In an unsurprising development, the Hall of Fame voters continue to agree with the TPAK results to a greater degree as time goes on, and as they get into players they had the greatest chance of being directly familiar with. In the case of players whose careers were centred in the 1920s (see table below), we find the top 17 players (and 19 of the top 21) have actually been inducted into the Hall of Fame. The only ones that have been missed out are Carson Cooper and Corb Denneny.
Carson "Shovel-Shot" Cooper was a dominant scorer for the Hamilton Tigers of the OHA in the early 1920s, leading his senior league in goals three times and points twice; in 1923/24 he scored 33 goals in 10 games and finished his OHA career with 108 goals in 55 games. Signed by the Boston Bruins in November 1924, it didn't take long for Cooper to make an impact in the NHL. In 1925/26, he finished second in the league in goals, behind only the legendary Nels Stewart, and was third in points. In 1928/29 he was in Detroit (and 32 years old), and though his raw numbers were less impressive (due to the scoring environment of the league at that time), he was third in goals and tied for third in points.
Cooper is found deserving of the Hall because his OHA numbers are not ignored. He had only two NHL seasons among the best scorers, but it must be remembered that he didn't play his first professional game until the age of 27. This means his NHL career was played mostly in the decline phase of his career. Point Allocation, however, doesn't pretend that the NHL is the only league that matters at this time of the game's history. So Cooper's thoroughly impressive OHA production is given the full credit it deserves.
Corb Denneny, lesser-known than his Hall-of-Fame brother Cy, had a 19-year senior/professional career. Though never the best centre in his league, his consistency and longevity are what earns him Hall-of-Fame-level merit here. Being just below the very best for an extended period of time is quite remarkable in itself.
I see every player listed on the table below as deserving of being in the Hall of Fame, based on their TPAK results. And speaking of longevity, check out George Hainsworth's career. He managed 1611 effective games played, which is the equivalent of playing a full 80-game schedule for 20 seasons, plus a bit. Hainsworth played his first senior hockey in the OHA (at the age of 17) in 1912/13, a full 11 years before he would play his first professional game. After 11 seasons of senior-level amateur hockey (all but one of which was played in Berlin, later Kitchener), he began a 14-year major-pro career, retiring at the age of 41. Like Cooper, Hainsworth gets credit for this time in the OHA, which was a high-quality league at the time and cannot simply be ignored because it was not professional.
| Rank | Player | Pos | GP | TPAK | Score | Hall? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MORENZ, Howie | 5 | 1116 | 4.67 | 124.8 | Yes |
| 2 | HAINSWORTH, George | G | 1611 | 3.84 | 116.9 | Yes |
| 3 | COOK, Bill | 7 | 1341 | 4.08 | 116.7 | Yes |
| 4 | BOUCHER, Buck | 3 | 1304 | 4.16 | 112.9 | Yes |
| 5 | JOLIAT, Aurel | 6 | 1328 | 3.86 | 109.7 | Yes |
| 6 | NIGHBOR, Frank | 5 | 1286 | 3.77 | 109.3 | Yes |
| 7 | BENEDICT, Clint | G | 1319 | 3.95 | 108.6 | Yes |
| 8 | CONACHER, Lionel | 3 | 1177 | 4.08 | 105.9 | Yes |
| 9 | OLIVER, Harry | 75 | 1332 | 3.58 | 105.3 | Yes |
| 10 | CLANCY, King | 3 | 1185 | 4.04 | 102.7 | Yes |
| 11 | MacKAY, Mickey | 54 | 1289 | 3.53 | 99.3 | Yes |
| 12 | DENNENY, Cy | 6 | 1241 | 3.63 | 98.0 | Yes |
| 13 | NOBLE, Reg | 35 | 1382 | 3.45 | 96.2 | Yes |
| 14 | GARDINER, Herb | 3 | 946 | 3.75 | 94.7 | Yes |
| 15 | KEATS, Duke | 5 | 1001 | 3.57 | 90.4 | Yes |
| 16 | SIMPSON, Joe | 3 | 1193 | 3.42 | 90.2 | Yes |
| 17 | DUTTON, Red | 3 | 1282 | 3.29 | 90.1 | Yes |
| 18 | COOPER, Carson | 7 | 1023 | 3.38 | 88.5 | No |
| 19 | DENNENY, Corb | 5 | 1267 | 3.02 | 86.9 | No |
| 20 | HAY, George | 6 | 955 | 3.50 | 85.8 | Yes |
| 21 | CONNELL, Alec | G | 776 | 3.73 | 85.2 | Yes |
Hi just here to share some info on the evolution of ice hockey.I’ve researched both american and canadian perspectives.Birthplace of early HOCKEY games took place on long pond windsor ns NEAR KINGS COLLEGE circa 1800.Ice hurley and other forms of break shins ,wicket cricket, ice bandy, shinny, field hockey,RUGBY,ICE LACROSSE,ETC were being combined. FULL SKATE BLADE was invented by a PHILADELPHIAN in 1848.Early pucks were carved out of wood by the mic mac indians 1860.The first hockey sticks were carved in lindsay ontario 1852 by alexander rutherford sr. First indoor AND semi organized game was 9 on 9 at the victoria skating rink montreal in 1875 by JAMES CRIEGHTON using previous HALIFAX RULES . FIRST ARTIFICIAL ICE RINK WAS CREATED BY WILLIAM NEWTON IN NEW YORK CITY 1870.FIRST INDOOR ARENA IN US WAS THE GREAT CHICAGO SKATING RINK 1860.EARLIEST KNOWN ARRIVAL OF GAME TO USA 1856 ST.PAUL’S SCHOOL CONCORD NH PLAYING SHINNY TO ICE FIELD HOCKEY TO ICE POLO. MONTREAL RULES OF HOCKEY USED BY JAMES CONOVER AT ST.PAUL NH 1880-81 .FIRST game to mention postions and play 7 on 7 WAS AT THE montreal winter carnival festival 1883.BURLINGTON VERMONT HOSTS THAT CARNIVAL IN 1886 AND PLAYED THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL MATCH(7 ON 7) BETWEEN MONTREAL HC AND THE LOCAL VAN NESS HOUSE CLUB.FIRST ORGANIZED LEAGUE 1886-1887 AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION IN MONTREAL.1890-91 FIRST GOAL NETS WERE INVENTED FROM ICE POLO AT STORRS AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL NOW UCONN.EARLY GOALIE LIKE PADS WERE WORN SAME TIME THERE.FIRST PRO LEAGUE CREATED IN PORTAGE MICHIGAN 1904 IPHL LOCAL BUSINESS MAN JAMES DEE&CANADIAN DENTIST DOC GIBSON.FIRST HOCKEY PANTS 1896 DETROIT MEDICAL SCHOOL.MODERN GOALIE PADS DULUTH CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL CIRCA 1903-04 MAYBE EARLIER THERE.EARLY 6 ON 6 VERSION OF GAME WASHINGTON PARK BROOKLYN 1908 IN THE AAHL.BLOCKER INVENTION LORNE CHABOT CANADA 1920’S. NHL TRAPPER MIKE KARAKAS FROM AURORA MINNESOTA. LATE 1930’S.HELMET FRANK GOHEEN WHITE BEAR LAKE MINNESOTA 1910’S, 20’S PERIOD..CLARENCE ABEL(SAULT ST MARIE,MICHIGAN) FIRST US BORN PLAYER TO WIN STANLEY CUP 1928 RANGERS.FIRST PAIRING OF DEFENSE IN 1911,1912 PERIOD ALFRED WINSOR OF HARVARD. GEORGE OWEN AND WILLIAM CLAFLIN OF HARVARD INVENTS FULL 3 MAN LINE CHANGE IN 1923.FIRST GOALIE MASK JAQUES PLANTE 1959.
ReplyDeleteRather than just deleting this WALL OF TEXT I'll simply point out that the Long Pond claim is based on a brief passage in a work of fiction, a line said by a fictional character imagining what another fictional character might have done in his younger days. The book is often called a "memoir" but it is a novel. I won't bother going through this WALL in detail, but there's probably some more unsubstantiated claims in there as well.
DeleteHi it's me again Jamie would like to share more info.
ReplyDeleteIn my findings I've came across some interesting information.
In South Dakota around the early 1700's the Lakota Sioux were playing a stick-ball on ice game using bone skates.They would use a bent tree branch as a stick and buffalo shoulder bone as blade to glide on.Usually played along the village winter river ways.
On tufts cove in Dartmouth Nova Scotia in 1749 the mikmaq natives were discovered playing a similar game to lacrosse but on ice.They used a hitting stick to strike the ball as well as a gliding stick to hold as they were using skates made of jawbone.
In new York city in 1783 during the revolutionary war British loyalists living there played a game of ice Hurley on collect pond using steel pole skates.After the war and ended they came up to Halifax and brought their game with them.
1788 is the conventional birthplace of hockey as kings college(renamed after king's college new York) opened up and there the students played the game on long pond.
The conventional birthplace is unsubstantiated, and moreover any claims that hockey originated in North America are pretty thoroughly refuted by "On the Origins of Hockey", a new book just released this past weekend. I'm posting a review of it tomorrow.
Delete"Doesn’t it make more sense to say that hockey developed as a sort of pot pourri of transplanted Irish/British Isles and local Mic-Mac sporting traditions, with just a smidgen of local ingenuity as small groups of students and the common rabble began to adapt various games to the long winter months of their home?"
DeleteYes, anonymous, it does, and that's precisely my interpretation of Giden/Houda/Martel's writings. I don't recall them arguing that a particular form of hockey was directly imported from England to become the Montreal version of hockey. They're arguing against the idea that the game was suddenly born in Canada, which you apparently agree with.
If you could provide some citations for your claims about what they say, that would be good. I have no idea what reddit thread you're talking about, so how could anyone possibly comment on it? I would also advise against using thebirthplaceofhockey.com as a source in general. Speaking of mistakes made by amateur historians...
This is the Reddit thread. (https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/3ui21p/im_jeanpatrice_martel_president_of_the_society/)
DeleteEverything I put in brackets is a citation to sources which state what I have said. The link I posted from birthplaceofhockey.com, while just being a home page, has a blown-up photograph and transcript of that Windsor Mail letter I mentioned. It is entirely credible.
"They're arguing against the idea that the game was suddenly born in Canada, which you apparently agree with."
Ummm....no, I don't. And you clearly see that, since you included my "pot pourri" comment. Talk about straw man arguments. And nobody else believes it either, even those who back up the Haliburton quote, because he talks about "hurley" being played on the ice. My issue with the book is that it "debunked" a myth that didn't exist. Nobody thinks that hockey was conjured out of thin air in Canada. Even Garth Vaughan didn't think that. Most realize that it developed organically, which is why I take exception to the book's claim that hockey was "imported" from the British Isles.
Okay, anonymous, I think part of the problem is that you're using a broader definition of hockey than Mr. Martel was using in that thread. You say Native Americans hit things with sticks as a game, so you can't claim that hockey came from England to Canada since it was already here, essentially. But the aspects of the game that developed into what we now know as hockey do have some clear indicators as having originated in England. The first printed rules of ice hockey, used in the version of the game that became what we now know as hockey, were directly based on English rules of field hockey, for example.
DeleteThis is a common problem, that affects not only amateur historians but even professionals, of using the term hockey in a different way than the other person. You need to be very careful with that.
My understanding, anonymous, of Byron Weston is the he related his memories to a sportswriter sometime in the 1940s. I've never seen an original copy of the article, even though many people point to it as a source, they're not very good at actually producing a copy. This means that his claims are not good evidence of codification in the 1860s or what have you, because it's not a contemporary source. That's an amateur historian mistake right there, to take later recollections at face value without corroborating evidence. That's what leads to many people to believe that early Montreal hockey was based on rugby, because someone later related his recollection to a reporter decades later, and it got printed, and people have been repeating it since then.
And yes, anonymous, the Boston Globe did describe the rules of ricket. Did that game have direct influence on the game that developed into what we now know as hockey? Perhaps it did. Do you have any evidence of a direct influence?
"Ummm....no, I don't. And you clearly see that, since you included my "pot pourri" comment"
DeleteAnd I notice here that you completely misinterpreted my comment. I meant that you agree with the idea that hockey was *not* suddenly born in Canada, so that you actually agree with Giden/Houda/Martel on this issue.
So perhaps, before slinging around accusations of strawmanning, you make sure you understand what is being said.
And to get technical, even if that's what I was saying, it would be a misrepresentation, not a strawman. A strawman is a false argument that is set up in order to be defeated. But my comment about your agreement was not set up to be defeated in any way, it was just a comment.
Mr. Fyffe,
DeleteI will continue to post my rebuttal to your previous argument, and if it continues to be deleted I will take this as a tacit admittance of defeat on your part, since you seem to have no interest in offering evidence which disputes my own findings.
You're right, I apologize for accusing you of strawmanning. I completely misunderstood the comment you were making. If, in fact, you believe that the authors of "On the Origin of Hockey" believe that hockey developed organically once all of the components for assembly found themselves in the same space (ie. Canada generally and Nova Scotia/Montreal/the Ottawa Valley in particular), then I heartily agree. But the rhetoric of the authors is that the game in its totality was imported to Canada. This is demonstrably untrue. Baseball inherits many of its features from cricket, rounders and stool ball, and yet no-one would say that baseball itself was imported to the United States from Britain.
You suggested that I may have made the mistake of using the term "hockey" as a catch-all for wintertime stick-and-ball games, rather than referring to a particular set of rules or style of play. In truth, I feel that Given/Houda/Martel made the same error, hence their use of, dare I say, frivolous language when talking about "importing" the game from overseas. The game of "hockey", when described at all in their book, appears to have been a static sport wherein ros of opposing teams fires pucks the length of an ice rink as a sort of Anglicized ijcolf. Bandy and hurling were dynamic sports more similar to what we know as hockey today. I found that the authors weren't nearly deliberate enough with these distinctions.
"And yes, Anonymous, the Boston Globe did describe the rules of ticket. Did that game have direct influence on the game that developed into what we now know as hockey? Perhaps it did. Do you have any evidence of direct influence?"
No, you're right, that's fair. I don't have a citation for an over-the-counter transition from cricket to hockey (although even you must admit that it's better evidence than the two paintings offered by Giden....). There isn't corroboration for such a claim, to my knowledge, apart from the "corroboration" of similarity, plus the corroboration of it and hockey sharing the same regional space and timeframe. But that is exactly the same case with this statement: "The first printed rules of ice hockey, used in the version of the game that became what we now know today as hockey, were directly based in English rules of field hockey, for example." If I must offer corroboration, then so must you. I have not found a contemporary-to-1877 set of FH regulations. To my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, the first universally accepted rules of field hockey were published in 1886, although I heard somewhere that Redington FC made some adjustments to a previous set of rules.
With regards to the controversial Halifax Rules, I would also have reservations (bearing in mind the origin of the Doubleday Myth in baseball) if their existence were not backed up. However, like the Haliburton quote, it is backed up. There was a brief description of the "Halifax Hockey Club Rules", published in the December 1st edition McGill University Gazette of 1877 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=d0owAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TKgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6960,2072670&hl=en) and the difference between Montreal and Halifax Rules (which seemingly, according to Byron Weston, is mainly found in the allowance or disallowance of the forward pass), was alluded to in reports of games between the Halifax Chebuctos and Montreal HC in 1889 (Fitsell. J. W. (1987). Hockey's Captains, Colonels & King's, p. 43-47, http://news.google.com/newspapers?no...g=1296,2535941 and http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...1072%2C620945).
Apologies, there were some spelling errors in my previous post.
DeleteMr. Fyffe,
You're right, I apologize for accessing you of strawmanning. I completely misunderstood the comment you were making. If, in fact, you believe that the authors of "On the Origin of Hockey" believe that hockey developed organically once all of the components for assembly found themselves in the same space (ie. Canada generally and Nova Scotia/Montreal/the Ottawa Valley in particular), then I heartily agree. But the rhetoric of the authors is that the game in its totality was imported to Canada. This is demonstrably untrue. Baseball inherits many of its features from cricket, rounders and stool ball, and yet no-one would say that baseball itself was imported to the United States from Britain.
You suggested that I may have made the mistake of using the term "hockey" as a catch-all for wintertime stick-and-ball games, rather than referring to a particular set of rules or style of play. In truth, I feel that Given/Houda/Martel made the same error, hence their use of, dare I say, frivolous language when talking about "importing" the game from overseas. The game of "hockey", when described at all in their book, appears to have been a static sport wherein rows of opposing teams fired pucks the length of an ice rink as a sort of Anglicized ijcolf. Bandy and hurling were dynamic sports more similar to what we know as hockey today. I found that the authors weren't nearly deliberate enough with these distinctions.
"And yes, Anonymous, the Boston Globe did describe the rules of ricket. Did that game have direct influence on the game that developed into what we now know as hockey? Perhaps it did. Do you have any evidence of direct influence?"
No, you're right, that's fair. I don't have a citation for an over-the-counter transition from ricket to hockey (although even you must admit that it's better evidence than the two paintings offered by Giden....). There isn't corroboration for such a claim, to my knowledge, apart from the "corroboration" of similarity, plus the corroboration of it and hockey sharing the same regional space and timeframe. But that is exactly the same case with this statement: "The first printed rules of ice hockey, used in the version of the game that became what we now know today as hockey, were directly based in English rules of field hockey, for example." If I must offer corroboration, then so must you. I have not found a contemporary-to-1877 set of FH regulations. To my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, the first universally accepted rules of field hockey were published in 1886, although I heard somewhere that Redington FC made some adjustments to a previous set of rules. But regardless, the men who imported ticket to Montréal were Nova Scotian. Ricket and all its variants originated in Nova Scotia, and we know that these men played them before moving to Montréal. Your move, sir.
With regards to the controversial Halifax Rules, I would also have reservations (bearing in mind the origin of the Doubleday Myth in baseball) if their existence were not backed up. However, like the Haliburton quote, it is backed up. There was a brief description of the "Halifax Hockey Club Rules", published in the December 1st edition McGill University Gazette of 1877 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=d0owAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TKgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6960,2072670&hl=en) and the difference between Montreal and Halifax Rules (which seemingly, according to Byron Weston, is mainly found in the allowance or disallowance of the forward pass), was alluded to in reports of games between the Halifax Chebuctos and Montreal HC in 1889 (Fitsell. J. W. (1987). Hockey's Captains, Colonels & King's, p. 43-47, http://news.google.com/newspapers?no...g=1296,2535941 and http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...1072%2C620945).
"I will continue to post my rebuttal to your previous argument, and if it continues to be deleted I will take this as a tacit admittance of defeat on your part, since you seem to have no interest in offering evidence which disputes my own findings."
DeleteWhat in the world are you talking about? Several points to begin with here:
1. Making these internet tough-guy statements while posting as "Anonymous" does your credibility no good.
2. I will delete whatever posts that I like from my blog.
3. So far as I recall, I haven't deleted any of your posts.
"But the rhetoric of the authors is that the game in its totality was imported to Canada."
Provide citations, Anonymous.
"plus the corroboration of it and hockey sharing the same regional space and timeframe."
It's only the same regional space and timeframe if you can demonstrate that Halifax hockey was in fact a direct influence on Montreal hockey, which is one of the points under dispute, is it not?
"If I must offer corroboration, then so must you. I have not found a contemporary-to-1877 set of FH regulations. To my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, the first universally accepted rules of field hockey were published in 1886"
You're *very* mistaken, and I have provided this corroboration in a number of places before, including a fairly extensive discussion of it in my book. Have you read my book on hockey rules? This is covered in it.
"But regardless, the men who imported ticket to Montréal were Nova Scotian."
Who were these men, exactly?
"Your move, sir."
Stick to arguments instead of internet posturing, Anonymous Tough Guy.
"There was a brief description of the "Halifax Hockey Club Rules", published in the December 1st edition McGill University Gazette of 1877"
...which contradicts the other source, since it specifically states that offside was strictly kept, the feature which you say differentiates Halifax from Montreal hockey.
Okay.....my mistake again, I suppose. I posted that previous argument about 5 or 6 times and it seemed to disappear after a few weeks each time. But I'll take your word for it.
Delete"Provide citations, Anonymous."
I don't have the book on me, but Jean-Patrice Martel hosted an AMA on Reddit some time ago and used the kind of language I am opposed to. He made no hint of the game growing organically into what it is through the various imported ingredients. He literally says that hockey itself is an English import: https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/3ui21p/im_jeanpatrice_martel_president_of_the_society/.
He also claims that you can't compare players from different eras, which is an incredibly lazy statement for a professional sports historian to make. You can extrapolate goals-per-game averages, compare minutes, equipment sizes, tactics of each era, etc. in order to make an educated guess. But I digress.
"It's only the same regional space and timeframe if you can demonstrate that Halifax hockey was in fact a direct influence on Montreal hockey, which is one of the points under dispute, is it not?"
I believe this pairs well with a comment you made further down:
"Who were these men, exactly?"
Well the prime suspect is this man - James Creighton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Creighton_(ice_hockey))
And Martin Jones has presented a pretty convincing case for the link between ricket and hockey, since you asked about that in your previous post (http://www.hockeyshome.ns.ca/time.htm). Again, I don't have my copy of the book on me, but everything within it is cited.
"You're *very* mistaken, and I have provided this corroboration in a number of places before, including a fairly extensive discussion of it in my book. Have you read my book on hockey rules? This is covered in it."
I would love to get a page number or a web link, if you could spare the time.
"Stick to arguments instead of internet posturing, Anonymous Tough Guy."
That was an invitation for you to present a counterpoint, not part of my argument. I would hardly consider it a threat, or even a piece of rhetoric. Also, what does it matter if I remain anonymous or not? I'm not saying anything untoward or that could damage either of our reputations. I just want to be able to fire off my posts quickly and without going through the process of setting up an account. Inspired stuff, I know.
"...which contradicts the other source, since it specifically states that offside was strictly kept, the feature which you say differentiates Halifax from Montreal hockey."
No, it doesn't. I said that the forward pass was allowed in the Halifax Rules version, which it is as confirmed by the other two sources I listed in that same paragraph, and by the article written by James Power wherein he interviews Byron Weston. Onside and offside rules can still apply in a game with forward passing. You may have noticed that the modern game also has the forward pass, and yet somehow there are players who find themselves offside, due to the blue and red line line system.
“He literally says that hockey itself is an English import: https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/3ui21p/im_jeanpatrice_martel_president_of_the_society/.”
DeleteAnd then two comments below, he literally says that Halifax has the best claim for being the birthplace of hockey. So you’re cherry-picking, not taking in the full context.
“Well the prime suspect is this man - James Creighton”
I’m well aware of James Creighton. But you stated, without qualification, that “the men who imported ticket [sic] to Montréal were Nova Scotian.” What is your evidence that there was more than one man, that they were all Nova Scotian, and that they imported ricket specifically? We don’t even know if James Creighton ever played ricket. Chances are he played some form of hockey-on-ice game, and quite possibly ricket, but you stated with certainty something that we do know with certainty, so far as I can tell.
“I would love to get a page number or a web link, if you could spare the time.”
The first six chapters of my book are all about the origins of the Montreal rules. The Hockey Association rules are discussed specifically in chapter four.
“I just want to be able to fire off my posts quickly and without going through the process of setting up an account.”
Why would you prefer to fire off your posts quickly, instead of making sure that they’re well thought-out and accurate? Why should I spend my time responding to someone who can’t invest even a modicum of time in preparing their posts?
“No, it doesn't. I said that the forward pass was allowed in the Halifax Rules version, which it is as confirmed by the other two sources I listed in that same paragraph, and by the article written by James Power wherein he interviews Byron Weston. Onside and offside rules can still apply in a game with forward passing. You may have noticed that the modern game also has the forward pass, and yet somehow there are players who find themselves offside, due to the blue and red line line system.”
You’re using an anachronistic understanding of what offside means, so your analysis is invalid. At the time that we’re talking about, the term “forward pass” did not exist. No rules in Montreal hockey prohibited forward passing; instead they specified that players had to stay onside. In the context of the time, saying “offside was strictly kept” only means “players could not be ahead of the ball.” Which means forward passing, as you use the term, was prohibited. So yes, the passage about the Halifax rules in the McGill paper contradicts the other descriptions of Halifax-style hockey.
I mean, even in your own example of how you can have forward passing and offsides in the same game, you have to make reference to the blue and red lines. Do you think there were blue and red lines in hockey in the 19th century? Because there weren't.
DeleteWell, it seems that the little information I can find about the Halifax Rules (from two game summaries between the Chebuctos and Crystals in 1889) does not suggest forward passing, merely the prohibition of lifting, the use of a square puck and the use of goalposts that were at right angles to those used by the AHAC (and this at least fits Byron Weston's testimony: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/the-halifax-rules-project.1818257/. But I haven't found an actual copy of the 1889 Halifax Rules. Do you believe then that Garth Vaughn's assessment of th eexistence of the forward pass was flawed, and why so? Also....I understand that you could discount blue and red lines if there's no evidence for either in the 19th century. But let's not be coy. Sportsmen in the 1800s weren't idiots. The base path distances and foul lines for baseball were developed in the 1840s. It is perfectly plausible for hockeyists to have had similar forethought in their own sport. Unless, again, there's a lack of evidence to suggest so.
Delete"Why should I spend my time responding to someone who can’t invest even a modicum of time in preparing their posts?"
First of all...because I did put time in. I was just ill informed about certain of the issues we discussed. I did notice, for example, that you haven't addressed Martin Jones' book. However, I'm allowed to be wrong. Your job as a historian is to be intellectually honest and not just talk to people who agree with your every thought and opinion (which was what you did here). Nonetheless, this has been a wonderful discussion and I really appreciate the time you put in. Again, this whole issue began because I took issue with the imprecise language used in "On the Origin of Hockey".
I know about this book and it's very interesting.I also have spoken with carl giden the coauthor and he told me about it before.
ReplyDeleteHere are my articles.
Ice Hockey Roots Deep in American Indian Culture by James ...
www.manataka.org/page2773.html
Did you know that the Iroquois native american tribe was reported to play one of the earliest hockey games in 1740?
Probably played on bone skates on the St.Lawrence river in between Canada and the Us.
An early form of hockey was first documented in 1740 when French explorers sailing up the St. Lawrence River observed Iroquois Indians hitting a hard ball with sticks and, as legend has it, punctuating their action with shouts of
"Hogee'' (it hurts!).(1)
French explorers in 1740 described a group of Iroquois playing a game with sticks and a ball on a frozen pond.(2)
Early Canadian records state that the Iroquois Indians chased deer across the
ice on bone skates.(3)
Early explorers of North America were amazed to see members of the Iroquois nation gliding across frozen lakes and rivers on blades fashioned of bone.This suggests that they had been skating for quite a while, as do the many ancient
bone-and-shoe combination that have been unearthed by archaeologists.(4)
In Canada early French explorers copied the Iroquois Indians in the use of bone skates for hunting deer during the winter.(5)
References:
(1) Labor Relations in Professional Sports - Page 202
books.google.ca/books?isbn=0865691371
Robert C. Berry, William B. Gould, Paul D. Staudohar - 1986
(2) Reading Tutor, Grades 4 - 8: Sports - Page 17
books.google.ca/books?isbn=1580378854
Cindy Barden - 2009
(3) The Best of the Best in Figure Skating - Page 1983
books.google.ca/books?isbn=0761313028
Rachel Rutledge - 1998
(4) The fine art of ice skating: an illustrated history and ... - Page 57
books.google.ca/books?id=2SDwAAAAMAAJ
Julia Whedon - 1988
(5) Figure skating - Page 7
books.google.ca/books?id=muhtAAAAMAAJ
Elizabeth Van Steenwyk - 1976