Sometimes, it’s all about the video.
When my kids were younger, the most appealing part of playing golf was riding in (and nagging me to let them drive) the golf cart.
“No”, I’d say. “Golf carts are dangerous—they’re like real cars!” I didn’t really even believe it as the words left my lips, but being the over cautious parent that I was, this was one little white lie told to protect my “young’ns”!
However, after watching this video, I have changed my mind.
Sit back and enjoy the following idiots try to kill themselves with a Cushman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtHe_ns7cHk
Thanks to good friend and golfing buddy Rick Cooper for forwarding this video. He may have been the one doing a little ill-advised roof surfing in the segment you just saw.
As the weather gets colder and the dark settles in earlier, there may be no more golf in New England this year. As such, the countdown to Spring begins….now.
Is winter over yet?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Penn State: Shame Is The Price For Protection
The tragedy of the Penn State situation is multi-faceted—and it appears that much more has yet to be revealed. The scandal-hungry media is eating it up, essentially “piling on” to the football program and the university in order to get ratings. This is red meat---and although complete exposure is warranted, I’m disturbed that at least some media networks appear to be enjoying the controversy a tad too much.
Sorting out the bad guys from those who merely “acted badly” is a scenario that clearly has been weighted against the latter because of their celebrity. Joe Paterno is being mentioned more than the alleged rapist, as if he committed the crimes in question.
Here is a PBS report on the scandal from a couple of days ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc7TwZq0bpU
Lost in all of this is the perspective of the victims—and of the one perpetrator (that we know of so far at least) who committed these horrible crimes. Coach Sandusky’s disgusting and morally bankrupt behavior has been overshadowed by the inaction of those who were in a position to have him arrested.
At the top of the list is Mike McQuery, who unbelievably did not ACT to stop the rape of a young boy in the Penn State showers. The world is asking how is it possible that a 6’4” former quarterback would simply walk away and merely report to his father and Coach Paterno the details of what he saw.
What we see from that point on--- crystallizes the central issue in this scandal, namely that institutional reputations are more important than the truth—or protecting children.
McQuery didn’t act more forcefully because of WHO he encountered in the shower. A coach with a solid reputation and perhaps a mentor to him as a player with the Nittany Lions. His quandary over how to respond was what propelled him to seek out Coach Paterno and his own father for advice—instead of acting to stop a rape from continuing. He placed his own future, the reputation of his coach and the university ahead of the safety of a little boy.
Paterno, while being applauded by some as having “done the right thing by going through channels”—also valued the school’s reputation—and that of one of his coaches—ahead of the safety of children. Up the chain, from the Athletic Director to the University President—it seems a decision was made to cover up, to conceal, to sweep under the rug this horrible crime and not bring Sandusky to justice.
The reasons for this appear abundantly clear. To expose the scandal and have Sandusky arrested immediately would:
1) taint the school’s reputation
2) diminish the football program’s reputation
3) hurt recruiting
4) hurt enrollment
5) open the school to legal exposure.
Is it not ironic that the failure of Penn State officials to take swift and decisive action has resulted in a scandal whose magnitude dwarfs the original scenario and makes points 1-5 far more injurious?
This is a scandal on steroids.
The full measure of punishment has yet to be meted out—and the lawsuits will cost Penn State hundreds of millions of dollars on the conservative side. The football program will be in shambles for years as those committing verbally to PSU have already started to withdraw their names. Who can possibly coach this team? A complete housecleaning is certain.
Criminal charges of perjury against University officials will cause enrollment to plummet and the once proud student body will go to Pitt or the University of Pennsylvania or ANYWHERE else. The damage is profound—and even if more dirt is not uncovered in the probe (an unlikely event), it could be decades before the school will recover.
“Joe Pa” didn’t do enough. He knows this and must be ashamed of his lack of leadership---sadly ironic when he has been praised for nearly 50 years as a inspirational leader who always put proper conduct ahead of winning.
“Victory With Honor” was the battle cry as the faithful gathered in Happy Valley on autumn Saturday afternoons.
The valley is no longer happy—and there is no longer any honor.
If you would like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Sorting out the bad guys from those who merely “acted badly” is a scenario that clearly has been weighted against the latter because of their celebrity. Joe Paterno is being mentioned more than the alleged rapist, as if he committed the crimes in question.
Here is a PBS report on the scandal from a couple of days ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc7TwZq0bpU
Lost in all of this is the perspective of the victims—and of the one perpetrator (that we know of so far at least) who committed these horrible crimes. Coach Sandusky’s disgusting and morally bankrupt behavior has been overshadowed by the inaction of those who were in a position to have him arrested.
At the top of the list is Mike McQuery, who unbelievably did not ACT to stop the rape of a young boy in the Penn State showers. The world is asking how is it possible that a 6’4” former quarterback would simply walk away and merely report to his father and Coach Paterno the details of what he saw.
What we see from that point on--- crystallizes the central issue in this scandal, namely that institutional reputations are more important than the truth—or protecting children.
McQuery didn’t act more forcefully because of WHO he encountered in the shower. A coach with a solid reputation and perhaps a mentor to him as a player with the Nittany Lions. His quandary over how to respond was what propelled him to seek out Coach Paterno and his own father for advice—instead of acting to stop a rape from continuing. He placed his own future, the reputation of his coach and the university ahead of the safety of a little boy.
Paterno, while being applauded by some as having “done the right thing by going through channels”—also valued the school’s reputation—and that of one of his coaches—ahead of the safety of children. Up the chain, from the Athletic Director to the University President—it seems a decision was made to cover up, to conceal, to sweep under the rug this horrible crime and not bring Sandusky to justice.
The reasons for this appear abundantly clear. To expose the scandal and have Sandusky arrested immediately would:
1) taint the school’s reputation
2) diminish the football program’s reputation
3) hurt recruiting
4) hurt enrollment
5) open the school to legal exposure.
Is it not ironic that the failure of Penn State officials to take swift and decisive action has resulted in a scandal whose magnitude dwarfs the original scenario and makes points 1-5 far more injurious?
This is a scandal on steroids.
The full measure of punishment has yet to be meted out—and the lawsuits will cost Penn State hundreds of millions of dollars on the conservative side. The football program will be in shambles for years as those committing verbally to PSU have already started to withdraw their names. Who can possibly coach this team? A complete housecleaning is certain.
Criminal charges of perjury against University officials will cause enrollment to plummet and the once proud student body will go to Pitt or the University of Pennsylvania or ANYWHERE else. The damage is profound—and even if more dirt is not uncovered in the probe (an unlikely event), it could be decades before the school will recover.
“Joe Pa” didn’t do enough. He knows this and must be ashamed of his lack of leadership---sadly ironic when he has been praised for nearly 50 years as a inspirational leader who always put proper conduct ahead of winning.
“Victory With Honor” was the battle cry as the faithful gathered in Happy Valley on autumn Saturday afternoons.
The valley is no longer happy—and there is no longer any honor.
If you would like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Texas Toast: Put A Fork in Rick Perry
The most uncomfortable 53 seconds in Presidential debate history last night has effectively ended the stumbling, bumbling campaign of Texas governor Rick Perry.
He’ll continue for awhile, but to rip off Meatloaf’s hit song, “Two Out Of Three IS Bad”. Perry boldly declared that he would eliminate three federal agencies—then couldn’t think of the third one. Especially devastating since the omission was the Energy Department---especially curious coming from the governor whose state is the one of the largest energy producers and whose entire jobs platform revolves around energy.
Oops.
If you haven’t seen a campaign unravel before your eyes yet, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg
“Not ready for prime time” was a label often attached to a man who was said to be weak in the debate forum, but the actual problem is much deeper.
Stripped of campaign slogans and rehearsed lines, it is abundantly clear that Perry is almost incapable of articulating specific policies or explaining complex issues without getting confused. Being a poor debater in my view relates to the repartee where candidates can spar with each other. Being slow on the uptake when challenged or unable to respond appropriately to an attack are the hallmarks of a poor debater.
Perry doesn’t need an opponent or a debate setting to look like an idiot. He can do that all on his own. His fatal flaw is an inability to communicate----a real liability for a job that requires expert communication skills above all else. (see: George W. Bush) That’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that he may just not have the intellectual capacity for the job.
To be fair, everyone has had a “brain freeze”. Who among us has had their train of thought get derailed?. It happens to me multiple times daily—and seems to have increased with age. With an error that is so human—and so common, perhaps we are all being too harsh on Rick Perry. I may be, but, then again, I am not running for President—and politics will expose every Achilles heel.
Mitt Romney’s failed bid in 2008 was the education he needed to look so (comparably) good in 2012’s race. He seems relaxed, has a great command of facts and specifics and has displayed both humor (self deprecating) and deference to his opponents this time around---increasing his stature as “Presidential”—that nebulous quality that no one can define, but all of us can identify when it’s either there—or missing.
In fact, the demeanor and countenance of the Republican prospects is the major factor in their standings—in my opinion.
Here’s how they stack up to me:
Mitt Romney-looks confident and competent, “presidential”
Rick Perry-good-looking, appears “presidential”-- until he opens his mouth. Check him out when the camera is on him while other candidates are speaking. There seems to me to be a mixture of envy and admiration for the way other hopefuls can articulate points that he himself cannot.
Herman Cain-looks confident and speaks well-and plainly-very appealing to the conservative base because Cain has a way of simplifying complex ideas.—his other troubles will sink him, however. His lack of knowledge on the most basic of facts (for instance that China has nukes) will make even staunch Republicans realize that he is not up to the task. He too, is now all but done.
John Huntsman-has the credentials, speaks well and conducts himself in a “presidential” manner---HOWEVER, he has a way of speaking that seems a tad patronizing. His mannerisms bother me and remind me of John Edwards-a bit “holier-than-thou”
Newt Gingrich-Probably the smartest of them all—and will be the first to tell you so. His sneering contempt for the media and combative stance makes for great theatre, but his “intellectual” image—carefully cultivated in the way he dismisses the ideas of those who don’t agree with him—is both arrogant and uncomely for the leader of the free world. He is, at his core, a grouchy old man who missed his shot years ago. His deft avoidance of the $300,000 paid to him by Fannie Mae last night as “advice by me they didn’t take” was just the tip of a corrupt iceberg that would be red meat for the media should he ever rise to the level of frontrunner. There is no one the White House would rather run against than Newt---and Republicans know it. He cannot be the nominee.
Michelle Bachman-definitely smart, but like Cain, has been left short-handed at times when facts are demanded of her. There is a wild-eyed look about her at times that makes her appear a tad crazy. Unfair, but don’t you see it too?
Rick Santorum- not one ounce of “presidential” in him, unfortunately. While he should be a front runner based on experience, conservative positions and his staunch faith, he is not. His ever-present $&^@-eating grin makes him appear more like the 4-H kid whose cow won a blue ribbon at the State Fair than a serious Presidential candidate. Most of his opportunities to speak focus on bragging about his past accomplishments than in framing a vision for the future. His numerous compliments to Newt Gingrich border on hero-worship and makes one wonder whether he secretly thinks Newt is more qualified than himself.
Ron Paul-While he has some very important things to say, his radical views on everything from the economy to the military make him unelectable. I think he was far more effective in the 2008 campaign. This year, he looks like the “Crazy Uncle” that Ross Perot referred to in his failed presidential bid years ago. Not a factor any longer.
So, Republican leaders who don’t like Romney’s conservative credentials—may need to “hold their nose” and make Mitt their standard-bearer.
No one else in the field can weather the storm. Romney has a chance to win—and to Republicans, removing President Obama from the White House is worth putting ANYONE else in there…including the former Governor of Massachusetts.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
He’ll continue for awhile, but to rip off Meatloaf’s hit song, “Two Out Of Three IS Bad”. Perry boldly declared that he would eliminate three federal agencies—then couldn’t think of the third one. Especially devastating since the omission was the Energy Department---especially curious coming from the governor whose state is the one of the largest energy producers and whose entire jobs platform revolves around energy.
Oops.
If you haven’t seen a campaign unravel before your eyes yet, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg
“Not ready for prime time” was a label often attached to a man who was said to be weak in the debate forum, but the actual problem is much deeper.
Stripped of campaign slogans and rehearsed lines, it is abundantly clear that Perry is almost incapable of articulating specific policies or explaining complex issues without getting confused. Being a poor debater in my view relates to the repartee where candidates can spar with each other. Being slow on the uptake when challenged or unable to respond appropriately to an attack are the hallmarks of a poor debater.
Perry doesn’t need an opponent or a debate setting to look like an idiot. He can do that all on his own. His fatal flaw is an inability to communicate----a real liability for a job that requires expert communication skills above all else. (see: George W. Bush) That’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that he may just not have the intellectual capacity for the job.
To be fair, everyone has had a “brain freeze”. Who among us has had their train of thought get derailed?. It happens to me multiple times daily—and seems to have increased with age. With an error that is so human—and so common, perhaps we are all being too harsh on Rick Perry. I may be, but, then again, I am not running for President—and politics will expose every Achilles heel.
Mitt Romney’s failed bid in 2008 was the education he needed to look so (comparably) good in 2012’s race. He seems relaxed, has a great command of facts and specifics and has displayed both humor (self deprecating) and deference to his opponents this time around---increasing his stature as “Presidential”—that nebulous quality that no one can define, but all of us can identify when it’s either there—or missing.
In fact, the demeanor and countenance of the Republican prospects is the major factor in their standings—in my opinion.
Here’s how they stack up to me:
Mitt Romney-looks confident and competent, “presidential”
Rick Perry-good-looking, appears “presidential”-- until he opens his mouth. Check him out when the camera is on him while other candidates are speaking. There seems to me to be a mixture of envy and admiration for the way other hopefuls can articulate points that he himself cannot.
Herman Cain-looks confident and speaks well-and plainly-very appealing to the conservative base because Cain has a way of simplifying complex ideas.—his other troubles will sink him, however. His lack of knowledge on the most basic of facts (for instance that China has nukes) will make even staunch Republicans realize that he is not up to the task. He too, is now all but done.
John Huntsman-has the credentials, speaks well and conducts himself in a “presidential” manner---HOWEVER, he has a way of speaking that seems a tad patronizing. His mannerisms bother me and remind me of John Edwards-a bit “holier-than-thou”
Newt Gingrich-Probably the smartest of them all—and will be the first to tell you so. His sneering contempt for the media and combative stance makes for great theatre, but his “intellectual” image—carefully cultivated in the way he dismisses the ideas of those who don’t agree with him—is both arrogant and uncomely for the leader of the free world. He is, at his core, a grouchy old man who missed his shot years ago. His deft avoidance of the $300,000 paid to him by Fannie Mae last night as “advice by me they didn’t take” was just the tip of a corrupt iceberg that would be red meat for the media should he ever rise to the level of frontrunner. There is no one the White House would rather run against than Newt---and Republicans know it. He cannot be the nominee.
Michelle Bachman-definitely smart, but like Cain, has been left short-handed at times when facts are demanded of her. There is a wild-eyed look about her at times that makes her appear a tad crazy. Unfair, but don’t you see it too?
Rick Santorum- not one ounce of “presidential” in him, unfortunately. While he should be a front runner based on experience, conservative positions and his staunch faith, he is not. His ever-present $&^@-eating grin makes him appear more like the 4-H kid whose cow won a blue ribbon at the State Fair than a serious Presidential candidate. Most of his opportunities to speak focus on bragging about his past accomplishments than in framing a vision for the future. His numerous compliments to Newt Gingrich border on hero-worship and makes one wonder whether he secretly thinks Newt is more qualified than himself.
Ron Paul-While he has some very important things to say, his radical views on everything from the economy to the military make him unelectable. I think he was far more effective in the 2008 campaign. This year, he looks like the “Crazy Uncle” that Ross Perot referred to in his failed presidential bid years ago. Not a factor any longer.
So, Republican leaders who don’t like Romney’s conservative credentials—may need to “hold their nose” and make Mitt their standard-bearer.
No one else in the field can weather the storm. Romney has a chance to win—and to Republicans, removing President Obama from the White House is worth putting ANYONE else in there…including the former Governor of Massachusetts.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
We Gotta Make Things!
Our current unemployment problems are largely due to the exportation of manufacturing jobs overseas.
A simplistic conclusion perhaps, but few will argue that the American manufacturing base is merely a shadow of its former self. Economic theory holds that efficiencies are gained by allowing the least-cost producer to emerge. Prices are lower for consumers and this is good.
Unfortunately, national security doesn’t factor into the equation, but it should.
Higher American wages that produced the great American middle class for several decades provided the earning power for consumption on domestically produced goods and enhanced our standard of living. Labor unions, in their zeal to lift the lowly worker up, did just that---but didn’t stop there. Empowered by their ability to shut factories down with strikes, they saddled American business with wage and benefit packages that greatly increased the cost of production.
American companies reacted by moving their manufacturing overseas. There, lowly paid workers can crank out the same products at a fraction of the cost, even with shipping and handling added in.
The result is not only idle factories and people, but a national vulnerability should hostilities arise in the future.
At the onset of World War II, factories producing consumer goods were quickly retooled to provide the implements of war. Tanks, planes and guns rolled off the assembly lines in a never-ending stream. How equipped would we be today for such a turnaround? How many of our critical components are made elsewhere---and perhaps by people who might be our enemy?
Check out this short video for the Ford Manufacturing Exposition—in 1934—what was “cutting edge” back then is rather ho-hum today, but therein lies a lesson, I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91c7yNB5X3w
Remember that this exposition was held during the Great Depression. Times were much worse than they are today—and yet, investment and optimism for the future fueled the spirits of those who still very much believed in the so-called American Dream.
Just 77 years ago, but think how far we have come! What new innovations exist for the balance of THIS century?
Whatever they are, we need to create conditions that allow us to make those things right here in the good ol’ USA!
If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
A simplistic conclusion perhaps, but few will argue that the American manufacturing base is merely a shadow of its former self. Economic theory holds that efficiencies are gained by allowing the least-cost producer to emerge. Prices are lower for consumers and this is good.
Unfortunately, national security doesn’t factor into the equation, but it should.
Higher American wages that produced the great American middle class for several decades provided the earning power for consumption on domestically produced goods and enhanced our standard of living. Labor unions, in their zeal to lift the lowly worker up, did just that---but didn’t stop there. Empowered by their ability to shut factories down with strikes, they saddled American business with wage and benefit packages that greatly increased the cost of production.
American companies reacted by moving their manufacturing overseas. There, lowly paid workers can crank out the same products at a fraction of the cost, even with shipping and handling added in.
The result is not only idle factories and people, but a national vulnerability should hostilities arise in the future.
At the onset of World War II, factories producing consumer goods were quickly retooled to provide the implements of war. Tanks, planes and guns rolled off the assembly lines in a never-ending stream. How equipped would we be today for such a turnaround? How many of our critical components are made elsewhere---and perhaps by people who might be our enemy?
Check out this short video for the Ford Manufacturing Exposition—in 1934—what was “cutting edge” back then is rather ho-hum today, but therein lies a lesson, I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91c7yNB5X3w
Remember that this exposition was held during the Great Depression. Times were much worse than they are today—and yet, investment and optimism for the future fueled the spirits of those who still very much believed in the so-called American Dream.
Just 77 years ago, but think how far we have come! What new innovations exist for the balance of THIS century?
Whatever they are, we need to create conditions that allow us to make those things right here in the good ol’ USA!
If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Monday, November 7, 2011
Verdict in Jackson Doctor’s Trial
I am starting the writing of this blog before the verdict has been announced in the trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor.
By the time you read this, we’ll all know the outcome.
Was Dr. Conrad Murray criminally negligent in the death of Michael Jackson? We’ll hear what the jury says, but in my mind, the answer is both yes and no.
Yes, because any physician who earns $150,000 a month is clearly being paid to say “yes” to his patient’s plea for drugs—whether they should be medically administered or not. While the good doctor may not have been aware of the level of the lethal drug in Jackson’s system at the time, he may not “technically” have administered the dose that took Jackson’s life. Nevertheless, he should probably be stripped of his medical license and should face a civil suit, which he will undoubtedly will. To create any hope of a deterrent to other doctors, a “guilty” verdict would make sense.
No, because Michael Jackson was a tormented star whose drug addictions ultimately land at his own doorstep. He was responsible for his own demise, as he most certainly could have “bought” any other doctor willing to trade his conscience for a hundred a fifty “G’s” a month.
Sadly, this story is all too familiar. A huge star becomes a recluse, unable to mingle in the real world due to his celebrity. The wealth that fame confers on such people is used in part to create another world……
Guilty.
Verdict of involuntary manslaughter has just been rendered against Conrad Murray. No real reaction from Murray the reading of the verdict.
As I was writing prior to the verdict, it is the famous who fabricate a secluded world, one where they can live in relative peace---away from the public who adulation created both the wealth and the prison.
For Elvis, that haven was Graceland. For Michael Jackson, it was Neverland, where accusations of child molestation mixed with the suspicions of drug abuse. A superstar who never had a childhood, let alone a normal life as an adult—spiraled into a haze of drug induced escape.
Escape was the objective—and only in death was it complete.
Now that Murray has been found guilty, maybe there is closure for some of Jackson’s misguided fans, who sought out a guilty party, a scapegoat.
As for me, Jackson took his own life over an extended period of time. Dr. Murray was Michael’s own personal Dr. Kevorkian, easing him out. It’s obvious that Murray wanted to keep Jackson alive. He had a hundred and fifty thousand reasons each month to keep Jackson alive.
He failed—and will now pay dearly. To many, that is justice.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
By the time you read this, we’ll all know the outcome.
Was Dr. Conrad Murray criminally negligent in the death of Michael Jackson? We’ll hear what the jury says, but in my mind, the answer is both yes and no.
Yes, because any physician who earns $150,000 a month is clearly being paid to say “yes” to his patient’s plea for drugs—whether they should be medically administered or not. While the good doctor may not have been aware of the level of the lethal drug in Jackson’s system at the time, he may not “technically” have administered the dose that took Jackson’s life. Nevertheless, he should probably be stripped of his medical license and should face a civil suit, which he will undoubtedly will. To create any hope of a deterrent to other doctors, a “guilty” verdict would make sense.
No, because Michael Jackson was a tormented star whose drug addictions ultimately land at his own doorstep. He was responsible for his own demise, as he most certainly could have “bought” any other doctor willing to trade his conscience for a hundred a fifty “G’s” a month.
Sadly, this story is all too familiar. A huge star becomes a recluse, unable to mingle in the real world due to his celebrity. The wealth that fame confers on such people is used in part to create another world……
Guilty.
Verdict of involuntary manslaughter has just been rendered against Conrad Murray. No real reaction from Murray the reading of the verdict.
As I was writing prior to the verdict, it is the famous who fabricate a secluded world, one where they can live in relative peace---away from the public who adulation created both the wealth and the prison.
For Elvis, that haven was Graceland. For Michael Jackson, it was Neverland, where accusations of child molestation mixed with the suspicions of drug abuse. A superstar who never had a childhood, let alone a normal life as an adult—spiraled into a haze of drug induced escape.
Escape was the objective—and only in death was it complete.
Now that Murray has been found guilty, maybe there is closure for some of Jackson’s misguided fans, who sought out a guilty party, a scapegoat.
As for me, Jackson took his own life over an extended period of time. Dr. Murray was Michael’s own personal Dr. Kevorkian, easing him out. It’s obvious that Murray wanted to keep Jackson alive. He had a hundred and fifty thousand reasons each month to keep Jackson alive.
He failed—and will now pay dearly. To many, that is justice.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Birth Of The Hockey Mask
Some things are just so commonplace nowadays that their previous absence seems hard to fathom.
Such is the case with hockey—and in particular, the goalie’s use of a mask. Protecting one’s FACE from a hockey puck travelling hundred miles an hour would appear to be common sense, no?
Well, in fact, it was never done—until this date in 1959.
Montreal Canadiens goalie Jacques Plante became the first NHL goalie to wear a mask during a game. Oftentimes, goalies would employ them in practice, but never during an actual game. Of course, these were the days when helmets were never worn either. At least that omission is more reasonable, but the goalie?
He’s the TARGET, for cryin’ out loud!
Barely three minutes into a game against the Rangers at Madison Square Garden, Plante took a close-up backhand shot to the face. It split his lip all the way up to his nostril. Blood was everywhere, but remarkably, Plante kept playing.
After a time, however, it was clear that he needed stitches—an operation performed in about 20 minutes in the locker room. When he returned, he carried with him his cream-colored mask.
Canadiens head coach Toe Blake threw a fit.
Blake never allowed Plante to wear a mask in a game, but this time, Plante dug in his heels. In an era when teams didn’t carry an extra goalie on the roster, Plante told Blake that he simply would not play without the mask. The coach backed down—and a new era of protection in hockey was born.
Plante was ridiculed for weeks—even by fellow goalies—but since he was a premier player and it was clear the mask didn’t adversely affect his game, the hockey community finally came around to the notion of protecting their goalkeeper.
Here’s a short video on Plante’s bold move:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMbXU4njAw4
When jeered by fans and reporters about the mask, he simply said, “I already had four broken noses, a broken jaw, two broken cheekbones and almost 200 stitches in my head. I don’t care how the mask looks!”
Indeed.
Maybe he should have pioneered the hockey mask a tad earlier in his career.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Such is the case with hockey—and in particular, the goalie’s use of a mask. Protecting one’s FACE from a hockey puck travelling hundred miles an hour would appear to be common sense, no?
Well, in fact, it was never done—until this date in 1959.
Montreal Canadiens goalie Jacques Plante became the first NHL goalie to wear a mask during a game. Oftentimes, goalies would employ them in practice, but never during an actual game. Of course, these were the days when helmets were never worn either. At least that omission is more reasonable, but the goalie?
He’s the TARGET, for cryin’ out loud!
Barely three minutes into a game against the Rangers at Madison Square Garden, Plante took a close-up backhand shot to the face. It split his lip all the way up to his nostril. Blood was everywhere, but remarkably, Plante kept playing.
After a time, however, it was clear that he needed stitches—an operation performed in about 20 minutes in the locker room. When he returned, he carried with him his cream-colored mask.
Canadiens head coach Toe Blake threw a fit.
Blake never allowed Plante to wear a mask in a game, but this time, Plante dug in his heels. In an era when teams didn’t carry an extra goalie on the roster, Plante told Blake that he simply would not play without the mask. The coach backed down—and a new era of protection in hockey was born.
Plante was ridiculed for weeks—even by fellow goalies—but since he was a premier player and it was clear the mask didn’t adversely affect his game, the hockey community finally came around to the notion of protecting their goalkeeper.
Here’s a short video on Plante’s bold move:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMbXU4njAw4
When jeered by fans and reporters about the mask, he simply said, “I already had four broken noses, a broken jaw, two broken cheekbones and almost 200 stitches in my head. I don’t care how the mask looks!”
Indeed.
Maybe he should have pioneered the hockey mask a tad earlier in his career.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
