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

The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-17-2013, 03:34 PM
  #426
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
Expanding the number of teams does not offset the increase in elite players. It's harder to dominate your peers in a league with more elite players, and spreading them out doesn't make it easier. In fact, in some cases it would make it a little bit harder.
Expanding the number of players does NOT guarantee an equal increase in Elite players!
Not even close.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 03:51 PM
  #427
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Look I answered all of your questions, why don't you resort to your usual tactic of answering for me and putting words in my mouth.
No, you actually didn't really and when "I put words in your month" it's only because I'm trying to apply your logic/views to a given situation to show how mistaken they are.

Quote:
A fully integrated NHL refers to the composition of nationalities of the players.
And it should mean that pretty close to 100% of the best players are playing right?
So, what % of the best players do YOU feel was absent from the NHL in the 80's?
Lets be generous and say 20-25%.
This season, the season where Crosby is racking up the points and distancing himself from the rest. He is quite literally only playing against 50% of the best players this year.
Yet, you have absolutely no problem giving him full credit his performance this season in the grand scheme of things.


Quote:
You simply fail to understand the huge difference and impact of the changes in the league over time to suit your own purposes.
I don't fail to understand anything. You simply grossly over-estimate the speed of which these changes happen and grossly under-estimate the ability of veteran players to adapt.
All I have to do is say Jagr, Selanne, Bourque, Lidstrom, Yzerman, Sakic and Lemieux and your logic/premise in this falls flat on its ass.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 04:06 PM
  #428
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,868
vCash: 500
Sponsorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Cost. Cost of infrastructure, equipment, registration fee's, ice-time, travel... the worlds just changed so much I even wonder how Canada maintains the levels of participation it does with the so many other distractions & options kids have these days. Playing, participating in hockey at the amateur levels not only domestically but so too throughout the US & most parts of Europe, Northern Europe & the former Soviet Union beyond the reach of the masses if even available at all.
The key is cultivating and maintaining sponsorship dollars. Sponsors learned an important lesson during the last two NHL lockouts - youth, junior and amateur hockey does not stop.

In 2012 you saw Kraft and Hyundai with the Subban family, shift to a huge youth hockey presence in Canada. Other companies of all sizes followed suit. Also happening in the USA to a smaller degree.

This is the real challenge facing European hockey.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 04:51 PM
  #429
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Expanding the number of players does NOT guarantee an equal increase in Elite players!
Not even close.
Who said that it is necessarily equal? It depends on the number of players added, the hockey infrastructure available to them and just plain randomness.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 04:58 PM
  #430
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The key is cultivating and maintaining sponsorship dollars. Sponsors learned an important lesson during the last two NHL lockouts - youth, junior and amateur hockey does not stop... In 2012 you saw Kraft and Hyundai with the Subban family, shift to a huge youth hockey presence in Canada. Other companies of all sizes followed suit. Also happening in the USA to a smaller degree.... This is the real challenge facing European hockey.
Yes, and with multicultural & linguistic differences, sport is the one vehicle that transcends these divides. Interesting to note the Florida Marlins were the first pro sports club (96) to target the Hispanic audience in Miami-Dade, the Panthers following suit with an extensive program through the Florida Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Sponsors such as Burger King, Kelloggs & many others supporting these efforts, a platform to gain entry & obviously product/service loyalties.

Much much more could be done, co-operatively with the NHL, KHL, players associations & media sponsors etc, co-op programs that would & should include financial contributions to the building of infrastructure (arenas, indoor & outdoor roller, ball & synthetic surfaces) along with intelligence support in providing assistance to community sports groups, churches, schools & so on.

You noted Kraft, having dropped their association with the NHL and their "Hockeyville" program but picking it up in other areas of sponsorship, a great example; Hyundai fairly new to the scene but yes, most certainly a viable & interesting platform/program... the NHLPA with its Dreams & Goals program another. A fully integrated program could easily be designed with sponsors & full funding secured on an international scale, a model that could be worth billions to the professional leagues, pretty much exactly what its going to take to produce the kind of talent required in the future if indeed "growing the game" actually means anything to the powers that be, and not just an excuse or "code" to cash Expansion or Relo Fee's. One cant expect altruism from the NHL etc, but one can expect them to use their brains, get creative. Build the boats on the backs of the corporate sector, and you just watch those fleets sail.


Last edited by Killion: 03-17-2013 at 05:04 PM.
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 05:35 PM
  #431
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
No, you actually didn't really and when "I put words in your month" it's only because I'm trying to apply your logic/views to a given situation to show how mistaken they are.
Look for the 2nd time I answered your questions and instead of addressing my answers you come back with your usual moving goalposts and confusion tactics.



Quote:
And it should mean that pretty close to 100% of the best players are playing right?
So, what % of the best players do YOU feel was absent from the NHL in the 80's?
Lets be generous and say 20-25%.
This season, the season where Crosby is racking up the points and distancing himself from the rest. He is quite literally only playing against 50% of the best players this year.
Yet, you have absolutely no problem giving him full credit his performance this season in the grand scheme of things.
You are simply looking at it the wrong way.

The NHL was a Canadian only league up until the mid 70's, then a few guys from the US and some from Europe.

We hit a high fro non Canadians % wise around the mid to late 90's where it is now.

If the NHL was still a purely all Canadian league we would treat those top players as the best of the best. Instead the mid90's and beyond Canadians have to be compared and compete for trophies and top 5,10, 20 finishes with practically an identical group as far as composition wise in the top 20, say only 40% on average of that top 20 over the last 15 years at least.

We all know that the 06 guys and for the most part all NHLer's up until the mid to late 80's only had to compete with Canadians in the NHL, that's not what we are talking about here.

The 2nd group, Canadians after the early 90's, is competing with a different group as well as themselves.

To treat the two groups as the same with the old "the best are always the best or the best of the best are the best, as you would have it" is plain apples and oranges.




Quote:
I don't fail to understand anything. You simply grossly over-estimate the speed of which these changes happen and grossly under-estimate the ability of veteran players to adapt.
All I have to do is say Jagr, Selanne, Bourque, Lidstrom, Yzerman, Sakic and Lemieux and your logic/premise in this falls flat on its ass.
These players and how they did in select seasons has been accounted for and for Dmen they age better than forwards in general anyways.

That weak comp has as much value as C1958 comparing the NHL in 06 times in his age 25 season to the expanded NHL to 12 teams when he was 44 and saying that the leagues were the same when it's quite clear that they were quite a bit different.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 05:40 PM
  #432
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Expanding the number of players does NOT guarantee an equal increase in Elite players!
Not even close.
you are right if the talent that the NHL draws from is the same pool as before, ie the traditional Canadian feeder system.

One would expect little or no change although some "hidden stars" might emerge with the opportunity of 1st line minutes and PP time.

The thing is though that the explosion of non Canadian players happened after the mid 80's and peaked in the mid to alter 90's to where it is today.

We have absolute proof that the number of elite players has increased as some, say around 40% non Canadians year in and year out can be found on post season all star team and in the top 20 of all 3 scoring categories.

This is for position players, goalies it's similar.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 05:45 PM
  #433
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
Who said that it is necessarily equal? It depends on the number of players added, the hockey infrastructure available to them and just plain randomness.
Ok...so go back and read your post that I quoted and explain to me better what you were trying to say please.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 06:12 PM
  #434
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,450
vCash: 500
AGAIN!!!
What does it matter about what % of the best are what nationality???
The only thing that needs to be judged is what % of the worlds best are in the NHL at a given time.
Canadians just don‘t make up 100% anymore and I have yet to see a single person say otherwise.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 06:20 PM
  #435
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
AGAIN!!!
What does it matter about what % of the best are what nationality???
The only thing that needs to be judged is what % of the worlds best are in the NHL at a given time.
Canadians just don‘t make up 100% anymore and I have yet to see a single person say otherwise.
Okay, it's obvious that you either can't or won't understand the difference.

Either way it can't be helped at this point.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 06:35 PM
  #436
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Ok...so go back and read your post that I quoted and explain to me better what you were trying to say please.
I already said it. You made an inaccurate inference, so my response to you was largely unrelated to the original point. The original point is that the number of elite players is largely unrelated to the average talent level of NHL teams, since that is in part a function of the number of teams in the league. What you spoke of is a different matter. I'm not going to speak in absolutes (no Sith) and "guarantee" that the number of elite players grown, but it is pretty obvious that the number has grown, just not at a one to one rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
AGAIN!!!
What does it matter about what % of the best are what nationality???
The only thing that needs to be judged is what % of the worlds best are in the NHL at a given time.
Canadians just don‘t make up 100% anymore and I have yet to see a single person say otherwise.
The nationality only matters because it shows that the talent pool has grown beyond Canada alone. Unless you think that Canada has regressed significantly, the addition of elite players from other nations means that the number of elite players has gone up. This has been discussed and explained a million times already, so I am not expecting any changes in opinion.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 06:58 PM
  #437
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Phil you still have it wrong the expansion happened way before the explosion and inclusion of this other talent.

There was virtually no difference in the nationality and origin of the NHL talent pool from the last season of 06 a full 4 years later in 71.

Still more or less the same in 78.

In 88 a slight shift to more players from the US but still less than 10% from Europe.

It's not until the 90's that we see the full affect.

The full impact of the other talent pool didn't truly manifest itself until the early to mid 90's at which time the coaches in the NHL alos changed their tactics quite a bit which were helped with the explosion of the size of the goalie pads.

All of this had an affect of decreased scoring.

The effects listed above and the changes need to be taken into account when comparing players form vastly different eras or the conclusions drawn will be incomplete and lacking IMO.

Everyone knows the sticky here but really why not just make a stipulation that all countries be represented as well?

That's a dramatic example as no one puts Tony Hand on any list of all time great players, even with the Glen Sather quote and his tiny sample in the WHL.
There was talk in the early 1960s of expanding the NHL. So even back then there was the thought that the talent pool was getting bigger. Canada's population was growing as well as did the enrollment in minor hockey. Just because other countries hadn't caught up by the 1970s it doesn't mean Canada's population wasn't expanding. I think you have to take that into account here too. Then other countries starting to get better, hence 21 teams in the 1980s. Then the 1990s came around and there were 26 teams and now 30. If you see the NHL now I still don't think the talent pool has caught up with 30 teams. That's a lot of teams.

And has Canada dropped since the days when we were producing all the best players? Yes, I think we have. For example, the immigrants who came to Canada back in the day were often European and had the flavour of hockey in them to begin with. It was likely that they would teach their kids hockey over here too. You are seeing more immigrants come into Canada from non-hockey countries and the odds of their children growing up making the NHL is slimmer than before. I'll admit there are nice stories about Nazem Kadri's father from Lebanon falling in love with hockey once he came over here which led to Nazem turning out the way he did, but there are other options other than hockey today and Canadians are pursuing that. Hockey is still king here by a country mile, but yeah, I think there are less kids per capita playing organized hockey than there used to be.

It is a combination of Canada dropping a bit and other countries getting better. It still leads to great players either way.

Besides, I always think these points are moot once we look at the careers of some all-time greats. Ray Bourque dominated in two decades and was a first team all-star in his first and last season. No doubt there were some changes in nationality from 1979 to 2001 in the NHL. No matter. A true great is going to be great either way. Mario? Peeled through the NHL in 1989, 1993, 1996 and 2001. Each year had more Europeans than the next one. No matter. Gretzky happened to retire at a time when the explosion was at his peak. In a blended NHL he led the league in assists two times in his last three years in the late 1990s and everyone knows he was half the player he used to be.

Can we end the silly notion that a player's nationality matters in the grand scheme of things? Jagr is another good example and proof that a great hockey player is a great hockey player regardless of where he is from. He dominated in the NHL all over the place. Dead puck era, before the dead puck era, and after the 2004-'05 lockout against a young Crosby and Ovechkin. With that skillset, if he was from Alberta it wouldn't have made a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Why are you so obsessed with nationality? If the world's best players in a given time period are all Canadian why should it matter? The best players are the best players regardless of where they come from and that's all we should care about.
Canadians are dominating the scoring race this year in a way we saw them do it in the 1980s. If this holds up I know you or I wouldn't find that relevant but would others?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 07:13 PM
  #438
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
There was talk in the early 1960s of expanding the NHL. So even back then there was the thought that the talent pool was getting bigger. Canada's population was growing as well as did the enrollment in minor hockey. Just because other countries hadn't caught up by the 1970s it doesn't mean Canada's population wasn't expanding. I think you have to take that into account here too. Then other countries starting to get better, hence 21 teams in the 1980s. Then the 1990s came around and there were 26 teams and now 30. If you see the NHL now I still don't think the talent pool has caught up with 30 teams. That's a lot of teams.

And has Canada dropped since the days when we were producing all the best players? Yes, I think we have. For example, the immigrants who came to Canada back in the day were often European and had the flavour of hockey in them to begin with. It was likely that they would teach their kids hockey over here too. You are seeing more immigrants come into Canada from non-hockey countries and the odds of their children growing up making the NHL is slimmer than before. I'll admit there are nice stories about Nazem Kadri's father from Lebanon falling in love with hockey once he came over here which led to Nazem turning out the way he did, but there are other options other than hockey today and Canadians are pursuing that. Hockey is still king here by a country mile, but yeah, I think there are less kids per capita playing organized hockey than there used to be.

It is a combination of Canada dropping a bit and other countries getting better. It still leads to great players either way.

Besides, I always think these points are moot once we look at the careers of some all-time greats. Ray Bourque dominated in two decades and was a first team all-star in his first and last season. No doubt there were some changes in nationality from 1979 to 2001 in the NHL. No matter. A true great is going to be great either way. Mario? Peeled through the NHL in 1989, 1993, 1996 and 2001. Each year had more Europeans than the next one. No matter. Gretzky happened to retire at a time when the explosion was at his peak. In a blended NHL he led the league in assists two times in his last three years in the late 1990s and everyone knows he was half the player he used to be.

Can we end the silly notion that a player's nationality matters in the grand scheme of things? Jagr is another good example and proof that a great hockey player is a great hockey player regardless of where he is from. He dominated in the NHL all over the place. Dead puck era, before the dead puck era, and after the 2004-'05 lockout against a young Crosby and Ovechkin. With that skillset, if he was from Alberta it wouldn't have made a difference.



Canadians are dominating the scoring race this year in a way we saw them do it in the 1980s. If this holds up I know you or I wouldn't find that relevant but would others?
Canada is getting worse at hockey or less better?

Try to sell that to guys on here.

Go look at the world juniors or Olympics. Yes it's an off year, with some injuries as only 6 of the top 20 point getters are non Canadian. (8 of the top 17 assists are non Canadians and 7 of the top 18 in goals.

Sure just like which season in the 80's is this looking like?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 07:36 PM
  #439
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
There was talk in the early 1960s of expanding the NHL. So even back then there was the thought that the talent pool was getting bigger. Canada's population was growing as well as did the enrollment in minor hockey.
Yes, in the late 50's & early 60's as the new generation of owners at the NHL level came into their own and to the fore. Most notably out of New York, then the centre of the television universe, not LA. Expansion plans were hatched & conceived not for any altruistic reasons, as in "growing the game" or what with the Baby Boom upcoming talent pools would be deeper, no Siree Bob. Expansion was pushed because the NHL saw what was happening with other sports receiving healthy broadcast contracts and wanted a piece of the action, but because they were regional, Northeast & only 4 teams in the US, wasnt going to happen quickly enough nor be lucrative enough without broadening their horizons. Another huge factor was the ongoing threat of anti-trust suits. Several cities wanting in but rejected.

Also, the IHL was on the rise and threatening the NHL's supremacy with a possible WHL amalgamation, checkmating the NHL from gaining a foothold on the Westcoast in LA, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle & Vancouver. Ballard & Stafford Smythe early 60's trying to extort land from the City of Vancouver to build an arena realizing Expansion was coming, Vancouver key. Why not own the arena, charge whomever a Steam Packet in Rent or demand they buy the rink as part of their "membership fee"? They were thrown out of town, maliciously rejecting Vancouvers application for 67-68, still smarting for being denied free downtown land to build an arena.

Then you had the Norris Clan. Owned or controlled arenas all over the US through the ABA & minor league franchises. Expansion would be good business, as they could charge the new franchises rent or off-load their dog building to them altogether as part of the price of membership. It was all about the money, staving off lawsuits, greed and avarice. Zero to do with "for the good of the game". No thought, realization or understanding, much less care that perhaps talent pools would increase into the 60's & 70's as Boomers came of age. Even then, several owners went kicking & screaming into 67 Expansion, but not because they were worried about it watering down the product, but because their business interests werent addressed, not enough 0's on a check or whatever. League still operates that way today, just a little more sophisticated about it.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 07:39 PM
  #440
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,868
vCash: 500
Expansion and Immigration

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
There was talk in the early 1960s of expanding the NHL. So even back then there was the thought that the talent pool was getting bigger. Canada's population was growing as well as did the enrollment in minor hockey. Just because other countries hadn't caught up by the 1970s it doesn't mean Canada's population wasn't expanding. I think you have to take that into account here too. Then other countries starting to get better, hence 21 teams in the 1980s. Then the 1990s came around and there were 26 teams and now 30. If you see the NHL now I still don't think the talent pool has caught up with 30 teams. That's a lot of teams.

And has Canada dropped since the days when we were producing all the best players? Yes, I think we have. For example, the immigrants who came to Canada back in the day were often European and had the flavour of hockey in them to begin with. It was likely that they would teach their kids hockey over here too. You are seeing more immigrants come into Canada from non-hockey countries and the odds of their children growing up making the NHL is slimmer than before. I'll admit there are nice stories about Nazem Kadri's father from Lebanon falling in love with hockey once he came over here which led to Nazem turning out the way he did, but there are other options other than hockey today and Canadians are pursuing that. Hockey is still king here by a country mile, but yeah, I think there are less kids per capita playing organized hockey than there used to be.

It is a combination of Canada dropping a bit and other countries getting better. It still leads to great players either way.

Besides, I always think these points are moot once we look at the careers of some all-time greats. Ray Bourque dominated in two decades and was a first team all-star in his first and last season. No doubt there were some changes in nationality from 1979 to 2001 in the NHL. No matter. A true great is going to be great either way. Mario? Peeled through the NHL in 1989, 1993, 1996 and 2001. Each year had more Europeans than the next one. No matter. Gretzky happened to retire at a time when the explosion was at his peak. In a blended NHL he led the league in assists two times in his last three years in the late 1990s and everyone knows he was half the player he used to be.

Can we end the silly notion that a player's nationality matters in the grand scheme of things? Jagr is another good example and proof that a great hockey player is a great hockey player regardless of where he is from. He dominated in the NHL all over the place. Dead puck era, before the dead puck era, and after the 2004-'05 lockout against a young Crosby and Ovechkin. With that skillset, if he was from Alberta it wouldn't have made a difference.



Canadians are dominating the scoring race this year in a way we saw them do it in the 1980s. If this holds up I know you or I wouldn't find that relevant but would others?
There was talk of reviving the NY Americans and expansion to Cleveland - Jim Hendy in the late '40s/1950s. Lack of a suitable arena, not talent was the obstacle.

The post WWII immigrants, eastern Europeans, Italians, Greeks, Britain, etc did not have the "flavour of hockey" in them. No hockey in the Soviet Union pre September 1939 or during WWII. Likewise Greece and Italy had not hockey history.

The kids of such immigrants learned hockey at the various community centers where they would go after school while both parents worked or at night while the parents were studying English.

In Toronto you still see the heritage today, over 100 years old:

www.universitysettlement.ca

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 09:08 PM
  #441
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
There was talk of reviving the NY Americans and expansion to Cleveland - Jim Hendy in the late '40s/1950s. Lack of a suitable arena, not talent was the obstacle... The post WWII immigrants, eastern Europeans, Italians, Greeks, Britain, etc did not have the "flavour of hockey" in them.
Clevelands a typical case. In 1943, suffering the effects of WW2, the NHL & Norris specifically invited Cleveland to join, as it had a nice new arena that opened in 36, a healthy & vibrant AHL franchise with no NHL affiliation and its own Minor League System. The then owner, "Uncle" Al Suphtin (or was it Hendy, Suphtin coming later?) was one of the founding members of the AHL, and he feared that if he left, the AHL itself would collapse so he declined Norris's offer.

By 1953 however, Cleveland was ready to join the NHL, and despite meeting every requirement, from building to entry fee's, packed houses, wildly popular & winning years, they were rejected. Approved by Montreal, Toronto & I believe Boston, Rejected by Norris who owned Chicago, his Daughter Margie & Son Bruce in Detroit, while in New York he controlled MSG's & by rote the Rangers. Boston as well was beholden to Norris, having borrowed money from him to stay afloat so I might have NY & the Bruins reversed here but no matter. Cleveland "Grudged" out of entry, Norris getting even for being spurned by Suphtin 10yrs earlier.

And no, your quite correct. People emigrating to Canada & the US post WW2, and some huge influxes to Canada of Italians, Greeks & Eastern Europeans certainly did not have a "taste for hockey" in their mouths or minds. More they had the near on soul destroying stains of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini & a war of total devastation searing right through their souls, hockey no more a part of their childhood or culture as Jai Alai or Cricket is to Americans or Canadians. Culturally however most assimilated quickly, their kids picking up real quick on the game originated by the earlier Scots/Irish/English & French immigrants. Back then it was inexpensive, easily accessed, open to all, inclusive.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 12:36 AM
  #442
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
There was talk of reviving the NY Americans and expansion to Cleveland - Jim Hendy in the late '40s/1950s. Lack of a suitable arena, not talent was the obstacle.

The post WWII immigrants, eastern Europeans, Italians, Greeks, Britain, etc did not have the "flavour of hockey" in them. No hockey in the Soviet Union pre September 1939 or during WWII. Likewise Greece and Italy had not hockey history.

The kids of such immigrants learned hockey at the various community centers where they would go after school while both parents worked or at night while the parents were studying English.

In Toronto you still see the heritage today, over 100 years old:

www.universitysettlement.ca
They had more hockey blood in them than someone originally coming from India, or the Middle East or Asia for instance. That's all I was saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Yes, in the late 50's & early 60's as the new generation of owners at the NHL level came into their own and to the fore. Most notably out of New York, then the centre of the television universe, not LA. Expansion plans were hatched & conceived not for any altruistic reasons, as in "growing the game" or what with the Baby Boom upcoming talent pools would be deeper, no Siree Bob. Expansion was pushed because the NHL saw what was happening with other sports receiving healthy broadcast contracts and wanted a piece of the action, but because they were regional, Northeast & only 4 teams in the US, wasnt going to happen quickly enough nor be lucrative enough without broadening their horizons. Another huge factor was the ongoing threat of anti-trust suits. Several cities wanting in but rejected.

Also, the IHL was on the rise and threatening the NHL's supremacy with a possible WHL amalgamation, checkmating the NHL from gaining a foothold on the Westcoast in LA, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle & Vancouver. Ballard & Stafford Smythe early 60's trying to extort land from the City of Vancouver to build an arena realizing Expansion was coming, Vancouver key. Why not own the arena, charge whomever a Steam Packet in Rent or demand they buy the rink as part of their "membership fee"? They were thrown out of town, maliciously rejecting Vancouvers application for 67-68, still smarting for being denied free downtown land to build an arena.

Then you had the Norris Clan. Owned or controlled arenas all over the US through the ABA & minor league franchises. Expansion would be good business, as they could charge the new franchises rent or off-load their dog building to them altogether as part of the price of membership. It was all about the money, staving off lawsuits, greed and avarice. Zero to do with "for the good of the game". No thought, realization or understanding, much less care that perhaps talent pools would increase into the 60's & 70's as Boomers came of age. Even then, several owners went kicking & screaming into 67 Expansion, but not because they were worried about it watering down the product, but because their business interests werent addressed, not enough 0's on a check or whatever. League still operates that way today, just a little more sophisticated about it.
Right, but it was still justified because there was a growing talent pool under the NHL. There was a big enough talent pool in 1967 to double the teams in the NHL. It isnt as if there weren't a lot of players knocking on the door in the AHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Canada is getting worse at hockey or less better?

Try to sell that to guys on here.

Go look at the world juniors or Olympics. Yes it's an off year, with some injuries as only 6 of the top 20 point getters are non Canadian. (8 of the top 17 assists are non Canadians and 7 of the top 18 in goals.

Sure just like which season in the 80's is this looking like?
8 of the top 10 scorers are Canadian last time I checked. Not that it matters to me, but I was trying to make a point that it matters very little where the best players in the world originally come from. Having 8/10 scorers as Canadians would be similar to many seasons in the 1980s. I am assuming we are talking about top shelf talent here still right, the 40-50 point players aren't applying here.

And no, I don't think we produce the same players per capita anymore. It doesn't mean we still don't produce the most and the best players but like Americans in baseball there are other options out there and it isn't exclusive to hockey. Other countries got better and Canada hasn't gotten better, hence it only makes sense that the gap closes. Therefore there are European players who are taking up the spots formerly reserved for Canadians.

Either way it isn't important, what is important is actually looking at the best players in the world regardless of where they are coming from and asking yourself if they compare with the best of today. Take the top 10 players from 30 years ago and compare them to today and what difference would you get? Probably nothing. So the more things change the more they stay the same, European invasion or not.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 02:55 AM
  #443
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post

Either way it isn't important, what is important is actually looking at the best players in the world regardless of where they are coming from and asking yourself if they compare with the best of today. Take the top 10 players from 30 years ago and compare them to today and what difference would you get? Probably nothing. So the more things change the more they stay the same, European invasion or not.
Exactly!
And I really don't see how this is so hard of a concept to comprehend.

@Hardy
Please for the love of god tell us all specifically which players are not getting a fair shake?
You keep saying it's not fair. I want to know to whom it's not fair?

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 06:01 AM
  #444
daver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 4,436
vCash: 500
There does not seem to be any numerical evidence to back up the theories of why any particular era was harder or easier to dominate.

It does not seen like there is any evidence from other sports that particular eras were better for someone to dominate their sport.

IMO, dominance over peers is by far the best, if not the only, measure of a player's greatness.

daver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 06:21 AM
  #445
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
They had more hockey blood in them than someone originally coming from India, or the Middle East or Asia for instance.
Whoa, what exactly are you saying here? "Hockey blood"? People from Europe have a genetic predisposition for hockey that people from Asia are missing? Seriously?

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 01:47 PM
  #446
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
They had more hockey blood in them than someone originally coming from India, or the Middle East or Asia for instance. That's all I was saying....
... MG Phil, had to go there huh?. But seeing as how you already have, I think what you mean is that immigrants from the Middle East, SE Asia etc who dont come from colder climes in most cases would have little to no interest in the game of hockey, the NHL. No prior exposure to it really. Previous waves of immigrants, from the UK, Northern & Eastern Europe etc at least familiar with the game to some extent, hockey through the 19th-mid-20th Centuries predominantly played out of doors. It was a far different World though quite obviously, as the sport was affordable, ease of access for their kids to participate in & enjoy. The kids of todays immigrants if interested in playing the game, well, unless their families fairly well off, entry at the amateur levels not really an option. Gone are the outdoor shinny rinks that once dotted just about every neighbourhood in major centres like Toronto where the majority of new immigrants settle, get started. With global warming, well, good luck trying to make natural ice in Scarborough in January.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 02:07 PM
  #447
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,868
vCash: 500
Physical Activity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... MG Phil, had to go there huh?. But seeing as how you already have, I think what you mean is that immigrants from the Middle East, SE Asia etc who dont come from colder climes in most cases would have little to no interest in the game of hockey, the NHL. No prior exposure to it really. Previous waves of immigrants, from the UK, Northern & Eastern Europe etc at least familiar with the game to some extent, hockey through the 19th-mid-20th Centuries predominantly played out of doors. It was a far different World though quite obviously, as the sport was affordable, ease of access for their kids to participate in & enjoy. The kids of todays immigrants if interested in playing the game, well, unless their families fairly well off, entry at the amateur levels not really an option. Gone are the outdoor shinny rinks that once dotted just about every neighbourhood in major centres like Toronto where the majority of new immigrants settle, get started. With global warming, well, good luck trying to make natural ice in Scarborough in January.
Even from the warmer countries parents appreciate the value of physical activity for their children. The youngster may start with soccer but eventually gets to sample skating or hockey via classmates, teammates or neighbourhood friends.

Most Montreal/province of Quebec indoor municipal rinks have time set aside for public skating, free or nominal charge. Loaner,rental or second hand skates are readily available as are learn to skate courses.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 02:44 PM
  #448
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Most Montreal/province of Quebec indoor municipal rinks have time set aside for public skating, free or nominal charge. Loaner,rental or second hand skates are readily available as are learn to skate courses.
Ya, thats very true of course, but Im remembering back to the way it was for so many of us raised in urban or suburban environs. A local schoolyard rink, perhaps community centre or whatever. Often several rinks side by side, naturally flooded by volunteers. Boards supplied gratis by a Board of Education or whatever.

Totally free, no league games ever played on them. Strictly shinny on one with boards, free-skating with no sticks on another. Used skates from an exchange perhaps, a stick costing all of maybe $2-$10 if that. Wally's were like $1.50 in the 60's from a barrel at any number of hardware stores. Same ones Eddie Shore used to buy by the gross for his Springfield Indians. The range that was neither Left nor Right, straight blade, all the same Lie as I recall. Even a good stick, a C.C.M, Hespeler, Northlands, Sher-Wood like $6.95 to ten bucks.... and if you played for Eddie and wanted to use one of those, dig into your Levi's Pal, cuz he wasnt about to pay for em.

You could play to your hearts content for absolutely zero cost every single day after school till late at night; all day Saturdays & Sundays from December to mid-March. Because the ice was natural, bubbled or sheared here n' there, some areas puddled etc, really improved your skating abilities as you had to be cognizant of the surface. No helmets or equipment required beyond stick & skates, hockey gloves if youve got em. And with as many as 30-50 kids & teenagers out there, stickhandling skills, dekes in about the space of a phone booth, passes through blades, sticks & bodies tape-tape, using the boards & so on, no contact of course, hockey sense & smarts learned creatively, freely... thats all gone pretty much.


Last edited by Killion: 03-18-2013 at 02:54 PM.
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 02:59 PM
  #449
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daver View Post
There does not seem to be any numerical evidence to back up the theories of why any particular era was harder or easier to dominate.
You might check out the stickied thread in the 'By the Numbers' section.

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 03:45 PM
  #450
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
You might check out the stickied thread in the 'By the Numbers' section.
Every era has its context.
I mean one could say (and some have) that Orr got to play against some weak teams in the early 70's but one must also take note that every other star and superstar in the League at the time were playing those exact same weaker teams and the FACT remains that Orr, A D-MAN, dominated those other star players.

Same with Gretzky. He wasn't in a vacuum in the 80's. Every other player was playing the same schedule and the same teams he played and he almost doubled most other star players points.
No one is going to make me believe that Bossy and Stastny aren't as good or better than any player in the top 5 today.

Even Jagr, while I have little doubt that he would have at least maintained his point totals during the DPE, I don't believe that he would have maintained close to as wide of a gap between him and the other stars in the league at the time if say, today's rules were in place.
Jagr was built for the DPE and the hooking and holding had a lot less effect on him than say Kariya or Selanne.

Rhiessan71 is online now   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 07:27 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.