View Single Post
07-09-2013, 10:26 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 412
vCash: 500
Interesting statements in the great Dink Carroll's column from Bill Cowley of the Bruins and Tommy Ivan of the Red Wings on the way Maurice Richard and Ted Lindsay were treated by the opposition.

Carroll writes that Cowley, who had retired a few years before, remarked that "he couldn't understand how The Rocket controlled himself at all, considering the methods employed by opposing teams to keep him from scoring."

Carroll then quotes Ivan on why, after a blazing start to the season, Lindsay had gone into a scoring slump: "They're giving him the same treatment now that they've been giving Richard for years. What they do to these two guys is a crime."

i've been ridiculed before on this board when I wrote that Richard withstood more abuse than anyone else, that he was remarkably restrained in the face of that abuse, that he never started fights (although he defended himself and his teammates very capably), and that he only really lost it when someone threatened his livelihood--his hockey career--with dirty play (as when he was wacked across the face just above his eye in that infamous 1954 late-season game in the Boston Garden and, blood pouring from his wound, ended up striking an official.) One moderator on here, although he never saw Richard play or the way he was treated by the opposition and hasn't a clue about how it was, felt entitled to write, wouldn't you know this came from Peter 9. The way Cowley and Ivan--and many others who were witnesses-- describe it in this contemporaneous report is the way I remember it.

By the way, Canadiens 1958, thank you for posting all these historical reports. They are real history, and I wish I were able to contribute more to discussion of them. It's strange that the people who have all the time in the world for concocting and discussing statistical comparisons on this history board hardly ever comment when confronted with real history. They have little to say then, perhaps in part because real history doesn't fit in well with their neat little statistical theories.

Peter9 is offline   Reply With Quote