HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Jean Beliveau vs. Bobby Hull

View Poll Results: Jean Beliveau or Bobby Hull?
Hull 54 40.60%
Beliveau 79 59.40%
Voters: 133. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-11-2013, 12:30 AM
  #101
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman View Post
In both The Top 70 and The Top 100 here (I miss reading FissionFire's posts) Hull was ranked #5 all time ahead of Beliveau which is consistent with the history books. Opinions change with the weather.
On THN's Top 100, Beliveau was #7 and Hull was #8.

I do find it interesting that the majority opinion on the history board seems to have gone from Richard to Hull and now to Beliveau

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 02:45 AM
  #102
Hawkman
Moderator
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
... I do find it interesting that the majority opinion on the history board seems to have gone from Richard to Hull and now to Beliveau
That's what I'm referring to. Hull was #5 here on The Top 70 and The Top 100 and if you go back and read the posts, some of the same people who are pro-Beliveau now were pro-Hull then. The wind must be blowing in a pro-Beliveau direction.

__________________
Hawkman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 06:30 AM
  #103
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
Career point per game

Beliveau 1.08
Hull 1.10

Stevens .56
Popovic .15

Not that Stevens was particularly known for his offense, but this is the quickest way I could think of to demonstrate that my preference for large players over smaller ones (and there are more advantages to to size than strength, which, I should not, I never mentioned) and centers over wings pertains only to two players of similar talent and effectiveness in their roles, which Stevens and Popovic in no way constitute.

I said I'd take Beliveau over Hull, not Crabb over St Louis, so I'll thank you to stop pretending I'm implying something other than I obviously am.
Obviously i did not, i just said that Scott Stevens was much better physically than Peter Popovic and that size to a high extent is secondary to the actual physicality of players no matter their position. Hull dominates Beliveau in this area even though he was of more normal height than Beliveau.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 06:49 AM
  #104
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Physicality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
Obviously i did not, i just said that Scott Stevens was much better physically than Peter Popovic and that size to a high extent is secondary to the actual physicality of players no matter their position. Hull dominates Beliveau in this area even though he was of more normal height than Beliveau.
Suggest you check their PIMs. Beliveau was a lot more physical in front of the net and in the playoffs.

Also Beliveau was next to Gordie Howe in terms of establishing a security perimeter so that he could play at ease. Hull allowed players like Bryan Watson to get too close to him.

Finally you could play smallish, non-physical players with Jean Beliveau - Bobby Rousseau, Yvan Cournoyer,J.C. Tremblay and he would take care of them if necessary.

Point was that like Howe, the team did not want him doing the physical job like Jean Beliveau did in 1955-56 and 1956-57 since it reduced his ice time.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 07:11 AM
  #105
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Suggest you check their PIMs. Beliveau was a lot more physical in front of the net and in the playoffs.

Also Beliveau was next to Gordie Howe in terms of establishing a security perimeter so that he could play at ease. Hull allowed players like Bryan Watson to get too close to him.

Finally you could play smallish, non-physical players with Jean Beliveau - Bobby Rousseau, Yvan Cournoyer,J.C. Tremblay and he would take care of them if necessary.

Point was that like Howe, the team did not want him doing the physical job like Jean Beliveau did in 1955-56 and 1956-57 since it reduced his ice time.
So you mean that Beliveau had more respect physically than Hull had? I'm not disputing that such a big body as Jean's had impact in a smaller than today league, but here we are discussing him vs. Hull, not him vs. Bobby Rousseau.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 07:39 AM
  #106
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
not to nitpick, but isn't Hull over Richard revisionism too? The "establishment" seems to think that Richard belongs over Hull, based on what I've seen from lists put together over the years. I'm not saying I agree, mind you, but that's how I remember it growing up. It was Gretzky, Howe, eventually Lemieux joined that group, and right behind them it was the Rocket.

Now we are insightful enough to put Hull ahead of Richard where he belongs, but that is really revisionism, and that doesn't have to be a dirty word. And if we can do that, why is Beliveau over Hull such heresy?
Not heresy. Arguable is the more apt term.

I started following the NHL in the mid 70's.

Howe was undisputeably number one amongst forwards. After that it was Hull and Richard. At the time Richard had only been retired for about 15 years, Beliveau about 3 and Hull and Howe were playing well in the WHA. Just seems the memories of those players and how they were perceived while playing was much fresher back then.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 07:51 AM
  #107
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Bobby Rousseau

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
So you mean that Beliveau had more respect physically than Hull had? I'm not disputing that such a big body as Jean's had impact in a smaller than today league, but here we are discussing him vs. Hull, not him vs. Bobby Rousseau.
Bobby Rousseau was Jean Beliveau's teammate so it is not a vs situation. Beliveau protected the smaller or non-physical players on his team.

Bobby Hull just took care of himself to a limited degree as he did not discourage the pest element like Bryan Watson very well. Such players learned very quickly not to bother Jean Beliveau or his linemates.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 08:29 AM
  #108
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Bobby Rousseau was Jean Beliveau's teammate so it is not a vs situation. Beliveau protected the smaller or non-physical players on his team.
I understand that, but just becouse Beliveau protected his linemates to some degree does not mean he was tougher, faster, or stronger than Bobby Hull. No?

Quote:
Bobby Hull just took care of himself to a limited degree as he did not discourage the pest element like Bryan Watson very well. Such players learned very quickly not to bother Jean Beliveau or his linemates.
Okey so now all of a sudden Beliveau was some kind of Gordie Howe? None of Hull or Beliveau was.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 08:52 AM
  #109
JaymzB
Registered User
 
JaymzB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Would an apt modern comparison be the difference in “physicality” of Ovechkin vs. Malkin? Ovechkin plays a more physical style of hockey, but I think an argument could be made that Malkin uses his size and leverage more effectively in keeping puck possession in the offensive zone.

JaymzB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 09:16 AM
  #110
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Jean Beliveau and Bobby Hull

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
I understand that, but just becouse Beliveau protected his linemates to some degree does not mean he was tougher, faster, or stronger than Bobby Hull. No?


Okey so now all of a sudden Beliveau was some kind of Gordie Howe? None of Hull or Beliveau was.
Suggest looking at their complete careers from the pre NHL days onwards.

Jean Beliveau

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...belivje01.html

Bobby Hull

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hullbo01.html

1956-57 rule change concerning the two minute minor afforded the star players more protection so it was a different game when Hull entered the NHL.

Tougher, faster, stronger.

Tougher. Both played thru injuries as did Gordie Howe. Difference was that Howe and Beliveau were better at precluding the petty or unnecessary injuries. Also Howe and Beliveau would wear out the opposition physically. Hull never did. The clean checking skaters like Provost and Houle were allowed to play with him. Hull would not leverage them to create space given the opportunity.

Faster. Hull was faster but lacked the mobility and quickness to play center in the NHL. Henri Richard would control him head to head at center. Beliveau had the mobility and quickness to play center and rush up the middle or both wings. Hull could only rush up the middle or the LW. Like Ovechkin, on his off wing, the RW, with the puck exposed to the inside the league caught onto him.

Stronger. Hull would not leverage his strength like Howe or Beliveau would. Wouldn't even leverage his strength like Henri Richard, Dave Keon or Stan Mikita did. Howe would allow very few close to him(Harvey and Horton)so leveraging was not a consideration for the most part. Beliveau loved defensemen in close because with two exceptions - Horton and Stanley he could leverage or move them out of position very easily.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 09:19 AM
  #111
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaymzB View Post
Would an apt modern comparison be the difference in “physicality” of Ovechkin vs. Malkin? Ovechkin plays a more physical style of hockey, but I think an argument could be made that Malkin uses his size and leverage more effectively in keeping puck possession in the offensive zone.
Yes, also in terms of establishing favourable position in front of the net and on both wings.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 10:20 AM
  #112
Mats86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,114
vCash: 500
I voted Beliveau. Even Hull may had more talent. Beliveau better leader and team player. I sensed Hull had an attitude. I always wondered why a team with Black Hawks talent never won a Cup. Maybe that's why??

Mats86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 11:01 AM
  #113
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats86 View Post
I voted Beliveau. Even Hull may had more talent. Beliveau better leader and team player. I sensed Hull had an attitude. I always wondered why a team with Black Hawks talent never won a Cup. Maybe that's why??
Well, no, I dont think thats fair at all Mats. The Hawks were really victims of parsimonious ownership, weak Management & Coaching, a lack of depth. Most annoying actually as they had the most exciting & dynamic player in the league in Bobby Hull, some tremendous players in Stan Mikita & Pierre Pilote, Mr. Goalie himself Glenn Hall in the crease. Hull didnt have any "character issues" on the ice nor in the dressing room. Now, away from the rink in the late 60's & 70's sure, on-going contract disputes with ownership but no, to suggest he was any kind of anchor or counter-productive influence, that he somehow held them back, absolutely incorrect and in fact quite the opposite the case. Had Chicago had better Mgmnt & Coaching, Scouts, Farm System, with what they had as a core, added depth, missing pieces, they could have and would have won more Cups and really right into the 70's.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 11:21 AM
  #114
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats86 View Post
I voted Beliveau. Even Hull may had more talent. Beliveau better leader and team player. I sensed Hull had an attitude. I always wondered why a team with Black Hawks talent never won a Cup. Maybe that's why??
They did win one

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 01:18 PM
  #115
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Suggest looking at their complete careers from the pre NHL days onwards.

Jean Beliveau

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...belivje01.html

Bobby Hull

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hullbo01.html

1956-57 rule change concerning the two minute minor afforded the star players more protection so it was a different game when Hull entered the NHL.

Tougher, faster, stronger.

Tougher. Both played thru injuries as did Gordie Howe. Difference was that Howe and Beliveau were better at precluding the petty or unnecessary injuries. Also Howe and Beliveau would wear out the opposition physically. Hull never did. The clean checking skaters like Provost and Houle were allowed to play with him. Hull would not leverage them to create space given the opportunity.

Faster. Hull was faster but lacked the mobility and quickness to play center in the NHL. Henri Richard would control him head to head at center. Beliveau had the mobility and quickness to play center and rush up the middle or both wings. Hull could only rush up the middle or the LW. Like Ovechkin, on his off wing, the RW, with the puck exposed to the inside the league caught onto him.

Stronger. Hull would not leverage his strength like Howe or Beliveau would. Wouldn't even leverage his strength like Henri Richard, Dave Keon or Stan Mikita did. Howe would allow very few close to him(Harvey and Horton)so leveraging was not a consideration for the most part. Beliveau loved defensemen in close because with two exceptions - Horton and Stanley he could leverage or move them out of position very easily.
Stuff like this makes me glad there's a history of hockey section on this website. Great post.

billybudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 01:46 PM
  #116
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Suggest looking at their complete careers from the pre NHL days onwards.

Jean Beliveau

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...belivje01.html

Bobby Hull

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hullbo01.html

1956-57 rule change concerning the two minute minor afforded the star players more protection so it was a different game when Hull entered the NHL.

Tougher, faster, stronger.

Tougher. Both played thru injuries as did Gordie Howe. Difference was that Howe and Beliveau were better at precluding the petty or unnecessary injuries. Also Howe and Beliveau would wear out the opposition physically. Hull never did. The clean checking skaters like Provost and Houle were allowed to play with him. Hull would not leverage them to create space given the opportunity.

Faster. Hull was faster but lacked the mobility and quickness to play center in the NHL. Henri Richard would control him head to head at center. Beliveau had the mobility and quickness to play center and rush up the middle or both wings. Hull could only rush up the middle or the LW. Like Ovechkin, on his off wing, the RW, with the puck exposed to the inside the league caught onto him.

Stronger. Hull would not leverage his strength like Howe or Beliveau would. Wouldn't even leverage his strength like Henri Richard, Dave Keon or Stan Mikita did. Howe would allow very few close to him(Harvey and Horton)so leveraging was not a consideration for the most part. Beliveau loved defensemen in close because with two exceptions - Horton and Stanley he could leverage or move them out of position very easily.
I have read a lot of game reports from the 1971 playoffs (when Rejean Houle was shadowing Hull) and Houle's entire strategy was to stay a few steps away from Hull because if he got too close, Hull would just knock him down. Houle was assigned to shadow Hull because he had the speed to keep up with him, but Hull was much physically stronger:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montreal Gazette, May 12, 1971
Bobby's frustration started to show in the period when he got physical to knock down Houle at every opportunity.

"Put yourself in his place," offered Houle about Hull's reaction. "I'm always on his back so he's got to put his elbows up to try to and get room once in awhile."

Houle, a lean 165 pounder explained he couldn't stay to close to 195 pound Bobby who is built like a bull.

"If I stay too close he'll just push me off and maybe break loose. I just worked a couple of steps away from him and then moved in when he was going to get the puck."
The Peanut Just Drives Bobby Nuts

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 03:30 PM
  #117
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Two Way Street

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I have read a lot of game reports from the 1971 playoffs (when Rejean Houle was shadowing Hull) and Houle's entire strategy was to stay a few steps away from Hull because if he got too close, Hull would just knock him down. Houle was assigned to shadow Hull because he had the speed to keep up with him, but Hull was much physically stronger:


The Peanut Just Drives Bobby Nuts
This is very true BUT you overlook that hockey is a two way street with transition points at each end. In the Pat Curran articles Houle clearly refers to the situations when Hull was on the offensive and Houle dictated the spacing.

When play transitioned and Hull dictated the spacing he would not use his physical advantage in a legal fashion like Howe, Beliveau or other players to leverage or wear down Houle. Even when on the offensive there are legal ways to bring the defensive player into reach. Likewise on faceoffs, along the boards, in corners, etc. Hull would not go beyond the necessary physicality that his strength would have permitted.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 04:26 PM
  #118
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
In the Pat Curran articles Houle clearly refers to the situations when Hull was on the offensive and Houle dictated the spacing... Hull would not go beyond the necessary physicality that his strength would have permitted.
Indeed. Houle was only 20 in 71, a Rookie and assigned to shadow Hull on a line with Pete Mahovlich & Hull's old nemesis John Ferguson. Earlier in the season in fact Fergie there had gone at Hull & tried to rip off a helmet & face mask Hull was wearing recovering from a broken jaw, the Forum crowd actually turning on Johnny as a result for unsportsmanlike conduct.... at anyrate, Houle had been a high flying scoring sensation in Junior, "the next Big Deal" however in playing for the Habs', if he wanted to play at all, had to essentially develop his defensive game.

Hull had scored 10 goals in 11 games leading up to the 71 Finals against Montreal. Earlier in the 60's Claude Provost had been assigned to cover Hull but he'd retired in 1970 (died early at 45) with Claude Larose taking over that task thereafter. However, he'd gotten injured, so Al MacNeil put Houle in there who not through strength but by matching Hull through skating played not too close & not too far away, one play ahead of Bobby Hull using his speed & stick to stop Hull from taking off before he even got the puck through the transition zone. Spacing. Only once did Hull manage to break free in Game 7 hitting the crossbar and Dryden didnt even move on the shot clearly beaten. Just that one split second of a momentary lapse & BAM, what nightmares are made of in playing against the likes of Bobby Hull. Houle couldve easily gone from Hero to Chump, all of his excellent work in shutting down Hull altogether over the last 4 games for nought.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 04:27 PM
  #119
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,618
vCash: 500
Some contemporary quotes of Beliveau's physical game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sports Illustrated - 1/23/1956
Beliveau, for a time, was just the opposite, and, in fact, during his first year with Les Canadiens he acquired the nickname Gentleman Jean when it was discovered around the league that the new rookie had a distinct aversion to mixing it up. His former coach, Dick Irvin, noticing the change that has come over Beliveau during the last year, says of him now, "Like the other great players in the game, Jean was quick to smarten up when he saw the opposition getting the best of him. He'll never be the type to go around looking for trouble, but now he can be as tough as anybody."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...65/3/index.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Montreal Gazette (Dink Carroll) - 2/13/1959
It was Big Jean who started the rhubarb in the third period when he hit Dick Duff from behind and slammed him into the boards. He was given a five-minute penalty for crosschecking.

This is to say that Big Jean is a better hockey player when he's a bit rough. There was nothing chippy about him when he first came into the league, and opposing players took advantage of him and chopped him down, he had to become more aggressive to protect himself. The year he led the individual scoring race he set a new record for penalties for a centre.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...beliveau&hl=en

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawa Citizen - 3/25/1959
The other was to get Big Jean Beliveau so angry he'd forgot about hockey, or leave the game through penalties. Actually it didn't materialize that way, although for a moment in the first period, it almost worked. I have never seen Beliveau as angry, and certainly angry enough to swing his stick viciously. It happened in a wild scramble in front of the Chicago net, and whatever occurred, Beliveau suddenly took a two-handed, axe-like swing with his stick at Terrible Ted Lindsay who, fortunately, backed out of range just in time.

Afterwards, Beliveau just shrugged it off, appearing to disdain even commenting on the incident. But he was plenty irked at the time, and only the quick intervention of the officials kept the fracas to a minimum...If it was the plan, and somehow I am inclined to believe that perhaps it was just Terrible Ted, it didn't work, and there were no repercussions thereafter.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...beliveau&hl=en

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Montreal Gazette - 6/15/1971
"He's a big strong guy and he's got such long arms that you can't get the puck away from," [Ted] Lindsay said. "It's a frustrating job trying to check him. But he concentrates on playing hockey and there's nothing chippy about him. You have to respect a guy like that."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...beliveau&hl=en

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Pelletier's Greatest Hockey Legends
Wild Bill Eznicki, one of the most physical players of his era, recalled what it was like to attempt to knock down Beliveau: "It was like running into the side of a big oak tree. I bounced right off the guy and landed on the seat of my pants."
http://habslegends.blogspot.com/2006...-beliveau.html

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 04:31 PM
  #120
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Indeed. Houle was only 20 in 71, a Rookie and assigned to shadow Hull on a line with Pete Mahovlich & Hull's old nemesis John Ferguson. Earlier in the season in fact Fergie there had gone at Hull & tried to rip off a helmet & face mask Hull was wearing recovering from a broken jaw, the Forum crowd actually turning on Johnny as a result for unsportsmanlike conduct.... at anyrate, Houle had been a high flying scoring sensation in Junior, "the next Big Deal" however in playing for the Habs', if he wanted to play at all, had to essentially develop his defensive game.

Hull had scored 10 goals in 11 games leading up to the 71 Finals against Montreal. Earlier in the 60's Claude Provost had been assigned to cover Hull but he'd retired in 1970 (died early at 45) with Claude Larose taking over that task thereafter. However, he'd gotten injured, so Al MacNeil put Houle in there who not through strength but by matching Hull through skating played not too close & not too far away, one play ahead of Bobby Hull using his speed & stick to stop Hull from taking off before he even got the puck through the transition zone. Spacing. Only once did Hull manage to break free in Game 7 hitting the crossbar and Dryden didnt even move on the shot clearly beaten. Just that one split second of a momentary lapse & BAM, what nightmares are made of in playing against the likes of Bobby Hull. Houle couldve easily gone from Hero to Chump, all of his excellent work in shutting down Hull altogether over the last 4 games for nought.
The line in the 71 finals was Pete Mahovlich - Henri Richard - Rejean Houle

Mahovlich was playing LW at the time.

Everything else you said (including Houle losing Hull once and Hull hitting the post/crossbar) is consistent with what I've read.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 04:51 PM
  #121
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The line in the 71 finals was Pete Mahovlich - Henri Richard - Rejean Houle

Mahovlich was playing LW at the time.

Everything else you said (including Houle losing Hull once and Hull hitting the post/crossbar) is consistent with what I've read.
Oh?. My memory must be hazy as I seem to recall otherwise though I do also remember seeing Henri Richard out there as well. Hull would double shift, triple shift sometimes, and for some strange reason in my minds eye I do remember seeing Mahovlich at Centre with Houle & Ferguson. Maybe MacNeil was doubling Houle & switching things up?... no matter really, minor point, Reggie did a heck of a nice job of it. The big thing with Hull beyond his speed & strength was his stamina. Particularly as you consider back then a shift could be what, 2 minutes or so? Took a 20yr old to even try & keep up with a then 36yr old Hull and at that Houle going flat out & nearly exhausted.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 05:09 PM
  #122
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Two Factors

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Oh?. My memory must be hazy as I seem to recall otherwise though I do also remember seeing Henri Richard out there as well. Hull would double shift, triple shift sometimes, and for some strange reason in my minds eye I do remember seeing Mahovlich at Centre with Houle & Ferguson. Maybe MacNeil was doubling Houle & switching things up?... no matter really, minor point, Reggie did a heck of a nice job of it. The big thing with Hull beyond his speed & strength was his stamina. Particularly as you consider back then a shift could be what, 2 minutes or so? Took a 20yr old to even try & keep up with a then 36yr old Hull and at that Houle going flat out & nearly exhausted.
Two factors.

On the small rinks - Boston and Chicago, Canadiens liked to play Pete Mahovlich and Richard together since they would work the RHS/LHS advantage to create turnovers - see game two vs Boston and the turn around goal making the score 5-2 and starting the comeback.

With Hull playing extra shifts in the SC Final, he was playing with different centers and different defense pairings. So if quickness was needed it would be Richard, spelled by Lemaire. size and it would be Pete Mahovlich or Beliveau. Also Pete Mahovlich had a history of knee problems so his shifts were a bit shorter.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2013, 12:58 PM
  #123
Mats86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well, no, I dont think thats fair at all Mats. The Hawks were really victims of parsimonious ownership, weak Management & Coaching, a lack of depth. Most annoying actually as they had the most exciting & dynamic player in the league in Bobby Hull, some tremendous players in Stan Mikita & Pierre Pilote, Mr. Goalie himself Glenn Hall in the crease. Hull didnt have any "character issues" on the ice nor in the dressing room. Now, away from the rink in the late 60's & 70's sure, on-going contract disputes with ownership but no, to suggest he was any kind of anchor or counter-productive influence, that he somehow held them back, absolutely incorrect and in fact quite the opposite the case. Had Chicago had better Mgmnt & Coaching, Scouts, Farm System, with what they had as a core, added depth, missing pieces, they could have and would have won more Cups and really right into the 70's.
I don't know Kill...Beliveau is generally considered one of best captains of all-time...Hull I seen in interviews had quite the me/myself attitude. One of those guys who got under your skin. No doubt leadership was a factor.

Mats86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2013, 02:44 PM
  #124
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats86 View Post
I don't know Kill...Beliveau is generally considered one of best captains of all-time...Hull I seen in interviews had quite the me/myself attitude. One of those guys who got under your skin. No doubt leadership was a factor.
Oh for sure, though claimed by Messier supporters in more recent times, Beliveau is "The Captain" of All Time IMO & millions more. "Character issues" are certainly worth considering & really, just about any player would be left wanting in comparison to Jean. Beyond Classy. Grew up in Toronto a Leafs fan late 50's through the 60's & a huge fan of Jean Beliveaus'. Couldnt help but admire him and believe me, went looking for faults. Couldnt really find any. About the only guy I didnt much like on the Habs of that era was John Ferguson however he served a purpose, played a role.... As for Hull, no, I remember him during his playing days quite well indeed. He was always gracious, respectful, thankful to have been blessed so much talent, had real joie de vivre & elan about himself & his game. In fact, annoyed his team mates to no end as he'd hold them up when they were waiting to leave the Forum, Maple Leaf Gardens, wherever insisting on signing every single kids request for an autograph. No, nothing pretentious, nothing of the Prima Donna about Bobby Hull. Very down to Earth. Respectful. Clean player.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2013, 04:24 PM
  #125
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Suggest looking at their complete careers from the pre NHL days onwards.

Jean Beliveau

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...belivje01.html

Bobby Hull

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hullbo01.html

1956-57 rule change concerning the two minute minor afforded the star players more protection so it was a different game when Hull entered the NHL.

Tougher, faster, stronger.

Tougher. Both played thru injuries as did Gordie Howe. Difference was that Howe and Beliveau were better at precluding the petty or unnecessary injuries. Also Howe and Beliveau would wear out the opposition physically. Hull never did. The clean checking skaters like Provost and Houle were allowed to play with him. Hull would not leverage them to create space given the opportunity.

Faster. Hull was faster but lacked the mobility and quickness to play center in the NHL. Henri Richard would control him head to head at center. Beliveau had the mobility and quickness to play center and rush up the middle or both wings. Hull could only rush up the middle or the LW. Like Ovechkin, on his off wing, the RW, with the puck exposed to the inside the league caught onto him.

Stronger. Hull would not leverage his strength like Howe or Beliveau would. Wouldn't even leverage his strength like Henri Richard, Dave Keon or Stan Mikita did. Howe would allow very few close to him(Harvey and Horton)so leveraging was not a consideration for the most part. Beliveau loved defensemen in close because with two exceptions - Horton and Stanley he could leverage or move them out of position very easily.
Sometimes your comments are very astute but you are dead wrong here.

Hull certainly leveraged his strength. He would literally push people out of the way while cradling the puck. Plus he was a very punishing body checker. Ask Salming in the 1976 Canada cup. Salming says himself that Hull hit him cleanly but hard and put him off his game.

As far as playing centre, Hull certainly had the mobility & quickness to play the position. In fact he did in junior & his first 2 NHL seasons. He was only moved to left wing to take advantage of his incredible speed and shot. If they had left him at centre, he still would have had an incredible career. Probably with a higher emphasis on playmaking but what a waste that would have been. In fact though he was still used a fair bit at centre in later years.

pappyline 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 04:38 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.