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.

On the Origin of Organized Hockey

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-04-2014, 07:24 PM
  #26
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Overlooking that depending on its construction, materials used, lack of uniform density, whether it absorbs water from use on ice a ball, force applied to a ball deforms to a disc.
Overlooking nothing. Simply addressing what the word "puck" means in this context. A ball is not a puck, we know that. So what is a puck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
There exists an unsupported assumption the post 1875 rink for hockey was in the 200 x 85 foot range, similar to the Victoria Rink in Montréal. This is not supportable
Very true. Early ice rinks varies in size greatly. Minimum dimensions were added to the rules, but the minimum was far less than the Victoria size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Fails to answer the "why" a disc, puck, or bung was used instead of a ball.
Doesn't try to answer why. Was only addressing what a puck is. The why is a separate question. An interesting question, but a separate one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
Are you talking about the sticks imported from Nova Scotia?
I'm talking about any hockey sticks used in the 19th century. Claiming that that the sticks used in 1875 in Montreal are more similar to modern sticks than to sticks used in England in the 1870s is indefensible.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2014, 07:37 PM
  #27
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Geometric définitions suffice for the distinction between a ball and a non ball.
You avoided using the term puck. Is there a reason for this?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2014, 07:43 PM
  #28
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,284
vCash: 500
Puck it! In terms of discussing organized hockey (organized to have a winner and a prize), how about the awarding of ice hockey's first ever award:

Hockey's first recorded award, medals to the champion goaltender of the 1885 Montreal Winter Carnival:



From bio here: Tom Paton

And is there an older trophy for a team than the Cosby Cup which began in 1890?

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2014, 07:46 PM
  #29
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Puck it! In terms of discussing organized hockey (organized to have a winner and a prize), how about the awarding of ice hockey's first ever award:
The Birks Cup was awarded at the 1883 Winter Carnival.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2014, 07:57 PM
  #30
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
The Birks Cup was awarded at the 1883 Winter Carnival.
I'd forgotten about that. Years ago I mentioned it when I chose to GM the McGill Redmen in a MLD on the ATD sub-board.

1883. Has there been any other championship trophy, medal or award in ice hockey before that. The only other reason I can think of to dig further back in history to determine the history of organized hockey (not just the beginning of ice hockey but organized hockey) would be evidence of a tournament which had teams with definite team names and a winner announced. The Winter Carnival is such a clear early example.

1875. 1883. 1885. 1893. All significant years in the development of organized hockey. What's the earliest recorded contest between two teams with team names where a winner and score was announced?

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2014, 08:00 PM
  #31
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
1883. Has there been any other championship trophy, medal or award in ice hockey before that.
None that I've yet heard of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
The only other reason I can think of to dig further back in history to determine the history of organized hockey (not just the beginning of ice hockey but organized hockey) would be evidence of a tournament which had teams with definite team names and a winner announced. The Winter Carnival is such a clear early example.
That's only if you make that a requirement of your definition of organized hockey. Which is certainly reasonable but should not be declared as the only possible definition.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2014, 08:02 PM
  #32
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
What's the earliest recorded contest between two teams with team names where a winner and score was announced?
See the link in the OP, there were a number of games in England in the 1870/71 season that match these requirements.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2014, 08:13 PM
  #33
AlexLaney
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
1. Size of the rink. Games played in the Victoria rink, yes. But it was not the only rink in use in early Montreal hockey, or in subsequent years before that size became the standard. And of course, we don't know the size of the rink used in most of the English reports, so we cannot say if they were dissimilar.
If you want to build them up to more than they were, then you can always use the doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
2. Use of puck. As discussed, a bung is a puck by any reasonable definition. And the puck used in 1875 in Montreal was made of wood, which is more similar to the cork used in England than it is to the rubber used today. And if one day's planning is all it takes to be formal in this regard, then any planned match in England certainly meets that requirement.
The puck was purpose-made for the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
3. Playing time. What was the time of play in the March 3, 1875 game? The game reports do not say.
It was 60 minutes long. Like today's game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
4. The sticks. Are you kidding? Have a look at pictures from Montreal hockey's early years.
The sticks were made for hockey for the 1875 game. They did not pick up any old twig. The Micmac sticks, while not like today's style, were prized possessions. Creighton imported sticks from Nova Scotia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
5. Size of goal. We don't know how different this is, since the English game reports did not specify it. We don't even know what it was exactly in the 1875 Montreal games.
Hey, at least there were goals, not just pushing to the end of the rink.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
6. Played indoors. So the games of the 1883 Montreal Winter Carnival should not be considered organized hockey? Ice hockey has often been played outdoors, so this cannot be taken as a determining factor.
Again, it's like today's game. Indoors. In future seasons of the Carnival they moved indoors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
No more so than the hockey played in 1875 in Montreal, that's the point. I also don't see how the specific size of the rink and goals and the time of play has any bearing on whether the game was rudimentary.
It's what they were, just games.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
MOD If you're not interested in the early development of hockey, that's fine. But don't try to tell others who are interested that there's nothing to discuss.
MOD
I'm saying that we should not take any sensational claim that any of these English games have any significance without serious doubt. There's not much to discuss because they are rudimentary games and saying the game was 'invented' on the basis of that evidence is going too far to be a reasonable point of view. There is no doubt that the English called their games hockey on ice. But it's a lonnnnng stretch to connect those to the modern sport. Even one of the players in the 1875 game said that there were ad hoc games prior to that between neighbourhood players in Montreal. If the English had set up something formal, or written down rules, then we'd have something.


Last edited by Fugu: 06-04-2014 at 08:32 PM. Reason: ...
AlexLaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2014, 08:23 PM
  #34
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLaney View Post
If you want to build them up to more than they were, then you can always use the doubt.
Ditto if you want to diminish them, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLaney View Post
It was 60 minutes long. Like today's game.
Citation needed.

How long were the English matches? If matches were 90 minutes instead of 60, would that somehow make them more or less rudimentary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLaney View Post
The sticks were made for hockey for the 1875 game. They did not pick up any old twig.
Ditto for England.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLaney View Post
Hey, at least there were goals, not just pushing to the end of the rink.
Ditto for England.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLaney View Post
Again, it's like today's game. Indoors. In future seasons of the Carnival they moved indoors.
You didn't answer the question. Was the 1883 Winter Carnival organized hockey or not? If it was, then whether the game is indoors or outdoors has no bearing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLaney View Post
It's what they were, just games.
Also easily said about the Montreal games in 1875.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLaney View Post
There's not much to discuss because they are rudimentary games and saying the game was 'invented' on the basis of that evidence is going too far to be a reasonable point of view.
Good thing no one's saying that then, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLaney View Post
If the English had set up something formal, or written down rules, then we'd have something.
You do know that the first rules published in Montreal were based directly on English field hockey rules, right? There were numerous version of hockey rules published in England years before the game came to Montreal, some just hockey in general, some specifically referring to hockey on the ice.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2014, 08:54 AM
  #35
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Ultimately, trying to sort different versions of hockey into two distinct groups, organized and non-organized, is too simplistic. There are degrees of organization. It's a continuum, not a dichotomy.

It's probably fair to say that a hockey tournament with a specified prize is more organized than two teams arranging to play a series of matches against each other. However, if you insert a firm dividing line such that one of these situations is called "organized" and the other "not organized", the placement of that line will necessarily be arbitrary. There is no one meaning of organized hockey, so your conclusion in this regard will be entirely dependant on the specifics of your definition.

It's far better, in my mind, to examine the evolution of the game as a whole, and not cut it off at some arbitrary point saying "before this point it was not organized hockey, and therefore is not relevant."

This is the point in my post in the OP, and the point in On the Origin of Hockey. We're not saying these English games must be considered "organized hockey." We're saying that if the first Montreal match is considered organized hockey, then these other games should be as well.

The SIHR origins report put forward March 3, 1875 as the first known instance of "formal", or organized, hockey. The examples from 1870/71, which were unknown at the time of that report in 2002, share so many characteristics with that match that it is indefensible to group them seperately.

Iain Fyffe 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 05:39 PM.

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.