HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Which player started the "Canadian hockey" stereotype?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-09-2012, 08:05 PM
  #26
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 28,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Yeah, my answer would have to be Gordie Howe. Big, strong player who played a rough game but also very skilled. Pretty much one player I think young Canadian (see: English-speaking white people living in Canada) hockey players identified with and hockey broadcasters looked to as a bar set of what Canadian hockey is.

Although I think Gordie is the embodiment of what many think Canadian hockey should be, I think Richard was just as much as every bit that player before Gordie played. Richard was French and had a much shorter temper and therefore was almost ignored as being this player, even though he was still appreciated as a player.
Good call with Richard. I had also been thinking of other guys from that slightly earlier era. Thought about guys like Blake, who were leaders, league MVP, highest scorer, champion, gentlemanly, etc, but I don't associate many of them with the rough, physical aspect that has become an integral value in "Canadian" hockey. Others in this "category" might include Lach, the Bentleys, Lindsay, Abel, etc. I believe there's a reason that no one was called "Mr. Hockey" before Howe, though (to the best of my knowledge), and that he's an appropriate owner of the title (even if by extension/insinuation that would mean Mr. "Canadian Hockey").


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 09-09-2012 at 08:16 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 08:53 PM
  #27
LeBlondeDemon10
BlindLemon Haystacks
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,254
vCash: 500
Interesting idea. Many might recall the old CBC "Air Farce" bit from the 70's/80's starring Canadian hockey stereotype "Bobby Clobber." He was created as a fictional figure to represent the stereotypical Canadian hockey player of that era - tough, uneducated, dim-witted and a fighter. While he obviously didn't represent all Canadian hockey players, this was Air Farce's take on hockey and the style that was being played during this era.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 01:23 AM
  #28
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Repeated carelessness without remorse by the player or team speaks for itself especially in the small sample space represented by the SC finals.
Small sample space indeed. Twice is technically "repeated", I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
MacDougall/Gingras is a stand alone incident that received a fair amount of mention before in the press, in books - Trail of the Stanley Cup Vol I, well before 1972. It was seminal to the perception of Canadian hockey culture, just as the later incidents involving Sprague Cleghorn, Billy Coutu, Shore/Bailey, Conn Smythe, Howe/Fontinato and others helped refine and polish the image. Ferguson and Clarke were nourished by the same hockey culture.
The fact that it is a stand-alone incident, as you say, differentiates it from Clarke. Clarke wasn't a clean player who had a moment where he lost his temper. Cleghorn and Coutu are certainly much closer to what you're looking for, violent players with repeated violent acts. Shore/Bailey's not a good example, because it involves the loss of temper rather than a premeditated attack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
A slash that is not accidental diminishes the victim's ability to play at full capacity.
Relevance? Do we know that MacDougall's slashes were not accidental? If he was being reckless with his stick, the slashes would be accidental. The whole point is that Clarke went out with the express intent of injuring Kharlamov. Again, if you have evidence that MacDougall did the same, please present it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Your attempt to introduce a strategic element, winning/losing, is very lame.
Clarke and Ferguson introduced the strategic element to this, not me. They wanted to eliminate Kharlamov from being a factor, so they took him out. That was the whole point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Simple street fighter code - preclude any possibility of losing as soon as possible, get in the first punch before the fight is started, ignore rules, cheat, survival of the fittest. Do unto others before they do unto you.
Okay, if this is the case then it's certainly not relevant to the MacDougall case. If it was about precluding the possibility of a loss ASAP, why would he have waited until the series had only 12 minutes left to play, and his team was ahead?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:44 AM
  #29
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,814
vCash: 500
NHL Disagrees

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Small sample space indeed. Twice is technically "repeated", I suppose.


The fact that it is a stand-alone incident, as you say, differentiates it from Clarke. Clarke wasn't a clean player who had a moment where he lost his temper. Cleghorn and Coutu are certainly much closer to what you're looking for, violent players with repeated violent acts. Shore/Bailey's not a good example, because it involves the loss of temper rather than a premeditated attack.


Relevance? Do we know that MacDougall's slashes were not accidental? If he was being reckless with his stick, the slashes would be accidental. The whole point is that Clarke went out with the express intent of injuring Kharlamov. Again, if you have evidence that MacDougall did the same, please present it.


Clarke and Ferguson introduced the strategic element to this, not me. They wanted to eliminate Kharlamov from being a factor, so they took him out. That was the whole point.


Okay, if this is the case then it's certainly not relevant to the MacDougall case. If it was about precluding the possibility of a loss ASAP, why would he have waited until the series had only 12 minutes left to play, and his team was ahead?
NHL has evolved to the point where it strongly disagrees with your views. Concussion causing hits or dangerous/reckless hits consider "twice" as repeat offenders with intent.

A player has to control his temper just as he has to control his stick. Shore had plenty of time to stop thus intent was present.

Repeated recklessness with the stick goes to intent since a rational player stops after the first such incident. Otherwise you have depraved indifference.

Strategic element was introduced before Ferguson and Clarke were born. See Art Ross and his role in Coutu attack on the referees. Conn Smythe and his "... beat them in the alleys ..." approach to hockey just some examples.Again intent is established.

Streetfighters code or hockey Darwinism requires opportunity. First viable opportunity and MacDougall struck, just like Clarke who did not simply skate out and slash. Picked their spots - strategic intent.

As for the winning/losing rationalizing that you attempt, which team was winning when Clarke slashed Kharlamov?


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-10-2012 at 06:46 AM. Reason: addition
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 07:15 AM
  #30
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
As for the winning/losing rationalizing that you attempt, which team was winning when Clarke slashed Kharlamov?
Canada was winning the game, but the Soviets were ahead in the Series. In the case of MacDougall there was already a decision. In the case of Clarke a lot of hockey was still to be played.

EDIT:
But seeing that Montreal was ahead by just one goal when the incident occurred, I have to reconsider what I said. The game wasn't decided yet, so MacDougall's slash is actually much closer to Clarke's slash than I thought. The two seem to be similiar.


Last edited by Theokritos: 09-10-2012 at 09:08 AM.
Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 09:03 AM
  #31
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee View Post
#1 The tone of the article is like there were some similar canadian teams before.
I'm not so sure about it. Before WW2? It's possible, but that newspaper report doesn't make it clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee View Post
Ten years arent many, when talking about creating a stereotype especially ten years after WWII when in fact there wasn't many transatlantic clashes, as you claim. Hockey wasn't globalized back than. Of course I don't know what you mean by "a lot" but I tend to think there werent much more games than those played on WC.
Post-WW2 and Pre-1955 WC the Canadians played 41 games in Olympic Tournaments and World Championships in Europe and the Americans played 44 games within the same frame. Additionally the teams played a lot of preparation and exhibition games during their visits, in the case of the Canadians alone ~160 exhibition games in Europe from 1948-1954. So we're at ~245 games in that period, not counting exhibition games the US team might have played. Lists of games played in Europe:

RCAF Flyers January-March 1948: 32 exhibition games
(http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/1947-48_RCAF_Flyers).

Sudbury Wolves December 1948-February 1949: 19 exhibition games
(http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/1948-49_Sudbury_Wolves).

Edmonton Mercurys January-March 1950: 31 exhibition games (http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/1949...onton_Mercurys).

Lethbridge Maple Leafs January-April 1951: 38 exhibition games (http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/1950...ge_Maple_Leafs).

Edmonton Mercurys January-March 1952: 21 exhibition games (http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/1951...onton_Mercurys)

East York Lyndhursts January-March 1954: 16 exhibition games (http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/1953...ork_Lyndhursts).

Besides, I think two or three vicious WC campaigns would already have been enough for the development of a corresponding stereotype.

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee View Post
#2-3 I didnt see that game, nor don't know it was 16-0, just refered to what I read. Still CSR and USA had to show something because of post-game action of fans. Even if applaud was for sport effort or whatever, they wouldnt booed USA without reason.
Source is book about WC from 1991 or 1992 or so, really good work with many facts and trivia. Book's research is arguably based on old newspapers, obviously there wasnt much internet in early 1990 in Czechoslovakia. I do believe it's one of the best work about WC till nowadays.
The fact that the book tries to paint the 1920 Czechoslovak team in a good light and surpresses the fact that they lost 0-16 is disturbing. But if we assume that the information about the booing is correct, then this is a valuable piece of information nevertheless.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 11:09 AM
  #32
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,808
vCash: 500
It looks like a few people are going back further than they really need to.

We define a canadian player as being "tougher" than other nationalities based on what we've seen from them and others. It's a stereotype, but like many stereotypes, there is some fire beneath that smoke. (how much is up for discussion)

As early as the 1920s, canadians were competing internationally against Europeans but I don’t think the “tough Canadians” image would have come from that. Early Canadian teams were ridiculously dominant and probably would not have felt the need to assert themselves physically. If their mettle wasn’t tested, why go ‘all out’, right?

In 1954 when the Bobrov-led Soviets beat Canada, that was a bit of a turning point because now we knew that the best in Europe were as good as our Amateurs. We had to try our best and we had to resort to anything to win. The following year, the Warwick-buoyed Penticton Vees absolutely mauled the Soviets and if anything, this is where the perception really got off the ground.

But from there on, the number of international meetings between Canadians and international players per year steadily increased for a good 35 years, which allowed the perception to persist. At the same time, Europeans started to join the NHL, and the ones who did were typically (not always) less physical, cleaner and more easily intimidated.

Canadians could be just as tough as they otherwise were, but if the Europeans that they encountered from the 1950s to the 1990s were actually of a tougher nature and background, the “tough Canadians” perception would have died out, because it really means “tough compared to other countries”. And on the flipside, perhaps in Europe, their hockey players were among the “toughest” people in society and until meeting Canadians on international ice.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 12:05 PM
  #33
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
NHL has evolved to the point where it strongly disagrees with your views. Concussion causing hits or dangerous/reckless hits consider "twice" as repeat offenders with intent.
So you're applying 2012 standards to what happened in 1899? Why aren't we looking at it in the context of the time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
A player has to control his temper just as he has to control his stick. Shore had plenty of time to stop thus intent was present.
I haven't said anything about the Shore incident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Strategic element was introduced before Ferguson and Clarke were born. See Art Ross and his role in Coutu attack on the referees. Conn Smythe and his "... beat them in the alleys ..." approach to hockey just some examples.Again intent is established.
Which has what to do with MacDougall?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Streetfighters code or hockey Darwinism requires opportunity. First viable opportunity and MacDougall struck, just like Clarke who did not simply skate out and slash. Picked their spots - strategic intent.
First viable opportunity - can you demonstrate that that was MacDougall's first viable opportunity? Both players had been on the ice together for approx. 108 minutes before the incident. Without more specific info it seem very unlikely that he had no opportunity to that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
As for the winning/losing rationalizing that you attempt, which team was winning when Clarke slashed Kharlamov?
The Soviets were up 3-1-1 in the series. If Canada held on to that game in 1972, they'd still be behind 2-3-1, and would have to win both remaining games to win the series.

Conversely, in 1899 Montreal was up 5-3 in total goals with 12 minutes to play in the series.

You really see these as equivalent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
But seeing that Montreal was ahead by just one goal when the incident occurred, I have to reconsider what I said. The game wasn't decided yet, so MacDougall's slash is actually much closer to Clarke's slash than I thought. The two seem to be similiar.
Careful, that was a total goals series, meaning that Montreal was up 2 at the time. Winnipeg would have had to outscore them by 3 goals over the last 12 minutes to win the series.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 12:38 PM
  #34
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,814
vCash: 500
Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
So you're applying 2012 standards to what happened in 1899? Why aren't we looking at it in the context of the time?


I haven't said anything about the Shore incident.


Which has what to do with MacDougall?


First viable opportunity - can you demonstrate that that was MacDougall's first viable opportunity? Both players had been on the ice together for approx. 108 minutes before the incident. Without more specific info it seem very unlikely that he had no opportunity to that point.


The Soviets were up 3-1-1 in the series. If Canada held on to that game in 1972, they'd still be behind 2-3-1, and would have to win both remaining games to win the series.

Conversely, in 1899 Montreal was up 5-3 in total goals with 12 minutes to play in the series.

You really see these as equivalent?


Careful, that was a total goals series, meaning that Montreal was up 2 at the time. Winnipeg would have had to outscore them by 3 goals over the last 12 minutes to win the series.
Evolution and higher standards provide a better and deeper understanding.

Fontinato and Howe were on the ice as opponents 14 times a year for over four seasons before the opportunity arose for them to fight.
True for other incidents as well. Shore and Bailey had competed for over seven seasons before the opportunity spark happened.

As a statistical buff I'm sure you are aware of numerous instances where three goals were scored within twelve minutes by one team to overcome a deficit. Game 6 - Clarke/Kharlamov incident of the 1972 Summit Series was one such game.

http://www.1972summitseries.com/game6recap.html

Canada scored three goals in 83 seconds to overcome a one goal deficit. Twelve minutes is plenty of time to score three in a away rink.

If anything Clarke's slash and the ensuing penalties killed Canada's momentum.

Irrational hockey acts are not grounded in logic.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-10-2012 at 12:40 PM. Reason: typo
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 12:49 PM
  #35
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Evolution and higher standards provide a better and deeper understanding.
Vague comments, on the other hand, tend to obfuscate.

Let's discuss the incident in question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Fontinato and Howe were on the ice as opponents 14 times a year for over four seasons before the opportunity arose for them to fight.
1. I never said anything about Fontinato and Howe.

2. No opportunity arose before then? Can you prove that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
True for other incidents as well. Shore and Bailey had competed for over seven seasons before the opportunity spark happened.
I think you're confusing opportunity with the particular trigger event in each case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
As a statistical buff I'm sure you are aware of numerous instances where three goals were scored within twelve minutes by one team to overcome a deficit.
There's no such thing as a sure thing. Unless Montreal was up by something like 6 goals with two minutes to go, you couldn't be sure of anything.

But you're dodging the point. Montreal had already outscored Winnipeg by 2 goals in 108 minutes. It was unlikely that Winnipeg was going to come back, even with Gingras. And more importantly, if Gingras was a target to be taken out, why wait until you've probably got the series won? Why wouldn't they have taken him out early in the series, or at least early in game 2? It makes no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Irrational hockey acts are not grounded in logic.
Clarke's act was rational and strategic. It was despicable, but rational. It was premeditated and intended to achieve a particular result. If you can justify cheating in your own mind, it was purely rational. It was not a spur-of-the-moment, rash thing. Clarke didn't suddenly snap.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 01:51 PM
  #36
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
As early as the 1920s, canadians were competing internationally against Europeans but I don’t think the “tough Canadians” image would have come from that. Early Canadian teams were ridiculously dominant and probably would not have felt the need to assert themselves physically. If their mettle wasn’t tested, why go ‘all out’, right?
That's what I thought as well. But if there is evidence from the 1920s or 1930s we may have to reconsider that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
In 1954 when the Bobrov-led Soviets beat Canada, that was a bit of a turning point because now we knew that the best in Europe were as good as our Amateurs. We had to try our best and we had to resort to anything to win. The following year, the Warwick-buoyed Penticton Vees absolutely mauled the Soviets and if anything, this is where the perception really got off the ground.
Good points, but we already know that it goes back at least a bit further than 1955. The Edmonton Mercurys mauled their way through the 1952 Olympics in a similiar way and were severely critizised in Europe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Careful, that was a total goals series, meaning that Montreal was up 2 at the time. Winnipeg would have had to outscore them by 3 goals over the last 12 minutes to win the series.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. But it doesn't change my opinion. If they would have scored two goals in the last 12 minutes the series would have been even, that's close enough to the Clarke incident for me. The series was not lost yet and that's what counts.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 02:03 PM
  #37
Alpine
Registered User
 
Alpine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,150
vCash: 500
I'm pretty sure it started around the year 1800 on Long Pond Windsor Nova Scotia when some guy with a crocked stick shot a frozen cow pattie at an opponents head.

Alpine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 02:10 PM
  #38
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. But it doesn't change my opinion. If they would have scored two goals in the last 12 minutes the series would have been even, that's close enough to the Clarke incident for me. The series was not lost yet and that's what counts.
That's a pretty wide net, I'd say. The Clarke slash was essentially born of desperation. A team ahead by 2 goals with 12 minutes to play is not desperate.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 03:23 PM
  #39
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,814
vCash: 500
Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Vague comments, on the other hand, tend to obfuscate.

Let's discuss the incident in question.


1. I never said anything about Fontinato and Howe.

2. No opportunity arose before then? Can you prove that?


I think you're confusing opportunity with the particular trigger event in each case.


There's no such thing as a sure thing. Unless Montreal was up by something like 6 goals with two minutes to go, you couldn't be sure of anything.

But you're dodging the point. Montreal had already outscored Winnipeg by 2 goals in 108 minutes. It was unlikely that Winnipeg was going to come back, even with Gingras. And more importantly, if Gingras was a target to be taken out, why wait until you've probably got the series won? Why wouldn't they have taken him out early in the series, or at least early in game 2? It makes no sense.


Clarke's act was rational and strategic. It was despicable, but rational. It was premeditated and intended to achieve a particular result. If you can justify cheating in your own mind, it was purely rational. It was not a spur-of-the-moment, rash thing. Clarke didn't suddenly snap.
Cannot be selective about which violent events are introduced into the the discussion or when or by whom.

Lou Fontinato fight card:

http://www.dropyourgloves.com/Player...px?Player=1365

No fights with Howe until Feb. 1, 1959. Fontinato had fought Tod Sloan of all players three times previously.

Irrational behavior never makes sense. Otherwise it could be managed.

In another thread there is mention of Kharlamov slashing Clarke first.Post #91:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1256899&page=4

This point has to be resolved before your interpretation even gets considered.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 03:53 PM
  #40
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Cannot be selective about which violent events are introduced into the the discussion or when or by whom.

Lou Fontinato fight card:

http://www.dropyourgloves.com/Player...px?Player=1365

No fights with Howe until Feb. 1, 1959. Fontinato had fought Tod Sloan of all players three times previously.

Irrational behavior never makes sense. Otherwise it could be managed.

In another thread there is mention of Kharlamov slashing Clarke first.Post #91:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1256899&page=4

This point has to be resolved before your interpretation even gets considered.

in what world does that prove anything at all?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:44 PM
  #41
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Cannot be selective about which violent events are introduced into the the discussion or when or by whom.
Oh please.

You said the MacDougall/Gingras incident is essentially the same as Clarke/Kharlamov. I said it isn't.

Then you started talking about other incidents, which I offered no comment on.

I didn't say there were no previous incidents similar to Clarke/Kharlamov, only that MacDougall/Gingras is not similar. I addressed that specific point and nothing else.

Carry on.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:01 PM
  #42
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 30,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
You said the MacDougall/Gingras incident is essentially the same as Clarke/Kharlamov. I said it isn't.
... I believe the those 2 incidents are in fact twins Iain, with all due respect. Accounts Ive read of that event in February detail extensively the tactics employed by the Montreal side, the heavy gambling & money that was riding on the outcome. Contemporaneous reports paint a pretty hilarious picture actually, the referee having let the game slip out of his control actually left the rink, the game incomplete, went home, only to be urged to return by members of the media who'd followed him. Indeed, theres a stick in the HHOF from that game, inscribed..

"Fizzy the Ref went home".

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2012, 12:56 AM
  #43
I Hate Chris Butler
Backlund Fan Club
 
I Hate Chris Butler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,334
vCash: 150
I gotta say this thread has been extremely informative. It's like a homework assignment of all these names I've heard before, but never really knew anything about.

I Hate Chris Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.