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 Sport of Ice Hockey

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-05-2014, 06:00 PM
  #101
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Except they do not shorten their sticks on Neutral Zone faceoffs since the positioning rules and markings for taking faceoffs are different.
So your note about faceoffs was even less relevant than originally thought?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
There is a huge difference between what is optimal and what is preferred
Uh, sure? If a player wants to use equipment that isn't optimal, that's up to him, I guess. But if he's competing at a high level he's going to hurt his chances, by definition, if he does not use optimal equipment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Likewise multi position players - center & wingers or forward & defensemen use different stick lengths and blades according to the position they are playing.
Yes, and that's why it's an optimal range, rather than a single length. Seems like I've mentioned that before.

Despite all your protesting, you cannot provide a single example of a modern player using a stick that is very significantly shorter than what others of his position use. There is no one (adult) who uses a 30" stick, for example. Why is that? If you deny that stick length matters, then you cannot explain that.

Why do forwards use shorter sticks than defencemen? Because a defenceman's stick is more difficult to stickhandle with, especially in traffic. But you say that there is no optimal range, so there should be forwards who use big 'ole defencemen sticks. Similarly, there should be some defencemen who use the shortest little dangler he can get. But they don't, because there's a range of stick lengths that are best for each player, and they stick to those.

This is not a controversial statement, and I'll be blunt and say that it's obviously true. But if you want to continue with the digression, I will reiterate as much as I have to.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2014, 07:55 PM
  #102
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 25,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
Yes thats one of them. Fascinating, and thanks for digging up the link. Got its' own web page huh?!... Theres another circa 1852'ish as well, hand carved, lab dated. The Moffatt certainly appears to be app 36"'s in length so standard sized for the era. It would certainly be edifying to find out when longer sticks started being produced, be it the 1850's, 60's or 70's, the 80's? In 1927/28 the NHL capped the length at 63"'s. Incredibly, Ernie Moose Johnson who played until 45yrs of age in the NHA, PCHA & in the minors used a stick that was 99 inches long. Had played Forward in his younger days but mid-career switching to Defence, using a stick that was just over 8' in length. Multiple Cup winner & All Star, needless to say Master of the Poke Check. Also of note, Cy Denneny, a contemporary of Mooses' though a bit younger was the first to curve his blade and of course that was 3+ full decades before Mikita, Hull et al.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2014, 08:54 PM
  #103
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Incredibly, Ernie Moose Johnson who played until 45yrs of age in the NHA, PCHA & in the minors used a stick that was 99 inches long.
Johnson supposedly had a 99-inch reach (including his arm), not a 99-inch stick.

It's difficult to find photos of him with his stick in his PCHA days. Based on photos when he was with the Wanderers (when he played forward), he did not use a particularly long stick for his height.

This photo looks to be him with Portland (when he played defence), demonstrating his reach. If that's him, you can see how important his arm is in getting to 99 inches of reach, assuming that figure is correct.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2014, 09:20 PM
  #104
Robert Gordon Orr
Registered User
 
Robert Gordon Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 94
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Yes thats one of them. Fascinating, and thanks for digging up the link. Got its' own web page huh?!... Theres another circa 1852'ish as well, hand carved, lab dated. The Moffatt certainly appears to be app 36"'s in length so standard sized for the era.
Let us not forget that we have no solid evidence that the ”Moffatt stick” was really used for any games played on ice with skates, even though it seems highly probable. If the Moffatt stick was used in games played on the ice with skates, it is the second oldest known such stick. The oldest being John Jacksons (1798-1872) goalie stick used in 1827 (from Earith, England).

It still would be interesting to find the first contemporary advertisements for hockey sticks. Has anyone ever found a contemporary ad in a newspaper before 1880 for the so called Mic-Mac sticks ?

Some known early ads for hockey/shinny sticks.

1847 – Hockey Sticks – John Owen, London, England
1860 – Shinny Sticks - Conover & Walker, New York, USA
1860 – Hockey or Shinty Sticks, unknown ?, Boston, Massachusetts
1861 – Hockey Sticks – John Lillywhite, London, England
1865 – Hockey Sticks – Robert Burn, Oakham, England
1881 – Hockey Sticks - G.W.Simmons & Son, Boston, Massachusetts

Robert Gordon Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2014, 09:35 PM
  #105
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 25,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Johnson supposedly had a 99-inch reach (including his arm), not a 99-inch stick.

It's difficult to find photos of him with his stick in his PCHA days. Based on photos when he was with the Wanderers (when he played forward), he did not use a particularly long stick for his height.

This photo looks to be him with Portland (when he played defence), demonstrating his reach. If that's him, you can see how important his arm is in getting to 99 inches of reach, assuming that figure is correct.
Ya Ive seen 2 different references here Iain. One that he was using a 75" long stick giving him a 99" reach and another that says he was using a 99" long stick. If the latter, were talking Jolly Green Giant time yet thats the number that appears on Joe Pelletiers blurb on him along with his bio on a couple of other sites. I suspect the 99" "reach" is correct but there are citations of a 99" stick. Picture looks closer to 75"'s than 99" huh? I mean that would be over 8'. The length of sailing pram.... modified hydroplane. Seems a bit of overkill. Deke the goalie from the Blue Line practically.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2014, 09:45 PM
  #106
Robert Gordon Orr
Registered User
 
Robert Gordon Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 94
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ya Ive seen 2 different references here Iain. One that he was using a 75" long stick giving him a 99" reach and another that says he was using a 99" long stick. If the latter, were talking Jolly Green Giant time yet thats the number that appears on Joe Pelletiers blurb on him along with his bio on a couple of other sites. I suspect the 99" "reach" is correct but there are citations of a 99" stick. Picture looks closer to 75"'s than 99" huh? I mean that would be over 8'. The length of sailing pram.... modified hydroplane. Seems a bit of overkill. Deke the goalie from the Blue Line practically.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=3114,2787555

Robert Gordon Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2014, 09:50 PM
  #107
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Gordon Orr View Post
Nice find, 91 is certainly more believable than 99. He was big for the time, but the SIHR database lists him at 5'11".

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2014, 09:54 PM
  #108
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 25,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Gordon Orr View Post
The oldest being John Jacksons (1798-1872) goalie stick used in 1827 (from Earith, England).... It still would be interesting to find the first contemporary advertisements for hockey sticks. Has anyone ever found a contemporary ad in a newspaper before 1880 for the so called Mic-Mac sticks ?
Ive never seen one no. Youd think there'd be Patents on them and that would be where you could find dimensions, lengths etc but Id guess only with the first mechanically or machine produced sticks. In and around Hespeler Ontario for example, there were eventually quite a few manufacturers & makers of hockey sticks, guys who's businesses were everything from furniture manufacturing & repairs to blacksmiths & harness makers & crafters.... And this is interesting, you telling me theres a "Goalie Stick" that old in existence & manufactured or hand~made in England? Lore over here has it that the first Goalie Stick was considerably later, basically an "add on" to the players stick initially of another stick attached atop one another forming a half~paddle cut & grafted together halfway down the shaft then glued & taped. Twinned. The full paddle coming later.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2014, 10:01 PM
  #109
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 25,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Nice find, 91 is certainly more believable than 99. He was big for the time, but the SIHR database lists him at 5'11".
Yes. 91" reach including his arm & the stick. So Im thinking his stick was 75"'s or thereabouts, though again, Joe Pelletier & others = "99" stick". Seems pretty crazy, unwieldy to say the least if it was ninety nine inches in length. I mean can you imagine even trying to take a shot with that thing? Nuts.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2014, 10:28 PM
  #110
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Yes. 91" reach including his arm & the stick. So Im thinking his stick was 75"'s or thereabouts, though again, Joe Pelletier & others = "99" stick". Seems pretty crazy, unwieldy to say the least if it was ninety nine inches in length. I mean can you imagine even trying to take a shot with that thing? Nuts.
I don't think you could shoot effectively with such a stick, unless you yourself were awfully tall. The 99" stick claim does pop up here and there on the web, never with any citation of course.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2014, 10:38 PM
  #111
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 25,772
vCash: 500
^^^ Ya, like about the size of a fully mature Sasquatch. 8' stick just about the right length. Trimmed down a bit of course.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 10:28 AM
  #112
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
So your note about faceoffs was even less relevant than originally thought?


Uh, sure? If a player wants to use equipment that isn't optimal, that's up to him, I guess. But if he's competing at a high level he's going to hurt his chances, by definition, if he does not use optimal equipment.


Yes, and that's why it's an optimal range, rather than a single length. Seems like I've mentioned that before.

Despite all your protesting, you cannot provide a single example of a modern player using a stick that is very significantly shorter than what others of his position use. There is no one (adult) who uses a 30" stick, for example. Why is that? If you deny that stick length matters, then you cannot explain that.

Why do forwards use shorter sticks than defencemen? Because a defenceman's stick is more difficult to stickhandle with, especially in traffic. But you say that there is no optimal range, so there should be forwards who use big 'ole defencemen sticks. Similarly, there should be some defencemen who use the shortest little dangler he can get. But they don't, because there's a range of stick lengths that are best for each player, and they stick to those.

This is not a controversial statement, and I'll be blunt and say that it's obviously true. But if you want to continue with the digression, I will reiterate as much as I have to.
All the bolded implies that you can actually define an optimum and vacillating from a "sweet spot" - defined spot as on a baseball to claiming a range that covers a length of stick possibilities is a unique position.

As for the for your explanation why defensemen use sticks longer than forwards because of "traffic" - well why or how is hockey traffic created? An equal mix of defensemen and forwards in the slot when playing man defense. Yet forwards use shorter sticks in the same traffic.

Perhaps defensemen being taller - Chara, Myers, Gill, etc influences the choice of longer sticks as opposed to forwards who tend to be shorter.

You created the digression but it serves to undermine your basic position that the origins of hockey stem from England. Whether pro or con you cannot attribute initial hockey stick sophistication to England but it is clearly attributable to Canada post March 3, 1875.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 10:31 AM
  #113
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Definition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalupa Batman View Post
I'm not sure that this part follows.
If something exists then it is possible to define it. Otherwise it becomes a matter of faith.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 10:35 AM
  #114
Trebek
Mod Supervisor
 
Trebek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
If something exists then it is possible to define it. Otherwise it becomes a matter of faith.
You're far more passionate about this argument than I am, so I'm going to withdraw.

Trebek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 12:13 PM
  #115
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 25,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Whether pro or con you cannot attribute initial hockey stick sophistication to England but it is clearly attributable to Canada post March 3, 1875.
This is from Iain's blogspot and so no C58, I dont believe he is attributing the more rapid development to the UK prior to really 1885 let alone 1875.

http://www.hockeyhistorysis.blogspot...key-stick.html

1885 = 33-35
1893 = 42-46
1901 = 44-49
1910 = 46-52

And in 1926 the NHL capped the length at 63.... The Old School methodology (Chin/Dangler, Nose/Grinder, Brow/Defenceman) was tossed some years ago as you know, players today measuring (while in skates) optimum lengths to their Chests. Defenceman of course going with a longer stick, often to their Collarbone, Adams Apple or even Chin depending on what height they are. As most are in the 6' + range & bigger, they dont cut them at all. 63's, though Zdeno Chara has a "Exemption" allowing him to use a 65" long stick.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 02:44 PM
  #116
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
All the bolded implies that you can actually define an optimum and vacillating from a "sweet spot" - defined spot as on a baseball to claiming a range that covers a length of stick possibilities is a unique position.
In baseball, the term "sweet spot" is used to describe the section of the bat (not the one and only individual point) that will transfer the greatest amount of energy to the ball when struck. It's used in other sports in a similar way as well.

I did not use it in that way, but you have no basis for complaining about a colloquial use of the term sweet spot, given that I long ago clarified I was talking about the optimal range of stick lengths. I've used the term optimal range over and over again in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
As for the for your explanation why defensemen use sticks longer than forwards because of "traffic" - well why or how is hockey traffic created? An equal mix of defensemen and forwards in the slot when playing man defense. Yet forwards use shorter sticks in the same traffic.
I won't insult your intelligence by believing that you don't understand that forwards and defencemen have very different priorities in such situations. The forwards are trying, in general, to control the puck, the defencemen are trying, in general, to knock the puck away from the forwards. This difference in priorities leads to differences in optimal stick length.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Whether pro or con you cannot attribute initial hockey stick sophistication to England but it is clearly attributable to Canada post March 3, 1875.
No kidding. It's almost like that's exactly what I described in the blog post that began this discussion so long ago, as Killion already pointed out.

Can you tell me why no adult ice hockey player uses a 3-foot-long stick, if there is no optimal range of stick length?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 02:56 PM
  #117
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
You created the digression...
Post #41 in this thread is where it started, when you brought up the previous discussion and tried to say that your arguments were treated dismissively, when in fact they were rejected because they were conjecture, without evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
...but it serves to undermine your basic position that the origins of hockey stem from England.
Not in the slightest, of course. Discussing how the game evolved after coming to Canada has no bearing on where it was before coming to Canada.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 05:06 PM
  #118
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Vulcanized Rubber Puck

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
This is from Iain's blogspot and so no C58, I dont believe he is attributing the more rapid development to the UK prior to really 1885 let alone 1875.

http://www.hockeyhistorysis.blogspot...key-stick.html

1885 = 33-35
1893 = 42-46
1901 = 44-49
1910 = 46-52

And in 1926 the NHL capped the length at 63.... The Old School methodology (Chin/Dangler, Nose/Grinder, Brow/Defenceman) was tossed some years ago as you know, players today measuring (while in skates) optimum lengths to their Chests. Defenceman of course going with a longer stick, often to their Collarbone, Adams Apple or even Chin depending on what height they are. As most are in the 6' + range & bigger, they dont cut them at all. 63's, though Zdeno Chara has a "Exemption" allowing him to use a 65" long stick.
The scoring increased from 1886 to 1887 due to the introduction of the vulcanized rubber puck amongst other reason, following the introduction of the Fall 1886 rules and the formation of the first league.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 06-06-2014 at 05:21 PM.
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 05:20 PM
  #119
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Sweet Spot

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
In baseball, the term "sweet spot" is used to describe the section of the bat (not the one and only individual point) that will transfer the greatest amount of energy to the ball when struck. It's used in other sports in a similar way as well.

I did not use it in that way, but you have no basis for complaining about a colloquial use of the term sweet spot, given that I long ago clarified I was talking about the optimal range of stick lengths. I've used the term optimal range over and over again in this thread.


I won't insult your intelligence by believing that you don't understand that forwards and defencemen have very different priorities in such situations. The forwards are trying, in general, to control the puck, the defencemen are trying, in general, to knock the puck away from the forwards. This difference in priorities leads to differences in optimal stick length.


No kidding. It's almost like that's exactly what I described in the blog post that began this discussion so long ago, as Killion already pointed out.

Can you tell me why no adult ice hockey player uses a 3-foot-long stick, if there is no optimal range of stick length?

Difficulty you have is that your definition of "Sweet Spot" on a hockey stick seems to be governed by the length of the shaft of the stick. Another difficulty you have is that you have not supported your claim or definition with a physics study as illustrated by the following touching baseball:

http://www.real-world-physics-proble...-baseball.html

Again the shaft or length of the stick is not used to strike the puck. The blade strikes the puck. Consider blade in the context of a sweet spot, provide a physics study, equal quality of the baseball bat study provided and your claim may be considered further.

As for the blogspot entry - you originally missed the dates and the introduction of the vulcanized rubber puck amongst the many 1886 Fall rule changes. Plus you are comparing mixed scoring - ball in use vs puck in use. Ball without any measurable spécifications or defined qualities.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 06-06-2014 at 05:24 PM. Reason: mi^placed previous edit
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 05:56 PM
  #120
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The scoring increased from 1886 to 1887 due to the introduction of the vulcanized rubber puck amongst other reason, following the introduction of the Fall 1886 rules and the formation of the first league.
Amongst other reasons...such as the lengthening of hockey sticks? The puck was brought up in the old thread, so that's not a new idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Difficulty you have is that your definition of "Sweet Spot" on a hockey stick seems to be governed by the length of the shaft of the stick.
No, I'm only referring to the length of the stick. I've made no claim that there are not other factors involved, as I have explained many times here. However, length is one important factor, and there is an optimal range of values for it.

If there is no optimal stick length, why does no adult ice hockey player use a 3-foot stick?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Another difficulty you have is that you have not supported your claim or definition with a physics study as illustrated by the following touching baseball:
I believe it's physiological, not physical. A shorter stick forces the player to crouch over to handle the puck. As such he will tend to push the puck forward and skate after it, rather than stickhandle, in order to maximize his speed. Similarly, the crouched position allows less torque on a shot, resulting in a less powerful shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
As for the blogspot entry - you originally missed the dates and the introduction of the vulcanized rubber puck amongst the many 1886 Fall rule changes.
No, I did not originally miss the dates. I only misremembered when you brought up the subject again months later. In fact, the reason I thought it was 1886 is because I knew that's when the rubber puck was introduced to the rules.

Some sources say the rubber puck was first used in 1881; but we know it was 1886 at the latest. Of course, if it were entirely due to the puck, the increase in scoring would not have taken place in 1887 and 1888 as it did, but in 1886.

Edit: You're incorrect about the timing of the rule change. The rubber puck was added to the rules in the winter of 1885/86, not the fall of 1886. So the 1886 hockey season was played with the rubber puck; 1887 was not the first season with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Plus you are comparing mixed scoring - ball in use vs puck in use. Ball without any measurable spécifications or defined qualities.
False. I was looking at 1883 to 1894 in that post, and a puck was used in all of those seasons. Indeed, as far as we know a puck was always used since the March 3, 1875 game in Montreal. The only thing that changed was what the puck was made of.

Again, if there is no optimal stick length, why does no adult ice hockey player use a 3-foot stick?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 07:33 PM
  #121
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Discussing how the game evolved after coming to Canada has no bearing on where it was before coming to Canada.
Evolved into hockey

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 08:51 PM
  #122
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 25,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
Evolved into hockey
Dont know if youve read Stephen Harper's book A Great Game; The Forgotten Leafs & The Rise of Professional Hockey but he has some interesting things to say with respect to the sociological framing of the game of hockey. That its governors & administrators (most strongly in Southern Ontario) reflected an exclusively British bourgeois character, puritanical & authoritarian streaks a mile wide, particularly so in the case of John Ross Robertson (President of the O.H.A.). He in particular considering it his sacred duty as a Guardian of one of the British Empire's far flung Colonies to instill British philosophies, practices & traditions in sport generally & hockey specifically... not only was the game brought over from England but so too an entire train of thought, fundamental principals & philosophies rooted in religious & political ideals, realities of the era. It was these colors that were used to paint the game of hockey into the mid-20th Century & what we recognize today as being a uniquely Canadian game since exported globally.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 09:15 PM
  #123
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
Evolved into hockey
Evolved into hockey...as we now know it? Yes, that happened in Canada and took quite some time. It certainly wasn't hockey as we know it in the 19th century, for example, even in Canada.

But "hockey" has not always meant the same thing as it does now. Would you go back in time to March 17, 1894, during the first Stanley Cup challenge match and say "this is all very nice, but it's not hockey now is it?"

Of course not. At the time, it was hockey. And it bore a good deal more resemblance to English hockey in 1871 than it does to the game we know today.

If you're not interested in hockey before it became hockey as we know it today, that's fine. But many other people are.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 09:28 PM
  #124
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post

But "hockey" has not always meant the same thing as it does now. Would you go back in time to March 17, 1894, during the first Stanley Cup challenge match and say "this is all very nice, but it's not hockey now is it?"

Of course not. At the time, it was hockey. And it bore a good deal more resemblance to English hockey in 1871 than it does to the game we know today.
And one continued evolving into the hockey we know today, and the other is called Bandy.

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2014, 10:06 PM
  #125
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
And one continued evolving into the hockey we know today, and the other is called Bandy.
Uh, sure. But the hockey we know today is not the only thing that is/was hockey. You seemed to have missed my point about 1894. At the time, it was hockey, even though it was very different from the game today.

Really your statement isn't accurate anyway. The other also continued evolving as well, into the bandy we know today. It certainly bore some resemblance to modern bandy, but suggesting it was the same as modern bandy is fallacious.

You're using "hockey" as if its only meaning is what it means today. That's terribly myopic in the context of history.

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 11:16 AM.

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.