Don Cherry's Controversial remark on "pukes"

1. 60

   Johnjfernandoposted 13 years ago

   So Don made a comment a few days ago about the fact that the deaths of three Nhl players this summer had nothing to do with the fact that they're all enforcers that were also suffering from depression. He also went on to call some of the other Nhl guys 'pukes' who're taking advantage of these deaths to support there own argument on headshots and fights not being a good thing in hockey. After he made these remarks, news outlets reported that he was underfire for them and when asked whether he regretted any of it he said no. Whats your take on this as a fellow hubber as to whether Cherry crossed the line?

   replyreport
2. 61

   americanwriterposted 13 years ago

   Don Cherry's entitled to his opinion and it seems he made an impassioned statement of his beliefs. The puke comment may have been unnecessary but its better than some curse words that are so bad they need to be bleeped! The essence of what he was saying seemed to be there was some finger pointing that fighting led to the suicides of other players and that though he wasn't necessarily saying fighting in hockey was good, it was wrong for people to say that the recent player suicides were tied to fighting. Not being a guy but being a sports fan and appreciative of the power of testosterone to make things interesting I can only say that sports would have less entertainment value if guys like Cherry are censored.  It's his opinion mixed with statements of fact and passion intermingled with enough stuff that someone who feels opposite will disagree and that is what sports commentary is all about!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Johnjfernandoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah. I agree with what you say because Cherry is the 'flambuoyant' personality of commentary and he did admit that he got carried away with the 'pukes' callings. I was really inscenced because you can't just stick it to people who suffer from what they've lost by saying 'tough luck' and 'who  cares.' He did the same things in his days of hockey and the timelines are different in terms how intense hockey has become which is his advantage, really. I just don't feel he had the exclusive right to call them all out as pukes because they're using this whole issue to support there argument. Of course they will because its the only one that is valid to them as legitmate. I don't know if fighting has any connectionsto suicides, but certain aspects of hockey need to be re-evaluated such as headshots. However, I still am a big fan of his and loyal or not, nobody should mock others who face serious injuries.

      replyreport