Embarrassed to be a Flyer fan

[radoran]

Make no mistake, I don't like the jumping either, but if I'm being honest the 70s and 80s were way dirtier than the game now. Not even debatable to me. And if you think it was all a bunch of fights between guys who had gentlemen's agreements to fight nice, I think your a little naïve.

 

And then we had the 90s and the 00s and now the 10s

 

if you think the league is the same as it was then, you just might be a little naïve.

[fanaticV3.0]

oh, agree totally.  there was no code at all back then.  hair pulling, eye gouging, beating on unconcious players, it was really and actually barbaric.  but.  there still wasn't a ton of guys going after other players who weren't involved to that point.  bernie parent played several years with the flyers, wasn't a billy smith/ron hextall kind of goalie getting in the middle of scrums, and not once did someone grab him and start beating on him.  most everything that happened was in-game and two (or more) guys pushing and shoving and escalating and finally boiling over and punching.  it wasn't gentlemen's agreements (those are new, too, along with "the code"), it came from actual anger, from the play on the ice turning into the fighting on the ice.  emery and holtby was none of that.

 

I'll probably catch **** from some people for this, but I think the game was a sideshow back then. All the struggles the game has had, bad stereotypes, criticisms of violence exist because of that era.

[fanaticV3.0]

And then we had the 90s and the 00s and now the 10s

 

if you think the league is the same as it was then, you just might be a little naïve.

 

Um, ok?

Edited November 4, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[radoran]

Um, ok?

 

I'm just not getting the relevance of the 70s and 80s to last Friday night.

[fanaticV3.0]

Yeah, i think maybe it just comes down to viewing the whole thing in context of already being thoroughly disgusted with the whole team.  At least for me, anyway (not trying to speak for anyone else).  Maybe in different context I would have viewed it with the same applause as the 70s or 80s people.

 

Ha, not the answer I was expecting, but ok. I thought you were going to say it was pretty dirty back then, yeah.

 

I don't think I would have liked the game in the 70s to be honest. I love a nice big hit, a good fight, or even a line brawl. I'm all for some good clean violence. But whenever I watch footage of the 70s through parts of the 80s, I think that is why hockey is a niche sport. I think that is why people who say things like "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out". I think that era was bad for the game. It was too much of a sideshow for me.

[fanaticV3.0]

I'm just not getting the relevance of the 70s and 80s to last Friday night.

 

There was more violence then and it was beloved. I don't like what Emery did, but worse has happened in the past, but back then it was viewed as a good thing. I see a lot of people are really unhappy with Emery. I am too. I think the guy is a dirtbag. But the level of anger is a little disproportionate coming from people who cheered for someone like Clarke for example.

[radoran]

There was more violence then and it was beloved. I don't like what Emery did, but worse has happened in the past, but back then it was viewed as a good thing. I see a lot of people are really unhappy with Emery. I am too. I think the guy is a dirtbag. But the level of anger is a little disproportionate coming from people who cheered for someone like Clarke for example.

 

Well, like who? I was 6 and 7 when they won the Cup. I was 12 when they had their undefeated run. 17 When they went up against Edmonton.

 

I view a lot of things differently today than I did when I was 12 or even 17.

 

And the game is entirely different than it was then. Barely even comparable. Most people not in an executive office at Broad & Pattison know this

 

Are there any posters on here old enough to have "rooted for Clarke" and are upset by the Emery thing? @blocker?

[ruxpin]

Ha, not the answer I was expecting, but ok. I thought you were going to say it was pretty dirty back then, yeah.

 

I don't think I would have liked the game in the 70s to be honest. I love a nice big hit, a good fight, or even a line brawl. I'm all for some good clean violence. But whenever I watch footage of the 70s through parts of the 80s, I think that is why hockey is a niche sport. I think that is why people who say things like "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out". I think that era was bad for the game. It was too much of a sideshow for me.

 

 

I think looking back, I have to agree.   Not sure you'll follow this (because I'm not sure I'm going to explain this well), but DURING it, as a hockey fan it was really a hoot.   I mean, unbridled violence.  I used to absolutely love seeing Detroit or Toronto on the schedule.  Not because of the hockey (both Detroit and Toronto utterly sucked then), but because you were certain it was going to be a blood bath.

 

But even as someone who lived through it and LOVED it at the time, I definitely appreciate your view on it.  Because when *I* see footage I look at it and the game is slower, the stuff that "worked" on offense just wouldn't now, and, of course, the violence makes me wonder why I was so excited about it (a couple of parades as a 6 and 7 year old helps with that). 

 

Then again, i also occasionally see re-runs of well-loved television shows from back then and kind of wonder exactly the same thing. 

 

The trite, dismissive answer is:  "you had to have actually lived through it."   It's true on a certain level, actually.  But I still agree largely with your post.

[ruxpin]

Well, like who? I was 6 and 7 when they won the Cup. I was 12 when they had their undefeated run. 17 When they went up against Edmonton.

 

I view a lot of things differently today than I did when I was 12 or even 17.

 

And the game is entirely different than it was then. Barely even comparable. Most people not in an executive office at Broad & Pattison know this

 

Are there any posters on here old enough to have "rooted for Clarke" and are upset by the Emery thing? @blocker?

 

 

I don't know.  You and I are the same age, but I can understand what fanatic is getting at.

 

I  am actually one of the folks he's referring to--although I don't think deliberately.   I enjoyed the hell out of the stuff in the 70s, at the time.  And now I'm yelling "embarrassed!" about Emery.   I can see the connection between the goonery Emery did on Friday and the goonery of the 70s and the ensuing question "if you liked THAT, why don't you like THIS?"

 

You and I both referenced we were 6 and 7.  I think that's a big part of it for both of us.   What was fun as an elementary school kid looks a bit different as an adult.

 

But for a lot of folks on here, it may be a missed comparison because they weren't even around yet in the 70s.   And an adult then to adult now comparison is difficult, too, because of the fact that if they were in their 40s then....well, there's not a lot of that age set on here.

[ruxpin]

I think that is why hockey is a niche sport. I think that is why people who say things like "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out". I think that era was bad for the game. It was too much of a sideshow for me.

 

I should have mentioned:   yeah, I think you're right and i think it's something hockey is still trying to live down.

[aziz]

I'll probably catch **** from some people for this, but I think the game was a sideshow back then. All the struggles the game has had, bad stereotypes, criticisms of violence exist because of that era.

 

definitely.  i mean, the bruins as a team going into the stands and beating on fans with shoes??  total sideshow.  

 

it was glorious in its way, though.  

 

still, things have changed, and the goal posts have moved (and the glass raised to unclimbable heights).  the game is trying to take itself seriously now, and that means some stuff just can't happen anymore, what is acceptable now is different than back then.  now, if you take a handful of someone's hair and punch them repeatedly in the face long after they were rendered unconscious, you'll sit for a while, likely without pay.  back then, a standing ovation and maybe two minutes for "roughing".  we've even invented the idea of a "code" to allow those things to happen, but in a well defined and controlled box, the complete anarchy contained, packaged and resold.  

[mojo1917]

@ruxpin @radoran

 

my favorite threads are the ones where you argue with yourself. 

[Podein25]

But the level of anger is a little disproportionate coming from people who cheered for someone like Clarke for example.

 

 

I suppose it is, but also let's be clear about something: Clarke was a dirty SOB, but he wouldn't let the game get 7-0 before he did something about it. He'd make sure the boys were up 5-1 and then take the violence to those that had it coming to them. Big difference IMO.

[Polaris922]

@flyerrod

Exactly! Carlysle took a chance thinking it would deescalate and look what happened there!

@fanaticV3.0

That's good to hear that the general fan base isn't supporting it. Sadly, media outlets elsewhere are reporting more of the opposite.

@mojo1917

Agree to disagree is fine, but maybe Oates remembered the Kessel/Scott incident as clearly as the rest of us.

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin @radoran

my favorite threads are the ones where you argue with yourself.

LOL. Mine too. Which thread was that? I'd like to go back and read it.

[mojo1917]

@Polaris922

Who in the Caps Flyers altercation represents "Scott" and who represents "Kessel" ?

I don't know that I think John Scott's game is similar to Wayne Simmond's.

So even if Oates puts his first line on the ice, there wasn't a "Scott" type player represented on the line that Chief sent out.

I don't see the situations as being similar enough to make the Buffalo/Toronto incident analogous.

[ruxpin]

@Polaris922

Who in the Caps Flyers altercation represents "Scott" and who represents "Kessel" ?

I don't know that I think John Scott's game is similar to Wayne Simmond's.

So even if Oates puts his first line on the ice, there wasn't a "Scott" type player represented on the line that Chief sent out.

I don't see the situations as being similar enough to make the Buffalo/Toronto incident analogous.

Maybe..just maybe. The "Oates learned from Kessel/Scott" meant that Oates learned to NOT put a Kessel type on the ice after scoring in a blow out game. Since it was in Philly and Oates had to send out first, he erred on the side of caution since Berube wouldn't have sent his people out yet. There doesn't necessarily have to be an actual Scott equivalent in this scenario for Polaris' reference to work.

[mojo1917]

@ruxpin @Polaris922

I do see what you're saying here.

I even said I wasn't keen on Emery's behavior, I think I was reacting to all of the hand wringing and wanted to point out that there were willing dance partners for the "disgraceful Flyers".

Volpatti isn't going to be in any skills competitions , see what I'm sayin'

[Polaris922]

@ruxpin @Polaris922

I do see what you're saying here.

I even said I wasn't keen on Emery's behavior, I think I was reacting to all of the hand wringing and wanted to point out that there were willing dance partners for the "disgraceful Flyers".

Volpatti isn't going to be in any skills competitions , see what I'm sayin'

Yeah but if I'm Oates, I'm not sending Backstrom out to play and hope Berube the ex-goon himself doesn't send Rinaldo to break his nose. Rinaldo may be little league, but he could still clean up Backstrom.

[flyerrod]

Yeah but if I'm Oates, I'm not sending Backstrom out to play and hope Berube the ex-goon himself doesn't send Rinaldo to break his nose. Rinaldo may be little league, but he could still clean up Backstrom.

 

Well he could always bring back Semin to give some fighting lessons............

[The Quigster]

 Fighting/violence sells tickets or the NHL/NHLPA would they have eliminated it.Clarkie,Homer,Lukko,Snider,Hexie, the whole league likes it (Rinaldo/Davie Hoyda),these kinda guys have/had minimalhockey skills,but could light a powder keg any time having you and me on the edge of our seat every time they were on the ice.Oates had his big boys on the ice(too bad for Downie&Vinnie),Chief left his big guys in the press box(Oh Well). Emery decided to pick up the slack for the damage the Flyers suffered and beat on the Cap's goalie.I'm sure Hexie appreciated it. I think anything that would fire these up is OK! Emery looked pretty in the Devils game,hope he is in net tonight.

[fanaticV3.0]

Well, like who? I was 6 and 7 when they won the Cup. I was 12 when they had their undefeated run. 17 When they went up against Edmonton.

 

I view a lot of things differently today than I did when I was 12 or even 17.

 

And the game is entirely different than it was then. Barely even comparable. Most people not in an executive office at Broad & Pattison know this

 

Are there any posters on here old enough to have "rooted for Clarke" and are upset by the Emery thing? @blocker?

 

I'd say there's a chance most of the fanbase who was old enough to have cheered for both. I don't see many complaints about the Bullies era. They were worshipped and still are by many. But Emery is this huge deal? I gotta call shenanigans on that a little bit. I think if one of the team's bigger names did it, this isn't even an issue, and people might even be defending him more.

[fanaticV3.0]

I think looking back, I have to agree.   Not sure you'll follow this (because I'm not sure I'm going to explain this well), but DURING it, as a hockey fan it was really a hoot.   I mean, unbridled violence.  I used to absolutely love seeing Detroit or Toronto on the schedule.  Not because of the hockey (both Detroit and Toronto utterly sucked then), but because you were certain it was going to be a blood bath.

 

But even as someone who lived through it and LOVED it at the time, I definitely appreciate your view on it.  Because when *I* see footage I look at it and the game is slower, the stuff that "worked" on offense just wouldn't now, and, of course, the violence makes me wonder why I was so excited about it (a couple of parades as a 6 and 7 year old helps with that). 

 

Then again, i also occasionally see re-runs of well-loved television shows from back then and kind of wonder exactly the same thing. 

 

The trite, dismissive answer is:  "you had to have actually lived through it."   It's true on a certain level, actually.  But I still agree largely with your post.

 

I comprehend what you are saying, but I don't understand it. This is me you're talking about here. I could be the only person in a room who thinks a certain way and I just don't care. I'm not wired to go with the crowd. If I agree with the crowd, that's fine. That's happened plenty of times. But I can't agreed with something just because other people do too, I have to actually believe it. But I do know what you are saying.

 

I can also understand what you are saying about being a kid. That does change things a bit. Your perspective is different.

[fanaticV3.0]

I should have mentioned:   yeah, I think you're right and i think it's something hockey is still trying to live down.

 

Which is kind of bizarre considering how less violent it is now than it is then. If Emery did what he did in the 70s and part of the 80s, I don't think we're even having this discussion.

[fanaticV3.0]

definitely.  i mean, the bruins as a team going into the stands and beating on fans with shoes??  total sideshow.  

 

it was glorious in its way, though.  

 

still, things have changed, and the goal posts have moved (and the glass raised to unclimbable heights).  the game is trying to take itself seriously now, and that means some stuff just can't happen anymore, what is acceptable now is different than back then.  now, if you take a handful of someone's hair and punch them repeatedly in the face long after they were rendered unconscious, you'll sit for a while, likely without pay.  back then, a standing ovation and maybe two minutes for "roughing".  we've even invented the idea of a "code" to allow those things to happen, but in a well defined and controlled box, the complete anarchy contained, packaged and resold.  

 

When I think of what Emery did, I think it's a pretty classless move. If you skate down the ice to kick someone's ass - with no real merit at all - and ask them if they wanna go and they say no, that's it. End of story. You don't beat on a guy who declines. There's no need for it. If the guys accepts, that's a totally different issues, but that wasn't the case here. It's even more obnoxious that he bragged about it in post-game interviews.

 

But when I think of what he did vs. the kind of stuff you're mentioning? It just seems kind of silly to me people are this upset about Emery, especially considering the organization made it's name for itself on that kind of behavior in the past.