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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Hockey Invented In England ... Not Canada

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-26-2014, 04:56 PM
  #276
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 Theokritos View Post
But it's not as if any other term for a hockey-like game (shinny, hurley, ricket) was used either, right? No reference to a stick-and-ball game at all by Forbes.
I think that's the point. It's not just that the word hockey was not used, but that no reference to any sort of game was made.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 05:27 PM
  #277
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
What we do and do not call ice hockey has a significant bearing on this discussion. Since the release of On the Origin of Hockey, in discussions with more than one historian in SIHR I have seen attempts at narrowing the definition of hockey, with the only apparent goal being to maintain Montreal's position as the one ond only true birthplace of hockey. Suddenly it's important that ice hockey must be played indoors, or only by a certain number of players, whereas before the information on the games in England was available this was not considered important. As such there are revealed to not be attempts to define hockey, but to define ice hockey as being only that version of the game that originated in Montreal.
Well, Montreal is the one & only true birthplace of the game we know today as hockey. Not that it came into the world at once like the birth metaphor suggests. But since it was here the development led to the modern game (while developments elsewhere did not) it's not entirely unreasonable to interpret the evolutionary steps hockey made in Canada under the viewpoint of what it became later either.

What's not so reasonable of course is to pretend there was a fundamental difference between the hockey played in Canada in the 1870s and the hockey played in England in the 1870s in the games themselves, beyond the (historically very significant and indeed fundamental) difference in future development.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 05:53 PM
  #278
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post

What's not so reasonable of course is to pretend there was a fundamental difference between the hockey played in Canada in the 1870s and the hockey played in England in the 1870s in the games themselves, beyond the (historically very significant and indeed fundamental) difference in future development.
That's the point.

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 05:58 PM
  #279
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,585
vCash: 500
So where and how did those Montrealers hear of hockey? The ones who only played hockey because their attempt at playing lacrosse on skates failed? Was Creighton the only one with experience of a hockey-like game? Did they know of field hockey? Is it possible they had no knowledge of "English hockey" (Bandy)?

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 06:09 PM
  #280
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
Did they know of field hockey?
At least from 1876 on they must have been aware of field hockey since they adapted field hockey rules from England.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
Is it possible they had no knowledge of "English hockey" (Bandy)?
That's where it gets interesting IMO. I guess we don't know the answer - yet.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 06:47 PM
  #281
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 Theokritos View Post
Well, Montreal is the one & only true birthplace of the game we know today as hockey. Not that it came into the world at once like the birth metaphor suggests.
This is rather my point. If you're insisting on using a birth metaphor, Montreal ain't it. Montreal is a crucial place in the development of the game, but birthplace is not the right word.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 07:36 PM
  #282
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This is rather my point. If you're insisting on using a birth metaphor, Montreal ain't it. Montreal is a crucial place in the development of the game, but birthplace is not the right word.
... "literally" no, its a misnomer. Glove dont fit. However, it is accurate saying & laying claim to Fostered Parentage
stating "Montreal is the Birthplace of the Modern Game of Hockey" (as we know it but in a more rudimentary form).

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 08:06 PM
  #283
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
... "literally" no, its a misnomer. Glove dont fit. However, it is accurate saying & laying claim to Fostered Parentage
stating "Montreal is the Birthplace of the Modern Game of Hockey" (as we know it but in a more rudimentary form).
Yes, if add in some qualifiers you can get there. More often than not, though, those qualifiers are left out.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 05:02 AM
  #284
Robert Gordon Orr
Registered User
 
Robert Gordon Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
What we do and do not call ice hockey has a significant bearing on this discussion. Since the release of On the Origin of Hockey, in discussions with more than one historian in SIHR I have seen attempts at narrowing the definition of hockey, with the only apparent goal being to maintain Montreal's position as the one ond only true birthplace of hockey. Suddenly it's important that ice hockey must be played indoors, or only by a certain number of players, whereas before the information on the games in England was available this was not considered important. As such there are revealed to not be attempts to define hockey, but to define ice hockey as being only that version of the game that originated in Montreal.
Exactly, thank you Iain for this sharp observation. When the information on the early English years became known, people have desperately tried to narrow the definition of hockey just so that Montreal could maintain its position as the "birthplace of hockey". It actually becomes almost comical when people are trying to defend and interpret it their way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This is rather my point. If you're insisting on using a birth metaphor, Montreal ain't it. Montreal is a crucial place in the development of the game, but birthplace is not the right word.
I agree, saying that Montreal is the birthplace of hockey is of course incorrect, but saying that it is a crucial place in the development of the game as we know it today, is absolutely true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... "literally" no, its a misnomer. Glove dont fit. However, it is accurate saying & laying claim to Fostered Parentage stating "Montreal is the Birthplace of the Modern Game of Hockey" (as we know it but in a more rudimentary form).
You could say that. In the very least Montreal took the game indoors, which of course was a crucial step in the development of the sport. One of the reasons bandy pretty much lost out to hockey in Europe was the fact that it wasn't played indoors.

What is so fascinating IMO is the fact that Montrealers are still as passionate about hockey as they were 100+ years ago.
So while Montreal is a crucial place in the development of the sport, it can't be said it is the birthplace of hockey. It is impossible to dismiss the hockey activities in England before 1875.

In hindsight people can try changing history, but the fact remains undisputed. Englishmen were playing a game on the ice with skates that they called hockey before Montreal. That is a fact. It is also a fact that Montreal took the game indoors and started a new era in the development of the sport. I think we can all agree on that.

To go further, if we want to break down all the elements of the game like: First use of goaltenders, uniforms, referees, written rules, goal nets, specific hockey skates, use of puck, etc,etc, then it's another discussion. In many cases England had it first in their games, in some cases Montreal.

Robert Gordon Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 05:27 AM
  #285
steve141
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
What we do and do not call ice hockey has a significant bearing on this discussion. Since the release of On the Origin of Hockey, in discussions with more than one historian in SIHR I have seen attempts at narrowing the definition of hockey, with the only apparent goal being to maintain Montreal's position as the one ond only true birthplace of hockey. Suddenly it's important that ice hockey must be played indoors, or only by a certain number of players, whereas before the information on the games in England was available this was not considered important. As such there are revealed to not be attempts to define hockey, but to define ice hockey as being only that version of the game that originated in Montreal.
I would question any definition of hockey that excludes outdoor hockey. Is the Winter Classic not hockey? Did Wayne Gretzky not grow up playing hockey in his back yard?

steve141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 09:15 AM
  #286
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 steve141 View Post
I would question any definition of hockey that excludes outdoor hockey. Is the Winter Classic not hockey?
Exactly. On the Origin of Hockey points out that the first several Olympic hockey tournaments were played on outdoor rinks. The Montreal Winter Carnival hockey tournaments in the 1880s were also often played outdoors.

It is obvious that moving the game indoors had important implications for the development of the sport, however this does not exclude the hockey that was played outdoors from being hockey.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 09:43 AM
  #287
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve141 View Post
I would question any definition of hockey that excludes outdoor hockey.
Oh absolutely, as would I. This whole claim & debate seems to go back to the late 30's & 40's with plans to establish a Hockey Hall of Fame. Local Kingstonian Captain James T. Sutherland, a long time hockey player, Coach & Administrator (OHA & CAHA pre & post WW1, created the Memorial Cup etc), sometimes called "The Father of Hockey" was keen to establish a HHOF.

Kingston had laid claim to being "The Birthplace of Hockey" and as he was a local with self interests in putting his hometown on the Map embraced that legend in the furtherance of his ambition. That as the Birthplace of Hockey, Kingston deserving of the HHOF. Well, Windsor Nova Scotia & most assuredly Montreal had quite a bit to say about that claim. And if the criteria for creating & establishing, then building a HHOF is that it be located in the place where hockey was supposedly "born" then Kingston & Sutherlands claim's are erroneous.

Yet this label assigned to the debate stuck; "Birthplace of Hockey". Was sensationalized by journalists & writers of the era & time. Fact is its impossible to determine where & when man first took to the ice wearing skates, holding a crooked staff or stick & began whacking around ice cubes, pinecones, dung, a ball or a bung which in so far as Im concerned, my opinion, thats basically hockey. Forget the rules. There were no real rules. You could play keepaway, eventually add goal posts or targets, any number of players. No minimum nor maximum. Whats not debatable is that Montreal is "The Birthplace of the Modern Game", from the creation or adaptation of rules to published contemporaneous reports of the games, its players.

So its well documented.... however, that could even be argued and is by some. When does birth occur? Upon conception or delivery? If by conception, then Halifax has a claim. The movers & shakers, the guys who crafted the rules & wrote them down in Montreal, James Creighton, Nova Scotians. Had been playing hockey for years before moving to Montreal attending McGill.... and so it goes on. This debate. Only makes sense that it at least be titled properly but its been corrupted. "Birthplace of Hockey". No. "Birthplace of the Modern Game" yes. And that's Montreal. For now. Possible someones long forgotten Diary stored between the walls of an old house surfaces. Jumping off the pages an entire set of Ice Hockey Rules out of Lunenburg NS, Virginia or the Dakotas'.... wherever, history revised. Not likely though, beyond improbable but thats the kind of proof you'd need and then some (like reports of games for eg) to displace Montreal as The Birthplace of the Modern Game of Ice Hockey in North America. The issue of Britain's ancestral paternity now also established with the recent publication of the book discussed up-page, but to me doesnt alter the fact that it was in Montreal where the game was truly fostered & developed.


Last edited by Killion; 07-27-2014 at 09:53 AM..
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 11:20 AM
  #288
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
James Creighton, Nova Scotians. Had been playing hockey for years before moving to Montreal attending McGill
A hockey-like game, but was it actually hockey?

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 11:24 AM
  #289
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Gordon Orr View Post
Englishmen were playing a game on the ice with skates that they called hockey before Montreal.
Nova Scotians were playing a hockey-like game on the ice with skates that they didn't call hockey before Montreal as well.

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 11:32 AM
  #290
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,627
vCash: 500
Indoor/Outdor

The Indoor/Outdoor is not about the type of venue but whether the venue was defined by boards that limited the playing surface and changed the play from an unbounded surface outdoor - pond, stream, river, lake, patch of ice, etc limited to daylight activity or a rink defined by boards, that change strategy - projectile could be played along the boards, boards created proximity to the net, limited player participation since a 85' or 100'(international) width surface if divided into two many lanes makes offensive movement almost impossible.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 11:47 AM
  #291
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Gordon Orr View Post
One of the reasons bandy pretty much lost out to hockey in Europe was the fact that it wasn't played indoors.
But if the sport played in England outdoors on ice with skates and a ball was hockey, what is this "bandy" you speak of? You cannot say hockey starts in England, evolves into modern hockey, while the original game in England stops being "hockey" and suddenly becomes "bandy".

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 11:50 AM
  #292
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The Indoor/Outdoor is not about the type of venue but whether the venue was defined by boards that limited the playing surface and changed the play from an unbounded surface outdoor - pond, stream, river, lake, patch of ice, etc limited to daylight activity or a rink defined by boards, that change strategy - projectile could be played along the boards, boards created proximity to the net, limited player participation since a 85' or 100'(international) width surface if divided into two many lanes makes offensive movement almost impossible.
Well, you still had natural boundaries when playing on a lake, pond or stream, the banks or snow~banks, random & happenstantial as they are to this very day when playing outdoors but I still consider it, and by any reasonable measure, hockey. You can banks shots off of snowbanks if there hard enough & frozen, clear definition of whats in or out of bounds. When they moved indoors of course you then had greater consistency in terms of surface size, first the wee Dasher Boards essentially defining the space & size, eventually used tactically & size/height increased initially as a safety precaution. I believe the first artificial ice plant indoors was in Baltimore adding mph to the development of the game when adopted & replicated elsewhere.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 12:15 PM
  #293
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,627
vCash: 500
Natural Obstacles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well, you still had natural boundaries when playing on a lake, pond or stream, the banks or snow~banks, random & happenstantial as they are to this very day when playing outdoors but I still consider it, and by any reasonable measure, hockey. You can banks shots off of snowbanks if there hard enough & frozen, clear definition of whats in or out of bounds. When they moved indoors of course you then had greater consistency in terms of surface size, first the wee Dasher Boards essentially defining the space & size, eventually used tactically & size/height increased initially as a safety precaution. I believe the first artificial ice plant indoors was in Baltimore adding mph to the development of the game when adopted & replicated elsewhere.
Not really. You had the shore trash - reeds, foliage, exposed rocks etc, so the game would have been played on the part that was wide open.

Here in town they run a winter tournament on the lake, weather permitting. Put up regulation sized rinks with boards, clear of shore obstructions. About twenty yards from shore.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 12:23 PM
  #294
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 29,776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well, you still had natural boundaries when playing on a lake, pond or stream, the banks or snow~banks, random & happenstantial as they are to this very day when playing outdoors but I still consider it, and by any reasonable measure, hockey. You can banks shots off of snowbanks if there hard enough & frozen, clear definition of whats in or out of bounds. When they moved indoors of course you then had greater consistency in terms of surface size, first the wee Dasher Boards essentially defining the space & size, eventually used tactically & size/height increased initially as a safety precaution. I believe the first artificial ice plant indoors was in Baltimore adding mph to the development of the game when adopted & replicated elsewhere.
Yeah, I don't think the indoor/outdoor thing is necessarily relevant, but the bounded playing area aspect almost certainly is. The attempt at standardizing the shape/size of the player surface is one of the things that remains with us today, along with a goal that is protected by a dedicated player as insurance against the ability to reverse the flow of play quickly. Skate blades allowing some modicum of turning are obviously fundamental at this point.

Rules about goaltender flopping, forward passing, red lines/icing, line changes, etc have changed/evolved over the years, and resulted in play which looked different to observers in different eras. But to me, the "lineage" of "real" ice hockey is traced through the constants that have survived its evolution: a bounded playing area (however demarcated/adhered to) influencing/limiting the number of "active" participants, "proper" skates (i.e. not straight line sleigh runners or crudely fashioned bone runners, etc), a "puck" primarily distributed/carried around the surface by a "stick", and "nets" defended by "goalies" (distinctive gear, etc not necessary). I'd consider most material or language differences beyond that simply regional flavour to the same broth.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 12:28 PM
  #295
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Not really. You had the shore trash - reeds, foliage, exposed rocks etc, so the game would have been played on the part that was wide open.
In the vast majority of cases you did yes, though not always. I played on a pond and we'd simply shovel the snow to the banks covering all that crap, natural obstacles. Of course we'd played with Boards outdoors & in in the city so using the snow banks we'd created to bank shots something learned on modern rinks with full or dasher boards. Certainly the early game, was all down the middle pretty much, the Boards not used tactically nearly as much and more as border in determining boundaries. Keeping the puck in-bounds and as a Safety precaution against spectators getting hit or run over by an out of control player. Not unlike Basketball in some ways.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 12:32 PM
  #296
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,627
vCash: 500
Goaltender Flopping

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Yeah, I don't think the indoor/outdoor thing is necessarily relevant, but the bounded playing area aspect almost certainly is. The attempt at standardizing the shape/size of the player surface is one of the things that remains with us today, along with a goal that is protected by a dedicated player as insurance against the ability to reverse the flow of play quickly. Skate blades allowing some modicum of turning are obviously fundamental at this point.

Rules about goaltender flopping, forward passing, red lines/icing, line changes, etc have changed/evolved over the years, and resulted in play which looked different to observers in different eras. But to me, the "lineage" of "real" ice hockey is traced through the constants that have survived its evolution: a bounded playing area (however demarcated/adhered to) influencing/limiting the number of "active" participants, "proper" skates (i.e. not straight line sleigh runners or crudely fashioned bone runners, etc), a "puck" primarily distributed/carried around the surface by a "stick", and "nets" defended by "goalies" (distinctive gear, etc not necessary). I'd consider most material or language differences beyond that simply regional flavour to the same broth.
Safety aspect is often overlooked when considering goaltender flopping. No crease or protective Equipment of note. Goalies flopping to stop a shot presented a high risk of injury to players on both teams.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 02:58 PM
  #297
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 Uncle Rotter View Post
A hockey-like game, but was it actually hockey?
Define hockey. (Hint: there is more than one valid definition of the word, depending on the context.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
But if the sport played in England outdoors on ice with skates and a ball was hockey, what is this "bandy" you speak of? You cannot say hockey starts in England, evolves into modern hockey, while the original game in England stops being "hockey" and suddenly becomes "bandy".
When you answer the question above, it may answer this for you. Be careful when using a word that has more than one possible meaning.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 03:04 PM
  #298
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
The Indoor/Outdoor is not about the type of venue but whether the venue was defined by boards that limited the playing surface and changed the play from an unbounded surface outdoor - pond, stream, river, lake, patch of ice, etc limited to daylight activity or a rink defined by boards, that change strategy - projectile could be played along the boards, boards created proximity to the net, limited player participation since a 85' or 100'(international) width surface if divided into two many lanes makes offensive movement almost impossible.
(Emphasis added.)

It is also inadvisable to define hockey by using particular strategies that are available to the players.

Using this sort of methodology, someone could just as easily argue that before 1929, the NHL did not play hockey because the ability to make forward passes in all zones of the ice has a very significant effect on strategy.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 03:51 PM
  #299
Robert Gordon Orr
Registered User
 
Robert Gordon Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
But if the sport played in England outdoors on ice with skates and a ball was hockey, what is this "bandy" you speak of? You cannot say hockey starts in England, evolves into modern hockey, while the original game in England stops being "hockey" and suddenly becomes "bandy".
In the early years hockey and bandy was synonymous and seen as the same game.
In the Fens they mostly called it bandy, but also hockey sometimes (i.e. Bluntisham-C*m-Earith Hockey and Skating Club). The Fen players of course prefered to play with a ball and heavier sticks, while the metropolitan players from the London area prefered to play with lighter ash sticks and a bung.

Eventually during the winter of 1890/91 the Fen men and the Londoners decided to play against each other. The first half was played with a leather covered bung and light ash sticks, while the second half was played with heavier sticks, a ball, and with off-side rules.

The result of this game was that less than a month later, a Bandy Association was formed in order to distinguish it from any other body. There at that February 9 meeting it was decided that a ball, not a bung would be played with (in bandy).

While the distinction had been made in England, the rest of Europe still called the game hockey, regardless of rule differences, ball or puck, seven aside or eleven aside. In German speaking countries for example they called it “Eishockey mit der Scheibe” (Ice hockey with a disc) or “Eishockey mit dem ball” (Ice Hockey with a ball).

Early in 1908, the French team, Club des Patineurs de Paris travelled to Switzerland and played a few games there. The Swiss teams had a strong North American flavour and the French and Swiss teams complained about the difference in rules and style of play. Louis Magnus refereed these games and realized that concordant rules were necessary for the development of the game, so months later he formed the LIHG (today IIHF).

Over the years, more and more European teams adopted the game to be played with a bung/puck and fewer players. Countries that didn’t have indoor arenas early on, held on to bandy longer, i.e. Sweden, Finland, Bohemia, Russia, Hungary, Norway and Austria.

In short, it wasn’t until the early 1890s that bandy was distinguished from ice hockey in England, and even later in Europe.

Worth noting is that the first known hockey rules published in Canada 1877 (Montreal Gazette 1877-02-27) had corner shots, still used in bandy today.

Robert Gordon Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2014, 04:30 PM
  #300
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,300
vCash: 500
^^^ Yes, that all makes sense RGO. Essentially the same game early on but with regional variations even within the UK let alone country~country. Bandy (or variations thereof) a fore~runner to what we would more classically call hockey in North America which developed as an off-shoot to Bandy. Not unlike say Alpine or Downhill developing from Nordic or Cross Country Skiing with further specialties & refinements along with developments & differences in everything from equipment to competitive rules & regulations in both disciplines along with all of the off-shoots & permutations. Different terrain & fields of play but some similarities still remaining. Some shared skill sets for sure.... So with hockey gaining popularity & demarcation lines becoming more apparent, they form an organization to create & constitute formal rules & so on, overseeing competition etc. Rather like the FIS in forming a Freestyle Skiing or Ski Acrobtatique Division in overseeing that discipline back in the 70's only in that case as with all of the skiing discplines under one umbrella, the Federation International Ski rather than separate organizations altogether as is the case with Hockey & Bandy.

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 11:13 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

Powered by 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.