HFBoards

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

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
06-07-2014, 11:28 AM
  #126
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,150
vCash: 500
Faith

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
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.


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?


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.


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.


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?
Basically you want us to believe on faith not empirical evidence or scientific method. Not buying.

Seems you never saw Henri Richard play. Shorter stick keeps the puck closer and allows single hand control - while using the free hand as a shield or to knee chop a defenseman who allows a skater to close.

Per bolded the puck was used in 1875, no wait, 1881, no wait 1886. A puck - wooden 1875 is the same as rubber 1881? is the same as vulcanized rubber 1886/87, then we have the 1879 cut down lacrosse ball puck that you overlooked.

Yet all seem to be viewed as the same by you in terms of weight, density, composition, finish, dimensions, etc.

NHL did not have pucks with consistant density until the 1980s when InGlasco, now Sherwood finally managed to master the density of a puck. Previously pucks did not have balanced density and could deform when slapped creating a bullet like projectile that would shatter rink glass, or in other instances dip, rise or produce odd trajectories.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2014, 12:34 PM
  #127
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Basically you want us to believe on faith not empirical evidence or scientific method.
The evidence is the photographs we have of players and their sticks in the 19th century, such that we know for a fact that they were using longer and longer sticks. More evidence is that there is no minimum stick length in the NHL, and yet not a single player today uses a 3-foot-long stick. Pray, tell me what this means other than there is a certain length that is required to achieve optimum effectiveness? Do you think NHL players are so ignorant about the characteristics of their hockey sticks?

If you want me to attach a number to it, I will say: whatever the shortest length of stick used in the NHL is probably the bottom of the range. The upper end is more difficult to determine, since there is an artificial restriction in place there. But if you're going to suggest that, say, a 12-foot-long stick could be effectively used in the NHL, I daresay you will not be taken seriously.

If you were coaching adult players, would you ever advise one of them to try a 3-foot-long stick? If not, why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Seems you never saw Henri Richard play. Shorter stick keeps the puck closer and allows single hand control - while using the free hand as a shield or to knee chop a defenseman who allows a skater to close.
Did Richard use a 3-foot-long stick? If not, this comment is irrelevant.

Some players obviously do use a stick at the low end of the optimum range. But although Richard valued a short stick, he did not use a 3-foot-long one. Why? Because at a certain point, shortening the stick further loses it more than it gains you. That's when you move out of the optimum range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Per bolded the puck was used in 1875, no wait, 1881, no wait 1886.
That's not at all what I said. A puck was used in 1875, a wooden one. Some sources say that the rubber puck was first used in 1881, but I don't know if there's good evidence to support that claim. We have the rules text from early 1886 showing that a rubber puck was used at that point with a good degree of certainty.

Edit: It seems the 1881 year is derived from W.L. Murray's claims, none of which hold water when one looks for corroborating evidence, so there's no reason to believe it's true. I believe that's also the source of the cut-down lacrosse ball idea you mentioned.

There was no change in scoring levels in 1886 with the new puck, assuming it was new that seaon. They increased in 1887, and then again significantly in 1888. So it seems likely there was something other than just the puck causing the effect, since if it was only the puck it should not have taken two years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Yet all seem to be viewed as the same by you in terms of weight, density, composition, finish, dimensions, etc.
By who? We've already discussed the effect the puck might have had on scoring, even back in the old thread. It's just unlikely the changes to the puck were the only factor, as above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Previously pucks did not have balanced density and could deform when slapped creating a bullet like projectile that would shatter rink glass, or in other instances dip, rise or produce odd trajectories.
Yes, could this and could that. Howsabout some evidence? Or even just an answer to a very straightforward question: why do no adult ice hockey players use a 3-foot-long stick?

You dismiss any idea I present, claiming there is no evidence. And then you present your own claims that actually have no evidence. Why should anyone take your assertions seriously, when you only present possibilities with no particular reason to believe they apply in the particular circumstances?

And why do you not simply answer my direct question?


Last edited by Iain Fyffe: 06-07-2014 at 01:32 PM.
Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2014, 02:08 PM
  #128
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,150
vCash: 500
Puckstruction

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
The evidence is the photographs we have of players and their sticks in the 19th century, such that we know for a fact that they were using longer and longer sticks. More evidence is that there is no minimum stick length in the NHL, and yet not a single player today uses a 3-foot-long stick. Pray, tell me what this means other than there is a certain length that is required to achieve optimum effectiveness? Do you think NHL players are so ignorant about the characteristics of their hockey sticks?

If you want me to attach a number to it, I will say: whatever the shortest length of stick used in the NHL is probably the bottom of the range. The upper end is more difficult to determine, since there is an artificial restriction in place there. But if you're going to suggest that, say, a 12-foot-long stick could be effectively used in the NHL, I daresay you will not be taken seriously.

If you were coaching adult players, would you ever advise one of them to try a 3-foot-long stick? If not, why not?


Did Richard use a 3-foot-long stick? If not, this comment is irrelevant.

Some players obviously do use a stick at the low end of the optimum range. But although Richard valued a short stick, he did not use a 3-foot-long one. Why? Because at a certain point, shortening the stick further loses it more than it gains you. That's when you move out of the optimum range.


That's not at all what I said. A puck was used in 1875, a wooden one. Some sources say that the rubber puck was first used in 1881, but I don't know if there's good evidence to support that claim. We have the rules text from early 1886 showing that a rubber puck was used at that point with a good degree of certainty.

Edit: It seems the 1881 year is derived from W.L. Murray's claims, none of which hold water when one looks for corroborating evidence, so there's no reason to believe it's true. I believe that's also the source of the cut-down lacrosse ball idea you mentioned.

There was no change in scoring levels in 1886 with the new puck, assuming it was new that seaon. They increased in 1887, and then again significantly in 1888. So it seems likely there was something other than just the puck causing the effect, since if it was only the puck it should not have taken two years.


By who? We've already discussed the effect the puck might have had on scoring, even back in the old thread. It's just unlikely the changes to the puck were the only factor, as above.


Yes, could this and could that. Howsabout some evidence? Or even just an answer to a very straightforward question: why do no adult ice hockey players use a 3-foot-long stick?

You dismiss any idea I present, claiming there is no evidence. And then you present your own claims that actually have no evidence. Why should anyone take your assertions seriously, when you only present possibilities with no particular reason to believe they apply in the particular circumstances?

And why do you not simply answer my direct question?
From a recent Kerry Fraser column about pucks, bottom part is relevent:


http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=437245

Depends on the height of the player. Jackie Wallace NDG played with a stick shorter than three feet. Excellent stickhandler, good shot, played against teams he coached. Longer stick may have helped him.

http://www.ndgbaseball.org/jackie_wa...free_press.pdf

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2014, 02:14 PM
  #129
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
...Previously pucks did not have balanced density and could deform when slapped creating a bullet like projectile that would shatter rink glass, or in other instances dip, rise or produce odd trajectories.
Within range no, they didnt, but then again using the since banned Banana Blade within a manageable range if you were a goaltender in telegraphing its likely trajectory. Also Im not sure exactly when instituted, but game pucks are kept "frozen" at -10 and in the NHL replaced every 7 minutes. There are quite a few variables beyond just uniform density though certainly thats key. Fundamental. Ridges or bubbles on the sidewalls improved for control etc. Puck "technology" has certainly come a long way to be certain. Pre-80's & Inglaco's improvements for a couple of decades at least pucks were frozen & changed in-game, though when that began exactly no idea.... essentially what your suggesting & understood widely is that like the recent development of felt pucks for floor or roller hockey that approximate exactly ice hockey pucks weights & densities, they breakdown after use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
You dismiss any idea I present, claiming there is no evidence.
Indeed. And I think it best if we move~on from this avenue of pursuit as its tying the thread up in Gordian Knots, circular & going nowhere. I think its pretty clear (IMO), obvious that the use of heavier rubber pucks precipitated the use of longer sticks as youve outlined in your blog resulting in increased scoring. Combination of those 2 factors along with advanced skate technology increasing speed. Rule changes that followed.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2014, 02:38 PM
  #130
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Indeed. And I think it best if we move~on from this avenue of pursuit as its tying the thread up in Gordian Knots, circular & going nowhere. I think its pretty clear (IMO), obvious that the use of heavier rubber pucks precipitated the use of longer sticks as youve outlined in your blog resulting in increased scoring. Combination of those 2 factors along with advanced skate technology increasing speed. Rule changes that followed.
You got it, chief!

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2014, 05:25 PM
  #131
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,150
vCash: 500
Offside

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Within range no, they didnt, but then again using the since banned Banana Blade within a manageable range if you were a goaltender in telegraphing its likely trajectory. Also Im not sure exactly when instituted, but game pucks are kept "frozen" at -10 and in the NHL replaced every 7 minutes. There are quite a few variables beyond just uniform density though certainly thats key. Fundamental. Ridges or bubbles on the sidewalls improved for control etc. Puck "technology" has certainly come a long way to be certain. Pre-80's & Inglaco's improvements for a couple of decades at least pucks were frozen & changed in-game, though when that began exactly no idea.... essentially what your suggesting & understood widely is that like the recent development of felt pucks for floor or roller hockey that approximate exactly ice hockey pucks weights & densities, they breakdown after use.



Indeed. And I think it best if we move~on from this avenue of pursuit as its tying the thread up in Gordian Knots, circular & going nowhere. I think its pretty clear (IMO), obvious that the use of heavier rubber pucks precipitated the use of longer sticks as youve outlined in your blog resulting in increased scoring. Combination of those 2 factors along with advanced skate technology increasing speed. Rule changes that followed.
During the 1886 Tournament there was controversy about the "offside" rule especially the perception that offsides were intentional to get stoppages in play. This would slow down the game.

This could lead to interpretation changes.

Rubber/Vulcanized Rubber:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rubber

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2014, 06:55 PM
  #132
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,942
vCash: 500
^^^ Interesting. You just found some new archival records I assume?... Makes sense there'd be lots of Off-Side calls' (deliberate/tactical) with ever increasing speeds, rubber pucks, better skates ($10 for a pair of the Meteor's from Starr at about that time) and ever lengthening stick lengths. Still
"chippy" but developing rapidly.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2014, 10:37 PM
  #133
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
During the 1886 Tournament there was controversy about the "offside" rule especially the perception that offsides were intentional to get stoppages in play. This would slow down the game.
Indeed, in the 1877 rules there was no provision for the referee to impose any sort of penalty. Any infraction, be it offsides or tripping, simply resulted in the play being stopped at that point. In the early 1886 rules the ref was given the authority to send a player off for an infraction (but not for offsides) after warning him twice. In 1893 this was changed to a single warning, and in 1899 a warning was no longer required.

I'm not sure when the penalty for loafing offside started to be called. It was never added to the eastern rules, but I believe came from an interpretation of the statement in the offside rule that a player must always be on his own side of the puck. By around 1905 I recall seeing players given a penalty for loafing, even if it was not officially in the rulebook.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2014, 10:56 PM
  #134
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
By around 1905 I recall seeing players given a penalty for loafing, even if it was not officially in the rulebook.
Interesting (and amusing). Here you can see it was eventually added to the books; 1933. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...6830%2C1162121

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2014, 11:26 PM
  #135
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Interesting (and amusing). Here you can see it was eventually added to the books; 1933. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...6830%2C1162121
I had a look; the earliest reference I have to a penalty for loafing in the rules is in the 1911 NHA rules.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 07:26 AM
  #136
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,150
vCash: 500
Detachment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
^^^ Interesting. You just found some new archival records I assume?... Makes sense there'd be lots of Off-Side calls' (deliberate/tactical) with ever increasing speeds, rubber pucks, better skates ($10 for a pair of the Meteor's from Starr at about that time) and ever lengthening stick lengths. Still
"chippy" but developing rapidly.
Best delaying tactic was the skate of a player detaching from the boot. No substitutions. 5-10 minutes break.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 11:14 AM
  #137
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Best delaying tactic was the skate of a player detaching from the boot. No substitutions. 5-10 minutes break.
This is one reason they had to keep messing with the substitution rules. Sometimes the opposing captain would have the option to drop a player from his side and continue the game immediately, to prevent this sort of gamesmanship. Ah, the unvarnished purity of amateur sport!

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 02:09 PM
  #138
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,150
vCash: 500
Getting Shellacked

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This is one reason they had to keep messing with the substitution rules. Sometimes the opposing captain would have the option to drop a player from his side and continue the game immediately, to prevent this sort of gamesmanship. Ah, the unvarnished purity of amateur sport!
Disappears when your team is getting shellacked.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 02:22 PM
  #139
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,150
vCash: 500
Sports and Pastimes

Reviewing the 1886 hockey season yesterday at the BANQ archives, I noticed the heading of the section that contained the various stories and reports about ice hockey was title "Sports and Pastimes". This brings us back to the thread title The Sport of Ice Hockey.

Brief look at the Donald Guay working definition of sport cited within the first ten posts:

Sport is a physical,intellectual and mental activity, pleasureful, competitive, rewarding, played according to written rules and a sporting spirit.(my translation). A sport features the abillity to integrate individual talents within a team concept driven by a common goal.

Bolded are suggested enhancements. Intellectual would be the full range of activities from coaching, scouting, management through thinking the game, studying it and growing as a player. Mental would range from preparation to focus to winning the mind games with an opponent or establishing your will.

Last sentence includes the various solo skills within a team driven goal,

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 07:59 PM
  #140
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Disappears when your team is getting shellacked.
You got that right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Sport is a physical,intellectual and mental activity, pleasureful, competitive, rewarding, played according to written rules and a sporting spirit.(my translation). A sport features the abillity to integrate individual talents within a team concept driven by a common goal.
Does this last sentence suggest that there's no such thing as an individual sport? Does a sport necessarily involve a team?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2014, 09:52 AM
  #141
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,150
vCash: 500
Individual Sports

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
You got that right.


Does this last sentence suggest that there's no such thing as an individual sport? Does a sport necessarily involve a team?
True individual sports are rare. Even sports like swimming, golf, etc feature team elements - relays, team competition - Ryder Cup, etc or even at practice where individual teammates have to work as a team.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2014, 10:26 AM
  #142
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Sport is a physical,intellectual and mental activity, pleasureful, competitive, rewarding, played according to written rules and a sporting spirit.(my translation). A sport features the abillity to integrate individual talents within a team concept driven by a common goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
True individual sports are rare. Even sports like swimming, golf, etc feature team elements - relays, team competition - Ryder Cup, etc or even at practice where individual teammates have to work as a team.
Yes & of course taken within the context of the times (amateurism, personal development & growth, a rigid Victorian/Edwardian puritanism) & applied to a team sport like hockey at its core those precepts do still apply. Again within the context of the times, professionalism in Canada was frowned upon & those engaging in such not only banned from playing hockey but painted outcasts in every aspect of their lives. That accepting $$$ for sport was akin to prostitution, open to corruption, a vice that had to be stamped out. Simply wasnt part of the Upper British Classes distinctions of what constituted sport. Canadians only exposure to professionalism was with Baseball (team sport) and there were very very rare exceptions in individual pursuits; Sculler/Rower Ned Hanlan (grew up on Toronto Island) and Olympic & World Professional Champion Onondaga Distance Runner Tom Longboat (from the Brantford region of S.Ontario).

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 04:01 PM
  #143
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,150
vCash: 500
True

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Yes & of course taken within the context of the times (amateurism, personal development & growth, a rigid Victorian/Edwardian puritanism) & applied to a team sport like hockey at its core those precepts do still apply. Again within the context of the times, professionalism in Canada was frowned upon & those engaging in such not only banned from playing hockey but painted outcasts in every aspect of their lives. That accepting $$$ for sport was akin to prostitution, open to corruption, a vice that had to be stamped out. Simply wasnt part of the Upper British Classes distinctions of what constituted sport. Canadians only exposure to professionalism was with Baseball (team sport) and there were very very rare exceptions in individual pursuits; Sculler/Rower Ned Hanlan (grew up on Toronto Island) and Olympic & World Professional Champion Onondaga Distance Runner Tom Longboat (from the Brantford region of S.Ontario).
Further comments,

Depending on the newspaper covering the issues, the perspective varied. Just like the way the actual hockey stories varied.

Example 1886, some papers referred to Bully while others used "face" or "facing" for what today is known as a faceoff.

Likewise some covered the feeder or yteams, others did not.

As more data is mined, more will be known and perspectives will emerge and change.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 11:37 PM
  #144
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
True individual sports are rare. Even sports like swimming, golf, etc feature team elements - relays, team competition - Ryder Cup, etc or even at practice where individual teammates have to work as a team.
Sorry, is this a yes or a no? Is golf not a sport unless it's at the Ryder Cup? The first bit suggests not, since you say individual sports are rare, not non-existent. But if they do exist, then your definition is insufficient.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 11:53 PM
  #145
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Simply wasnt part of the Upper British Classes distinctions of what constituted sport.
Indeed, it was a class thing. The upper class thought amateur sport was the only pure sport; of course, in order to train sufficiently to excel at sport as an amateur you typically had to be independently wealthy. It was only the dirty lower classes that would sully themselves by being paid to do something that many people would give money to see. The amateur-only attitude is an elitist one, the claims of corruptibility of professionals essentially a rationalization. There were shenanigans in amateur sport all the time, that was not solely the province of the pros.

Here is the definition of an amateur athlete used in 1873 by the Montreal Pedestrian Club:

"One who has never competed in any open competition or for public money, or for admission money, or with professionals for a prize, public money or admission money, nor has ever, at any period of his life taught or assisted in the pursuit of athletic exercises as a means of livelihood, or is a labourer or an Indian."

Look at that last bit. It doesn't matter if you've never been compensated for sport, if you are working class or have skin deemed to dark, you're "professional" and therefore barred. (Note that this is confusingly worded; you could read it to mean that a labourer or native is an amateur. Scholars seem quite certain of the intent, however.)

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 12:20 AM
  #146
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,942
vCash: 500
^^^ Ya its really quite incredible, shocking to ones sensibilities today, even 80+ years ago on many levels. It was particularly odious in Southern Ontario & Toronto during the latter part of the 19th & early 20th Century. Though he only served for I think it was 6yrs as head of the OHA (app 1899-1905), John Ross Robertson cast a pall, long shadow over the game in his attempts to stomp out any & all forms of professionalism in the game of hockey that lasted for years afterwards. Very influential individual. Big Man on Campus type dealeo. Owned the old Toronto Telegram. Quite wealthy.

Robertson Stacked the OHA with his Toronto Cronies & Sycophants so much so that the Hamilton delegation began calling it the Ontario Hoggytown Association. Play on the derisive Hogg Town term applied to Toronto of course. Really pretty appalling, and his officials would comb the Junior, Intermediate & Senior ranks throughout the province looking for the slightest breach. In one case, the owner of a Jr Club in I think it was Berlin (now called Kitchener) after winning a Championship had given each player a keepsake $10 Gold Coin. Well, all Hell breaks loose when this is discovered, the players suspended & ostracized and despite returning all the Coins, upheld. Several moving to Quebec to play, others Manitoba & the US.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 09:17 AM
  #147
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,150
vCash: 500
Integrate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Sorry, is this a yes or a no? Is golf not a sport unless it's at the Ryder Cup? The first bit suggests not, since you say individual sports are rare, not non-existent. But if they do exist, then your definition is insufficient.
Focus on the ability to integrate the individual aspects with team aspects. NCAA golf is team oriented also.

Track with relays integrates the individual skills into team skills,, Likewise for any other sport be it the various forms of car racing, etc

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 09:29 AM
  #148
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,150
vCash: 500
Labour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Indeed, it was a class thing. The upper class thought amateur sport was the only pure sport; of course, in order to train sufficiently to excel at sport as an amateur you typically had to be independently wealthy. It was only the dirty lower classes that would sully themselves by being paid to do something that many people would give money to see. The amateur-only attitude is an elitist one, the claims of corruptibility of professionals essentially a rationalization. There were shenanigans in amateur sport all the time, that was not solely the province of the pros.

Here is the definition of an amateur athlete used in 1873 by the Montreal Pedestrian Club:

"One who has never competed in any open competition or for public money, or for admission money, or with professionals for a prize, public money or admission money, nor has ever, at any period of his life taught or assisted in the pursuit of athletic exercises as a means of livelihood, or is a labourer or an Indian."

Look at that last bit. It doesn't matter if you've never been compensated for sport, if you are working class or have skin deemed to dark, you're "professional" and therefore barred. (Note that this is confusingly worded; you could read it to mean that a labourer or native is an amateur. Scholars seem quite certain of the intent, however.)
Labour, one of the définitions is that any activity that sustains the life process is defined as labour - reference Hannah Arendt and her book "The Human Condition"

Within the context of your citation you are looking at activities that may be defined as "work" or "action". Sport creates an advantage beyond that of sustaining life - it is not necessary to sustain life, like "work" which generates monies beyond that necessary to sustain life or "action" - political or other that have not benefit exept for benefits to society as a whole but are remember in history for eternity.

These attributes are discussed in detail in the Hannah Arendt book cited above and touched on by Donald Guay's book referenced previously when he compares the labour class salaries of the early 20th century at or below basic subsistance levels.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 12:00 PM
  #149
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Though he only served for I think it was 6yrs as head of the OHA (app 1899-1905), John Ross Robertson cast a pall, long shadow over the game in his attempts to stomp out any & all forms of professionalism in the game of hockey that lasted for years afterwards.
The irony, of course, is that Robertson't draconian attempts to stamp out professionalism actually gave professionalism a boost, since it resulted in quality hockey players not being allowed to play amateur, so they might as well make some money at it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Focus on the ability to integrate the individual aspects with team aspects. NCAA golf is team oriented also.

Track with relays integrates the individual skills into team skills,, Likewise for any other sport be it the various forms of car racing, etc
Still doesn't answer my question. Not every sporting event has a team aspect, so my question is whether a team aspect is required for it to be a sport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Labour, one of the définitions is that any activity that sustains the life process is defined as labour - reference Hannah Arendt and her book "The Human Condition"
It was not the word labour in the rules, but labourer, the meaning of which is plain. They didn't want any sweaty blue-collar workers sullying up their "pure" sport.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 04:04 PM
  #150
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
The irony, of course, is that Robertson't draconian attempts to stamp out professionalism actually gave professionalism a boost, since it resulted in quality hockey players not being allowed to play amateur, so they might as well make some money at it.
Absolutely & directly. The founder of the first "officially" recognized pro league, the International Professional Hockey League based in Michigan was Jack "Doc" Gibson (Dentist). He was one of the players on the Berlin team I mentioned earlier who was Banned by the OHA & Robertson for accepting a $10 Gold Coin as a gift for winning a championship.

Killion 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 06:47 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.