HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-11-2012, 11:48 PM
  #326
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... ya it does matter. The Penguins & the Canucks are the two most hated teams in the NHL because of it (whining, diving, dirty hits, stickwork etc). I had no time for Bobby Clarke, less time for a guy like Sidney Crosby, and I didnt like ManBoy Wayne Gretzky either. I dont give a **** how much talent they bring to the game. You whine, slash, dive & just generally be an idiot Id be taking you out. With great talent comes responsibility. I know I know thats just an outdated antiquated notion from the 20th Century but its a ****in fact of life none the less. Messier's another one who disturbed me. Theres a bunch of em as you say, and ya, from all eras'. Doesnt make it right.
But the thing is, you don't have time for Bobby Clarke, but his players collecting their Cup rings at the end of the year sure did. And they'd defend Clarke to the death on the ice (and god knows he needed that). It's romanticized nonsense to think guys like this are going to die by the sword or pay the price or something. No way their teammates are going to let that happen. I don't see how anything else matters. These guys couldn't care less if fans don't approve, and I bet Clarke couldn't care less about his legacy. He was despicable and I hate him too but really how are our feelings of any consequence? If anything I bet a lot of guys and teams love to be hated in this way. Playing the heel is way more fun than playing the face. Sometimes I get the feeling some of these guys want to complete the supervillain act by throwing on a cape Eddie Shore-style.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I'm not saying others weren't worse in some ways. Whether they were good leaders or not is I guess a matter of interpretation. I certainly wouldn't defend Clarke breaking a player's ankle intentionally as "leadership", but others might. Gretzky was a prima donna, and may have gotten star treatment (it helps to be Canadian), but he matured. I don't know what Crosby's teammates think of him. I know Staal refused a long term contract... players don't seem to be scrambling over one another to play with him... and the Pens were worse after he returned the last month of the season, then acted like a bunch of dirty buffoons in the playoffs. I don't blame that all on Crosby, but it's hardly a credit to his leadership and sportsmanship either.
Everything I've seen suggests the Pens are one of the tightest knit groups around, just watch last year's 24/7. You can't fake that kind of interaction, or the success this team has had with him as their leader. Yeah they had a meltdown last season, but they did it together and this was one of the most unprecedented and surreal series's in hockey history, and it started with two huge glitches in goal and was exacerbated with bloodstained history, not with a chip on Crosby's shoulder. Without Crosby they'd have no chance at all of going anywhere, let alone making the finals a third time.

And you really have to have an active imagination to think Staal wanting out might have had anything to do with some sort of disapproval of Crosby. It had everything to do with gaining an increased role on a team with his brother. He obviously couldn't stay on the Pens as a 3rd line center at this point. And I don't know what you mean by players not lining up to play with him. The Pens aren't exactly in a position where they can just pick and choose any winger they want for him, and I doubt Tyler Kennedy and Pascal Dupuis are in a hurry to find somebody a little more pleasant to grind for.


Last edited by revolverjgw: 08-11-2012 at 11:59 PM.
revolverjgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 11:59 PM
  #327
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw View Post
Everything I've seen suggests the Pens are one of the tightest knit groups around, just watch last year's 24/7. You can't fake that kind of interaction, or the success this team has had with him as their leader. Yeah they had a meltdown last season, but they did it together and this was one of the most unprecedented and surreal series's in hockey history, and it started with two huge glitches in goal, not with a chip on Crosby's shoulder. Without Crosby they'd have no chance at all of going anywhere, let alone making the finals a third time.

And you really have to have an active imagination to think Staal wanting out might have had anything to do with some sort of disapproval of Crosby. It had everything to do with gaining an increased role on a team with his brother. He obviously couldn't stay on the Pens as a 3rd line center at this point. And I don't know what you mean by players not lining up to play with him. The Pens aren't exactly in a position where they can just pick and choose any winger they want for him, and I doubt Tyler Kennedy and Pascal Dupuis are in a hurry to find somebody a little more pleasant to grind for.
I don't think Crosby is a bad person and I don't really care what he or anyone else does in their spare time, any more than I would another stranger.

I'm not strictly blaming Crosby for the Pens meltdown, least of all in a season in which he struggled again with injury. Of course Staal wants to go play with his brother and didn't have full opportunity on the third line. When a team or the league imposes financial constraints, it certainly affects the ability to find talent at all positions. My point in being bombastic is that one can exaggerate things in either direction. I wouldn't say Crosby may be the best player due to his leadership or his complete game, at least in comparison to other great players. I would say he may be the best player primarily due to his ability to put points on the board, which is what he's supposed to do. It's the elevation and hype due to these other "intangibles" that I'm trying to dispel. I'm sorry if it came across as a personal attack on Crosby's imagined shortcomings.

It's just tired of the stereotypes of certain players being "complete players", "leaders", and "players with talent, work ethic, and heart" and others as the exact opposite. It's been going on for as long as I can remember and there's usually no justification for the stark contrast in portrayals. Crosby and others should be judged by objective measures and their play and behavior on the ice, nothing more. That is all I'm asking. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"... I'm not sure this exactly applies here, but the sheer volume and magnitude of the hype and elevation of some players, and the unfair criticism of others, is rather shocking at times. People take a grain of truth or pure imagination and blow it into a major reason for one player being better than another. I probably do the same at times, but in this case I was trying to make a point. I think a lot have fixed opinions that are not open to new ideas or new evidence. They will stand by those positions, in spite of the evidence, until the ship sinks below the water, and some even after that happens.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 08-12-2012 at 12:19 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 12:19 AM
  #328
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I don't think Crosby is a bad person and I don't really care what he or anyone else does in their spare time, any more than I would another stranger.

I'm not strictly blaming Crosby for the Pens meltdown, least of all in a season in which he struggled again with injury. Of course Staal wants to go play with his brother and doesn't have full opportunity on the third line. When a team or the league imposes financial constraints, it certainly affects the ability to find talent at all positions. My points in being bombastic is that one can exaggerate things in either direction. I wouldn't say Crosby may be the best player due to his leadership or his complete game, at least in comparison to other great players. I would say he may be the best player primarily due to his ability to put points on the board, which is what he's supposed to do. It's the elevation and hype due to these other "intangibles" that I'm trying to dispel. I'm sorry if it came across as a personal attack on Crosby's imagined shortcomings.
That's fair, but really I don't think there IS any objectivity where this stuff is concerned. Fans are too passionate for that, and when I see people questioning Crosby's ability and effectiveness as a leader, it confuses me because all I see it great results and a team and coach that seems to love him, and I wonder why fans think anything else even matters. That seems like the opposite of objectivity to me. Fans dislike a guy and try to tear him down, or they have hero worship for another guy and romanticize him, and in the process I see some flawed logic both ways.

It's not like I'm objective either, I'm totally biased towards guys like Crosby anyway... I love chippy, chirpy, antagonistic d-bags... if I was building my dream team I doubt I'd have many/any Lady Byng contenders. It would pretty much be all Crosbys and Prongers and Claude Lemieuxs. They'd be hated but it wouldn't affect the results any.

And I'd take guys like Clarke, but I think he's a different breed than even those guys, that guy was dangerous. Crosby's just a **** disturber and almost dirt-free compared to him or Messier.

revolverjgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 05:40 AM
  #329
Saku11
Registered User
 
Saku11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I'm just not sure why Crosby is immune to criticism, when other stars aren't. claim that his unfortunate injuries are somehow mainly the fault of the league, his fellow players, doctors
.
When the hell has Crosby been immune to criticism? He is like the most criticized player in the league. He gets flak for things that some other players would get praise for.And the Penguins doctors were fired this offseason.They were obviously terrible and not doing their work.They even didnt find the fracture on his neck or whatever it was.

Saku11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 05:42 AM
  #330
Saku11
Registered User
 
Saku11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw View Post
Crosby's just a **** disturber and almost dirt-free compared to him or Messier.
Yeah i dont get it why people act like he is a axe-murderer or someting. I dont remember him ever doing something thats worth a suspension. People here are talking like he is one of the dirtier players in the league. He has been pretty innocent so far.

Saku11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 01:44 PM
  #331
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw View Post
... Sometimes I get the feeling some of these guys want to complete the supervillain act by throwing on a cape Eddie Shore-style.
... ya, all great points. The only fans that really matter are the ones in the cities in which the players play, this is a business, give em' what they want. The Flyers were slow out of the gate in attracting fans in 67-68, astute & intelligent ownership, management, scouting & coaching crafting a plan & drafting or trading for players who ameliorated & mitigated the competitions advantages in talent & skill with their fists. The recipe' was a winner in the City of Brotherly Love, on the ice, at the cashbox. Clarke & the rest of them deified in southern Pennsylvania, pretty much detested everywhere else.

There is a place for guys like Clarke, Claude Lemieux, Linesman etc, no question about it. Instigators. Absolutely. That they can play some as well absolutely critical. My complaint with Crosby is that unlike the aforementioned whose "edge" to their games was that element of being pests, **** disturbers, Crosbys' innate & natural talents supercede & transcend the need for it at all.

Rather than it being tactically intelligent or "edgy", he simply embarrasses himself & in doing so blows out a few of the spotlights that would otherwise shine so brightly on an incredible talent. His yippity yapping I have no problem with. Shows passion, emotion. Its the rest of the stuff. Repeated two handers to the bare cuff's, the slashes & behind the play sucker shots, the dives. He should be leaving that stuff alone, leaving it up to others. By all means draw penalties, but do it with speed, finesse. Brow beat the opposition into taking penalties with his talent rather than dirty tricks.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 02:47 PM
  #332
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
It's just tired of the stereotypes of certain players being "complete players", "leaders", and "players with talent, work ethic, and heart" and others as the exact opposite. It's been going on for as long as I can remember and there's usually no justification for the stark contrast in portrayals.
This is fair enough - the black-and-white painting of players is generally misguided. But I just can't see Crosby as being in the group of players who are deified. Since day one in the league he has been open to massive amounts of criticism. From his very first season, some people were only too glad to point out that he wasn't as good as Ovechkin, and the criticism has only grown since then.

Now, there may be some people who call him faultless, but then there's some people who will say that about their favourite player, regardless of who it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saku11 View Post
When the hell has Crosby been immune to criticism? He is like the most criticized player in the league. He gets flak for things that some other players would get praise for.
Indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Its the rest of the stuff. Repeated two handers to the bare cuff's, the slashes & behind the play sucker shots, the dives. He should be leaving that stuff alone, leaving it up to others.
I'm not sure I follow - are you saying such tactics should not be employed by anyone, or just not employed him Crosby (ie, leave it up to others)?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 03:14 PM
  #333
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Crosby

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I'm not sure I follow - are you saying such tactics should not be employed by anyone, or just not employed him Crosby (ie, leave it up to others)?
The point is that at Sidney Crosby's level such gestures only take him away from his game and are counter-productive to him and therefore his team.

How others play the game is their choice.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 03:54 PM
  #334
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This is fair enough - the black-and-white painting of players is generally misguided. But I just can't see Crosby as being in the group of players who are deified. Since day one in the league he has been open to massive amounts of criticism. From his very first season, some people were only too glad to point out that he wasn't as good as Ovechkin, and the criticism has only grown since then.
AFAIK most of the criticism has been about his behavior and his injuries not making him the best. It would be difficult to find a case of player who in his five previous seasons, finished top 5 in points twice, finished top 5 in Hart voting once, and did not win a single Ross/Hart/Pearson during that span, yet is considered "clearly" the best by so many casual and seemingly educated observers. People have started to cite his leadership, complete game, bad luck, and being unfairly targeted as reasons to support this position. I find that uniquely biased.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The point is that at Sidney Crosby's level such gestures only take him away from his game and are counter-productive to him and therefore his team.

How others play the game is their choice.
Exactly, that was the point Killion was making, and I believe he is correct. That is what's so strange, Crosby does not need to be doing these things, nor do I think he is particularly good at it. Any possible benefit seems to be negated by it possibly throwing he and his team off their games.

What is troubling, again, is that such qualities are cited as reasons that he is better than other players. It's as if his leadership and style are superior to other high-scoring forwards. IIRC, it was Malkin that was involved in minor fisticuffs after the second game of the 2009 SCF. That was what indicated to me that the Pens were not going to go down "without a fight." I don't give extra credit to Malkin for that, because A) he risked being suspended and B) it means nothing unless the team can back it up with its play on the ice. The Pens caught some breaks that year with the SCF schedule being moved up and some unusual assistance from the refs at a critical juncture of game 3. They were a good team which took advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves. Somehow a revisionist history is spun of Captain Crosby leading them to victory singlehandedly through his skill and leadership. That's strange, because the back of the guy mixing it up after game 2 had "Malkin" on the back of his jersey, and the guy scoring two goals in game 7 had "Talbot" on the back of his. Apparently either they did so mostly due to Crosby's leadership or someone needs to have a word with the team tailor.

Crosby is not the only one to let such frivolous things possibly affect his game and the team's performance. Ovechkin increasingly focused on hitting players and I don't see how that really helped him or the team as much as some may think. It earned him a suspension, while his team's underperformed in the playoffs and Olympics. I don't blame his subsequent downfall squarely on that, but I think it was a symptom of a change or lack of focus by him to continue to be the (or one of) the best at what he does best: put points up on the board.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 04:26 PM
  #335
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I'm not sure I follow - are you saying such tactics should not be employed by anyone, or just not employed him Crosby (ie, leave it up to others)?
... by him specifically. The Penguins have several agitators & miscreants under contract who in lacking the talent to actually keep up resort to cheap shots, dirty stickwork & the like in order to draw penalties, force the other team into the box. Crosby doesnt need to be doing that. He can draw penalties playing clean, he's that good. There are limits, lines you dont cross even as an agitator be it Avery, Cooke, Linesman, Clarke, Clancy.... Provided they dont go too far very useful players. Its one thing to draw a penalty cleanly, quite another to feign, play act & or deliberately bait someone into drawing a penalty. A code of conduct & rules that must be adhered to on the ice, why, even this chatboard yes?

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 04:37 PM
  #336
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
AFAIK most of the criticism has been about his behavior and his injuries not making him the best.
Even in this thread we've had people calling him a whining, diving cheap-shot artist. That seems hardly above criticism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... by him specifically. The Penguins have several agitators & miscreants under contract who in lacking the talent to actually keep up resort to cheap shots, dirty stickwork & the like in order to draw penalties, force the other team into the box.
Acceptable tactics are acceptable tactics. Now, you describe them here as "cheap" and "dirty" so I can only again ask if you mean that no one should be doing them.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 05:09 PM
  #337
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Acceptable tactics are acceptable tactics. Now, you describe them here as "cheap" and "dirty" so I can only again ask if you mean that no one should be doing them.
... obviously you cant sanitize any game, be it hockey, football, soccer, baseball, basketball etc. With bodies flying around in a confined space @30mph, a puck reaching speeds of 100mph+, full contact, ****'s gonna happen. Guys like Eddie Shack, Linesman, Clarke et al, their stock in trade was playing it dirty, often pulling all kinds of outrages behind the play, sometimes right in front of the ref. Do I "like it?. Respect it. Should be totally outlawed"?. It is, on the books, but you cant stop it. If you break the law & a cop doesnt see you doing it are you guilty? A lot of people, players, Coaches operate like that. People are people, always looking for a loophole, looking to get away with as much as they can. Makes life interesting.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 07:38 PM
  #338
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... obviously you cant sanitize any game, be it hockey, football, soccer, baseball, basketball etc. With bodies flying around in a confined space @30mph, a puck reaching speeds of 100mph+, full contact, ****'s gonna happen.
These rationalizations have been debunked, but more importantly...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Do I "like it?. Respect it. Should be totally outlawed"?. It is, on the books, but you cant stop it. If you break the law & a cop doesnt see you doing it are you guilty? A lot of people, players, Coaches operate like that. People are people, always looking for a loophole, looking to get away with as much as they can. Makes life interesting.
...how does all relate to pre-WW2 players being Neanderthals?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 08:13 PM
  #339
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
These rationalizations have been debunked...
... edited part doesnt deserve a reply; and "debunked" huh? By whom? Post with links your research, what criteria it was based upon, what sample groups were studied & when, who conducted this research to which you allude & what is their accreditation combined with "real life" experiences in sport?. Looking forward to it, though I do believe you should start a separate thread for discussion of such a matter.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 09:42 PM
  #340
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... edited part doesnt deserve a reply
So you can't explain why when modern players do it, "it happens", but when historic players did it, they were Neanderthals? Do you stand behind that statement or retract it?

As for your question, it beggars belief that someone can say full-contact sports involving heavily-armoured people crashing into each other at full speed inevitably leads to fighting. Because in football, it doesn't. You can add the "confined space" all you like, but the vast majority of contact in football happens well away from the sidelines, making the lack of confined space irrelevant. And then suggesting that the speeding puck has anything to do with it: how often does a fight result from someone taking a slapshot? Fights result from physical contact. That is to say, physical contact it used as an excuse for fighting, which for the most part is done by players whose primary job it is to fight, and are therefore seeking opportunities to do it.

Why doesn't it happen in football? Two reasons that I can see: players who fight are tossed from the game, and it's simply not part of the culture. That is, fights will sometimes happen, as they do in any sport, but they are not an accepted part of the game and are dealt with as such.

As for research, look into social learning theories of aggression and violence as opposed to older theories, such as Freud's drive/discharge stuff. (Tip: Freud was a quack.) The whole "if we don't have fighting we'd have something worse, so players needs to be allowed to let off steam" is very Freudian (as suggested by that know-nothing Ken Dryden), and therefore most likely very wrong. Behaviour repeated is behaviour learned, I believe Dryden said about 20 years ago. Which is to say, hockey players fight so often (relative to other sports) because they know it's accepted in North American hockey culture. They've seen it done, they've done it themselves, and they repeat it because such actions are not rebuffed in any real way.

Also try the "Bad Blood" chapter in Klein and Reif's The Death of Hockey, or Adam Proteau's (who was himself a fighter in minor hockey) recent book Fighting the Good Fight. The latter is especially filled with quotes from lifelong hockey people who are opposed to fighting in the game, and their reasons for that, and arguments against the points commonly raised is support of fighting, including yours, which of course ignores that only some hockey leagues allow fighting. If fighting is just a natural reaction to playing hockey, why isn't there fighting in the NCAA or in international play, even that involving North American teams?

I could go on, but I've done that elsewhere over many years and will stop here.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 11:13 PM
  #341
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
History of Hockey Fighting/Violence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
So you can't explain why when modern players do it, "it happens", but when historic players did it, they were Neanderthals? Do you stand behind that statement or retract it?

As for your question, it beggars belief that someone can say full-contact sports involving heavily-armoured people crashing into each other at full speed inevitably leads to fighting. Because in football, it doesn't. You can add the "confined space" all you like, but the vast majority of contact in football happens well away from the sidelines, making the lack of confined space irrelevant. And then suggesting that the speeding puck has anything to do with it: how often does a fight result from someone taking a slapshot? Fights result from physical contact. That is to say, physical contact it used as an excuse for fighting, which for the most part is done by players whose primary job it is to fight, and are therefore seeking opportunities to do it.

Why doesn't it happen in football? Two reasons that I can see: players who fight are tossed from the game, and it's simply not part of the culture. That is, fights will sometimes happen, as they do in any sport, but they are not an accepted part of the game and are dealt with as such.

As for research, look into social learning theories of aggression and violence as opposed to older theories, such as Freud's drive/discharge stuff. (Tip: Freud was a quack.) The whole "if we don't have fighting we'd have something worse, so players needs to be allowed to let off steam" is very Freudian (as suggested by that know-nothing Ken Dryden), and therefore most likely very wrong. Behaviour repeated is behaviour learned, I believe Dryden said about 20 years ago. Which is to say, hockey players fight so often (relative to other sports) because they know it's accepted in North American hockey culture. They've seen it done, they've done it themselves, and they repeat it because such actions are not rebuffed in any real way.

Also try the "Bad Blood" chapter in Klein and Reif's The Death of Hockey, or Adam Proteau's (who was himself a fighter in minor hockey) recent book Fighting the Good Fight. The latter is especially filled with quotes from lifelong hockey people who are opposed to fighting in the game, and their reasons for that, and arguments against the points commonly raised is support of fighting, including yours, which of course ignores that only some hockey leagues allow fighting. If fighting is just a natural reaction to playing hockey, why isn't there fighting in the NCAA or in international play, even that involving North American teams?

I could go on, but I've done that elsewhere over many years and will stop here.
Let's go back to the origins of the game of hockey, 1875 - 1915 the first two generations and contrast it to football.

Initially hockey was mainly played by sons of privilege - McGill. Fathers were jurists, judges, businessmen, etc. Same is true for McGill football and the origins of football going back to 1874:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rican_football

Given a blank page to write the rules football saw it fit to regulate fighting out of the game while hockey. Given the same opportunity hockey, with McGill contemporaries, like in football, chose to include fighting and violence as part of the game - a Neanderthal approach to a new sport. Today, fighting happens because it is the legacy of the founders of hockey, a torch passed on thru time to the present.Keeping it short Neanderthals started the culture of hockey.

No apologies or retractions needed.

Speeding puck is generated by players with sticks on skates. Football does not have sticks or skates and the ball as well as the players move at a much slower pace. The play in football is not 60 minutes of action, rather it is a brief burst of action with a stoppage that allows for time to run off the 60 minute game clock. The stoppage allows spirits to cool in football. No such stoppage exists in hockey.

Slapshots have started fights/brawls in hockey. Shot after the whistle at the goalie will produce a reaction. Frank Mahovlich shooting a puck at Henri Richard, started one of the bigger brawls in the Canadiens Maple Leaf rivalry.

There is fighting in international hockey - KHL being a prime example as well as in various European leagues, Swedish, British, etc.

In a perfect world we would not have fighting in hockey anywhere but we are not living in a perfect world. In fact our world is far from perfect.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 11:27 PM
  #342
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
So you can't explain why when modern players do it, "it happens", but when historic players did it, they were Neanderthals? Do you stand behind that statement or retract it?.... I could go on, but I've done that elsewhere over many years and will stop here.
Stand straight up behind it, and Im afraid you did "go on", right off the rails, because we were talking about dirty play, stickwork & the like, not the debate over fighting in the game. As for your "tip about Freud"?. Thanks. I'll stick it in the Tom Cruise file. You'll be in good company, but Id decline the Scientologists invitation of the free IQ Test.... Tip; its a Trap.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 07:47 AM
  #343
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Let's go back to the origins of the game of hockey, 1875 - 1915 the first two generations and contrast it to football.

Initially hockey was mainly played by sons of privilege - McGill.
I think you'll find that claims of McGill being the originator of hockey as a sport will be met with some resistance among many historians.

You might do well to read this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Given the same opportunity hockey, with McGill contemporaries, like in football, chose to include fighting and violence as part of the game - a Neanderthal approach to a new sport.
Did you know there was no specific penalty for fighting in hockey until 1922? And that's not because it was allowed before that; it's because it was rare enough that was persumably not seen as necessary to have a specific penalty for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Today, fighting happens because it is the legacy of the founders of hockey, a torch passed on thru time to the present.Keeping it short Neanderthals started the culture of hockey.
While it's certainly true that fighting is a result of North American hockey culture, I don't think it's fair to say what it was intentional. If, when they codified the first penalty for fighting, they had made it an automatic ejection rather than simple offsetting majors, I wonder what impact that would have had? Fighting was not expected or accepted the way it is today at that time. There was certainly no one saying that fighting is part of the game or that fighting was necessary to maintain fan interest in the sport.

I suspect they might have thought they were doing well by codifying it as a major, since before then it would have been left up to the discretion of the referee. But maybe they didn't realize that offsetting penalties are not really penalties at all, and don't discourage the behaviour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The play in football is not 60 minutes of action, rather it is a brief burst of action with a stoppage that allows for time to run off the 60 minute game clock. The stoppage allows spirits to cool in football. No such stoppage exists in hockey.
Stoppages are quite frequent in hockey, for icing, offsides, penalties etc. And more importantly, each individual skater gets lots of stoppage - he's off the ice more than he's on it. He's sitting on the bench more than he's involved in the play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Slapshots have started fights/brawls in hockey. Shot after the whistle at the goalie will produce a reaction.
Yes, and certain things will set off players in other sports as well. The point is not what occasionally has started fights, but what starts fights in general. Certain corner cases are not terribly relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
There is fighting in international hockey - KHL being a prime example as well as in various European leagues, Swedish, British, etc.
That's not international hockey, any more than the NHL is international hockey. "International hockey" does not mean "hockey played in countries other than mine."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
In a perfect world we would not have fighting in hockey anywhere but we are not living in a perfect world. In fact our world is far from perfect.
Absolutely. Doesn't mean we don't do our best though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Stand straight up behind it
So explain why when historic players do it, they're Neanderthals, but when modern players do it, "things happen"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
As for your "tip about Freud"?. Thanks. I'll stick it in the Tom Cruise file. You'll be in good company, but Id decline the Scientologists invitation of the free IQ Test.... Tip; its a Trap.
You know that Scientology is significantly based on Freudian beliefs, yes? Whereas modern psychiatry is not.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 09:03 AM
  #344
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
1875 McGill James Creighton

McGill's involvement in the origins of hockey, led by James Creighton, is described here:

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

1875-1910 Montreal Hockey history outlined here:

http://www.hockeycentral.co.uk/nhl/o...-the-Mists.php

The article submitted by Iain Fyffe:

http://hockeyhistorysis.blogspot.ca/...ckey-part.html

has a number of interesting points.

Albert Morel is listed as playing hockey from 1891-1894.Morel is a French Canadian name so there is strong evidence that French Canadiens started playing hockey well before the arbitrary 1900 date.

Clerk was the entry level job for McGill grads into banking, business - Molson's would start at the entry level of the family business and work their way up, law firms, accounting firms, architectural firms and other professional firms.

The rules of hockey attributed to James Creighton go back to his McGill days, mid/late 1870s. That they lacked sufficiency to curb violence or fisticuffs is rather evident.

Will gladly explore schooling in Montreal and links to hockey if interested.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 11:22 AM
  #345
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Violence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post

Did you know there was no specific penalty for fighting in hockey until 1922? And that's not because it was allowed before that; it's because it was rare enough that was persumably not seen as necessary to have a specific penalty for it.


While it's certainly true that fighting is a result of North American hockey culture, I don't think it's fair to say what it was intentional. If, when they codified the first penalty for fighting, they had made it an automatic ejection rather than simple offsetting majors, I wonder what impact that would have had? Fighting was not expected or accepted the way it is today at that time. There was certainly no one saying that fighting is part of the game or that fighting was necessary to maintain fan interest in the sport.

I suspect they might have thought they were doing well by codifying it as a major, since before then it would have been left up to the discretion of the referee. But maybe they didn't realize that offsetting penalties are not really penalties at all, and don't discourage the behaviour.


Stoppages are quite frequent in hockey, for icing, offsides, penalties etc. And more importantly, each individual skater gets lots of stoppage - he's off the ice more than he's on it. He's sitting on the bench more than he's involved in the play.


Yes, and certain things will set off players in other sports as well. The point is not what occasionally has started fights, but what starts fights in general. Certain corner cases are not terribly relevant.


That's not international hockey, any more than the NHL is international hockey. "International hockey" does not mean "hockey played in countries other than mine."

Yes I knew the rule was introduced much later. Issue is violence of which fighting is a minor subgroup that by comparison to other acts - stick swinging, non combative blows to the head causing concussions are a lot more violent and damaging to individuals. Ted Green had many fights but a stick swinging incident changed his career and life. As for the frequency of fighting in older days, we are relying on the interpretation of verbose or colourful game reports. Not the most reliable method for research.

If they had codified is extremely speculative. We Know that they did not nor did they codify against various other acts of violence committed with sticks, skates, etc, which in turn opened the way for Neanderthal behaviour. Clubbing each other with sticks or fists is Neanderthal behavior. Plenty of pre 1922 evidence of such behavior.

Stoppages. In the NHL stoppages stop the clock so players on both teams are subject to a total of 60 minutes of playing time. Stoppages in football, be it NFL, CFL, NCAA do not stop the game clock so actually playing time is usually below 1/2 of 60 minutes.

International hockey as defined by rules and rink size which are different from the NHL.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 12:36 PM
  #346
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
McGill's involvement in the origins of hockey, led by James Creighton, is described here:
Creighton, of course, had moved from Nove Scotia in 1872, a mere three years before the first recorded, organized indoor game of hockey, at McGill. Emphasis on recorded. Hockey was not invented at McGill, it had developed for many years before that in various parts of the country. Just because the first recorded, organized game was played by university students does not mean that the game was solely the province of such young men.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Albert Morel is listed as playing hockey from 1891-1894.Morel is a French Canadian name so there is strong evidence that French Canadiens started playing hockey well before the arbitrary 1900 date.
Sorry, what aribitrary date? I have no idea if Morel was Francophone, but Tony Gingras (a Metis) was playing senior hockey in Manitoba in the mid-1890s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The rules of hockey attributed to James Creighton go back to his McGill days, mid/late 1870s.
Some say they go back to his Nova Scotia days. We have no way of knowing, at least not yet. There is good agreement among historians that Creighton should be credited as the man who "fathered" organized hockey, but we don't know where he got his rules from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
That they lacked sufficiency to curb violence or fisticuffs is rather evident.
There were only 7 rules, one of which stated: "No player shall raise his stick above his shoulder. Charging from behind, tripping, collaring, kicking or shinning shall not be allowed."

So that's high-sticking, checking from behind, tripping, kicking and slashing accounted for. Unless you believe that, given these infractions, they considered fighting perfectly acceptable, then they didn't include a penalty for it because it wasn't really present in the game. Hockey's always been a physical game, but fighting has not always been "part" of the game.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 12:39 PM
  #347
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
So explain why when historic players do it, they're Neanderthals, but when modern players do it, "things happen"?... You know that Scientology is significantly based on Freudian beliefs, yes? Whereas modern psychiatry is not.
... sure, hijacked. Dianetics, Auditing. And henceforth Edited & Ignored should you ever again raise the subject as its completely OT & a breach of hf rules to be discussing such matters on these boards, period.... modern players also act like Neanderthals from time-time, I didnt suggest or say they didnt. In fact, genetic evidence published over the past 20yrs suggests the Neanderthals contributed DNA to the anatomically modern species of man through interbreeding, sharing as much as 99.5-99.9 percentile matches, some humans containing more of the Neanderthal genome than others. Of further interest of course is that both Homo Sapiens & Neanderthals shared a single common ancestor, but I digress.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 12:45 PM
  #348
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Clubbing each other with sticks or fists is Neanderthal behavior. Plenty of pre 1922 evidence of such behavior.
And plenty of modern evidence as well. You can call it Neaderthal behaviour if you like, but I was respoding specifically to the claim that pre-WW2 players are to be considered Neanderthals for engaging in such behaviour, while modern players are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Stoppages. In the NHL stoppages stop the clock so players on both teams are subject to a total of 60 minutes of playing time. Stoppages in football, be it NFL, CFL, NCAA do not stop the game clock so actually playing time is usually below 1/2 of 60 minutes.
And? The claim was that frequent stoppages in the NFL allow players time to cool off, so there are no explosions of violence as in the NHL.

So why, then, do NHL players not "cool their spirits" when sitting on the bench? If a forward plays a 45-second shift, followed by 2:15 of sitting on the bench, why does he not cool down?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
International hockey as defined by rules and rink size which are different from the NHL.
Rules. Exactly. The rules of international hockey and the rules of the NCAA do not allow fighting. So the claim that hockey players cannot help it is untenable; when there are strong rules against something, they don't do it.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 12:55 PM
  #349
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... sure, hijacked. Dianetics, Auditing. And henceforth Edited & Ignored should you ever again raise the subject as its completely OT & a breach of hf rules to be discussing such matters on these boards, period....
Hey, chief, I didn't bring Scientology into this, that was all you. I was discussing the psychology of violence, which is fairly relevant when discussing violence and the justifications for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
In fact, genetic evidence published over the past 20yrs suggests the Neanderthals contributed DNA to the anatomically modern species of man through interbreeding
This is true, and suggests that using the term Neanderthal to describe something violent and primitive is inappropriate, and best left in the past.

Some scientists believes that our species might have conquered theirs, suggested we're the more violent ones, and yet they get tagged for it.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 01:06 PM
  #350
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
For the Record

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Creighton, of course, had moved from Nove Scotia in 1872, a mere three years before the first recorded, organized indoor game of hockey, at McGill. Emphasis on recorded. Hockey was not invented at McGill, it had developed for many years before that in various parts of the country. Just because the first recorded, organized game was played by university students does not mean that the game was solely the province of such young men.


Sorry, what aribitrary date? I have no idea if Morel was Francophone, but Tony Gingras (a Metis) was playing senior hockey in Manitoba in the mid-1890s.


Some say they go back to his Nova Scotia days. We have no way of knowing, at least not yet. There is good agreement among historians that Creighton should be credited as the man who "fathered" organized hockey, but we don't know where he got his rules from.


There were only 7 rules, one of which stated
: "No player shall raise his stick above his shoulder. Charging from behind, tripping, collaring, kicking or shinning shall not be allowed."

So that's high-sticking, checking from behind, tripping, kicking and slashing accounted for. Unless you believe that, given these infractions, they considered fighting perfectly acceptable, then they didn't include a penalty for it because it wasn't really present in the game. Hockey's always been a physical game, but fighting has not always been "part" of the game.
McGill was part of the first indoor game. Never claimed that hockey was invented at McGill. McGill was one of the early contributors. Kindly retract your comment.


Re French Canadiens. See the following paragraph from the article I submitted upthread:
__________________________________________________ ______

In 1908, Richard F. Smith told the Montreal Star that he and two friends had come up with the rules of hockey in September, 1878. But as he also mentioned the victory of the Montreal Amateur Athletic Association at the Montreal Carnival of 1884 when it in fact occurred in 1885, perhaps the mists of his memory should not be fully relied upon. Further, in testimony separate from Smith and each other, W. L. Murray and W. R. Robertson both dated the rules of hockey to November, 1879. Robertson’s brief (a letter in the Hockey Hall of Fame) is undated. Murray was sharing his recollections in 1936, when he was about 80 years old, and added that he played shinny on the St. Lawrence River in his youth. Perhaps we should exercise caution with his memory as well, since he refers to French Canadians playing shinny when in fact they did not take up hockey until after the 1890s. As for the rules, Murray said they tried them, starting with reducing a team from 15 down to seven and replacing the ball with a puck, all in one day. These modifications not only took time to evolve but were responses to particular — often in fact quite peculiar — circumstances, as we have seen and shall see again later.
__________________________________________________ ______
see the bolded. The earliest post 1890s would be 1900. Albert Morel was playing before 1891. Tony Gingras was playing mid 1890s.

True that there were only seven rules. Your presentation above overlooks the seventh rule(article previously cited):

All disputes shall be settled by the umpires, or in the event of their disagreement, by the Referee.

All disputes covers violence and the fighting subgroup in a general fashion as opposed to the later modifications calling for specific penalties.

Canadiens1958 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 02:07 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.