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.

Upcoming Hall of Fame announcement

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-29-2006, 05:12 PM
  #76
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
The picture quality of the games in Moscow look slightly better to me. I don't think there are as many transmissions glitches.

The problem was the games were taped in the studios here in Canada in the 70's
so the transmissions glitches are all there.

You have to remember that the satelite transmissions were more primitive back in the 70's, especially originating from a communist country.

You can't blame the producers in 2006 for the technology in 1972 and 1974.

Either you watch the games with the glitches or not watch them at all. Its a easy decision for me to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus-74
Yeah, though mainly just to see the Soviets´top line playing. I also understand that Alexander Maltsev was in much better form than in ´72.

Would the picture quality (the Moscow games) be as bad as in the "Team of the century" DVD set?

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2006, 05:31 PM
  #77
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
You can't be serious saying that voting or talking about voting for the Hanson brothers makes more sense that inducting Dick Duff. You actually think that minor league hockey players performing in a Hollywood movie and glorifying violence in the lower minor leagues warrants a discussion for a Hockey Hall of Fame? What are you thinking? That doesn't say much about your sense of value, and that's the type of thinking that drags the WWHHOF down. Please don't compare the WHHOF to the HHOF. Come on now. You were joking, right? I hope so.

I can sense that you never saw Dick Duff play. I am not saying that I agree that Duff should be elected over Mikahilov, or Anderson or a few others. But you need to know that Dick Duff was a tough, gritty player who scored many goals in the NHL when it was hard to score. And Duff was one of the best money players that played the game. He had a fine career and contributed to 6 Stanley Cups. If you watched hockey in the 50's & 60's you might share some of the opinions of the HHOF selection committee.

We can all be ridiculous here. For example, why is Herb Brooks voted in? Because he had ONE series when he accomplished a great deal? So did Paul Henderson. Brooks didn't have a stellar NHL coaching career and his work in USA hockey other than the 1980 Olympics maybe isn't enough to be inducted.

I'm not sure if you are from the States or Canada. If you were in Canada, particularly in western Canada, you would know the influence of Harley Hotchkiss. The people who are on the NHL committees that Harley has been involved with know his value.

I respect your opinion but I think that the Hanson brothers are more of a disgrace to hockey than the HHOF.

That's my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho
Tossing around the idea of voting for the Hanson brothers makes more sense than putting Dick Duff in before Boris Mikhailov.

The way I look at it. Two great picks who are probably two of the three most influential hockey people from the 80's. (Brooks is largely responsible for the boom in hockey development in the U.S. due to the miracle on ice. Roy influenced more goalies than I can fathom and turned the Q in to a goalies league. And then Gretzky would be the other.) and then, two very bad picks. One nostalgia pick and one conflict of interest. There should be a rule that no one can be inducted into the Hall until after there associations to the organization have ended. That is a huge black mark on the hall, much worse than a few votes for the Hanson brothers. And then, selecting Duff. Very good player, no doubt, played big in big games, but was not an excellent player. Was nowhere near the ability level of the top ten European players not in the Hall.

The simple fact of the matter is, the Hockey Hall of Fame is not the hockey hall of fame. It is the North American Hockey Hall of Fame, and should change it's name to reflect that.

Well, that was my opinion yesturday.

Today? **** it. Just close the whole organization down. It's a disgrace, a joke and an insult to the sport of hockey. Start over from scratch.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2006, 11:01 PM
  #78
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
You can't be serious saying that voting or talking about voting for the Hanson brothers makes more sense that inducting Dick Duff. You actually think that minor league hockey players performing in a Hollywood movie and glorifying violence in the lower minor leagues warrants a discussion for a Hockey Hall of Fame? What are you thinking? That doesn't say much about your sense of value, and that's the type of thinking that drags the WWHHOF down. Please don't compare the WHHOF to the HHOF. Come on now. You were joking, right? I hope so.

I can sense that you never saw Dick Duff play. I am not saying that I agree that Duff should be elected over Mikahilov, or Anderson or a few others. But you need to know that Dick Duff was a tough, gritty player who scored many goals in the NHL when it was hard to score. And Duff was one of the best money players that played the game. He had a fine career and contributed to 6 Stanley Cups. If you watched hockey in the 50's & 60's you might share some of the opinions of the HHOF selection committee.
You are correct, voting or talking about voting for the Hanson brothers makes significantly less sense that inducting Dick Duff.

But that's not what I said, I put a very specific modifier on the induction of Duff. Boris Mikhailov. And, for that matter, many other European hockey legends.

Personally, I just view the Hanson brothers as a harmless joke, memorable support characters in a cute little movie. This obviously is a major cause in the difference of opinion, while I view the Hanson brothers as neutral, certainly not worthy of being in any Hall of Fame, you feal them worthy of contempt and a place in the hockey Hall of Shame. I can respect that.

As for Duff, I have no problem with his induction except for who was passed on to put him in. The real shame is the absolute lack of resolve by the HHoF to give 40-50 years of great non-NHL European hockey players their proper dues and respect. I think it absolutly shames hockey, as it treats hockey as a sport like Football, where it truely is a North American game, where hockey is a great international game, and easily the most internationally competative winter team sport. any Hockey Hall of Fame should hold that status up as a point of pride, but instead, the HHoF seems intent to shove it under the rug as if it was a shame. And I find that, as a fan of hockey, to be a great shame.

Here's a link, http://www.hoophall.com/halloffamers/year.htmto the list of inductees in the Basketball Hall of Fame. They have more Eurpoean players and more European coaches than the Hockey Hall of Fame. And basketball isn't nearly the international game hockey is. I don't know about you, but as a hockey fan, that sort of discrepancy is a great source of shame.

As for Duff himself, no, I haven't seen him, maybe in passing, but he is well before my time and I've never searched him out. But, would it be wrong to compair him to a guy like Stan Smyl? Only, with 6 stanley cup rings? And, as much as I like the Steamer, he was never one of the games elite players. While guys like Mikhailov, Makarov, Holik and others were among the games elite during their primes. And as such, they absolutly must get preference over players of Duff's calibre.

The Hockey Hall of Fame shames one of hockey's greatest attributes by not respecting the international significance of the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
We can all be ridiculous here. For example, why is Herb Brooks voted in? Because he had ONE series when he accomplished a great deal? So did Paul Henderson. Brooks didn't have a stellar NHL coaching career and his work in USA hockey other than the 1980 Olympics maybe isn't enough to be inducted.
I would agrue that the Miracle on Ice was more important to American hockey than the Summit Series was on Canadian hockey. I'll agree that his record as a coach was average, but that his contributions to bringing hockey to the American masses in a positive light garners him HHoF level respect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
I'm not sure if you are from the States or Canada. If you were in Canada, particularly in western Canada, you would know the influence of Harley Hotchkiss. The people who are on the NHL committees that Harley has been involved with know his value.

I respect your opinion but I think that the Hanson brothers are more of a disgrace to hockey than the HHOF.

That's my opinion.
I am from Western Canada, and I do agree with Hotchkiss' induction, just not now. My issue with it is nothing to do with merit and everything to do with ethics. I'll admit I can have some very hardline views on ethics, but I do believe it is ethically wrong for someone on the HHoF committe to be voted in. I'd vote him in the first ballot after he steps down.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2006, 11:56 PM
  #79
David Puddy
Registered User
 
David Puddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
On what basis do you agree that the Hanson or Carlson brothers deserve any votes to a Hockey Hall of Fame.
It may have been like the way the National Baseball Hall of Fame features Bud Abbott and Lou Costello's "Who's on First" routine. Some people claim that the two are members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, but they are not.

Slap Shot is a great film even beyond the hockey aspect. I don't think that the guys deserve to be in any Hall of Fame for their great roles though, and not because the sequel was really bad. I think they hired the same people who wrote the script to the second Mighty Ducks movie for Slap Shot II.

For the record, the "Hanson Brothers" are the following three guys:

Steve Carlson - played Steve Hanson
Jeff Carlson - played Jeff Hanson
Dave "Killer" Hanson - played Jack Hanson. Was supposed to play Dave "Killer" Carlson, but that role went to actor Jerry Houser when Hanson was cast as the third Hanson Brother.

Jack Carlson was playing for the Johnstown Jets big club, the Minnesota Fighting Saints of the WHA, so he couldn't be in the movie Slap Shot.

David Puddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 12:44 AM
  #80
David Puddy
Registered User
 
David Puddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
We can all be ridiculous here. For example, why is Herb Brooks voted in? Because he had ONE series when he accomplished a great deal? So did Paul Henderson. Brooks didn't have a stellar NHL coaching career and his work in USA hockey other than the 1980 Olympics maybe isn't enough to be inducted.
Brooks was a great college coach at the University of Minnesota. He never really had a particularly good team to coach in the NHL. He certainly made those early 1980's New York Rangers teams play beyond their capabilities. He twice coached them into the second round of the playoffs being ousting the Flyers only to fall to the defending Stanley Cup Champion New York Islanders.

His one year on the Minnesota North Stars back-bench was bad, and he did as well as expected with a Devils team that had Chris Terreri and Craig Billington as the goaltenders.

I think Herb Brooks was perfectly suited for college or the U.S. National Team because he played mind games with his players to make them better, but that sort of thing can only work for limited span of time. It is also hard to do to players making very comfortable livings as professional hockey players.

The 1980 U.S. Olympic Teams victory did more than anything than any other single series of events to grow hockey's popularity in the United States. Herb Brooks was the person most responsible for that Gold Medal. He masterminded that team and got those players to become a great amateur team.

Brooks also coached the 2002 U.S. Olympic Team to a Silver Medal in Salt Lake City.

David Puddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 05:39 AM
  #81
Marcus-74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
The picture quality of the games in Moscow look slightly better to me. I don't think there are as many transmissions glitches.

The problem was the games were taped in the studios here in Canada in the 70's
so the transmissions glitches are all there.

You have to remember that the satelite transmissions were more primitive back in the 70's, especially originating from a communist country.

You can't blame the producers in 2006 for the technology in 1972 and 1974.

Either you watch the games with the glitches or not watch them at all. Its a easy decision for me to make.
Hey, I´m a sucker for everything concerning the Soviet hockey team and the 1970s, so I would pretty surely buy that even if the quality wasn´t so great. I wasn´t really blaming anybody, but I´m allowed to ask, am I not?

Marcus-74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 08:42 AM
  #82
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Sure, you have every right to ask. You should ask questions like that and so should everybody else. I don't know all the answers but I can help some.

The producers agonized for months whether to put the lesser quality 1976 Canada Cup set out or not. They can see the bad quality and putting a production out that isn't perfect is bad for their rep.

In the end, they decided to go ahead with it as they thought that people would want to see the series anyways. They did put a disclaimer on about the quality.

You can be assured that everything was done to find original tapes and I was a part of that. I could write stories on how some of the footage is located. I think I related the story of how the 1972 series was put together and if you read that you would find it pretty interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus-74
Hey, I´m a sucker for everything concerning the Soviet hockey team and the 1970s, so I would pretty surely buy that even if the quality wasn´t so great. I wasn´t really blaming anybody, but I´m allowed to ask, am I not?

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 08:53 AM
  #83
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Thanks for the clarification and excellent post.

I do agree with you on your points but its just that I don't like seeing certain inductees downgraded because of factors not under their control. Personally, as much I know and realize what impact that Dick Duff had as a player (especially in his younger days) I have a hard time with him getting in ahead of some pretty impressive players.

I also agree about the ethics argument although I look at it as Hotchkiss shouldn't be penalized for his role in the HHOF committee. Actually, when you think about it
the years he spent on that committee can also be considered contributing to the game in a sense. You can look at that two ways, I guess.

I believe Herb Brooks should be inducted, no question. I was just trying show how an argument can be twisted when comparisons are made.

I do believe though that when people like the Hansons are even considered for an induction to a Hall of Fame, that the people in the organization (in this case, the WWHHOF) have lost their sense of purpose and because of that, can't be taken very seriously at all. I mean, how can they be? Isn't just the thought of characters from a ficticious movie become 'honoured members' pretty ridiculous?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho
You are correct, voting or talking about voting for the Hanson brothers makes significantly less sense that inducting Dick Duff.

But that's not what I said, I put a very specific modifier on the induction of Duff. Boris Mikhailov. And, for that matter, many other European hockey legends.

Personally, I just view the Hanson brothers as a harmless joke, memorable support characters in a cute little movie. This obviously is a major cause in the difference of opinion, while I view the Hanson brothers as neutral, certainly not worthy of being in any Hall of Fame, you feal them worthy of contempt and a place in the hockey Hall of Shame. I can respect that.

As for Duff, I have no problem with his induction except for who was passed on to put him in. The real shame is the absolute lack of resolve by the HHoF to give 40-50 years of great non-NHL European hockey players their proper dues and respect. I think it absolutly shames hockey, as it treats hockey as a sport like Football, where it truely is a North American game, where hockey is a great international game, and easily the most internationally competative winter team sport. any Hockey Hall of Fame should hold that status up as a point of pride, but instead, the HHoF seems intent to shove it under the rug as if it was a shame. And I find that, as a fan of hockey, to be a great shame.

Here's a link, http://www.hoophall.com/halloffamers/year.htmto the list of inductees in the Basketball Hall of Fame. They have more Eurpoean players and more European coaches than the Hockey Hall of Fame. And basketball isn't nearly the international game hockey is. I don't know about you, but as a hockey fan, that sort of discrepancy is a great source of shame.

As for Duff himself, no, I haven't seen him, maybe in passing, but he is well before my time and I've never searched him out. But, would it be wrong to compair him to a guy like Stan Smyl? Only, with 6 stanley cup rings? And, as much as I like the Steamer, he was never one of the games elite players. While guys like Mikhailov, Makarov, Holik and others were among the games elite during their primes. And as such, they absolutly must get preference over players of Duff's calibre.

The Hockey Hall of Fame shames one of hockey's greatest attributes by not respecting the international significance of the game.



I would agrue that the Miracle on Ice was more important to American hockey than the Summit Series was on Canadian hockey. I'll agree that his record as a coach was average, but that his contributions to bringing hockey to the American masses in a positive light garners him HHoF level respect.



I am from Western Canada, and I do agree with Hotchkiss' induction, just not now. My issue with it is nothing to do with merit and everything to do with ethics. I'll admit I can have some very hardline views on ethics, but I do believe it is ethically wrong for someone on the HHoF committe to be voted in. I'd vote him in the first ballot after he steps down.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 09:12 AM
  #84
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Thanks for the great info on Herb Brooks.

The main consideration that got him elected was the 'Miracle on Ice' and the legacy. But he did have a pretty decent career outside of that.

But for those who criticize Paul Henderson's inclusion into the Hall of Fame, there is a certain parallel. A great series and a lasting legacy. The legacy isn't only the fame but how the way hockey was looked at in Canada after that series and Canada's place in International hockey. And Henderson did have a pretty good career outside of that one series too. I guess the difference is one is elected as a builder and the other would have to be considered as a player, which may be a much tougher category.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Puddy
Brooks was a great college coach at the University of Minnesota. He never really had a particularly good team to coach in the NHL. He certainly made those early 1980's New York Rangers teams play beyond their capabilities. He twice coached them into the second round of the playoffs being ousting the Flyers only to fall to the defending Stanley Cup Champion New York Islanders.

His one year on the Minnesota North Stars back-bench was bad, and he did as well as expected with a Devils team that had Chris Terreri and Craig Billington as the goaltenders.

I think Herb Brooks was perfectly suited for college or the U.S. National Team because he played mind games with his players to make them better, but that sort of thing can only work for limited span of time. It is also hard to do to players making very comfortable livings as professional hockey players.

The 1980 U.S. Olympic Teams victory did more than anything than any other single series of events to grow hockey's popularity in the United States. Herb Brooks was the person most responsible for that Gold Medal. He masterminded that team and got those players to become a great amateur team.

Brooks also coached the 2002 U.S. Olympic Team to a Silver Medal in Salt Lake City.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 09:23 AM
  #85
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
Thanks for the great info on Herb Brooks.

The main consideration that got him elected was the 'Miracle on Ice' and the legacy. But he did have a pretty decent career outside of that.

But for those who criticize Paul Henderson's inclusion into the Hall of Fame, there is a certain parallel. A great series and a lasting legacy. The legacy isn't only the fame but how the way hockey was looked at in Canada after that series and Canada's place in International hockey. And Henderson did have a pretty good career outside of that one series too. I guess the difference is one is elected as a builder and the other would have to be considered as a player, which may be a much tougher category.
Would there be less controversy if the HHOF followed the lead of baseball - ie 75% of eligible writers (maybe expand that to other people for hockey) and you get dropped from the next years ballot if you dont get a threshold amount of votes?

And leave guys who played their best games 40 years ago like Duff to a Veterans Committee?

chooch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 11:09 AM
  #86
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
There is some merit in the baseball method.

The HHOF had a veterans category but I was told a few years ago that all the possible options for any veterans with merit were exhausted. I guess not.

I don't mind if there is a veteran's category and the standards are a bit lower. And that's because I would know its a different category and standard.

I don't know if many will agree with me on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch
Would there be less controversy if the HHOF followed the lead of baseball - ie 75% of eligible writers (maybe expand that to other people for hockey) and you get dropped from the next years ballot if you dont get a threshold amount of votes?

And leave guys who played their best games 40 years ago like Duff to a Veterans Committee?

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 07:04 PM
  #87
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
Good point about the 'public' and 'private'.

I doubt very much that the HHOF committee would be senseless enough to have a vote with the Hansons on the slate. Can you imagine if the HHOF were public and they had considered those actors? They would be ridiculed throughout the hockey world. The WWHHOF would deserve the same ridicule in my opinion.

I know some of the members of the WWHOF personally and a few that are members of SIHR are serious historians of the game. But I strongly suggest that as a group, any votes in any category for the likes of the Hanson brothers and others, brings down the reputation of the group. There may be only one or two individuals in the WWHOF that make these uninformed nominations and votes but that brings the whole group down. And, simply because of some of the ridiculous choices the group makes, I don't feel its a real credible organization 'as a whole'.

Jari Kurri to me is a first time Hall of Fame player in any organization.

Glad to hear that you wouldn't vote for the Hansons either.
I think you are being over critical of the WWHOF because they cast a minimal number of votes for the Hansen brothers as "contributors" I focus more on who they actually elected & excluded and how close some of the votes were.

The profiles of their committee are out there for all to see and they look like a pretty knowlegeable group to me. They have some European representation whereas the "offical" committee Has none. They seem to be made up of hockey history fanatics, journalists, statistians & researchers. There are no ex-Nhl players on their committee. They have included 11 new players, 9 of whom are European. They have excluded 108 (several of whom have not reached their strict 5 year retirement requirement). Duff, Armstrong, Federko, gartner, Giacomin, giles, Lapointe, Lanny Mcdonald, Joe Mullin. Pulford, Rayner, Sittler, Stanley are all excluded (IMO, they should be). There are also several border line players excluded some of which may eventually get in.

The official committe is heavily made up of ex players many of whom went on to coach or into NHL administrative positions. There is also a smattering of career NHl management people & Print & TV journalists but no Europeans unlees you classify Mikita as one.

Again, I emphasize that the "official "committee operates in secret and no one knows what political deals are cut and no one knows if anyone in theire has ever voted for the Hansen brothers. I was on a secret committee in the business world and I know what kind of political stuff goes on.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 08:29 PM
  #88
V-2 Schneider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 908
vCash: 500
It's time to put a moratorium on the Builder's category for the next 5 years.There are too many deserving eligible talents and not enough open slots.

V-2 Schneider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 08:52 PM
  #89
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
First I'd like to say how I respect your hockey knowledge and enjoy your posts. But I have to disagree with you on the WWHHOF.
As I said, I also have respect for the hockey knowledge of my friends and colleagues who are part of the WWHOF committee.
I'm not sure if you are a committee member, a friend of one or just an interested outside observer. Maybe you can let me know.

The WWHOF is a great idea as an alternate process but in no way can you compare that group to the HHOF group. The HHOF's Chairman Jim Gregory is well respected and has been involved in more facets of the game than any of the WWHOF members can ever hope to be.
Yes, there is International representatives on the WWHOF but what do you think those NHL execs, on the HHOF committee were doing when the World Championships, Olympics, Canada Cups etc, were on? They were there. They also had European scouts and networking so its not fair to say they don't know their International hockey. Just one of the HHOF's committee members has probably seen more International hockey games than the WWHOF combined.

Its fine for the WWHOF to eliminate previous HHOF members from their Hall. But how do they know? They don't think that George Armstrong belongs. How many of the WWHOF actually saw Armstrong in his prime? Probably none. Its easy in hindsite to disregard a player's accomplishments but let's look at Armstong.

20 years in the NHL mostly in a 6 team league
Captain for several years and acknowledged as a superb leader
He scored goals - in his first 10 years, he was consistently close to 20 goals a year when that was a tough, tough thing to do.
He was a superb defensively player
He protected his teammates
His opponents hated to play against him because of his intensity
He captained 4 Stanley Cups
He was a clutch playoff performer
His line with Sloan & Duff was one of the very top lines in the NHL in the mid-50's
He almost scored almost 300 goals when 20 per season was a tough mark
He shared the Bickell Trophy in 1959
And if anyone watched him in his prime, you would see that he was a complete player who was dominant at times on the ice.
He was that good.
That's an awful lot to disregard.
My opinion is that he belongs.

But while you are quoting stats, let me tell everyone that the Hanson brothers received actual votes for a number of years running as contributor. For a few years they received 9,8,8,7,5,8,5 5, votes in successive years!


I'll list some players who got actual votes over the years in the Honoured Player category. (I won't list the crazier nominations because it will make people laugh.)
Peter Lee, Lou Fontinato, Connie Madigan, Larry Zeidel, Howie Young, Jack Carlson, Steve Carlson, Brad Marsh, Glen Skov, Gord Roberts and a whole lot more received votes as Hall of Fame players!
So, I feel I can criticize that group because of all that. I mean, what are their standards anyways?

I can tell you that they don't have any set criteria. Each member uses their own. They don't get together like the HHOF does but they vote via email.

I'm not one to just anonymously be critical so I asked the leader of the group for an explanation of the persistency of getting the Hansons inducted. Naturally, I wasn't satisfied with the answer that they built up the game in the US.

When I saw that the WWHOF website was throwing stones at the HHOF, I had to take a look at the WHHOF's own process to see if they had any credibility.

They might yet be credible if they smarten up and get rid of the members who by making the ridiculous votes, bring the whole group down.

You are right about the political thing in the HHOF committee. I can believe that, although my sense is that someone like Jim Gregory would step in if he saw that happening.

But, in no way, can you compare the two groups for first hand knowledge


Quote:
Originally Posted by murray
I think you are being over critical of the WWHOF because they cast a minimal number of votes for the Hansen brothers as "contributors" I focus more on who they actually elected & excluded and how close some of the votes were.

The profiles of their committee are out there for all to see and they look like a pretty knowlegeable group to me. They have some European representation whereas the "offical" committee Has none. They seem to be made up of hockey history fanatics, journalists, statistians & researchers. There are no ex-Nhl players on their committee. They have included 11 new players, 9 of whom are European. They have excluded 108 (several of whom have not reached their strict 5 year retirement requirement). Duff, Armstrong, Federko, gartner, Giacomin, giles, Lapointe, Lanny Mcdonald, Joe Mullin. Pulford, Rayner, Sittler, Stanley are all excluded (IMO, they should be). There are also several border line players excluded some of which may eventually get in.

The official committe is heavily made up of ex players many of whom went on to coach or into NHL administrative positions. There is also a smattering of career NHl management people & Print & TV journalists but no Europeans unlees you classify Mikita as one.

Again, I emphasize that the "official "committee operates in secret and no one knows what political deals are cut and no one knows if anyone in theire has ever voted for the Hansen brothers. I was on a secret committee in the business world and I know what kind of political stuff goes on.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 09:05 PM
  #90
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
You 2 are the best posters on this site, but I side with CH.

I mean if the Hansen brothers are in, then Peter Puck should be also. And Emilio Estevez maybe next year...

chooch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 09:49 PM
  #91
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
First I'd like to say how I respect your hockey knowledge and enjoy your posts. But I have to disagree with you on the WWHHOF.
As I said, I also have respect for the hockey knowledge of my friends and colleagues who are part of the WWHOF committee.
I'm not sure if you are a committee member, a friend of one or just an interested outside observer. Maybe you can let me know.

The WWHOF is a great idea as an alternate process but in no way can you compare that group to the HHOF group. The HHOF's Chairman Jim Gregory is well respected and has been involved in more facets of the game than any of the WWHOF members can ever hope to be.
Yes, there is International representatives on the WWHOF but what do you think those NHL execs, on the HHOF committee were doing when the World Championships, Olympics, Canada Cups etc, were on? They were there. They also had European scouts and networking so its not fair to say they don't know their International hockey. Just one of the HHOF's committee members has probably seen more International hockey games than the WWHOF combined.

Its fine for the WWHOF to eliminate previous HHOF members from their Hall. But how do they know? They don't think that George Armstrong belongs. How many of the WWHOF actually saw Armstrong in his prime? Probably none. Its easy in hindsite to disregard a player's accomplishments but let's look at Armstong.

20 years in the NHL mostly in a 6 team league
Captain for several years and acknowledged as a superb leader
He scored goals - in his first 10 years, he was consistently close to 20 goals a year when that was a tough, tough thing to do.
He was a superb defensively player
He protected his teammates
His opponents hated to play against him because of his intensity
He captained 4 Stanley Cups
He was a clutch playoff performer
His line with Sloan & Duff was one of the very top lines in the NHL in the mid-50's
He almost scored almost 300 goals when 20 per season was a tough mark
He shared the Bickell Trophy in 1959
And if anyone watched him in his prime, you would see that he was a complete player who was dominant at times on the ice.
He was that good.
That's an awful lot to disregard.
My opinion is that he belongs.

But while you are quoting stats, let me tell everyone that the Hanson brothers received actual votes for a number of years running as contributor. For a few years they received 9,8,8,7,5,8,5 5, votes in successive years!


I'll list some players who got actual votes over the years in the Honoured Player category. (I won't list the crazier nominations because it will make people laugh.)
Peter Lee, Lou Fontinato, Connie Madigan, Larry Zeidel, Howie Young, Jack Carlson, Steve Carlson, Brad Marsh, Glen Skov, Gord Roberts and a whole lot more received votes as Hall of Fame players!
So, I feel I can criticize that group because of all that. I mean, what are their standards anyways?

I can tell you that they don't have any set criteria. Each member uses their own. They don't get together like the HHOF does but they vote via email.

I'm not one to just anonymously be critical so I asked the leader of the group for an explanation of the persistency of getting the Hansons inducted. Naturally, I wasn't satisfied with the answer that they built up the game in the US.

When I saw that the WWHOF website was throwing stones at the HHOF, I had to take a look at the WHHOF's own process to see if they had any credibility.

They might yet be credible if they smarten up and get rid of the members who by making the ridiculous votes, bring the whole group down.

You are right about the political thing in the HHOF committee. I can believe that, although my sense is that someone like Jim Gregory would step in if he saw that happening.

But, in no way, can you compare the two groups for first hand knowledge
OK, I don't want to beat this topic to death. I am only an interested outside obsever. I do not know anybody personally on either committee. You do, so obviously your opinion is more educated than mine and I do respect your opinion on many topics. I always enjoy reading your posts as they are so well thought out.

I was attracted to the WWHOF due to my frustration with the "official" committee. I am not saying they are perfect but I must say that their actual selections fall in line with my thinking.

Until, I saw your post describing the "official" selection methodology, I had not realized how secretive the "official" votes were. This disturbs me. Election to the HHOF is a very prestigious honour and should not be done behind closed doors. I am also concerned about how the selection committee is picked. This is also probably very political and decided in secret. To be in the HHOF should be a great honour. When you see guys like Giles & Pulford in there it cheapens it.

As far as Armstrong is concerned, I am 59 years old , grew up in Ontario & saw him play every Saturday night. I was not a Leaf fan but do remember the Armstrong=Sloan-Duff Line. all 3 are great players but not HOF players. I would personaly rate Sloan & Duff as better than Armstrong. What Armstring has going for him is that he palyed his entire career fo the Leafs which seems to help in getting into the HOF. Also when I look at the profiles of the WWHOF committee about 1/3 of them are over 50 which means they saw Armstrong play,

I have fgeat resoect for your knowledge & opinions but on this one I have to disagree.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 11:09 PM
  #92
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Fair enough.

When I'm on the fence regarding a player's value, I listen to the the player's teammates and opponents. They tell me that Armstrong was a pretty important player. And, that's another reason why the WWHOF or me or you or others can't really judge a player's worth. Its the player's peers and coaches & opposing coaches that really know how good a player is. And that's why the HHOF selection committee has those kinds of people on the selection committee.

And, as for your comment about Armstrong getting into the HHOF because of his playing with the Leafs, I suppose that doesn't hurt but I usually tend to not take that excuse seriously because no one offers any proof or analysis. Its usually comes from non-Leaf fans anyways.

I used to feel that way about Montreal Canadien players when I was young. Now I know better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by murray
OK, I don't want to beat this topic to death. I am only an interested outside obsever. I do not know anybody personally on either committee. You do, so obviously your opinion is more educated than mine and I do respect your opinion on many topics. I always enjoy reading your posts as they are so well thought out.

I was attracted to the WWHOF due to my frustration with the "official" committee. I am not saying they are perfect but I must say that their actual selections fall in line with my thinking.

Until, I saw your post describing the "official" selection methodology, I had not realized how secretive the "official" votes were. This disturbs me. Election to the HHOF is a very prestigious honour and should not be done behind closed doors. I am also concerned about how the selection committee is picked. This is also probably very political and decided in secret. To be in the HHOF should be a great honour. When you see guys like Giles & Pulford in there it cheapens it.

As far as Armstrong is concerned, I am 59 years old , grew up in Ontario & saw him play every Saturday night. I was not a Leaf fan but do remember the Armstrong=Sloan-Duff Line. all 3 are great players but not HOF players. I would personaly rate Sloan & Duff as better than Armstrong. What Armstring has going for him is that he palyed his entire career fo the Leafs which seems to help in getting into the HOF. Also when I look at the profiles of the WWHOF committee about 1/3 of them are over 50 which means they saw Armstrong play,

I have fgeat resoect for your knowledge & opinions but on this one I have to disagree.

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2006, 11:23 PM
  #93
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,265
vCash: 500
Its the player's peers and coaches & opposing coaches that really know how good a player is. And that's why the HHOF selection committee has those kinds of people on the selection committee.

Just one final comment. It seems to me that peers & coaches would have more prejudices than objective outsiders. Also. you never commented on how the selection committee gets selected. Does Jim Gregory do it (with the maple leaf tatooed on his butt).

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2006, 12:26 AM
  #94
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Final, final comment.

Why end an interesting discussion with such a senseless comment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by murray
Its the player's peers and coaches & opposing coaches that really know how good a player is. And that's why the HHOF selection committee has those kinds of people on the selection committee.

Just one final comment. It seems to me that peers & coaches would have more prejudices than objective outsiders. Also. you never commented on how the selection committee gets selected. Does Jim Gregory do it (with the maple leaf tatooed on his butt).

ClassicHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2006, 07:29 AM
  #95
Chili
Registered User
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: la Belle Province
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 2,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Who I'd vote for:
Patrick Roy
Boris Mikhailov
Jiri Holik
I don't question the integrity of any of the HHOF commitee members, I have no basis for that. But I do question their knowledge of European hockey as a whole. I don't believe their is anyone on the commitee with a Euro based resumé who would have a strong appreciation for some of the great non NHL players of the past.

If it is the Hockey Hall of Fame and not the NHL Hall of Fame, then global hockey accomplishments should be recognized. Players like Mikhailov, Petrov, Holik Nedomansky, Hlinka among others certainly deserve consideration in my opinion. Add some knowledge to the commitee and we may see some of these players elected down the road.

Herb Brooks is a good addition though. His main accomplishments were not in the NHL, so it does reflect recognition elsewhere.

Edit: I wasn't aware of this gentleman's addition to the HHOF commitee which is hopefully a step in the right direction:

Quote:
Jan-Ake Edvinsson
The General Secretary of the International Ice Hockey Federation for 21 years, Jan-Ake Edvinsson oversaw much of the international game's evolution, including the allowance for professional players to compete in the Olympics. Originally from Sweden, Jan-Ake Edvinsson now makes his home in Switzerland.


Last edited by Chili: 07-04-2006 at 07:38 AM. Reason: addition
Chili is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2006, 03:17 PM
  #96
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,741
vCash: 500
I'd be lying if I didnt fall of my chair when I read that Dick Duff was picked for induction. I was sure that Glenn Anderson was going to fall into that category for sure. Maybe Mike Vernon even. Roy was a given. Gilmour seemed like a lock. I'll admit they really threw me off by inducting Duff. Not to critcize him at all, he did win 6 Cups, but so did Anderson. Glenn Anderson is one of the best money palyers ever of all time no doubt. Duff although was a good player is IMO a step below Pulford being inducted and maybe just a bit higher than Henderson. By the way Pulfors to me is possibly the most contrversial pick in there.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2006, 10:17 AM
  #97
parkdale lad
Registered User
 
parkdale lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 332
vCash: 500
I don't understand why Duff didn't go in during all those "slow" years when guys like Federko and Gillies went in. Same goes for many of the Euros mentioned throughout this thread. The selection committee may need to amend there selection process because the next few years are going to be very, very busy. Yzerman, Stevens, Francis, Messier, etc etc. Maybe a moritorium on Builders. Maybe a maximum of four Players with Builders etc. tagged on. And while we're at it, where are the Women? Granato and Wickenheiser would both be slam dunks ( hat tricks?) in my mind to one day be inducted for thier contributions to the game.

parkdale lad 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 05:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.