Tuesday was the writing on the wall, today made it official. The Leafs, having tugged at their fans' heartstrings since the all-star break by showing moderate on-ice competence, have once again shit the bed when it mattered the most and find themselves officially eliminated from playoff contention.
I'm pissed they couldn't beat Boston tonight not even for their own sake, but for Washington's. I want the Capitals in the playoffs so badly! AO deserves it! More to the point, idiots like Damien Cox might actually stop saying he doesn't deserve the Hart because he hasn't led his team to the playoffs. And even more to the point - how awesome would a Penguins/Capitals (ie. Crosby/Ovechkin) series be? Did you say 'really awesome'? I thought you did.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Alright, I watch a lot of hockey and I've seen a lot of things, but this is ridiculous.
The line brawl is nothing particularly new, but what Johnathan Roy does certainly is. Personally, I find fighting in hockey to be ridiculous and appealing to the lowest common denominator to begin with, but the fact is that it remains a "part of the game". That being said, fighting in hockey tends to be governed by the "unwritten rules" - accordingly, you'll generally see the "winner" of a fight stop pummeling his opponent when he gets him to the ground, and maybe he'll give him a nice bum pat at the end.
What runs through your mind when you've been held back by the referees from skating the length of the ice to fight the opposing goaltender, so you wait until they're preoccupied with something else and charge on down to take on a guy leaning against his net with absolutely no desire to fight? Roy pulls Nadeau's helmet off, and Nadeau instantly tries to i) protect the face; and ii) turtle. Nadeau is on the ground, doing everything he can to try and get into a position where his face isn't getting pounded (you can see him try to bring his legs up, but it's more than a little impossible wearing pads) and Roy just keeps going. I understand why the linesman tackles the Chicoutimi player that tries to come in to protect his goaltender, but I almost wish he doesn't...it's awful to watch what Roy is doing. The parting shot he gives Nadeau (he stops punching for a couple seconds, as if thinking about it, and then lays a final one down) makes me want to kick his ass myself all the more. Then you have Roy whooping it up for the crowd like he's some kind of heavyweight champion - dude, you fought a guy whose only goal was to try to curl up into the fetal position as quickly as possible. Some "victory"! The whole thing is just...unbelievable.
There's talk that Patrick Roy (the hall of fame goaltender, also Jonathan's father and coach) had some kind of role in what played out on the ice. While it's certainly true that the elder Roy got into a whole lot of drama while he was a player, I can't ever recall a similar situation that he was involved in. Sure, he fought Oz, Mike Vernon, possibly some others, but those situations really don't compare. We're also talking about a 19 year old kid; sure, his Dad/coach has influence over him, but he also has free will and the ability to think for himself. I mean, if Patrick Roy admits to, or we get video evidence, or testimony from others that he was sitting there yelling something along the lines of "John, you get down there and kick his ass or I will disown you AND kick you off this team", then yeah, he certainly gets some of the responsibility. Otherwise, I'm more than willing to think that Johnathan Roy either lost his mind or did not have one to begin with.
Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame; I'm fairly certain that your 8-7-0 record and 4.22 GAA aren't getting you anywhere fast.
The line brawl is nothing particularly new, but what Johnathan Roy does certainly is. Personally, I find fighting in hockey to be ridiculous and appealing to the lowest common denominator to begin with, but the fact is that it remains a "part of the game". That being said, fighting in hockey tends to be governed by the "unwritten rules" - accordingly, you'll generally see the "winner" of a fight stop pummeling his opponent when he gets him to the ground, and maybe he'll give him a nice bum pat at the end.
What runs through your mind when you've been held back by the referees from skating the length of the ice to fight the opposing goaltender, so you wait until they're preoccupied with something else and charge on down to take on a guy leaning against his net with absolutely no desire to fight? Roy pulls Nadeau's helmet off, and Nadeau instantly tries to i) protect the face; and ii) turtle. Nadeau is on the ground, doing everything he can to try and get into a position where his face isn't getting pounded (you can see him try to bring his legs up, but it's more than a little impossible wearing pads) and Roy just keeps going. I understand why the linesman tackles the Chicoutimi player that tries to come in to protect his goaltender, but I almost wish he doesn't...it's awful to watch what Roy is doing. The parting shot he gives Nadeau (he stops punching for a couple seconds, as if thinking about it, and then lays a final one down) makes me want to kick his ass myself all the more. Then you have Roy whooping it up for the crowd like he's some kind of heavyweight champion - dude, you fought a guy whose only goal was to try to curl up into the fetal position as quickly as possible. Some "victory"! The whole thing is just...unbelievable.
There's talk that Patrick Roy (the hall of fame goaltender, also Jonathan's father and coach) had some kind of role in what played out on the ice. While it's certainly true that the elder Roy got into a whole lot of drama while he was a player, I can't ever recall a similar situation that he was involved in. Sure, he fought Oz, Mike Vernon, possibly some others, but those situations really don't compare. We're also talking about a 19 year old kid; sure, his Dad/coach has influence over him, but he also has free will and the ability to think for himself. I mean, if Patrick Roy admits to, or we get video evidence, or testimony from others that he was sitting there yelling something along the lines of "John, you get down there and kick his ass or I will disown you AND kick you off this team", then yeah, he certainly gets some of the responsibility. Otherwise, I'm more than willing to think that Johnathan Roy either lost his mind or did not have one to begin with.
Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame; I'm fairly certain that your 8-7-0 record and 4.22 GAA aren't getting you anywhere fast.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Backstrom? Or not?
It's probably only me, but I find it incredibly hilarious that, having finally acquired a picture for Nicklas Backstrom (they haven't had one all season), the one the Yahoo! has picked ISN'T EVEN HIM!
Does this look like a blond Swede to you?
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/3982
Does this look like a blond Swede to you?
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/3982
Friday, March 14, 2008
Chris Pronger is a Dirty Mofo
Man, this is just disgusting:
http://coveredinoil.blogspot.com/2008/03/its-fun-to-compare-things.html
It's been up in a bunch of blogs this morning. Chris Simon (in the first video on CoI) was suspended 30 games for his stomp. Chris Pronger (in the second video) is not facing disciplinary action.
WTF?
I am so sick of the NHL and their continued laxity when star players make highly questionable plays. It's not like Pronger is any kind of saint:
* 1995 - suspended 4 games for hitting Pat Peake in the throat with his stick
* 1998 - suspended 4 games for swinging his stick at Jeremy Roenick's head
* 2001 - suspended 1 game for leaving bench to instigate a fight with Kelly Buchburger
* 2002 - suspended 2 games for cross-checking Brendan Morrow in the face
* 2004 - suspended 1 game for kicking Ville Niemenen
* 2007 - suspended 1 playoff game for boarding Tomas Holmstrom with elbows to the head
* 2007 - suspended 1 playoff game for blow to head of Dean McAmmond
It's not even the guy's first time kicking a guy. I mean, for fuck's sake. I'm not even an Oilers fan, so it's not like this is "oh, he deserted my team" residual anger. I just hate how easy it is for the NHL to "throw the book" at guys like McSorely (who was on his way out anyways) or Simon, but superstars get away with murder.
*shakes head*
http://coveredinoil.blogspot.com/2008/03/i
It's been up in a bunch of blogs this morning. Chris Simon (in the first video on CoI) was suspended 30 games for his stomp. Chris Pronger (in the second video) is not facing disciplinary action.
WTF?
I am so sick of the NHL and their continued laxity when star players make highly questionable plays. It's not like Pronger is any kind of saint:
* 1995 - suspended 4 games for hitting Pat Peake in the throat with his stick
* 1998 - suspended 4 games for swinging his stick at Jeremy Roenick's head
* 2001 - suspended 1 game for leaving bench to instigate a fight with Kelly Buchburger
* 2002 - suspended 2 games for cross-checking Brendan Morrow in the face
* 2004 - suspended 1 game for kicking Ville Niemenen
* 2007 - suspended 1 playoff game for boarding Tomas Holmstrom with elbows to the head
* 2007 - suspended 1 playoff game for blow to head of Dean McAmmond
It's not even the guy's first time kicking a guy. I mean, for fuck's sake. I'm not even an Oilers fan, so it's not like this is "oh, he deserted my team" residual anger. I just hate how easy it is for the NHL to "throw the book" at guys like McSorely (who was on his way out anyways) or Simon, but superstars get away with murder.
*shakes head*
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Defining Crosby and Problems Therein
I am struggling with the theoretical foundation to the paper I'm currently working on. Y'see, Jay and I are writing a paper on Crosby and shifting masculine tendencies, which is based (in part) on a paper I wrote last year trying to conceptualize how Crosby is utilized as a masculine icon.
Essentially, in my undergrad thesis, I argued that Crosby upheld hegemonic masculine tendencies. I now no longer really believe this. Further, I think that the manner in which he is mediated demonstrates that appropriate masculine presentation within professional hockey (and subsequently, at the regional level - being Canada) is changing, and that there isn't necessarily one ideal.
This is the part that I'm struggling with the most. With hegemonic masculinity, it's argued that, while there are multiple masculinities, and while no person may actually be an exemplar of all the tendencies of hegemonic masculinity, there remains one ideal, to which all others are secondary. They may be complicit, they may challenge it, but they are all lower than it.
I would argue that Crosby is a masculine icon. I would also argue that his talent gives him a certain degree of currency to not be a "traditional" hockey player - like Gretz and others before him, his talent is more important than his ability to stand up for himself (ie. people do his fighting for him, and Laraque is in Pittsburgh, essentially, to protect him). At the same time, I don't think that it's his talent that allows him to be a pretty boy, to have his own fashion line, etc. I also don't think that this represents some kind of shift in terms of what is acceptable hegemonically, because there are certain people (*cough* Cherry), who go off on Crosby for this kind of stuff.
What I would argue is that hegemonic masculinity has pretty much been thrown on its ass recently. There is no consensus with Crosby - depending on who you ask, he's God, he's a pussy, he's a fag, he's masculine, he's tough, he's charitable, he's sensitive...he's a real man, he's a boy, he's a girly boy...and the list goes on. I would argue that we don't really know where to place Crosby, because there is no consensus as to what is appropriately masculine. Hegemonic masculinity adopts traits from other masculinities, yes, but I don't think there's one type of man that we could all agree everyone is trying to be. For many, the "Iron Man" is antiquated, and for others, the "Sensitive Man" is still a fag. There are certain qualities that I think cross over in a lot of masculinities, but I don't think that we can typify a single idealized male icon anymore.
Of course, this is making it challenging for me to decide how to outline the paper. I'm about to email Jay inquiring if I can, essentially, argue that while there are certain traits that I would argue remain hegemonic, there is no complete, consensus ideal.
Brain hurt.
Essentially, in my undergrad thesis, I argued that Crosby upheld hegemonic masculine tendencies. I now no longer really believe this. Further, I think that the manner in which he is mediated demonstrates that appropriate masculine presentation within professional hockey (and subsequently, at the regional level - being Canada) is changing, and that there isn't necessarily one ideal.
This is the part that I'm struggling with the most. With hegemonic masculinity, it's argued that, while there are multiple masculinities, and while no person may actually be an exemplar of all the tendencies of hegemonic masculinity, there remains one ideal, to which all others are secondary. They may be complicit, they may challenge it, but they are all lower than it.
I would argue that Crosby is a masculine icon. I would also argue that his talent gives him a certain degree of currency to not be a "traditional" hockey player - like Gretz and others before him, his talent is more important than his ability to stand up for himself (ie. people do his fighting for him, and Laraque is in Pittsburgh, essentially, to protect him). At the same time, I don't think that it's his talent that allows him to be a pretty boy, to have his own fashion line, etc. I also don't think that this represents some kind of shift in terms of what is acceptable hegemonically, because there are certain people (*cough* Cherry), who go off on Crosby for this kind of stuff.
What I would argue is that hegemonic masculinity has pretty much been thrown on its ass recently. There is no consensus with Crosby - depending on who you ask, he's God, he's a pussy, he's a fag, he's masculine, he's tough, he's charitable, he's sensitive...he's a real man, he's a boy, he's a girly boy...and the list goes on. I would argue that we don't really know where to place Crosby, because there is no consensus as to what is appropriately masculine. Hegemonic masculinity adopts traits from other masculinities, yes, but I don't think there's one type of man that we could all agree everyone is trying to be. For many, the "Iron Man" is antiquated, and for others, the "Sensitive Man" is still a fag. There are certain qualities that I think cross over in a lot of masculinities, but I don't think that we can typify a single idealized male icon anymore.
Of course, this is making it challenging for me to decide how to outline the paper. I'm about to email Jay inquiring if I can, essentially, argue that while there are certain traits that I would argue remain hegemonic, there is no complete, consensus ideal.
Brain hurt.
Monday, March 3, 2008
More Crosby Merch!
Sidney Crosby growth chart
Tim Horton's produced a Sidney Crosby growth chart? Man, that would go awesome with my life size "Game On!" Crosby (and my Tim Horton's calendar of Crosby wistfully looking at his old Timbits jersey). How did I not even know about that one?
I'm currently sending out emails soliciting interviews/information that may lead to interviews for my thesis. In so doing, I have discovered that Downtown Partners (the agency who did the Gatorade ads) has shut down. This kind of puts a kink in some of my plans.
Tim Horton's produced a Sidney Crosby growth chart? Man, that would go awesome with my life size "Game On!" Crosby (and my Tim Horton's calendar of Crosby wistfully looking at his old Timbits jersey). How did I not even know about that one?
I'm currently sending out emails soliciting interviews/information that may lead to interviews for my thesis. In so doing, I have discovered that Downtown Partners (the agency who did the Gatorade ads) has shut down. This kind of puts a kink in some of my plans.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
