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.

Hockey Invented In England ... Not Canada

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-31-2014, 10:31 PM
  #401
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter View Post
I thought "ricket" and "hurley" were used more in Nova Scotia?
Without having the numbers to back it up, and just my experience as a "native", I'm not sure that was the case. Ricket is synonymous with shinny (from shinty), for starters. Given hurley's roots in Ireland, shinty's roots in Scotland, the relative population of Scottish to Irish in New Scotland (I think we still hold the largest Highland Games outside of the Scottish Highlands, for what that's worth), and the informal nature of shinny (in which sticks/balls/whatever could be scrounged or made up from anything, basically), the game with the Scottish connection that is easiest to "set up" or pick up with little notice/planning (and persists ubiquitously as shinny to this day out here) seems more plausible. After all, it's not like free time was an abundant luxury for most people out here at the time, so lack of structure/relative low cost/informality of rules/equipment would have been key to popularity/proliferation. The first time I ever heard of hurling was on this site...


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 07-31-2014 at 10:50 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2014, 10:45 PM
  #402
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... thats my understanding as well, Ricket, Hurley, Shinny and yes, sometimes referred to as Hockey. Absolutely. A game James Creighton (born 1850) played as a boy in Halifax. Supposedly based in part of the Scottish game Shinty with influences from Lacrosse & Field Hockey, the Irish game of Hurling & European Bandy. In other words a country stew with ingredients from a variety of sources that became uniquely Canadian when he drew up the Montreal Rules. The birth of the modern game of hockey as we know it today.
Careful, Iain has already shot down my "melting pot" analogy. But here's where I think I'll cut and paste the info from the exhibit I've seen more than a few times at the NS HoF:

Biography: In Nova Scotia, the first written evidence of the game referred to as hockey is in an 1859 news article from the Boston Evening Gazette, in which the reporter excitedly described the new game of ice hockey being played in Nova Scotia. The same excitement was building in the young James Creighton.

In 1850, Halifax native James George Aylwin Creighton was attending Halifax Grammar School and was fast matching his father's skating skills. He went on to study engineering at Dalhousie University and was always cognizant of the great hockey fever that was developing all around him. Upon graduation he worked on railway construction and moved to Montreal in 1873. He met new athletic friends, joined the Montreal Football Club, became a member of the Victoria Skating Rink, and was appointed a judge of figure skating.

Creighton interested his football friends in ice hockey as a way of staying in shape over the long winter months while waiting to play football again. Creighton managed to gain access to the Victoria Rink for practice sessions. The learning process went on for two year until two clubs were ready to face off. On March 3, 1875, the Montreal Football Club challenged the boys of the Victoria Skating Rink to the first game of ice hockey that was played inside a covered rink with a limited number of players and played according to rules.

There is no doubt that the man who taught the participants to play, gained access to the rink, captained the winning team, and provided two dozen hockey sticks from Halifax for that all-important first game was James Creighton. This young Nova Scotian was destined to become the father of organized hockey.


So that touches on "hockey" being a "new game" which seems to have been identified no later than the 1850s, having to teach football/rugby players some structure to the game (mixing of sports), 2 years of developmental practice leading up to the 1875 game, how the surface became standardized, and Creighton's role in all of it. Finally, from his wiki:

"It was this exhibition which aroused city-wide interest and gave rise to the formation of other ice hockey teams and to the rapid development of the game," McGill's physical education director Emanuel M. Orlick would write in The Gazette in 1943.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 12:04 AM
  #403
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
[I]Biography: In Nova Scotia, the first written evidence of the game referred to as hockey is in an 1859 news article from the Boston Evening Gazette, in which the reporter excitedly described the new game of ice hockey being played in Nova Scotia.
That's a reference to ricket, not to ice hockey. How do we know what ricket is? Well, ricket is not hockey, bandy, or hurley, so that's a start.

Ricket may very well have been the source of the Halifax version of hockey, which was, of course, replaced by the Montreal version around 1890. So these two versions were different enough to be recognized as such, and one was forgotten in favour of the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Creighton interested his football friends in ice hockey as a way of staying in shape over the long winter months while waiting to play football again. Creighton managed to gain access to the Victoria Rink for practice sessions. The learning process went on for two year until two clubs were ready to face off.
Any references for this, perchance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
On March 3, 1875, the Montreal Football Club challenged the boys of the Victoria Skating Rink to the first game of ice hockey that was played inside a covered rink with a limited number of players and played according to rules.
This first match is recognized to be between two teams of the Victoria Skating Rink. I also notice they very carefully insert the "inside a covered rink" bit here. Something of a historical curiosity, but not really relevant. Unless you think that hockey played in an outdoor rink isn't really ice hockey, such as at the 1920 Olympics or the NHL's Winter Classic each year.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 12:06 AM
  #404
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Gordon Orr View Post
I often agree with you Killion, but I wouldn't go as far and say that the early Montreal rules were uniquely Canadian.
No, they like most constitutional issues, laws, rules & regulations borrowed heavily from predominantly British sources used as templates. Tweaked over the years sure but essentially still of British origin. Creighton lifting the Field Hockey Rule Book, using it as a template, that sort of thing fairly common practice. It was what evolved thereafter that I was referring to. The changes & ultimately the stamp put on the game as being branded "uniquely Canadian". This is fundamental really. An entire philosophy in terms of the way Canadians approach the sport & play it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Careful, Iain has already shot down my "melting pot" analogy.
... no worries. Im callin the pot, the kettle & the skillet black, a country stew and thats that. Canadian home cookin. An amalgamation in terms of skill though perhaps not in terms of the actual Rule Book. And theres a difference here between written rules & how the games actually played within those defined rules. The actual physical act of playing. Movement, technique, skates & equipment, stick, ball, bung or puck. Its a little bit of Lacrosse & Field Hockey, of Hurley, Shinty, Shinny, Bandy & all of the rest of those arcane pursuits. Took the best from each, made it better game all~round & one that could develop at an accelerated rate, be exported to the rest of the world from Canada. Doesnt matter who invented it, we own it Baby.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 12:33 AM
  #405
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Maybe I'm biased into easy acceptance, and haven't challenged the sources or what have you, but it's not full/blatant ignorance and you know it.
Chill. An argument from ignorance does not imply ignorance of the subject matter. It means, essentially, an argument in the form of "we don't really know, so I think it's this." It's not based on particular evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
But at the same time, it's what is currently believed, correct? I mean, given that 1876 and 1877 are specifically referenced with regards to said rules in the currently available research material.
What is currently believed? That they used different rules in 1875 than 1876? I'd say not. No reason to think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Well, to a Canadian, as James Creighton is/was, that would probably have been considered field hockey.
Why? If hockey on the ice was not yet a full-fledged "thing", why would they call it field hockey, rather than just hockey?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Other good questions are: did "Halifax rules" come first (meaning we had the same "generic" boundary rules and forward passing as a legal part of game play... therefore NOT similar to field hockey game play in the "most important" way), and did the game survive by returning to those rules in '27/28 by allowing the forward pass back into the game?
Based on available evidence, no. There's no reason to think that in 1875 they used some sort of Halifax rules. If they had, why would they call it hockey, instead of ricket, or shinny?

And then, why would they have changed it to an onside game? Wouldn't this just reinforce how important the addition of field hockey rules was to the development of the game anyway?

And it's 1929/30 you're thinking of, and even that's not right. That was the season they first allowed unlimited forward passing before switching to the modern version mid-season. Before then, limited forward passing had been allowed in the NHL, in some parts of the ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
But some of the other changes, which include use of lacrosse nets and the goaltender position
Hockey did not use nets in 1875. Hockey did not use nets at all until c.1900 or so. Football has had references to goalkeepers since the 17th century, so I'm not sure why you think it had to have come from lacrosse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
and ability to use any part/side of the stick to move the puck around the surface
Some sources claim that the so-called Halifax rules required players to shinny on their own side. And we know that the Montreal rules dropped this requirement anyway.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 01:15 AM
  #406
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
That's a reference to ricket, not to ice hockey. How do we know what ricket is? Well, ricket is not hockey, bandy, or hurley, so that's a start.
Yet it's mentioned on numerous occasions in various sources often followed by " Rickets, also known as Shinty or Hockey". As a researcher, such homogenization without explanation would be rather frustrating I should think, as there doesnt appear to be any pedigree in terms of documentation explaining exactly what Rickets is or how it varies from Shinty & Hurley etc. Im guessing youve looked at the word from an etymological perspective? Do we even know its origins & what whatever passages those references might contain? Its an older word & seemingly unique to Nova Scotia from what Ive been able to determine.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 07:19 AM
  #407
Robert Gordon Orr
Registered User
 
Robert Gordon Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 88
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Yet it's mentioned on numerous occasions in various sources often followed by " Rickets, also known as Shinty or Hockey". As a researcher, such homogenization without explanation would be rather frustrating I should think, as there doesnt appear to be any pedigree in terms of documentation explaining exactly what Rickets is or how it varies from Shinty & Hurley etc. Im guessing youve looked at the word from an etymological perspective? Do we even know its origins & what whatever passages those references might contain? Its an older word & seemingly unique to Nova Scotia from what Ive been able to determine.

All good questions. I looked through my files for the game of ricket.
Some of the sources may give us a better picture of how the game was played.


January 1827 - Acadian Magazine (Poem Winter-Now, by Tim Fashion)

Now at ricket with hurlies some dozens of boys
Chase the ball o'er the ice, with a deafening noise.

Now some play at curling, and some with great ease
Cut circles or figures whichever you please.

On their skates, or else letters - the true lover's knot,
And a dozen such things which I've really forgot.



1840s - Windsor Hunts Journal published in 1900 (Memoirs of the 1840s by Mrs. Gould, based on her own diary)

The Dartmouth Lakes and the small ponds were the only resorts of skaters and ricket players – the game now known as hockey.
Men and boys came over from Halifax to the First Lake (Banook) in large numbers on fine afternoons.
Among the men, the face of Robert, or James Moran, merchant, always healthful and rosy-looking:
and among the younger men, Jimmy Duffus, as he was known, come up before me now.
Young Duffus had fine clothes, fur cap and gauntlets, and above all a pair of spring skates.
Consequently he always had other Halifax boys with him. Mr. Moran loved skating as an exercise,
and the same can be said of Mr. Josh McNab, who in later years was drowned, I think, in Halifax Harbor.
He excelled in figure and fancy skating. He was always against Dan Murphy, a Dartmouth champion, in the ricket and hockey matches.
William Foster, senior, the cigar manufacturer, was fond of the game, and always stood ricket guard with his creepers [i.e. soft-soled shoes] on,
as he was not a skater.



January 18, 1842 - The Halifax Morning Post

The Dartmouth Lakes were rough yesterday. Maynard’s was best - but a great spot might be found almost on any of them for a game of ricket.
By the way, there is to be a great match today, if the weather be fine - which is very doubtful.



November 5, 1859The Boston Evening Gazette

WINTER SPORTS IN NOVA SCOTIA

In Nova Scotia the time for ice is during the months of December, January and February. The lakes are then frozen and the ground generally covered with snow, although but seldom is there snow enough before Christmas to make sleighing. Skating is the favourite pastime during December, and, indeed, all through the winter, if - as is sometimes the case - there has been a great deal of snow.

There are some excellent skaters in this province, particularly in Halifax. I have seen young men who could cut their names in German text, or write the Lord's Prayer with skates on the ice easier than most skaters could cut the 'outside edges.'

I don't like to be uncharitable, but I have known some skaters who, I think, would not be able to do it without a written or printed copy before their eyes. Throwing a somersault on skates is almost an impossibility yet I have seen it done successfully.

Fancy skating is not so much practiced in Nova Scotia now as formerly; more attention is paid to games on the ice.

Ricket is the favourite pastime, and is played thus. Two rickets are formed at about the same distance, one from the other, that cricketers place their wickets. If there are many players, the rickets are further apart. A ricket consists of two stones – about as large as the cobble stones with which some of our streets have been lately paved – placed about three or four feet apart and frozen to the ice.

Sides are then formed by two persons – one opposed to the other – tossing or drawing lots for first choice of partners. The one who obtains the first choice selects one from the crowd, the other party then chooses another, and so on alternately, until a sufficient number is obtained on each side.
Any number can play the game, and, generally, the 'more the merrier'.

Each ricketer is provided with a hurley (or hockey, as it is termed here) and all being ready, a ball is thrown in the air, which is the signal to commence the play, previous to which, however, a ricket is chosen by each side and placed in charge of a man whose duty it is to prevent the ball from passing through.

The game may be 10, 15 or 20, or any number agreed upon, the side counting the numbers first being winners. The counting consists in putting the ball through your adversary’s ricket, each time counting one. From the moment the ball touches the ice, at the commencement of the game; it must not be taken in the hand until the conclusion, but must be carried or struck about the ice with the hurlies.



February 19, 1867The Halifax Reporter

Skating Scribblings
BY ICICLE

The North West Arm being rough, Maynard's Lake bleak and partly open, the 1st and 2nd Dartmouth decidedly sheely, skaters cast about for good ice, and by some unknown means the initiated were informed of there being a good surface on the almost unknown 'Oathill Lake', where our grandfathers fished fifty years ago. There are several ways of getting to this pretty little 'sheet', but the most direct route is to cross Maynard's lake diagonally from the pipe-house, in a northerly direction, this brings us to a rugged pathway up a steep hill, and after a long descent 'Oathill' bursts upon the view.

On Saturday the lake was covered with skaters of both sexes, there being about 1000 there during the afternoon...[Snip]

Two well contested games of 'ricket' were being played. At the upper end were a number of young men from Dartmouth and the City, playing their 'hurleys' and 'following up' the ball while the centre was occupied by a number of officers of the Garrison and Fleet, in a match game called hockey i.e. ricket.

The boundary lines of each game were not well defined, and occasionally the 'aristocratic hockey ball' would encroach on the upper game when the 'plebian hurleys' would pass it around for a time and send it back again to its select circle. Very little science was displayed in either game, the old class of players seem to have died out, and their successors are not up in the science of leading off the ball, doubling and carrying it through.

Instead of the old styles, the game as now played is dangerous to outsiders, especially to ladies, some of whom were rather roughly treated in the scrimmage after the ball. There was no tenderness displayed in the 'United Service Game', as many sore shins can testify, and more than one poor little middy got a stretcher from their heavier antagonists of the land service.

Some small boys had the hardihood and impudence to raise their hurleys to strike the 'swell ball' as it passed them, for which the flagrant crime they were visited with condign punishment. This was not relished by the friends of the juveniles, who after their own fashion encroached upon and took partial possession of the select territory which, during infringement resulted in terrible forebodings of a conflict between both sides, but although a forest of sticks and hurleys were raised in the air, not a head was broke, or, as Pat said at Donnybrook, 'six o'clock came and no blow struck'.

However, the 'exclusives' had to abandon their game and retire from the field with their 'hot porter' apparatus, which had been well patronised during the day. To the bystanders it was great fun, and it would be hard to say which side behaved the best or the worst.

This much must be said, that if exclusive games of hockey are to be played, a crowded lake is no place for it, moreover as one said, a ricket ball on the ice is like an old hat on the road, to be hit by everybody, and as it is the established custom for everyone who chooses to take a hand in, it is next to impossible to play match games except on unfrequented ice...[Snip]



December 3, 1869The Acadian Recorder

A club is proposed to be formed in this city [Halifax] for the prosecution of the interesting winter sport of ricket.
A meeting will be held on Tuesday or Wednesday…for the purpose of completing the organization.
There is a ricket club formed of the officers of the 78th Regiment, another by some members of the Phoenix Cricket Club and one is proposed at Dartmouth.



Also, we have the William Bentley (Salem, MA) diary from 1793 where he briefly mentioned a "game at rickets" in the summers as:
The Ricket is played double, & is full of violent exercise of running

Robert Gordon Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 08:13 AM
  #408
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
That's a reference to ricket, not to ice hockey. How do we know what ricket is? Well, ricket is not hockey, bandy, or hurley, so that's a start.
We "know" it's synonymous with shinny/shinty/hockey. Or at least, pretty much every reference out there suggests as much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Ricket may very well have been the source of the Halifax version of hockey, which was, of course, replaced by the Montreal version around 1890. So these two versions were different enough to be recognized as such, and one was forgotten in favour of the other.
And we also know that in 1927/28 they started bringing back the ability to make forward passes, leaving the Montreal version to be forgotten by more recent generations in favour of something more reminiscent of the Halifax version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Any references for this, perchance?
All I've got is the NSSHoF link.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This first match is recognized to be between two teams of the Victoria Skating Rink. I also notice they very carefully insert the "inside a covered rink" bit here. Something of a historical curiosity, but not really relevant. Unless you think that hockey played in an outdoor rink isn't really ice hockey, such as at the 1920 Olympics or the NHL's Winter Classic each year.
It's mostly relevant in terms of standardizing the playing surface going forward. Evidently the playing surface of ensuing organized hockey games was based on the dimensions of the Victoria rink that housed those first games. You're right that it doesn't exactly take us back as far as we might need to go in order to determine date/time of birth.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 08:45 AM
  #409
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Chill. An argument from ignorance does not imply ignorance of the subject matter. It means, essentially, an argument in the form of "we don't really know, so I think it's this." It's not based on particular evidence.
In this case, though, it's more a case of me taking on authority what others have supposedly researched and offered up as what they "know".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
What is currently believed? That they used different rules in 1875 than 1876? I'd say not. No reason to think so.
I thought what was currently believed is that the rules were "formalized" ~1876, published in 1877, and subsequently adopted by Creighton and the boys. From the ice hockey wiki (references inside to Gazette sources):

"In 1876, the first game played in Montreal was reportedly “conducted under the ‘Hockey Association’ rules”;[17] the Hockey Association was England’s field hockey organization. In 1877, The Gazette (Montreal) published a list of seven rules, six of which were largely based on six of the Hockey Association’s twelve rules..."

So it's not like they even borrowed the entire "field" hockey rule book. They borrowed the half that they thought would serve them best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Why? If hockey on the ice was not yet a full-fledged "thing", why would they call it field hockey, rather than just hockey?
I'm the wrong person to ask when it comes to why we have traditionally referred to field hockey by its compound moniker over here, but we certainly consider it distinct from anything else that falls loosely in the "hockey" category.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Based on available evidence, no. There's no reason to think that in 1875 they used some sort of Halifax rules. If they had, why would they call it hockey, instead of ricket, or shinny?

And then, why would they have changed it to an onside game? Wouldn't this just reinforce how important the addition of field hockey rules was to the development of the game anyway?
Well, I guess the researchers better get to work trying to find something from that 1873-1875 period when Creighton was supposedly developing the game with his group of buddies from the football club, because I suspect he tinkered with all kinds of rules and strategy in the two years between the time he introduced his idea to them (that he moved to Montreal in 1873 doesn't seem to be disputed) and the actual puck drop of the "first game" in 1875.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
And it's 1929/30 you're thinking of, and even that's not right. That was the season they first allowed unlimited forward passing before switching to the modern version mid-season. Before then, limited forward passing had been allowed in the NHL, in some parts of the ice.
Yes, in 1927/28, like I said, when they started allowing forward passing in all zones except the offensive zone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Hockey did not use nets in 1875. Hockey did not use nets at all until c.1900 or so. Football has had references to goalkeepers since the 17th century, so I'm not sure why you think it had to have come from lacrosse.
True. Like the shinny we all know out here, nets used to be simply rocks on the ice marking the scoring area. "Did not use nets at all until c.1900 or so" isn't quite accurate though. It's apparently known that in 1896 fishing nets were strung up to the posts (which had replaced rocks in some parts at that time) to prevent goal disputes. (first source I could drum up) Who knows what other solutions might have been employed regionally.

That hockey would eventually borrow almost the exact goal dimensions and goaltending role from lacrosse before long (as well as the idea of a protected goalie area - or "small rectangle" - from hurling, as far as I can tell) is consistent with what I consider a history or borrowing things from whatever sport necessary to fine tune the game. Furthermore, the point is that hockey wasn't necessarily patterning itself or trying to duplicate itself as lacrosse by adopting that fundamental aspect for itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Some sources claim that the so-called Halifax rules required players to shinny on their own side. And we know that the Montreal rules dropped this requirement anyway.
My turn to ask for a reference, I guess.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 09:19 AM
  #410
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Without having the numbers to back it up, and just my experience as a "native"...
Well, I have to assume your personal experience doesn't happen to cover the 19th century.

According to On the Origin of Hockey the contemporary sources on early hockey in Nova Scotia all refer to "ricket" (1827-1869), "hurl[e]y/hurlies" (1844, 1853) and "hockey" (1864, 1867). No mention of "shinny".

Some of those sources are quoted above in post #407.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 09:27 AM
  #411
Hasa92
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 325
vCash: 500
I believe that modern hockey was invented in Canada.

However there has been many hockey like sports before that, like bandy.

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

And didn't the Mayans play a sport similar to hockey? Expect without skates and it wasn't played necessarily on ice? But they did have sticks, ball and a goal iirc.

I have heard about a hockey-ish sport that was played long ago in Ireland but don't remember much about it or have any confirmation either.

Hasa92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 10:38 AM
  #412
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
We "know" it's synonymous with shinny/shinty/hockey. Or at least, pretty much every reference out there suggests as much.
Ricket is synomymous with shinty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
It's mostly relevant in terms of standardizing the playing surface going forward. Evidently the playing surface of ensuing organized hockey games was based on the dimensions of the Victoria rink that housed those first games.
No, the standard that is used now (in North America) is very close to the Victoria dimensions, but for some time there was no standard size. Rules from early hockey generally specified minimum dimensions, not specific dimensions, and the minimum was often much smaller than the Victoria rink. And indeed games were often played on smaller surfaces, and possibly larger ones when outdoor rinks were used.

Moreover, the playing surface for hockey is not completely standardized even today. Unless you want to suggest that Olympic hockey isn't hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
In this case, though, it's more a case of me taking on authority what others have supposedly researched and offered up as what they "know".
Okay, great. So why is it that you don't take what I say on authority? I've researched the subject and am offering up what I know. How do you choose whose statements to believe if you are relying on authority?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
I thought what was currently believed is that the rules were "formalized" ~1876, published in 1877, and subsequently adopted by Creighton and the boys.
I can't speak to what is currently generally believed, of course. But the process you describe above certainly does not match the evidence. The first reference to specific rules being used was for a match played in 1876, which stated that it used Hockey Association rules (and no mention is even made of them being only some of the HA rules, or a modfiication of the HA rules). And Creighton and chums could not have adopted the 1877 rules after they were printed, since the rules printed were described as having been used in the match the day before.

So if that it was is currently believed, then current belief is demonstrably false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
So it's not like they even borrowed the entire "field" hockey rule book. They borrowed the half that they thought would serve them best.
Which did they leave out? They left out #1, which defined the dimensions of the playing area. Well, if you're playing in one specific rink, that's hardly needed, is it? Rule #2 placed restrictions on sticks, but if you've only got one source for your sticks, who needs that? Rule #8 specified what constitutes a goal. They clearly had goals in the game, so presumably they just found this to be self-evident. Rule #9 specified the maximum distance a goal could be scored from. This one they apparently decided they didn't want, but with their version being played on a smaller surface than the Hockey Association, it wouldn't have made much sense anyway. Rule #10 specified that players must be behind the ball on a bully, this was incorporated directly into the Montreal offside rule. Finally #12 specified the number of players per side, whereas in Montreal they went match-by-match for some time, generally eight or nine per side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
I'm the wrong person to ask when it comes to why we have traditionally referred to field hockey by its compound moniker over here, but we certainly consider it distinct from anything else that falls loosely in the "hockey" category.
Yes, we do. But most of the world does not. The reason that we call it field hockey is that ice hockey is dramatically more popular here. And field hockey is certainly not very distinct from shinty, they have many similarities.

And since you still have not defined what hockey is, I don't know how you can make a determination as to what is in the "hockey category" and what is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Well, I guess the researchers better get to work trying to find something from that 1873-1875 period when Creighton was supposedly developing the game with his group of buddies from the football club, because I suspect he tinkered with all kinds of rules and strategy in the two years between the time he introduced his idea to them (that he moved to Montreal in 1873 doesn't seem to be disputed) and the actual puck drop of the "first game" in 1875.
That's great, but do you have any reason for that suspicion? We know the rules they eventually used, and those were field hockey rules. What evidence led you to the idea that he tinkered with all kinds of rules?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
"Did not use nets at all until c.1900 or so" isn't quite accurate though. It's apparently known that in 1896 fishing nets were strung up to the posts (which had replaced rocks in some parts at that time) to prevent goal disputes.
You do know what "c." and "or so" means, right? They both specifically mean the number is not intended to be accurate, but approximate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
My turn to ask for a reference, I guess.
Here's one. Please note that this is not me putting this forward as reason for a position, just noting what some sources claim. So it's inherently different from your use of the NS hall of fame passage to reach a conclusion.


Last edited by Iain Fyffe: 08-01-2014 at 11:24 AM.
Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 11:16 AM
  #413
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Yes, in 1927/28, like I said, when they started allowing forward passing in all zones except the offensive zone.
I see. If you're referring to allowing any sort of forward passing at all, it was the PCHA that first did so in 1913.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 11:38 AM
  #414
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,784
vCash: 500
Copyright

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
No, they like most constitutional issues, laws, rules & regulations borrowed heavily from predominantly British sources used as templates. Tweaked over the years sure but essentially still of British origin. Creighton lifting the Field Hockey Rule Book, using it as a template, that sort of thing fairly common practice. It was what evolved thereafter that I was referring to. The changes & ultimately the stamp put on the game as being branded "uniquely Canadian". This is fundamental really. An entire philosophy in terms of the way Canadians approach the sport & play it.



... no worries. Im callin the pot, the kettle & the skillet black, a country stew and thats that. Canadian home cookin. An amalgamation in terms of skill though perhaps not in terms of the actual Rule Book. And theres a difference here between written rules & how the games actually played within those defined rules. The actual physical act of playing. Movement, technique, skates & equipment, stick, ball, bung or puck. Its a little bit of Lacrosse & Field Hockey, of Hurley, Shinty, Shinny, Bandy & all of the rest of those arcane pursuits. Took the best from each, made it better game all~round & one that could develop at an accelerated rate, be exported to the rest of the world from Canada. Doesnt matter who invented it, we own it Baby.
True - following is an outline of copyright laws in Britain - 1911 and Canada 1921 to comply with the Berne Convention:

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

Berne Convention background:

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

As one may see all of the applicable legislation and conventions happened well post the 1870s.

Borrowing or the use of a Template, pattern, etc falls Under the heading of a coloration. Not acceptable today but common in the 1870s. Saved effort but legal and not a sign of influence just facility.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 11:41 AM
  #415
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Gordon Orr View Post
All good questions. I looked through my files for the game of ricket.... Some of the sources may give us a better picture of how the game was played.
Hey, thats awesome, thanks for posting all of that. Colorful & edifying at the same time!. So seriously, how could anyone reading all of it not conclude that Rickets = Hockey? What we'd call Shinny. Sure far more primitive skates & sticks, using a ball rather than a puck but so what? Theyve used stones to create goals placed 3 or 4 feet apart & frozen into the ice (or not as happenstance would dictate, improvising with a pair of boots or whatever); mention of a non~skater minding & protecting the wickets which Im sure goes beyond just maintaining them with equal distance but that they were actually playing Goal; even right down to the selecting of players, something everyone who's ever played shinny wouldve experienced right through the 21st Century. Mention of the scrums & physicality.

Theres just no mistaking it for what it is, informal Shinny aka Hockey just called by a different name; Rickets.... that word or name first applied in England to a disease that caused shortness of breath as a result of Vitamin 'D' deficiencies & not uncommon. Etymologically rickets believed to have come from the Dorset & Somerset area (1600's) from the word ruckets, meaning to breathe with difficulty. Like "between the ruckets and the gout Martha, dont think Im gunna make it". So if your in Nova Scotia mid-17th Century out playing hockey then ya, you'd be huffing & puffing, breathing with difficulty. As is the wont of the British & Gaelic/Celtic mind & their love of absurdities, I'll betcha they decided to humorously call it Rickets rather than Shinty/Bandy or whatever they called it back in the Old Country, be it Scotland, Ireland, England or Wales etc.... huh? 50vBucks says Im right RGO. Up to you to disprove it.


Last edited by Killion: 08-01-2014 at 11:51 AM.
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 10:05 PM
  #416
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
...Saved effort but legal and not a sign of influence just facility.
Yes, quite common, even with a variety of legal & business forms which you'd buy at
a Grand & Toy or wherever back in the day, available on~line today. Just a Template.

... not as universal,legally binding as they once were, usually only used for minor matters but back then? Absolutely.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2014, 11:58 PM
  #417
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
So seriously, how could anyone reading all of it not conclude that Rickets = Hockey?
Depends on what you mean by the word hockey. No one seems to want to define the word as they're using it here, and that really hampers discussion when there is more than one possible meaning.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2014, 12:35 AM
  #418
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Depends on what you mean by the word hockey. No one seems to want to define the word as they're using it here, and that really hampers discussion when there is more than one possible meaning.
Im not following you Iain.... you'll have to expand upon that statement & perhaps start by explaining what your definition of "hockey" is?

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2014, 01:14 AM
  #419
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Ricket is synomymous with shinty?
Well, maybe not synonymous, but connected to the degree suggested by this passage from Creighton's wiki:

"Mr. Creighton had played sports during his boyhood in Halifax, where a free-wheeling, stick-ball game called "ricket", "shinny" or occasionally "hockey", was played on ice outdoors with any number of players. It is believed that Creighton developed rules for the organized indoor game from the style of play of those games in Halifax, where (according to some historians) they had developed out of a Scottish game called shinty."

Perhaps a bit of a simplification, but if you take shinny (possibly linked to shinty) and plunk a couple of rocks down as a "goal", you basically get rickets. That sounds weird, reading that for a second time, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
No, the standard that is used now (in North America) is very close to the Victoria dimensions, but for some time there was no standard size. Rules from early hockey generally specified minimum dimensions, not specific dimensions, and the minimum was often much smaller than the Victoria rink. And indeed games were often played on smaller surfaces, and possibly larger ones when outdoor rinks were used.

Moreover, the playing surface for hockey is not completely standardized even today. Unless you want to suggest that Olympic hockey isn't hockey.
Fine. Technically not one standard set of measurements. Compared to "measuring" by bodies of water previously, the idea of playing in a "rink" from that time onward sounds pretty standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Okay, great. So why is it that you don't take what I say on authority? I've researched the subject and am offering up what I know. How do you choose whose statements to believe if you are relying on authority?
You're just one person. And I guess I just read things and think about them. How does anyone choose?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I can't speak to what is currently generally believed, of course. But the process you describe above certainly does not match the evidence. The first reference to specific rules being used was for a match played in 1876, which stated that it used Hockey Association rules (and no mention is even made of them being only some of the HA rules, or a modfiication of the HA rules). And Creighton and chums could not have adopted the 1877 rules after they were printed, since the rules printed were described as having been used in the match the day before.

So if that it was is currently believed, then current belief is demonstrably false.
Well, the facts remain that Creighton hosted that game in 1875, the first reference to Hockey Association rules being used was in 1876, and the "first set of rules" published by the Gazette were "almost identical" to the newly established field hockey rules of 1877. (source)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Which did they leave out? They left out #1, which defined the dimensions of the playing area. Well, if you're playing in one specific rink, that's hardly needed, is it? Rule #2 placed restrictions on sticks, but if you've only got one source for your sticks, who needs that? Rule #8 specified what constitutes a goal. They clearly had goals in the game, so presumably they just found this to be self-evident. Rule #9 specified the maximum distance a goal could be scored from. This one they apparently decided they didn't want, but with their version being played on a smaller surface than the Hockey Association, it wouldn't have made much sense anyway. Rule #10 specified that players must be behind the ball on a bully, this was incorporated directly into the Montreal offside rule. Finally #12 specified the number of players per side, whereas in Montreal they went match-by-match for some time, generally eight or nine per side.
It seems they left out #1, #2, #8, #9, and #12, but worked in #10.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Yes, we do. But most of the world does not. The reason that we call it field hockey is that ice hockey is dramatically more popular here. And field hockey is certainly not very distinct from shinty, they have many similarities.
As do bandy, rickets, hurling, etc. And still, someone who was familiar with them all would be able to distinguish them by watching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
And since you still have not defined what hockey is, I don't know how you can make a determination as to what is in the "hockey category" and what is not.
It's tough, that's for sure. I'll know it when I see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
That's great, but do you have any reason for that suspicion? We know the rules they eventually used, and those were field hockey rules. What evidence led you to the idea that he tinkered with all kinds of rules?
Yeah, actually. Having traveled to the opposite side of the world and introduced completely foreign sports to friends in those areas, I've had my own experiences in trying to put together a bunch of people who you can play them with. I can imagine between what he started with (in terms of participants and "structure" for the game) in 1873 when he left Halifax and 1875 when they were finally prepared to square off for the "first match", adjustments and refinements were made to any preconceived "ideals" he might have envisioned at the very beginning.

Not a compelling argument to a historian, I'm sure, but I'm simply skeptical that it went from 1873 shinny/pond hockey to 1876 rules in one giant step. Since I guess I assume there was sort of an "evolutionary process", I don't expect that every tested change, with that completely green group of participants, yielded successful results that survived to the final version.

I mean, there's even the suggestion in that "Hockey's Forgotten Pioneer" link that part of choosing the Victoria Ice Rink to show off hockey might have been to provide something more entertaining than the previously hosted lacrosse exhibition turned out to be, so who knows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
You do know what "c." and "or so" means, right? They both specifically mean the number is not intended to be accurate, but approximate.
Sure, but that seems to be a bit beside the point. I'm really tired, though, so maybe it's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Here's one. Please note that this is not me putting this forward as reason for a position, just noting what some sources claim. So it's inherently different from your use of the NS hall of fame passage to reach a conclusion.
Where's one? I don't see "shinny on their own side" in anything involving the Halifax rules, nor can I imagine how that could be reconciled with the distinguishing Rule 8 (allowing forward passes).


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 08-02-2014 at 01:21 AM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2014, 01:17 AM
  #420
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Im not following you Iain.... you'll have to expand upon that statement & perhaps start by explaining what your definition of "hockey" is?
There are at least two: one referring to the general class of games that involve hitting a thing with a stick, another referring to the sport that we now call hockey. It used to be a general term, now it's a specific one. You just have to make sure you know which term you're using.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2014, 01:30 AM
  #421
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
There are at least two: one referring to the general class of games that involve hitting a thing with a stick, another referring to the sport that we now call hockey. It used to be a general term, now it's a specific one. You just have to make sure you know which term you're using.
Well sure. Shinny Hockey or Hockey. The former casual & general, the latter formal. Wheres the confusion? Its all about context.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2014, 01:31 AM
  #422
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
You're just one person. And I guess I just read things and think about them. How does anyone choose?
You don't have to choose which authority to agree with, on the basis of their being an authority. You can follow the evidence where it leads, that's the point. Don't just imagine what might have been, find out what we know about what was and build from there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Well, the facts remain that Creighton hosted that game in 1875, the first reference to Hockey Association rules being used was in 1876, and the "first set of rules" published by the Gazette were "almost identical" to the newly established field hockey rules of 1877.
Those rules were not newly-established in 1877, they dated back to the early 1870s at least. In fact there might have a been a book published earlier this year about early hockey rules and where they came from, you might want to check it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
It's tough, that's for sure.
It's really not. Just identify the features that make hockey hockey. Otherwise how can you declare one version of a game to be hockey and another not, if you can't tell us what hockey is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Not a compelling argument to a historian, I'm sure, but I'm simply skeptical that it went from 1873 shinny/pond hockey to 1876 rules in one giant step.
So now these rules are not just logistical additions, but a giant step? And why do you choose to be skeptical about this, but not about your own conclusions?

It's not really that big a step. It was not the first time that field hockey rules had been put on ice, which had previously been done in England. The fact that it was done by several different groups in several different places really hammers home how naturally the change must have seemed to interested people. Really they just changed the playing surface. How is that such a big step?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Where's one? I don't see "shinny on their own side" in anything involving the Halifax rules, nor can I imagine how that could be reconciled with the distinguishing Rule 8 (allowing forward passes).
"Shinny on your own side" is another way of saying that a player must always be on his own side of the stick, or must play from right to left. See rule 7 in that link.

This rule was sometimes used in English field hockey to prevent collisions between opposing players both going for the ball at the same time, from opposite ends of the field. Essentially, everyone had to shoot right-handed, and could only play the ball forward. It had nothing to do with forward passing, although most sources that reprint the (alleged) Halifax rules instead say that you had to remain on your own side of the puck (not your own side of your stick), which would contradict the claim that forward passing was allowed as you mentioned.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2014, 01:37 AM
  #423
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well sure. Shinny Hockey or Hockey. The former casual & general, the latter formal. Wheres the confusion? Its all about context.
Yes, that's the point. There have been various claims made in this thread about what is and is not hockey. Someone tried to define hockey as "NOT hurling, field hockey, bandy or even shinty". But using the broader definition of hockey, bandy (at least) was hockey. (And if you don't require ice, they are all arguably hockey). It's only the more restrictive definition that we would use for modern hockey that would exclude bandy, and that definition doesn't generally have much relevance to a discussion of the game in the 1870s, where no version of the game would meet a definition of modern hockey.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2014, 01:49 AM
  #424
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Yes, that's the point. There have been various claims made in this thread about what is and is not hockey. Someone tried to define hockey as "NOT hurling, field hockey, bandy or even shinty". But using the broader definition of hockey, bandy (at least) was hockey. (And if you don't require ice, they are all arguably hockey). It's only the more restrictive definition that we would use for modern hockey that would exclude bandy, and that definition doesn't generally have much relevance to a discussion of the game in the 1870s, where no version of the game would meet a definition of modern hockey.
Except for the fact that we can draw a straight line back through history, from the hockey that is discussed on this site back those guys playing in Montreal in the 1870s. Tracing lines back farther than that seems to remain an exercise in possibilities and influences - not "invention".

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2014, 01:58 AM
  #425
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
...where no version of the game would meet a definition of modern hockey.
.... yes of of course, agree, but I believe your being far too strict with what was essentially an in~country term for a game that was an amalgamation of various formal sports played casually. If we were transported back to 1855 Halifax & saw kids skating on a pond with sticks, batting a ball around, and we asked them "whats the name of this game your playing"? How many do you think answer "shinty" or "rickets" & how many do you think would answer with "hockey"?... If we did the same thing today, kids or adults playing on a pond or pickup at a rink, the answers obviously "hockey" & they arent playing full~on Rule Book. Technically in both cases their playing "Shinny Hockey" but so what if they just answer "hockey"?. Loose term. Context. Requires flexibility but regardless, strikes me a moot point to even be discussing.

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 07:55 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.