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
06-12-2014, 04:39 PM
  #151
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,062
vCash: 500
Team Aspect

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.


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.


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.
List such an example where you believe there is no team aspect and I will respond.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 04:56 PM
  #152
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,062
vCash: 500
Labourer

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.


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.


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.
Not so, labourer refers to someone engaged in labour for which they were paid or labour by which they manage to sustain life.

The distinction seems to mean that if someone is paid for an activity as part of his labour efforts then they cannot participate in similar activities in amateur sport. this is extended to Indians because they NA natives lived as tribes without any salary structure for individual contributions to the benefit of the tribe.

So a labourer engaged as a bouncer at a tavern could not box as an amateur, because he was paid for boxes skills. An Indian could not participate in amateur activities such as Archery, Kayaking, canoeing, Snowshoeing because such activities were part of sustaining tribal life, etc

The idea was that having someone participate in an amateure sport where the basic skills were essential to his or her labour was unfair to other competitors whose skills were strictly leasure time based.

Someone who enjoyed archery as a relaxation could not compete agains someone who hunted with a bow and arrow on a regular bases, etc


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 06-13-2014 at 05:31 PM.
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 05:35 PM
  #153
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
List such an example where you believe there is no team aspect and I will respond.
Weren't you the one who made the claim to begin with?

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 04:17 PM
  #154
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,062
vCash: 500
Courtesy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalupa Batman View Post
Weren't you the one who made the claim to begin with?
Just extending a poster the courtesy of nominating a specific sport for a focused discussion. Since the poster does not seem interested will move on.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 05:45 PM
  #155
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,062
vCash: 500
School Age and Limits

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post


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.
The rules and the use of the word labourer reflect the fact that school athletics in the province of Québec, more specifically the Montreal area date back to the 1840s.

In the 19th century school attendance was not mandatory to the age of 16, in fact it was rather common that youngsters just barely in their teens joined the work force at the menial or entry level.

Amateur sports featured a much younger participation base that did not distinguish between the youth and adult. Example would be the 1896 Canadian Amateur Hockey League Constitution - a team had to have an average age of 16(not a minimum age) while the club had to have a minimum of 20 members. This was for Senior hockey participation.

School athletics in Québec especially at the secondary level have always been limited to under 18 year olds and playing in an outside league against adults - 18 and over precluded playing school sports even if the sport was different.

Today Québec high schools are limited to Grade 11, ensuring that 18 year old adults do not mix with minors either academically or athletically or otherwise in school supervised activities.

The labourer distinction has to be viewed in the same context if applied to Under 18 year olds.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2014, 04:56 PM
  #156
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
List such an example where you believe there is no team aspect and I will respond.
Any sport which is one-on-one, where only individual results matter. Singles tennis, for example. You stated that such games can have a team aspect (eg, Davis Cup), which is true but that shouldn't mean that tennis, when played singles, is not a sport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Not so, labourer refers to someone engaged in labour for which they were paid or labour by which they manage to sustain life.
Exactly my point. You don't call someone "a labourer" unless they work for a living, specifically what we'd call blue-collar work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The idea was that having someone participate in an amateure sport where the basic skills were essential to his or her labour was unfair to other competitors whose skills were strictly leasure time based.
Remember the context here. Are you saying someone whose work involved walking around would be denied membership to the Montreal Pedestrian Club on that basis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Just extending a poster the courtesy of nominating a specific sport for a focused discussion. Since the poster does not seem interested will move on.
Yeah, or the poster was out of town for a few days. I'm perfectly interested in having you justify your definition of sport necessarily involving a team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Example would be the 1896 Canadian Amateur Hockey League Constitution - a team had to have an average age of 16(not a minimum age) while the club had to have a minimum of 20 members. This was for Senior hockey participation.
I assume you mean the AHAC? Do you have a link for this?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2014, 06:54 PM
  #157
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Exactly my point. You don't call someone "a labourer" unless they work for a living, specifically what we'd call blue-collar work.
Welp, time to pull out Stephen Harpers' "A Great Game: The Forgotten Leafs & The Rise of Professional Hockey" because as anyone knows who's read the book (and there are others of course) he's gone to no small amount of research in detailing these very issues circa 1880's through the 19 zero's. Obviously focused on the OHA, Southern Ontario & Toronto but he does include context in relation to Quebec/Ottawa & Manitoba. The US, notably Pennsylvania & Michigan & their respective complete openness to professionalism. None of the angst of their northern neighbors with respect to amateurism/professionalism when it came to hockey or any other sport for that matter.

... In Canada, the ideals of amateurism were rooted in the British traditions of sport which were very much class oriented with an absolute agenda of exclusion be it by birth, by class, by income, religion, color or creed. Racist, make no mistake. So called "professional sports" had its roots in the working classes of the old country. Bare fisted fighting, what was called "Hippodroming". Bicycle races & so on with prize money or playing for the gate that to the crusty establishment, those in Quebec, Ontario & Manitoba, the elites setting up the various sports governing bodies & most notably hockey frowned down upon as being far far far less than noble. Corrupting the ideals of sport, of the youth who participate, of society as a whole.

Men like John Ross Robertson of Toronto, President of the OHA and from who's rear end the sun never set of the British Empire diabolically crafted the sports Constitutions in such a way that even in those days there was outrage amongst the more liberal & open minded citizenry that (in this case) hockey was an "exclusive" pursuit to be enjoyed only by the sons of well heeled WASP's. Harper in his book underscores these ideals in detailing the exploits of the Toronto Wellingtons & Later Marlborough Hockey Clubs, of "respectable" sponsorships. That anyone receiving payment of anykind was obviously from "ethnic or lower classes" and therefore "undesirable". Not to be associated with be it in sport or socially amongst the Golden Boys playing under the OHA's auspices & governances.

Pay for play in the US began in & around Pittsburgh with the Pennsylvania Pro Hockey League, like $20 a week and a job for a lot of Canadian kids who abandoned the OHA or Quebec in order to make a living combining hockey with work. Once they did that though, they were Banned for Life from ever returning to play in Toronto or anywhere else in Canada pretty much. The Montreal based Canadian Amateur Athletic Union with close ties to the Eastern Leagues (Quebec & Ottawa were considered Eastern / Ontario & Manitoba Western Canada) including Montreal & Ottawa were far more pragmatic, open & inclusive to minorities, certainly to the french, blind to religious orientation, income; long before the Red White & Blue Blood wannabes in Ontario ever were. One of the reasons why Montreal is not only Canadas' but North Americas #1 leading hockey center in North America. And back in the days of Robertson & Company, something they were well aware of & resented to no end.

That British Toronto in British North America should take a backseat, #2 status to Montreal? Took Toronto until about 1978 to actually surpass Montreal economically but in terms of hockey, it'll forever be #2 to Montreal. That can be traced back to not just the fact that the first recorded games (and rules) were played there, that Toronto lagged behind both Montreal & Winnipeg in the games early development, but so too the successes of the Quebec & Ottawa teams overshadowing those of Toronto's rather substantively. The racist narrow minded policies of the OHA in its infancy under Robertson cast a pall that echo'd through much of the first part of the 20th Century & boomed westerly. Rapid changes occurred post about 1908-10, the game becoming far more inclusive, the rise of professionalism, but certainly during its first roughly 2 decades in Toronto & to a far lesser degree in Winnipeg, Ottawa & Montreal, a game for the elites controlled by the elites, racial, religious, ethnic & economic boundaries established that fortunately for one & all were broken down, collapsing & turned to dust with the march of time & progress.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2014, 07:40 PM
  #158
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Not so, labourer refers to someone engaged in labour for which they were paid or labour by which they manage to sustain life....
Not sure where your going with any of this C58. Fact of the matter is (and I havent done enough digging into the CAAU, Montreal & Ottawa's earliest league Constitutions to confirm my suspicions but if even remotely close to those of the OHA = Racist) "laborer" in the late 19th Century was a derisive term used by the elites, a sort of generic stereotype, that if someone was a laborer they were therefore "less than us". A migrant. Amongst the hard core, a view that such a person is the product of inferior breeding, of un-Godly or un-Christian religious beliefs. Of possibly undesirable ethnicity. Dipsomaniac. Weak character. Flawed being. Whole gamma range of nonsense.

.... that of course included Native North American Indians. The OHA Banned any player from playing hockey for an OHA Governed Team who also played Lacrosse (and Baseball but for other reasons). The reason they gave publicly in justifying this ban was that "we've heard" some players had received payment for playing Lacrosse & so they were now "professionals". Easy thing to determine youd think. That if a few guys who also played hockey had gotten paid playing lacrosse & your hockey league doesnt allow anyone from any other sport who has been paid to play that you could just ban them specifically no?... Until you consider that in some cases over 50% to 100% of the rosters of lacrosse teams were Native North Americans. Blanket ban under the cover of "professionalism". No professionals allowed. Code. No North American Natives allowed.

Plenty of people at the time saw through all of this of course however, guess who sat on the Board of Directors at the OHA under John Ross Robertson, who was Publisher & Editor in Chief of the Toronto Telegram? W.A. Hewitt (served as OHA Secretary until the 1960's and long time Leafs employee starting in 1931 - father of Foster Hewitt, Grandfather to Bill) of the Toronto Star & Frank Nelson, Sports Editor of the Globe & Mail. Only a few of the other smaller papers ever printed much, be it coverage or editorial in taking on the establishment but theres enough out there that if you dig around you can see how Robertson, Hewitt & Nelson along with their minions & agents presented a favorable slant on OHA policies that were clearly racist and exclusionary. Really rather interesting. Newspaper guys like Robertson, Hewitt & Nelson, and there were dozens more on the OHA Board of Directors from all over Ontario, not only do they make the rules up, they administer them, report on them & on the games themselves, in some cases while sitting on the Board have financial interests in various teams, a few even Managing teams & so on. Just a mess of conflict of interest & hypocrisy. Incredible.


Last edited by Killion: 06-16-2014 at 07:49 PM.
Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2014, 08:50 PM
  #159
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 Killion View Post
Just a mess of conflict of interest & hypocrisy.
Succinct, and accurate.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2014, 10:08 AM
  #160
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,062
vCash: 500
Team

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Any sport which is one-on-one, where only individual results matter. Singles tennis, for example. You stated that such games can have a team aspect (eg, Davis Cup), which is true but that shouldn't mean that tennis, when played singles, is not a sport.


Exactly my point. You don't call someone "a labourer" unless they work for a living, specifically what we'd call blue-collar work.


Remember the context here. Are you saying someone whose work involved walking around would be denied membership to the Montreal Pedestrian Club on that basis?


Yeah, or the poster was out of town for a few days. I'm perfectly interested in having you justify your definition of sport necessarily involving a team.


I assume you mean the AHAC? Do you have a link for this?
The quote was integrating into a team and not as you allege "necessarily involving team play" . Golf even where the singles result matters involves team work - integrating the player with his caddy, his coach and other members of his entourage. So it and other "single" competition qualify as a sport because in the background you have a deep support team that the individual athlete or the face of the team represents.

Using your tennis analogy, tennis even when playing singles involves integrating into the support system(team) offered by the coach or coaches, the athletic therapist, etc.

Basically organized sport does not recognize the single not supported athlete. The athlete has to be a member of a club or carded or somehow affiliated to a governing body that allows access to competition. You do not have stand alone competitors outside of fiction.

Asking for a link - Donald Guay - previously cited, p.86.

MOD


Last edited by Fugu: 06-25-2014 at 05:23 PM. Reason: OT
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2014, 10:04 AM
  #161
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,062
vCash: 500
Exclusions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Not sure where your going with any of this C58. Fact of the matter is (and I havent done enough digging into the CAAU, Montreal & Ottawa's earliest league Constitutions to confirm my suspicions but if even remotely close to those of the OHA = Racist) "laborer" in the late 19th Century was a derisive term used by the elites, a sort of generic stereotype, that if someone was a laborer they were therefore "less than us". A migrant. Amongst the hard core, a view that such a person is the product of inferior breeding, of un-Godly or un-Christian religious beliefs. Of possibly undesirable ethnicity. Dipsomaniac. Weak character. Flawed being. Whole gamma range of nonsense.

.... that of course included Native North American Indians. The OHA Banned any player from playing hockey for an OHA Governed Team who also played Lacrosse (and Baseball but for other reasons). The reason they gave publicly in justifying this ban was that "we've heard" some players had received payment for playing Lacrosse & so they were now "professionals". Easy thing to determine youd think. That if a few guys who also played hockey had gotten paid playing lacrosse & your hockey league doesnt allow anyone from any other sport who has been paid to play that you could just ban them specifically no?... Until you consider that in some cases over 50% to 100% of the rosters of lacrosse teams were Native North Americans. Blanket ban under the cover of "professionalism". No professionals allowed. Code. No North American Natives allowed.

Plenty of people at the time saw through all of this of course however, guess who sat on the Board of Directors at the OHA under John Ross Robertson, who was Publisher & Editor in Chief of the Toronto Telegram? W.A. Hewitt (served as OHA Secretary until the 1960's and long time Leafs employee starting in 1931 - father of Foster Hewitt, Grandfather to Bill) of the Toronto Star & Frank Nelson, Sports Editor of the Globe & Mail. Only a few of the other smaller papers ever printed much, be it coverage or editorial in taking on the establishment but theres enough out there that if you dig around you can see how Robertson, Hewitt & Nelson along with their minions & agents presented a favorable slant on OHA policies that were clearly racist and exclusionary. Really rather interesting. Newspaper guys like Robertson, Hewitt & Nelson, and there were dozens more on the OHA Board of Directors from all over Ontario, not only do they make the rules up, they administer them, report on them & on the games themselves, in some cases while sitting on the Board have financial interests in various teams, a few even Managing teams & so on. Just a mess of conflict of interest & hypocrisy. Incredible.
Just illustrating how exclusions were used to limit participation and opportunity in parts of Canada in the 19th century and well into the 20th century. These exclusions were used against women - lack of athletic opportunities in the 19th century and in various other pheres - fom politics to the academic world against anybody from the "labouring class"

Prime example would be 1944 and the debate in Montréal Protestant schools about universal kindergarten:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...6751%2C3578220

Part of the argument against universal kindergarten had been the old paternalistic view that by not offering kindergarten in the labouring class neighbourhoods the cost of sending a youngster to kindergarten was spared the parents. of course there are plenty of reasons to start the youngsters one year early that provide greater Financial benefits - immediate and future to the family but this is not a sociology board so will not go there.

The "labouring class" and its contributions to the growth in popularity of hockey in the late 19th century, early 20the century in Canada is an untold and Under researched part of hockey history.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2014, 10:14 AM
  #162
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The "labouring class" and its contributions to the growth in popularity of hockey in the late 19th century, early 20the century in Canada is an untold and Under researched part of hockey history.
Ya for sure it is. Toronto & Southern Ontario rather late to the party in terms of the games early development, already wildly popular in Montreal, Quebec & Ottawa. Unfortunately attitudes being what they were in Hoggtown the principals of democracy & equality for all were hijacked. If you havent already read it, I highly recommend Harpers book on this very subject. Goes into great detail, thoughtful, well written.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2014, 06:22 PM
  #163
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
The quote was integrating into a team and not as you allege "necessarily involving team play" . Golf even where the singles result matters involves team work - integrating the player with his caddy, his coach and other members of his entourage. So it and other "single" competition qualify as a sport because in the background you have a deep support team that the individual athlete or the face of the team represents.
So players who train on their own, who do not have coaches, are not participating in sport? Sportsmen have not always had the entourage of support staff that we see today - are you saying that in earlier days they were not participating in sport because they did not have an entourage? That it cannot be sport unless there is an entourage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Asking for a link - Donald Guay - previously cited, p.86.
Since I wanted the text, and you only provided a source, I suppose I am free to assume that you are not providing the full context and therefore can dismiss your statement?

MOD


Last edited by Fugu: 06-25-2014 at 05:24 PM. Reason: qep
Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2014, 08:33 PM
  #164
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Using your tennis analogy, tennis even when playing singles involves integrating into the support system(team) offered by the coach or coaches, the athletic therapist, etc.

Basically organized sport does not recognize the single not supported athlete. The athlete has to be a member of a club or carded or somehow affiliated to a governing body that allows access to competition. You do not have stand alone competitors outside of fiction.
First part yes, absolutely, and that goes back to the Modern Olympic Games, earlier of course in a wide range of sporting activities be they team or individual pursuits. However, in the late 18th & through the 19th & early 20th Centuries not all athletes in individual pursuits did have Coaches or Trainers, many not even Carded & literally coming out of nowhere. The most famous Canadian example of the era in discussion here would be the long distance runner Tom Longboat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
So players who train on their own, who do not have coaches, are not participating in sport? Sportsmen have not always had the entourage of support staff that we see today - are you saying that in earlier days they were not participating in sport because they did not have an entourage? That it cannot be sport unless there is an entourage?
I think what C58 is alluding to is that though some athletes in single pursuits in the 19th Century may not have had an "entourage", some without Coaching at all, they did have the support structure of Athletic Clubs and if Nationally or Internationally perhaps Provincial or Federal assistance, maybe private, funds raised by their Athletic Club's to send them to Competitions, possibly money provided by wealthy sponsors. That they'd been Carded, supported financially in some instances (though not always) and were part of a "Team". Like Team Quebec or Team Canada. Even at that though back in the day, Longboat & others were sort of semi-pro. Theyd win money in races or whatever, entirely self sufficient. Expenses covered by race or event promoters....

Sometimes not though like in the case of Marathon Runner Billy Sherring of Hamilton Ontario. He was a member of the Shamrock Athletic Club & was selected to go to Athens to represent Canada in the 1906 Olympics. Yet no money, no Coaching, nothing offered. He had to get there on his own and as he was a poor working stiff, bit of a stretch. So he gathered his money together, like forty bucks or whatever, goes to the Racetrack & bets on a horse with longish odds & wins! Trip to Athens is paid for & he arrives several weeks early but he doesnt have enough for a hotel, food. So he gets a job as a Porter at the Athens Train Terminal. Hows that for "support"? Harry out there schlepping bags for "Team Canada". Wanna get anything done in this life you do it yourself.... long story short, returns home the Conquering Hero having won the Marathon, the City of Hamilton gives him $5000, name a park after him.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2014, 10:07 AM
  #165
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,062
vCash: 500
Participation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
So players who train on their own, who do not have coaches, are not participating in sport? Sportsmen have not always had the entourage of support staff that we see today - are you saying that in earlier days they were not participating in sport because they did not have an entourage? That it cannot be sport unless there is an entourage?


Since I wanted the text, and you only provided a source, I suppose I am free to assume that you are not providing the full context and therefore can dismiss your statement?

Differentiate competition from sport. To participate in a sporting competition an athlete had to be a member of a recognized athletic club, association, governing body that met minimal membership requirements and that could independently verify various provenance(age, background, etc) and eligibility issues.

You are free to assume whatever you wish just as you are free to take the information previously provided about Donald Guay's efforts including the ISBN to your local library and have the library order the book for your use free of charge from the various inter-library loan services that exist.

MOD

Suggest reading Hannah Arendt's book, referenced previously Like all books referenced here available at your local Library or an inter-library arrangement.


Last edited by Fugu: 06-25-2014 at 05:25 PM. Reason: OT
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2014, 10:17 AM
  #166
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,062
vCash: 500
Athletes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
First part yes, absolutely, and that goes back to the Modern Olympic Games, earlier of course in a wide range of sporting activities be they team or individual pursuits. However, in the late 18th & through the 19th & early 20th Centuries not all athletes in individual pursuits did have Coaches or Trainers, many not even Carded & literally coming out of nowhere. The most famous Canadian example of the era in discussion here would be the long distance runner Tom Longboat.



I think what C58 is alluding to is that though some athletes in single pursuits in the 19th Century may not have had an "entourage", some without Coaching at all, they did have the support structure of Athletic Clubs and if Nationally or Internationally perhaps Provincial or Federal assistance, maybe private, funds raised by their Athletic Club's to send them to Competitions, possibly money provided by wealthy sponsors. That they'd been Carded, supported financially in some instances (though not always) and were part of a "Team". Like Team Quebec or Team Canada. Even at that though back in the day, Longboat & others were sort of semi-pro. Theyd win money in races or whatever, entirely self sufficient. Expenses covered by race or event promoters....

Sometimes not though like in the case of Marathon Runner Billy Sherring of Hamilton Ontario. He was a member of the Shamrock Athletic Club & was selected to go to Athens to represent Canada in the 1906 Olympics. Yet no money, no Coaching, nothing offered. He had to get there on his own and as he was a poor working stiff, bit of a stretch. So he gathered his money together, like forty bucks or whatever, goes to the Racetrack & bets on a horse with longish odds & wins! Trip to Athens is paid for & he arrives several weeks early but he doesnt have enough for a hotel, food. So he gets a job as a Porter at the Athens Train Terminal. Hows that for "support"? Harry out there schlepping bags for "Team Canada". Wanna get anything done in this life you do it yourself.... long story short, returns home the Conquering Hero having won the Marathon, the City of Hamilton gives him $5000, name a park after him.
19th and 20th century athletes joined the various athletic Clubs, - M.A.A.A., Victorias, Palestre National, etc to benefit from the all inclusive facilities, and training opportunities.

Likewise the major employers or industries would build athletic facilities for their workers - CPRAAA or sponsor teams and activities - Vickers in an attempt to attract and keep workers.

As for the myth of the lone wolf athlete, even in a sport like boxing, the lone wolf never existed. Needed a ring to learn time and space management against an opponent which meant having a sparring partner under the supervision of an acting referee and coaching, since "selfies or selfie videos" were not available. Then of course you had a support staff to run the facility, plus the usual sponsors for events,etc where the matches could take place.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2014, 12:07 PM
  #167
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
You are free to assume whatever you wish just as you are free to take the information previously provided about Donald Guay's efforts including the ISBN to your local library and have the library order the book for your use free of charge from the various inter-library loan services that exist.
Edit: My misunderstanding! I will leave this bit up because it might be interesting to someone:

Look at the senior Vics for the 1898/99 season, and their ages on Dec 1, 1898:

Acer, Douglas 20
Bowie, Russell 18
Davidson, Cam 22
Drinkwater, Graham 23
Ewing, John 28
Grant, Mike 25
MacDougall, Bob 22
McLea, Ernie 22
McRobie, Fred 23
Richardson, Frank 22
Lewis, Gordon (unknown)

That's an average age of 22.5 for 10 senior players.


Last edited by Iain Fyffe: 06-25-2014 at 05:21 PM.
Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2014, 03:46 PM
  #168
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,062
vCash: 500
Post #155

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I have a copy of the book, thanks, so I finally dug it up to check your claim... This is from the 1898 CAHL constitution (not 1896 as claimed), Art VII (2):

"Aucun club dont la moyenne d'age des membres est au-dessous de seize ans ne pourra etre admis..." (Guay, p.86, emphasis added)

"Au-dessous" means beneath. You were apparently reading it as "au-dessus", meaning above. So a club with an average age of less than 16 years was not admissable. 16 years was the minimum average age, not the maximum as you stated.

You should have been suspicious of this idea regardless. Look at the senior Vics for the 1898/99 season, and their ages on Dec 1, 1898:

Acer, Douglas 20
Bowie, Russell 18
Davidson, Cam 22
Drinkwater, Graham 23
Ewing, John 28
Grant, Mike 25
MacDougall, Bob 22
McLea, Ernie 22
McRobie, Fred 23
Richardson, Frank 22
Lewis, Gordon (unknown)

That's an average age of 22.5 for 10 senior players. The number of too-young-too-play-even-junior-hockey-at-this-time the club would need to get down to an average age of 16 would suggest that the conclusion must have been incorrect. And that's not even considering the intermediate players, who would have been younger than the seniors on average most likely, but not by much. And then the usually 16-to-18 year-old juniors. It's just such a bizarre idea that 16 could have been the maximum average age.
Suggest you read my post #155 again

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=155

my point was exactly as you put it. A club with an average age under 16 was not eligible but this means that players under 16 could participate as long as the club average did not fall below 16.

The point you are attributing was never made or claimed.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2014, 05:03 PM
  #169
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
Suggest you read my post #155 again
Sorry, when you said "Example would be the 1896 Canadian Amateur Hockey League Constitution - a team had to have an average age of 16(not a minimum age) while the club had to have a minimum of 20 members."

I read that to mean that the 16 was "not a minimum age", but of course it was a minimum average age.

{Mod}


Last edited by Killion: 06-25-2014 at 05:06 PM. Reason: Qtd del....
Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2014, 05:10 PM
  #170
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
And for an example of a "non-existant" lone wolf athlete, try Tom Longboat (Cogwagee), who was self-trained, and the greatest runner of his time. Indeed he spurned attempts by later managers trying to get him to change his training regimen. Now tell me he wasn't participating in sport.

Edit: Just noticed Killion already brought him up. He is a very good example. You don't really see athletes like him in North American any more, but they used to be there, and they were not just passing time because they didn't have an entourage.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2014, 05:33 PM
  #171
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,198
vCash: 500
^^^ Ya. Tom Longboat did in fact as Id mentioned in my earlier post quite literally "come out of nowhere". Not a member of any Athletic Club nor school program, never received any Coaching or Mentoring, the only "Manager" he had one employed to basically deflect accusations of "professionalism" in being able to qualify for Olympic competition. However, that was rendered somewhat moot, as Longboat failed to finish the Marathon (as did a lot of others in London - heat was incredible, pollution smothering, stultifying apparently) & immediately and formally turned "Pro" thereafter.

So yes, the stories of Longboats' training, how he got into Marathon the stuff of legend. He'd spend his days running 20-30-50+ miles entirely alone, returning home, telling his family what he'd done & where, how far he'd run. They didnt believe him.... So one time he challenged his brother in a horse & buggy with a 1/2 hour headstart to race him to a town some 20 miles distant. Sure enough, Tom was waiting for him when he arrived at full gallop, horse in a froth covered in lather from the whip hand....

Same thing with the races he entered. Victoria Day Marathon Race around Hamilton Harbor etc, no one had ever heard of him and he absolutely cleans (won that HH Race by over 3 minutes in~front of the 2nd place finisher) their clocks winning by untouchable distances & times then vanishes again like smoke in the wind. Theres more to the story of course, but essentially the only "associate" he ever had was a Manager who acted as a "Bagman" for all intents and purposes. You could argue he was therefore part of a "Team" but thats tenuous and somewhat irrelevant to the gist of whats being argued here.


Last edited by Killion: 06-25-2014 at 05:39 PM.
Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2014, 05:44 PM
  #172
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 Killion View Post
Theres more to the story of course, but essentially the only "associate" he ever had was a Manager who acted as a "Bagman" for all intents and purposes. You could argue he was therefore part of a "Team" but thats tenuous and somewhat irrelevant to the gist of whats being argued here.
Yes, that would be very tenuous, since he only had a manager after turning pro, and said manager was probably just trying to make as much off of Longboat's natural talent as he could. Hardly a "team."

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2014, 05:46 PM
  #173
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 Killion View Post
I think what C58 is alluding to is that though some athletes in single pursuits in the 19th Century may not have had an "entourage", some without Coaching at all, they did have the support structure of Athletic Clubs and if Nationally or Internationally perhaps Provincial or Federal assistance, maybe private, funds raised by their Athletic Club's to send them to Competitions, possibly money provided by wealthy sponsors.
I agree that's what it being alluded to, but I was referencing a proposed definition of sport that required such a thing to be in place in order for an activity to be considered a sport. Such a definition would exclude Tom Longboat's activities, as discussed above.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2014, 06:04 PM
  #174
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I agree that's what it being alluded to, but I was referencing a proposed definition of sport that required such a thing to be in place in order for an activity to be considered a sport. Such a definition would exclude Tom Longboat's activities, as discussed above.
For sure, and its quite fascinating really how in the early development of sports clubs (the governing bodies) in Canada & the US though to a lesser degree they were headed up & created by some seriously Patrician and right of conservative minds. The leading citizens in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg & elsewhere. Hockey as the then rising national sport was not immune to the peculiarities of what was essentially the British Caste & Class System in which racism be it economic, religious or ethnically based did run rampant. You just have to read the verbiage in their Constitutions to realize that however, with all the rest of the source data thats available, contemporaneous news reports etc, pretty clear what was going on & it was entirely transcendent of just sport itself.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2014, 06:19 PM
  #175
Sanf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Lewis, Gordon (unknown)
Very much OT but if you are intrested he was probably born in 1872. I PM´d some links to you.

Sanf 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 01:12 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.