In The Hockey News, Ken Campbell argues that Glenn Anderson’s induction into the Hall of Fame today should bode well for Pavel Bure eventually. When considering Bure, Campbell notes:
The two arguments against Bure are that his career was cut short by injury and he never won a Stanley Cup, but both of those are quite easily debunked.
Those two arguments may indeed be easily debunked. But unfortunately for Campbell (and Bure) those aren’t the only two arguments. And it’s important to note that the ‘character’ issues that have dogged both Anderson and Bure through the years aren’t exactly the same thing.
Last Tuesday, the panelists of TSN debated the issue of Bure’s suitability to the HHOF (*their poll is noted below), and I spoke with CBC’s Jim Hughson last Wednesday [mp3] on the same subject. (note: the first 10 minutes of that interview is Hall of Fame discussion; the Bure talk starts at about the 6 minute mark).
While it’s true that both Anderson and Bure have been questioned about their character when it comes to issues of their suitability to the Hall of Fame, Bure faces some unique obstacles.
In particular, one could argue that Bure’s issues were thought to have negatively affected his team, whereas Anderson—as Hughson pointed out in our conversation last week—was considered to be a consummate teammate.
And that may well be the issue that prevents Bure from entering those hallowed halls.
But what do you think? Should Pavel Bure be in the Hall of Fame?
It’s a tough question, but either way Bure was certainly worth the price of admission. As Campbell noted in THN:
[Bure] was a prodigious goal-scorer and one of the most exciting and dynamic players in the history of the game. His skill sold tickets, then pulled people out of their seats once they paid for them.
No matter what you think of Bure’s candidacy for the Hall, you can’t deny he was seriously impressive on the ice.
*TSN’s on-air poll last week:
*Photo credited to Cards Galore Canada