The Trail of the Stanley Cup: Roadblock to Nineteenth Century Hockey

Let me first just say that in no way do I mean to disparage Charles Coleman's magnum opus The Trail of the Stanley Cup here. It is a wonderful, an exceedingly important one in the study of the history of organized hockey.

The Trail presented results and player statistics for nineteenth-century hockey, something that had never been done before. It went back as far as 1893, of course, since this was the first season that the Stanley Cup was awarded. It also only covered the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada, and its successor the Canadian Amateur Hockey League, which is understandable given that teams from this league won all but one of the Stanley Cup championships awarded before 1900. Ultimately it's not so much an issue with the book, but the perception of later historians.

With Coleman's work, the nineteenth century is seen by many historians to be "done", taken care of. However, since the trustees decided that only Canadian senior-league champions could challenge for the Cup, there were only three leagues in Canada in 1893 that could have a team in contention (AHAC, the Ontario Hockey Association and the Manitoba and Northwest Hockey Association), and Coleman focused only on one. Even today historians such as Kevin Slater are still working on completing statistical records of the OHA in the nineteenth century, which had been left untouched, a matter of the mists of history. I compiled the MNWHA records myself over a decade ago, since before then apparently no one had record of how many goals Dan Bain scored in regular competition (65 in 27 games by my count), because it seems only Stanley Cup games mattered.

But there was so much more to hockey in the nineteenth century than the Stanley Cup, and I see The Trail of the Stanley Cup standing as a bit of a roadblock to this realization. By the 1899 hockey season, the game was being played at the senior level in British Columbia and several districts of the Northwest Territories (Assiniboia and Alberta especially), as well as in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. It had spread to the US in Minnesota, New York, Pittsburgh and the Michigan Peninsula. There were intermediate and junior leagues in the hockey centres of the AHAC, OHA and MNWHA as well. None of this was considered by Coleman (as it was not in he purview), but much of it has been ignored by historians as well.

And that's just the post-1893 era. Coleman also did not consider the origins of organized hockey going back to 1875. Senior hockey games were played in Montreal from that year, and Quebec City, Ottawa, Kingston and Toronto joined in, all before the introduction of the Stanley Cup. Historians are only now catching up on much of this information, which has lain buried in old newspapers for over a century. It's starting to come to light, but I think we'd have it before now if that mammoth volume had not been in the way, in a way.

Early Evolution of the Hockey Stick

We recently looked at the increase in hockey goal-scoring from 1892 to 1911, and hypothesized a reason for it. I wanted to go back a bit now, to look at another, rather more dramatic, increase in goal-scoring over time. I'll posit a hypothesis to explain this one as well.

First, to the facts. Organized hockey tournaments began with the 1883 Montreal Winter Carnival, which was won by McGill, and also featured only 1.13 goals scored per team per game. Such low scoring rates continued in the 1884 and 1885 Winter Carnivals, and the 1886 Montreal hockey championship (held due to the lack of a Carnival that year). In 1887, between the Winter Carnival games and challenge matches of the newly-formed Amateur Hockey Association of Canada (AHAC), over two goals were scored per game, and starting in 1888 is was substantially higher than that, generally approaching three per game. The data is here:

Season	GPG
1883	1.13
1884	1.43
1885	1.17
1886	1.18
1887	2.09
1888	2.88
1889	2.79
1890	2.93
1891	2.50
1892	3.14
1893	3.88
1894	3.03

Something clearly changed around 1887, and as well already know, it's nothing to do with the roles players played on the ice. My hypothesis is that it is largely to do with something that can be seen by comparing portraits of the Montreal AAA hockey teams from 1885 and 1893. First the 1885 club:

And now the 1893 players. Take note of the long wooden items in their hands.

The sticks are noticeably longer. The 1885 sticks seem more like field hockey sticks, and required players to hunch over quite a bit when stickhandling. The 1893 sticks, while still short by modern standards, are a fair  bit longer and the blades more closely resemble modern ones as well. I believe that the additional length of stick made stickhandling and shooting that much more accurate, and as such scoring increased all around.

By spending some time with some old hockey photos and a ruler, I came up with some estimates of the length of hockey sticks at various points in early history. We know that for the 1927/28 season, the NHL instituted a rule that sticks would be no longer than 53 inches, measured from the top of the handle to the heel of the blade. In earlier years, sticks were shorter than this, apparently increasing in length fairly steadily over time, except for a noticeable jump somewhere between 1885 and 1893.

In 1885, hockey sticks were about 33 to 35 inches, measured from the top of the handle to the heel of the blade.

In 1893, they were about 42 to 46 inches.

In 1901, they were about 44 to 49 inches.

In 1910, they were about 46 to 52 inches.

As an illustration of these differences, here are some badly-drawn hockey stick shapes:

So it seems to me that hockey sticks likely became substantially longer around 1887, and this in turn led to dramatically increased scoring as players were provided a much greater ability to control the puck, both on a rush and in a shot. Competing ideas are welcomed.

Lineage of the NHL

The lineage of the National Hockey League, which played its first season in 1917/18, is normally tracked back through time as follows:

National Hockey Association (1909/10 to 1916/17)
Eastern Canadian (Amateur) Hockey Association (1905/06 to 1908/09)
Canadian Amateur Hockey League (1899/00 to 1904/05)
Amateur Hockey Association of Canada (1886/87 to 1898/99)

And this is certainly true, in the sense that these are the highest-quality hockey leagues in Canada in their times. They are the "major" leagues, meant in a sense different from the modern one.

However, if you want to track direct lineages of league-season to league-season, this progression isn't accurate. The AHAC led directly to the CAHL, which led directly to the EC(A)HA. But the NHL did not descend directly from the ECHA.

Before the 1909/10 ECHA season, the new owners of the mighty Montreal Wanderers desired to move the team from the Montreal Arena to the smaller Jubilee Rink. The three other teams in the league (Montreal Shamrocks, Ottawa Senators and Quebec Bulldogs) strenuously objected to the move, finally going as far as leaving the ECHA over the dispute. These three teams formed the Canadian Hockey Association (CHA), accompanied by a new team organized by Art Ross (All-Montreal), and the French-Canadian Montreal Nationale, which had played in the rival Federal Amateur Hockey League years before.

The Wanderers, for their part, joined the new National Hockey Association, along with the Renfrew club from the Federal Hockey League, and Cobalt and Haileybury from the Temiskaming Mines professional league. A new French-Canadian club was created for Montreal, the Canadiens, to fill out the league. Every club in the league, save Wanderers, were owned by Ambrose O'Brien, the son of a wealthy mining magnate.

It seems clear to me, then, that the direct lineage that began with the AHAC in 1886/87 came to an end when the CHA folded early in the 1909/10 season. The CHA had hockey history on its side (especially since the Wanderers did not even originate as part of the lineage), but the NHA had Ambrose O'Brien's mining money. In the end, the cash won out. Some talk of a merger took place, but ultimately the NHA accepted the Ottawa Senators and Montreal Shamrocks into its fold, bringing to an end the line of the AHAC. Although the NHA featured two clubs with long histories in the lineage, they had come over from another league, their own having died.

In fact, the Montreal Canadiens franchise was offered to the owners of le Nationale by O'Brien, who turned it down. It could very easily have been the Montreal Nationals in the NHA rather than the Canadiens. There's some alternate history for you.

Jack Campbell Gets Them Out of Their Seats

Here at Hockey Historysis, we've already talked about 80s greats Tom Paton, James Stewart and Allan Cameron. These three were certainly big men in the first decade of organized hockey, but they were not the only eminent hockeyists of their time. The Montreal Victorias had a star cover-point of their own, by the name of Jack Campbell. He's the subject of today's post.

I'd like to post a picture of Campbell, but I haven't been able to find one. Since the Winged Wheelers managed most of the glory in this era, most of the images are of the Montreal AAA club. We'll have to suffice with my approximation of the sweater Campbell wore for the Vics. Note that the more familiar script 'V', as seen in the background image of this blog, did not come into use after Campbell retired in 1891.

Campbell and Allan Cameron were the preeminent stars of the game, at least so far as the fans were concerned. The cover-point position was well-suited for team captains, and also for players who excelled both offensively and defensively. Campbell was not as effective at stopping the opposition as Cameron, but had a clear advantage in terms of scoring goals.

In the 1888 Amateur Hockey Association of Canada season, which was the first time the league tried a series system (ie, every team plays every other team a certain number of times) rather than a challenge system, Jack Campbell had his most impressive performance. In his team's seven games, he scored eight goals, which tied him with two forwards for the highest total in the circuit. The other seven defensive players in the AHAC (which had four clubs at the time) scored a total of two goals (one by a point and one by a cover) in 45 games. He was clearly playing the position differently than other players at the time, and of all the puck-chasers to have the title "first rushing defenceman" bestowed upon them, I'd say Campbell has the strongest claim to the honour.

His rushing skills were legendary:

Campbell got it, and made a brilliant run, passing through the opposing forces and taking the puck to the lower end of the rink. (Montreal Gazette, 4 Feb 1888)

One of those grand runs for which Campbell was famous was spoiled by a hard check from Hodgson. (Montreal Gazette, 28 Feb 1888)

Just before half time was called, Campbell got the puck behind his own goal and piloted it right down the rink through his opponents, and wound up his splendid run by sending the puck past the watchful eye of goal-keeper Paton amid prolonged cheering. (Montreal Herald, 6 Mar 1890)

The spectators were very often raised to a high pitch of enthusiasm through the dashing play of Campbell, who certainly played a magnificent game. (Montreal Herald, 20 Feb 1890)

He wasn't afraid to use his body:

A heavy check from Campbell and there was a scrimmage. (Montreal Gazette, 28 Feb 1888)

And he wasn't too shabby on the defensive end either:

The M.A.A.A. at this point had the best of the play for a short time, but owing to the magnificent play of Campbell they were kept at bay. (Montreal Gazette, 4 Feb 1888)

Campbell was an electrifying player, and a fan favourite. But it's easy to overstate his greatness, due to the attention his flashy play drew. He had a very short peak as a player, having only two seasons when he was really at the top of the game (1887-88) and two more seasons of pretty effective play (1889-90). Moreover, while his rushes were certain pleasing to those in the grandstands, they were not necessarily the most effective play: 

Campbell ran it nearly the entire length of the rink, but it went for nothing. (Montreal Gazette, 4 Feb 1888)

Campbell, who throughout played the best individual game, had a run the entire length of the rink, but it went for nothing... (Montreal Herald, 20 Feb 1890)

Campbell took charge of it and piloted it through several of his opponents, but his shot was wide. (Montreal Herald 18 Jan 1890)

Campbell's defensive game was seemingly more raw that Cameron's as well: 

Ashe got it and sent it back to Campbell, who, seemingly, did not expect it and before he realized where he was Hodgson swooped down upon it and with a splendid run wound up by scoring the first game for his side, thus equalizing matters amid wild excitement. (Montreal Gazette, 4 Feb 1888)

I'm not trying to downplay his greatness, but it's a rare player whose game does not have flaws. Campbell was the best rusher of his generation, but perhaps he indulged in it too much, to the detriment of his team's defensive efforts. To compare him to a modern player, he was probably like Paul Coffey at his peak, while the more dependable Cameron was, maybe, Doug Harvey, more positional and better defensively, and still contributing to offence by setting up his forwards rather than going for the goal himself.

Both were great players, of course, and deserve to be remembered today. Jack Campbell: a player who really got the fans out of their seats.

The Quality of Pre-Stanley Cup Hockey (Part 2)

In the first post discussing the quality of pre-Stanley Cup hockey, we noted that it was not a gentlemanly game played in a friendly fashion by the upper crust, but a rough-and-tumble affair played by men of all stripes. This time we examine the idea that the Stanley Cup gave the players something to strive for, giving them incentive to play hard, and play longer, in an effort to win the ultimate prize.

Something to Play For

Some argue that before the Stanley Cup, teams did not have anything to play for. As such they treated the game more as a pastime than a competition.

This argument is false. The first Amateur Hockey Association of Canada (AHAC) season was in 1887, and the association named a champion at the end of each season. Before the AHAC was formed, the Montreal Winter Carnival (which started in 1883) served to determine the champion team for the season. When the Carnival was cancelled in 1886, the teams decided to hold tournament amongst themselves to determine a champion.

Just because the Stanley Cup was not there did not mean there was no championship to be won. The Stanley Cup is viewed as the be-all and end-all in hockey by modern eyes, but that was simply not the case in its early years. It was highly prized, but other championships were important as well. In 1901, the Ottawa team, new champions of the Canadian Amateur Hockey League (CAHL, the direct descendant of the AHAC), declined to challenge Winnipeg for the Stanley Cup even though they would have had at least an even shot of taking it. They had just won a hard battle for the league championship, and decided that was enough for them; the Stanley Cup was not worth it that year.

If anything should be viewed as giving teams something to play for, it should be the Winter Carnival Tournament. It was that event that really sparked the growth of competition in Montreal, and led directly to the establishment of the Ottawa Hockey Club in 1883.

In the last post there was a game report excerpt about how the Quebec team never lost courage even in the face of unfavourable odds against them. This is not the description of a team out for a skate. Courage is not needed when undertaking a pastime. This is a team doing their utmost to win out against their opponents, trying even when it seemed the game had already been lost.

Player Turnover

Some argue that since few pre-Stanley Cup players continued to play in the post-Stanley Cup years, this demonstrates a significant increase in the quality of competition. Players who played before were allegedly now unable to compete.

This argument misses a very basic fact about hockey at the time: almost all players had very short careers, by modern standards. As players got into their late 20s, family and other responsibilities often came into play, meaning they had less time to devote to getting their shins whacked by sturdy pieces of wood. This trend continued into the early professional era. Here are some notable players from this era, and the age at which they played their last senior-level game:

Barlow, Billy: 26

Bowie, Russell: 27

Drinkwater, Graham: 24

Farrell, Art: 24

Grant, Mike: 28

Jordan, Herb: 26

McDougall, Bob: 22

McGee, Frank: 23

McKerrow, Clare: 22

Routh, Havilland: 25

Russel, Blair: 27

Scanlan, Fred: 25

Trihey, Harry: 23

Walsh, Marty: 27

With players retiring so early, it is unsurprising that few of them would be in the same league in X number of years, since they have so few years in their career to begin with. As such, even if few players who were playing in 1890 are still playing in 1895, this does not mean the quality of competition necessarily increased, because the same can be said for 1895 compared to 1900.

To demonstrate this, I examined several pairs of seasons. For each season, I noted which regular players (i.e., those playing at least half of their team's games) were still regular players five seasons later. I did this in two-year intervals. The results are below.

1888 to 1893: 7 players (Hodgson, McQuisten, McDonnell, Camerson, Stewart, Paton, Patton)

1890 to 1895: 5 players (Cameron, Brown, Watson, Davidson, Jones)

1892 to 1897: 4 players (Brown, Scott, Young, Watson)

1894 to 1899: 8 players (Kirby, Watson, Young, Brown, Elliott, Grant, Collins, Stocking)

1896 to 1901: 4 players (Stocking, Westwick, Cahill, Pulford)

1898 to 1903: 2 players (Westwick, Pulford)

1900 to 1905: 5 players (Bowie, Russel, Hogan, Boon, Pulford)

The average number of players is five, and there is no pattern here. Therefore the observed player turnover after the Stanley Cup came into play was merely the normal amount of player turnover for this era. This rate continued on after the Cup was introduced.

In the end, the idea that the Stanley Cup is the be-all and end-all of hockey is a modern one, and was not shared at the time it was introduced. It was certainly a big deal, even from the beginning, but did not produce any additional motivation for players to play the game. The players were already trying their best to be the best; they did not need another silver bowl to spur them on.

The Quality of Pre-Stanley Cup Hockey (Part 1)

We've been discussing the pre-Stanley Cup era quite a bit lately here at Hockey Historysis. Some people view 1893 as more than just an arbitrary cutoff date, however, and argue that the introduction of the Stanley Cup is a real marker of a change in the quality of the hockey being played, in that it gave the players something to strive for. But in this post and its sequels, I'll show that hockey from the mid-1880s to 1892 was not substantially different than hockey immediately after the introduction of the Stanley Cup in 1893. The dividing line between 1892 and 1893 is as artificial and political as the line between 1917 and 1918. As such, players from the pre-Stanley Cup era should be considered to be on par with players post-1892, at least until the professional era.

In this post we'll address the idea that the very nature of the game was different before 1893.

The Nature of the Game

It has been argued that hockey before 1893 was a gentlemanly game, played more for its own sake than for the competition. It was played by affluent young men, members of posh clubs. This allegedly began to change when the Cup was introduced, which gave the teams something real to strive for, and increased their incentive to do anything it takes to win.

This argument stems from the misconception that hockey before the Stanley Cup was a game played between teams from gentleman's clubs. This is false; the clubs in question were athletic clubs (such as the famous Montreal Amateur Athletic Association, who sponsored the Montreal Hockey Club, who we've been talking so much about). Members of these clubs joined them to undertake sport, not to assemble in the drawing room for dry sherry.

Violence has been a part of the game of hockey since its earliest years of organized competition. The players on the ice were rarely gentlemen. The following excerpts are taken from Montreal Herald game reports from the 1890 Amateur Hockey Association of Canada (AHAC) season, which of course predates the Stanley Cup by three years.

The game was rather rough at times and it is regrettable to say that one of the home players forgot himself so far as to strike one of the visitors. The visitors, to their credit be it said, even when fighting against odds, stuck to their work with a commendable spirit and never seemed to lose courage. (Montreal vs Quebec, 9 Jan 1890)

The Montreal teams gained a victory over their opponents, the Victorias, but the victory was not as clean a one as might be desired. There were three men on the winning side who resorted to very rough play. During certain stages of the game there was a good exposition of the game, but at other times there was a good deal of tripping, swiping, falls and wholesale dumping against the bank.

…

Campbell took charge of [the puck] and piloted it through several of his opponents, but his shot for goal was wide. Immediately after this Findlay and Kinghorn lost their temper and made an undesirable display of themselves on the ice to the disasprobation of the audience. This seemed to have the effect of making the remaining portion of the game rougher than it should have been. (Montreal vs Victorias, 17 Jan 1890)

During certain stages of the game there was a good deal of ill temper shown by members of both teams...The match was fast, exciting, and at times a trifle rougher than was necessary. (Montreal vs Dominions, 31 Jan 1890)

The match throughout was hard and fast and not of the easiest kind to describe. The puck was here, there and every where. It travelled fast and was not allowed to remain long in one place. There was a good deal of hacking and shinning, but this was not confined to one individual of one side, both taking a hand in it. The only regrettable feature of the match was the ill-feeling shown by Lee and McQuisten, who had a dispute and commenced to settle it with their fists. They both fell to the ice and had to be separated. They received a sharp reprimand from the referee. Later on Lee meet with an accident whereby he sustained a severe cut over the right eye. (Montreal vs Victorias, 4 Mar 1890)

In four of the seven match reports from this season, the writer felt the need to point out unnecessary violence in the game. The idea that hockey at this time was a group of gentleman playing a friendly game is simply false. Rough play was common, and as indicated in the above reports, fistfights happened occasionally as well. This only makes sense if the players were taking the competition very seriously, and were doing whatever they thought was needed for victory.

As to the alleged affluence of the players involved in the game at this time, this is certainly more difficult to determine that the above, since a hockey player's off-ice life was not often recorded for posterity. However in Paul Kitchen's Win, Tie or Wrangle we get some background on a number of Ottawa Hockey Club players, for instance:

Albert Morel, G, 1891-1894: The son of a cabinetmaker, Morel was a student when he first joined the hockey club, and later worked as a private secretary and a bookkeeper for a lumber company.

Weldy Young, CP, 1891-1899: The son of a fire superintendent, he worked as an engraver in a watchmaking business tun by him and his two brothers.

Chauncey Kirby, C, 1891-1899: The son of a city treasurer, worked as a clerk at the Quebec Bank.

Bert Russell, LW, 1893-1896: Worked as a draughtsman for the Geological Survey.

Although there may be a tendency toward white collar work, none of these descriptions seem to indicate a particularly affluent lifestyle. Indeed, the player best described as affluent from the early days of Ottawa hockey would be Frank McGee, who didn't play senior hockey until 1903, a decade after the first Stanley Cup championship. McGee came from one of Ottawa's most prominent families, growing up in the “magnificent home” of his father, who was the clerk of the Privy Council, the highest-ranking civil service office in Canada. He worked as a timekeeper for the railroad, but it is certainly fair to say he came from an affluent family. However, he played at a time when the game was supposed to be becoming more serious, due to the Stanley Cup.

Similarly, census records can give us some insight into what players did for a living at a time when they didn't receive a penny for playing hockey. The following players all played at the highest level, prior to the introduction of the Stanley Cup:

Barlow, Billy: clerk

Bignell, Herbert: insurance clerk

Clapperton, Alexander: dry goods clerk

Cafferty, Thomas: lithographer

Davidson, Robert: grocery clerk

Fairbairn, William: insurance clerk

Hodgson, Archie: whale stationer

James, George: hardware clerk

Kinghorn, James: mill clerk

Larmouth, F.M.: brokerage clerk

Lee, Sam: trunkmaker

Lesser, Joshua: agent

Low, George: bank clerk

McDonnell, John: photographer

Routh, Havilland: clerk

Shearer, Andy: lumber merchant

Warden, William: bank clerk

Again, there does seem to be a tendency toward white-collar jobs, but unless “grocery clerk” or “hardware clerk” implies “affluent” to you, then there's no reason to think these men were particularly well-off in society, members of restrictive upper-crust social clubs.

Hockey before the Stanley Cup was a rough game, played by men from a variety of social classes, just as it was after the Stanley Cup was introduced. There's no reason to consider hockey before 1893 in any different light than in the years 1893 to 1899 and beyond.