 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 02:35:33
|
flyguy,
By the way - there is a key difference between my tagline and the one you have now created.
The one I created actually comes from your own exact words, and, by your own admission, you meant them.
The one you created is your twisted interpretation of something I was trying to say.
p.s. I'd call a truce with you but I'm not sure what that would do. The thing I am arguing against is your unreasonableness and fanaticism. Does a truce end that? Probably not, right?
Have a good Sunday.
"You are not only insane, but you also hate your kids" fly4apuckguy |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/13/2007 04:58:07 |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 06:09:25
|
Actually, your tagline is not a direct quote. It is a part of a sentence that you have used in such a way that creates false context. In that post, I said if there is someone out there who would be okay with someone else hitting their kids from behind, then they are insane and hate their kids.
Doesn't sound "fanatical" to me, it actually sounds like fair social commentary with a sarcastic twist.
Oh, yeah...I could call my friend a friggin donkey all day and we'd have a good laugh. If I told him he was a sad, disgusting, non-flexible, unreasonable, poor-mannered fanatic (just a few of the things you have called me), we'd have a problem.
You need to look in the mirror if you are looking for the problem, bro. You are border-line obsessed with everything I say. I'm not sure whether I should be flattered or creeped out.
Mario Lemieux on his off-season training habits: "I don't order fries with my club sandwich." |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Is this Gretzky hit dirty? 
