The Case Against Cherry
I don't disagree with mild-mannered Globe reporter by day/hockey blogging Superman by night James Mirtle all too often. His site is a welcome oasis of solid reporting and sober analysis. So I was surprised to see his recent post approvingly linking to Mike Milbury (of all people) and echoing Mad Mike's call for Don Cherry to enter the Hockey Hall of Fame in the builders category. Cherry's about as qualified for that as Bronson Pinchot is for a Lifetime Achievement Oscar.
First, a few caveats. While I find Grape's shtick painful and tiresome, I would have no problem with him being honoured in the media wing (note to self - taking a look at who else is in that wing is something I need to revisit). And second, it's probably too late to call for only the best to be honoured by an institution that has inducted Bernie Federko and Clark Gillies as players and HAROLD BALLARD as a builder.
Still, the push for Cherry's induction (also referenced today at Puck Daddy) is the opportunity to assess Cherry's legacy. While some of the commenters touched on some of the specifics of Don's case, I think a lot of the major points remain unaddressed.
And a cursory look at Cherry's record demonstrates that that honouring someone who has unfailingly been on the wrong side of just about every one of his pet hockey issues is ridiculous.
Let's take a look at three major areas.
Fighting: This is a tough one for me. As I was saying to Kim last night, while I hate the culture of fighting in hockey and think it's pretty absurd that North American hockey is the only sport that allows the game to stop while dudes pound each other upside the head, I genuinely enjoy watching a good hockey fight, and prefer cheering a team that can fight to one that can't. (Can you imagine if other sports employed goons? If Man United had some big lumbering centre back whose only purpose was to foul guys and occasionally jersey Stevie Gerrard and pummel him? Or if baseball teams had a 6'5, 250 lb relievers whose job was to come into blowouts, bean a guy and kick the crap out of him? And if managers responded by sending up their 6'6. 280 lb pinch hitter to charge the mound?)
Thankfully, this isn't about what I think. Despite Cherry's impassioned soliloquies to the art of throwing knuckles, rule changes at every level over the past 30 years have all been in the direction of reducing or removing fighting.
As a coach, Cherry's promotion of "Come to the Rockies fights and watch a hockey game break out' was the last sad blast of the Slap Shot NHL of the 1970s. Embarrassing.
Equipment: Wrong again. Cherry has always questioned the manliness and sexuality of guys who wear visors, even though full shields are SOP in junior hockey. As a Maple Leafs fan who saw the promising career of Bryan Berard cut down by a preventable injury, this one really frosts me.
Europeans: The big one. No development in the last 30 years has improved the quality of NHL hockey more than the arrival of top European players in the NHL. Lidstrom, Ovechkin, Mogilny, Bure, Kurri, Sundin, Forsberg, Hasek, Tlusty,,,, the list of Europeans who have lit up the imaginations of hockey fans is a long and illustrious one.
At every step of the way, Cherry has called Europeans soft, spineless, dirty, poor leaders, unable to step it up in the clutch or the trenches of the Stanley Cup playoffs, bad in the dressing room, selfish, you name it. Many European players made sacrifices and faced a tough road on and off the ice to follow their NHL dream. And every step of the way, Cherry tried to make it tougher.
I suppose Cherry deserves some credit for putting his outdated theories of hockey to the test. If you remember, he bought the Mississauga Ice Dogs and refused to stock the team with any European players. In the Dogs first three seasons, they racked up sixteen wins. Total.
Interestingly, when Cherry decided to coach the team himself, he reneged on his no-Europeans policy. The team won eleven games.
At just about every turn, Don Cherry has been wrong about the direction of the game, preferring outdated shibboleths to innovation and progress. How can you honour a builder who would, given his choice not build the game but tear it down and return it to the Eddie Shore era? Cherry's done about as much to build good hockey as his buddy Mike Milbury did to build a dynasty on Long Island.
Would baseball honour a commentator who was best known for opposing batting helmets, supporting beanballs and benchclearing brawls, and baiting Hispanic players at every opportunity?
Don Cherry has made a very, very, good living out of the game (and Canadian taxpayers). That's more than he deserves. Enough already.
First, a few caveats. While I find Grape's shtick painful and tiresome, I would have no problem with him being honoured in the media wing (note to self - taking a look at who else is in that wing is something I need to revisit). And second, it's probably too late to call for only the best to be honoured by an institution that has inducted Bernie Federko and Clark Gillies as players and HAROLD BALLARD as a builder.
Still, the push for Cherry's induction (also referenced today at Puck Daddy) is the opportunity to assess Cherry's legacy. While some of the commenters touched on some of the specifics of Don's case, I think a lot of the major points remain unaddressed.
And a cursory look at Cherry's record demonstrates that that honouring someone who has unfailingly been on the wrong side of just about every one of his pet hockey issues is ridiculous.
Let's take a look at three major areas.
Fighting: This is a tough one for me. As I was saying to Kim last night, while I hate the culture of fighting in hockey and think it's pretty absurd that North American hockey is the only sport that allows the game to stop while dudes pound each other upside the head, I genuinely enjoy watching a good hockey fight, and prefer cheering a team that can fight to one that can't. (Can you imagine if other sports employed goons? If Man United had some big lumbering centre back whose only purpose was to foul guys and occasionally jersey Stevie Gerrard and pummel him? Or if baseball teams had a 6'5, 250 lb relievers whose job was to come into blowouts, bean a guy and kick the crap out of him? And if managers responded by sending up their 6'6. 280 lb pinch hitter to charge the mound?)
Thankfully, this isn't about what I think. Despite Cherry's impassioned soliloquies to the art of throwing knuckles, rule changes at every level over the past 30 years have all been in the direction of reducing or removing fighting.
As a coach, Cherry's promotion of "Come to the Rockies fights and watch a hockey game break out' was the last sad blast of the Slap Shot NHL of the 1970s. Embarrassing.
Equipment: Wrong again. Cherry has always questioned the manliness and sexuality of guys who wear visors, even though full shields are SOP in junior hockey. As a Maple Leafs fan who saw the promising career of Bryan Berard cut down by a preventable injury, this one really frosts me.
Europeans: The big one. No development in the last 30 years has improved the quality of NHL hockey more than the arrival of top European players in the NHL. Lidstrom, Ovechkin, Mogilny, Bure, Kurri, Sundin, Forsberg, Hasek, Tlusty,,,, the list of Europeans who have lit up the imaginations of hockey fans is a long and illustrious one.
At every step of the way, Cherry has called Europeans soft, spineless, dirty, poor leaders, unable to step it up in the clutch or the trenches of the Stanley Cup playoffs, bad in the dressing room, selfish, you name it. Many European players made sacrifices and faced a tough road on and off the ice to follow their NHL dream. And every step of the way, Cherry tried to make it tougher.
I suppose Cherry deserves some credit for putting his outdated theories of hockey to the test. If you remember, he bought the Mississauga Ice Dogs and refused to stock the team with any European players. In the Dogs first three seasons, they racked up sixteen wins. Total.
Interestingly, when Cherry decided to coach the team himself, he reneged on his no-Europeans policy. The team won eleven games.
At just about every turn, Don Cherry has been wrong about the direction of the game, preferring outdated shibboleths to innovation and progress. How can you honour a builder who would, given his choice not build the game but tear it down and return it to the Eddie Shore era? Cherry's done about as much to build good hockey as his buddy Mike Milbury did to build a dynasty on Long Island.
Would baseball honour a commentator who was best known for opposing batting helmets, supporting beanballs and benchclearing brawls, and baiting Hispanic players at every opportunity?
Don Cherry has made a very, very, good living out of the game (and Canadian taxpayers). That's more than he deserves. Enough already.
Somewhere, Ace Bailey thanks you for this excellent post.
this might be the most insightful blog posting i have read this year. really nice work.
Ridiculous post. Stevie G is scouse. He'd dummy any thick headed centre half that the scum could employ.
About the actual post, I think that there is definitely an easy case to make for his induction as a member of the media. As a builder, it's just a little bit tougher.
In the equipment section you glossed over his advocacy for softer equipment which actually worked for elbow pads and hopefully will work for shoulder pads soon. Unfortunately, his crusade for no-touch icing isn't working but God love him he doesn't give up. He has at least tried to use his pulpit to push some good ideas.
The anti-visor stance, the European hate, and the irrational vendetta against Ron Wilson are all big strikes against him but HAROLD BALLARD IS IN THE HALL AS A BUILDER! so who the hell knows what will happen.
And fuck me Don! It's Antropov and Ponikarovsky not Andropoff and Pokahoffsky. Continue to call Jagr Yammy though.
Tlusty? WTH?
Ray - who has provided hockey voyeurs with more thrills than Jiri NSFW?
And PPP, your points are well taken (well, except about Gerrard - I hate ManUre as much as you but I'm pretty sure Vidic would eat Stevie Me for lunch). The no-touch icing has been a positive message, and I didn't know about the elbow pads.
Still, that's a long way off from deserving induction as a builder. And if Ballard is gonna be the standard, the HHOF is gonna have to buy a big chunk of downtown TO to induct all those more deserving.
Thanks for making a case that's built on more than 'he's been on TV forever and he loves hockey.'
Thank you for this. Don Cherry is a loud mouth bigot. You forgot one crucial aspect of that, though: his hatred of quebecois players.
How this guy can be considered a patriot is beyond me. He's despicable, and it's a disgrace that Cdn taxpayers have paid his salary to spout his nonsense all these years.
Oh, and what about his (& the apparently the entire CBC's) unending grudge against a guy who will surely go down as one of the all-time greats, Sidney Crosby? ...which started when he was 16, for crying out loud!
Cherry's a bigot and a bully. He's got the mouth and gait of an old man who's still bitter after all these years that he never made it in the bigs himself. Just pathetic.