Ken Campbell is an idiot and wrote a bad thing that's so dumb it's not even worth my time breaking down. (It is worth Quisp's time, though!) Basically, he's a dumb shit that is arguing against the imaginary belief that the Los Angeles Kings are poised to become a "Hockey Hotbed.™®€" No one actually holds this belief, obviously, but that's going to stop Ol' Ken!
Anyway, he mentions some stupid shit about celebrities and then hits us with this paragraph:
That’s all. Thinking it will have any kind of deeper meaning or make Los Angeles more of a hockey town reminds me of what people think when someone runs his or her first marathon. But contrary to popular belief, it means only that person has the fitness and endurance to run 26.2 miles. It doesn’t mean he or she can have another child, go back to school, change jobs or accomplish anything he or she tries.
Wait, what? What in the blue-balled fuck are you talking about?
The Kings will be the toa-
No no no, we're not going anywhere yet.
That's all. Thinking it will have any kind of deeper meaning or make Los Angeles more of a hockey town reminds me of what people think when someone runs his or her first marathon.
Really, it does? That's kind of weird. I mean, I can't watch Die Hard without thinking about my dad's ass but that's a personal thing and not one I publish in magazines.
But contrary to popular belief, it means only that person has the fitness and endurance to run 26.2 miles.
No, that doesn't sound right. Let's try that again:
But contrary to the retarded thing I made up, it means only that person has the fitness and endurance to run 26.2 miles.
There we go, that's better.
It doesn’t mean he or she can have another child, go back to school, change jobs or accomplish anything he or she tries.
Female Runner: Yes, I did it, I completed my life's dre-
Ken Campbell: Yeah you think it's an accomplishment but you're still infertile!
I'm baffled. Why can't people who run marathons have another child? What if they don't have a child already? Are they doomed? "Oh fuck I already ran a marathon, now I can't become a marine biologist!"
Does he mean more likely to do all that stuff? Because that kinda makes sen- oh wait no it doesn't it's obviously retarded. I'm pretty sure people who run marathons have a certain amount of mental fortitude to gain that fitness and endurance. Why wouldn't they be statistically more likely to do that stuff, just like they're statistically more likely for heart attacks or whatever? I'm calling bullshit, Ken, until I see some sort of peer-reviewed study that states otherwise.
Does anyone think running a marathon makes you guaranteed to become a super hero who holds the world in his/her hands? No. Is it an accomplishment you should be proud of? Sure. Does it give you a sense of purpose that could be used to accomplish other goals? I think so, if you use it that way. Just like winning the Stanley Cup doesn't guarantee a town will become a hockey hotbed, but hopefully it gets a few more people interested in hockey and hey, that's cool.
Clearly, Ken Campbell has issues and it's creeping into his writing. These issues apparently involve marathon running. But what could these issues be? Well, I have a few theories:
-Ken's mom left him at home and literally ran away when he was young; specifically, she ran 26.2 miles away.
-His nipples bleed easily
-His ancestors were Persian
-During his one attempt, he pooped himself and was so busy cleaning it up he missed the start of the race
-He hates Kenyans, like, a lot
-He was leading a marathon at the end but couldn't break through the ribbon
-Dustin Hoffman fucked his wife
-Fucking Bill from the office thinks he's so Goddamn cool because he ran a marathon and no one cares about the time I walked all the way from the CN Tower to Robarts Library and that's really more impressive because I had a rock in my shoe and me me me
-He doesn't have any feet
Or maybe Ken Campbell's just a bad writer.
But I think my whole "no feet" thing seems pretty plausible. Have you ever seen them? Think about it.
One more thing about Ken Campbell's article:
This team has been in the NHL 45 years and during its romp through the playoffs, the Los Angeles Times ran a front-page column explaining the rudimentary basics of the game. Among the pearls of wisdom: "The Kings use four ‘lines’ or platoons of players, each made up of three forwards, two defenders and a goaltender. Except for the goalie, they swap out every minute or so, in well-practised ‘line changes’ that resemble Azerbaijan hostage rescues."
Oh boy, a front page column written by a non-hockey writer was ignorant of the rules of hockey? Man, LA sure must be ig-
Sutter's decision to put brawny rookie Dwight King with Jarret Stoll and Trevor Lewis on the third line and move the hard-to-motivate Dustin Penner alongside Mike Richards and Jeff Carter on the second line was a stroke of genius. It meant every line had doses of size, quickness and puck-possession skills and was anchored by a solid, two-way center. With a big, productive first line and an energetic fourth line the Kings became even more cohesive and balanced — and, apparently, unstoppable.
Whaaaat??? Where'd you come from, Hockey Hall of Fame writer Helene Elliott? Oh, from the next day's edition of the Los Angeles Times, in the sports section where actual sports columns go? Well, I'm sure what you wrote has nothing on the fascinating insights
fellow Hall of Fame member Ken Campbell wrote during that time period:
All three will undoubtedly be reviewed, as will the offsetting minors on Brown and Coyotes goalie Mike Smith when Smith whacked Brown on the back of the legs on what might have been the worst call of the playoffs.
...Oh. I think even someone from LA could tell you that Ken Campbell doesn't know shit about hockey.