Wamsley01 Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 (edited) Interesting response. I respond to your post in detail with examples and you accuse me of an emotional response based on bias. One example-- what exactly is this " information that Red Fisher did not before and ignores today. Information that offers up proof that a lot of the sacred cows he believes in are wrong". Can you offer me one concrete example to support this assertion? " Fisher wanting to deny Roy his banner because it doesn't fit his mold of what should be honoured? That is self absorbed and egotistical" . No, that is believing -- on the experience of a lifetime-- that one does not tell off the president of the Montreal Canadiens and get your jersey retired. " If you want to find quality blogs, they are there". Name one. "I have learned more in the last 5 years from blogs/messageboards than I did in the previous 25 years from any newspaper, magazine or television show". Really? Given the wideopen nature of the Internet and the fact that anyone can write a blog how do you know that all of your learning was accurate or based on facts rather than opinion. That's not to say that mainstream media are infalliable, merely that they have more resources to check facts and a lot more exposure to litigation. BTW, I didn't say that younger writers weren't competent. I believe that Sean Gordon and James Mirtle are entertaining as informative. I was questioning your mentioning of the mode of communication as being paramount-- not the competency or incompetency of anyone based on age. Your primary argument seems to be " Fisher is old; therefore, he cannot relate to the young. Do you also belive that Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama are irrelevant to the computer generation because they are much older? If you examine the discussion, there is one person demonstrating age bias and it isn't me. As I said, agree to disagree. Pax :hlogo: How old are you? That will likely determine the stance you are taking. That is the bias I refer to. If you are less than 40, then my bias remark is wrong. If you are 50+ then I think the main basis of your argument is based on your age and your emotional attachment to the man and not his recent body of work. As for Mandela and the Dalai Lama, their experience and wisdom lies in universal terms of understanding, acceptance, forgiveness, passion etc. Fisher doesn't display that type of maturity or wisdom. Mandela sits in a prison for 30 years and forgives his captors, Fisher's prose helps deify Roy for his competitiveness and cockiness and then strings him up for displaying those same traits because they ran contradictory towards the CH (does it even matter that Roy was right and the Habs have been mediocre for 15 years?). I don't see any understanding, forgiveness or acceptance of what made that man a hero to a generation that Red doesn't care about. I don't understand why a writer is immune to a prime. Why they don't have a best before date. Everybody has their prime, a time in which they hold the pulse of the culture. They understand what people care about, they understand what makes them tick and what interests them. Musical artists, writers, TV personalities etc hit the sweet spot of a moment in time. Even though they may become technically more proficient and wiser they lose touch with their audience as their audience shifts. Not many artists can maintain cultural signifigance as they age, what happens is as they age, their peers move forward with them. A Rolling Stones concert in 1970 had 25 year olds, in 1980 35 year olds, in 2010 it is mostly 65 year olds. Their connection is not severed with that generation, it moves with them. Why? Because that is the only generation that they remain relevant to, that generation identifies them with the good ol days. A 20 year old cares about the Rolling Stones today as much as a 20 year old cared about Cab Calloway in 1965 regardless of their previous influence or greatness. In 1965 Red Fisher was 40 years old and could relate to the players. He understood what it was like in the depression, he understood what it was like to have a World War, he understood the working class nature of the players. Hence he had a better understanding of what they did and why they did it. Today, he doesn't understand that Carey Price had a computer from the time he was born, he doesn't understand what it is like to be connected to everybody you know at all times, he doesn't understand how he can multitask by watching TV, texting, surfing and playing videogames. He cannot relate, therefore he doesn't understand the motivations of these players. He holds them accountable to the standards of a society that does not exist anymore. Whether or not those standards should be followed is irrelevant. This played out in baseball over the last 20 years. Traditional minds rejecting the statistical revolution that was going on because it ran contradictory to what they had known for 50 years. Hall of Fame writers making asses of themselves because they didn't want to be shown up. Red Fisher is relevant to the older generation. He is their comfort zone, to anybody less than 40 he carries nothing but a legacy. If I want to find out anything relevant about the 2010 Canadiens there are 50 people I will go to before him, if I want to find out about the 1970s Canadiens, then he is the person I look to. I don't care if you agree with me or not, I don't write to convince everybody. People believe what they want to believe and I can't change that. I put forth my viewpoint and allow whoever reads to make up their own mind. The odds of those under 40 nodding with me are much greater than those 50 and above. Fortunately for me, that is the main demographic that the Canadiens marketing and fanbase are looking for, that is the way it was, the way it is today and the way it will be when I am 50+years old. Edited October 14, 2010 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.