In discussions of early hockey in Montreal, starting in the 1870s, you'll often see claims that rugby football was a significant influence on the early versions of the game. Take this article as an example, in which many comparisons are made between 1870s ice hockey and rugby. To be fair to author Adam Gopnik, not all of the comparisons he makes are of the direct kind, some are simply the similar physical natures of the two sports; however, I suspect this point is overstated when made in reference to the 1870s version of hockey, which was not as physical as the version of the game we know now. The author's application of modern impressions of hockey is indicated when he refers to "...its combination of being the most flashily brilliant and speedy of games and at the same time the most brutal of contact sports..." Hockey in the 1870s did not feature nearly the speed that it does now; it could not, both because of the equipment used by the players, and the fact that they had to play every minute of the game, forcing the players to pace themselves.
But the idea of significant rugby influence is well-ingrained in stories about early Montreal hockey. Once again, the article above claims that "...what [James] Creighton was trying to create when he first
codified the rules of hockey in 1873 was a form of rugby on ice, played
according to rules inflected by lacrosse." Now, since we don't have any writing from Creighton himself on the topic, we must ask what the source of this information is. The most likely candidates are the tales told by a number of old-time Montreal hockeyists, some time after the fact.
Some of these claims are discussed here, in an article penned by E.M Orlick on the origins of ice hockey. Richard Smith claimed (in 1908, some thirty years after the alleged fact) that he had been involved with writing the first set of hockey rules, and used both field hockey and rugby as inspiration. Orlick rightly points out the problems with details in Smith's story, in that the dates do not line up and there is no evidence that Smith was actually a player in the very first recorded matches of hockey in Montreal; he showed up a few years later. Orlick then discusses the claims of William "Chick" Murray, who relayed his tale in 1936 (about 60 years after the alleged fact). Murray stated that it was his idea to pattern the rules on rugby, but to add lacrosse posts as goals. So it seems quite likely that Gopnik's impression of the origin of ice hockey rules were informed by Murray's claims. Again Orlick rightly points out the inconsistencies in Murray's story, and feels justified in rejecting it. I cannot disagree.
A later article by Orlick discusses Henry Joseph, who has a decided advantage over Smith and Murray in that we know he was a player in the first two organized ice hockey matches played in Montreal in 1875. This was written in 1943, and refers to events allegedly occurring as early as 1873, so we're now dealing with statements made 70 years after the fact. Joseph appears to be Gopnik's source that ice hockey was first played in 1873, two years before the first recorded match on March 3, 1875. It is, of course, eminently plausible that ice hockey, specifically the version played in the Victoria rink in Montreal, was played for some time before the first recorded game. Joseph goes on to say that James Creighton suggested a shinny-like game to be played on skates, noting that in Montreal at the time, shinny was played on ice, but not with skates. Finally Joseph claims that this shinny-like game had its rules patterned on rugby.
So these stories do seem to be the source of the idea that rugby was a significant influence on the first hockey matches in Montreal, perhaps enhanced by the fact that so much of early hockey was connected to McGill University, a stronghold of rugby. If the influence was so great, surely we should be able to detect it in the historical record. So let's have a look at early ice hockey and rugby, and compare their similarities to those between ice hockey and field hockey, a game that, at least superficially, seems to bear a more immediate resemblance.
RULES
As discussed at some length in my book On His Own Side of the Puck, the early Montreal hockey code was based directly on English field hockey association rules (which in turn were based on association football [soccer] rules). Here is a comparison of the offside rules from various rule sets.
1877 Montreal offside rule
Rule 2: When a player hits the ball, any one of the same side who
at such moment of hitting is nearer to the opponents’ goal line is out
of play, and may not touch the ball himself, or in any way whatever
prevent any other player from doing so, until the ball has been played. A
player must always be on his own side of the ball.
1875 Hockey Association offside rule
Rule 6: When a player hits the ball, and one of the same side who
at such moment of hitting is nearer to the opponents' goal-line is out
of play, and may not touch the ball himself, not in any way whatever
prevent any other player from doing so, until the ball has been played,
unless there are at least three of his opponents nearer their own
goal-line; but no player is out of play when the ball is hit from the
goal-line.
1863 Association Football offside rule
Rule 6: When a player has kicked the ball, any one of the same
side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play, and may
not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever prevent any other
player from doing so, until he is in play; but no player is out of play
when the ball is kicked off from behind the goal line.
1871 Rugby Football offside rules
Rule 22: Every player is on side but is put off side if he enters
a scrummage from his opponents' side or being in a scrummage gets in
front of the Ball, or when the ball has been kicked, touched or is being
run with by any of his own side behind him (ie between himself and his
own goal line).
Rule 23: Every player when offside is out of the game and shall
not touch the ball in any case whatever, either in or out of touch or
goal, or in any way interrupt or obstruct any player, until he is again
on side.
Rule 24: A player being offside is put on side when the ball has
been run five yards with or kicked by or has touched the dress or person
of any player of the opposite side or when one of his own side has run
in front of him.
Rule 25: When a player has the Ball none of his opponents who at
the time are offside may commence or attempt to run, tackle or otherwise
interrupt such player until he has run five yards.
Rule 26: Throwing back. It is lawful for any player who has the
Ball to throw it back towards his own goal, or to pass it back to any
player of his own side who is at the time behind him in accordance with
the rules of on side.
You will note that although both ice hockey and rugby had an offside rule, they were different offside rules. Early ice hockey is sometimes called a "backwards game" in the sense that rugby is; that is, the object of play can be passed backward to teammates, but cannot move ahead (see rugby rule 26). This was not the case in hockey. The puck itself could move forward, so long as the pass recipient was not ahead of the puck at the time the pass was made. So you could pass the puck ahead of your winger, who could skate up to meet it. Indeed, in his 1899 book Hockey: Canada' Royal Winter Game, Art Farrell explained that this was the ideal method for making a pass; note that the offside rule had not changed at all by 1899.
If you go rule-by-rule, it's absolutely clear that field hockey played a much larger part in the rules of early ice hockey. I would go so far as to say that there is no reason to believe rugby had any influence at all on the rules, if you actually look at the rules. Even the sort-of-similar rules (such as offsides) are handled differently. Joseph claimed that rugby used one referee and two umpires, as we know that early ice hockey did. But the 1871 rugby rules make no mention of either, instead specifying that the team captains are the sole arbiters of infractions. However, lacrosse did use one referee and two umpires.
POSITIONS
The earliest reference to positions in early Montreal ice hockey we have is from 1876, which identified players in a match as forwards, half-backs, backs and goaltenders. Goaltenders were referred to in 1875, but this was the first time other positions were named. Some of the rugby influence claims state that rugby positions were used (except, of course, for the curious addition of a goalkeeper). Neither modern rugby (nor modern field hockey) positions bear much apparent resemblance to this set-up. However, if we do look at groups of players rather than individual positions, in rugby today players will be referred to as forwards, half-backs and backs. No goaltender, of course.
However, this does not seem to be terminology contemporary to early ice hockey. Here, for example, we see that rugby in the 1870s featured forwards, half-backs, three-quarter-backs, and full-backs. Which is still quite close to the early ice hockey setup. However, we must also consider field hockey in this equation.
Hockey: Historical and Practical is a volume on English (field) hockey, written by J. Nicholson Smith and Philip A. Robson and published in 1899. As the title suggests, it discusses both the history of field hockey, and how it was played. When detailing the positions on the field, Smith and Robson break the players into four categories: the forwards, the half-backs, the backs and the goal-keeper. These are precisely the positions that were used in 1870s hockey in Montreal. So it seems that even if rugby used such nomenclature, it was not unique to that sport. And indeed this would make field hockey a better fit, since rugby does not use a goaltender.
EQUIPMENT
It should be plainly obvious that the equipment used in early ice hockey was much more similar to that of field hockey than to rugby. Rugby has no sticks, and the ball is much too large to be used for hockey. The goal markers were much different as well. Ice hockey added skates of course, but you cannot credit that idea to rugby, clearly.
GAME PLAY
We have already noted that the difference in the offside rules produce a significant effect on the game play of these sports. In rugby, the ball could only move backward. In field hockey and ice hockey, it could move forward so long as the players involved were onside.
The objects of rugby are quite different than ice hockey. You scored goals by kicking the ball over the crossbar and between the posts, and of course you could score touch downs, which have no equivalent in ice hockey or field hockey. In terms of the object of the game, it's clearly field hockey that is more similar.
Rugby, then as now, involved scrummages (which have no equivalent in ice hockey), and allowed tackling, which ice hockey did not. You were not permitted to take hold of a hockey player and drag him down, even if he did have the puck. In rugby, players could pick up the ball and catch it out of the air before beginning a run while holding on to the ball. There was nothing like this in hockey.
So all we're left with in terms of game play is the vague sense of physicality mentioned by Gopnik. Now, I believe that the physicality in the early version of Montreal hockey can easily be overstated, if it is thought of in modern terms. In its earliest days, ice hockey certainly allowed contact, but it was not the constant body-checking we see in the game today. Indeed it could not have been, since players expending their energy on such endeavours would not have lasted the 60 minutes they were required to play each match. However, there was certainly some rough and physical play, whereas in field hockey there was a rule in place that was designed to prevent body contact (playing right to left).
If you want to see this is as a rugby influence on early ice hockey, I'm not going to stop you. Indeed many of the players involved in the early Montreal matches were rugby football players. But it seems fairly clear that it was field hockey one ice, perhaps sprinkled with a taste of rugby. The level of physicality in early ice hockey was not equal to that in rugby; it was certainly more than field hockey, but it was also certainly less than rugby.
CONCLUSION
Going through this process, I cannot see how rugby can be said to have been a significant influence on early Montreal ice hockey. There are several claims of this, however they were all made at least three decades after the fact, and are part of stories that tend to have rather large inconsistencies with history in them. In all of the ways discussed above, with one possible exception, field hockey is a clearer source of inspiration for early Montreal hockey than rugby. When you couple this with the fact that claims of rugby influence were all made well after the fact and rely solely on fallible human memory, you reach the conclusion that there is no particular reason to believe rugby played a role.
Since McGill was such a rugby stronghold, perhaps these McGillers (Smith, Murray, Joseph) just associated everything with rugby, when in fact there were other sports much closer in nature. But whatever the reason, it appears that their claims do not stand up to scrutiny.
Showing posts with label Hockey origins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hockey origins. Show all posts
Thursday, 21 August 2014
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
In-Depth Review: L'histoire du hockey au Québec, Part 1
I've done a few book reviews in the past, but I'm going to try something a bit different this time. Last week I had to look something up in a book that's been sitting in my hockey history library for some time. In doing so, I realized I had never actually read the book in its entirety, only ever really using it for reference. So I decided it was time to read the thing, and when going through the first chapter I realized there was probably a lot of meat for some blog posts in there. So this will be a series of posts, making up an in-depth, chapter-by-chapter review of the book from my analytical perspective. The book is quite dense and scholarly, and intentionally so, and as such I think it's appropriate to devote some time to it.
The book is L'histoire du hockey au Québec: Origine et développement d'un phénomène culturel avant 1917 ("The History of Hockey in Quebec: The origin and development of a cultural phenomenon before 1917"), published in 1990. It was written by Donald Guay (b.1934), a Quebec historian who has published well over a dozen works, mostly on the subject of Quebec sports history. As you may have surmised, it's written in French. As such, any time I quote from the book, I will provide both the original passage in bold italics, followed by my translation in regular italics.
The book is made up of five chapters, and I intend to cover each one in some detail. I'm not going to read ahead, I'm going to review each chapter as I go through it. Some chapters, at least, will be broken up into multiple parts (I know this because chapter three is about four times as long as any other chapter in the book, and besides that, as you'll see I won't even get through chapter one in this fairly large post).
So let's introduce the series, naturally enough, by addressing the introduction.
Introduction
In the introduction, Guay posits that despite the enormous role hockey plays in Canadian society, historians and sociologists have not (at least as of 1990) devoted a great deal of attention to it. I think this is largely a fair comment; there was certainly nothing like The Hockey Conference at the time this book was written. As such, Guay suggests that he will be examining a number of important questions about the history of hockey in Canada, and specifically addressing them from a French-Canadian sociocultural perspective. I won't be spending too much time commenting on the French-Canadian perspective, since I cannot claim to have much insight in that regard. I will, however, be commenting on the information and arguments in the book having to do with hockey history specifically.
Some of the questions Guay intends to ask (and hopefully answer) are:
Chapter One: Les origines du hockey ("the origins of hockey")
You may have noticed that in the first question above, I used the term "sport of hockey" when referring to the first hockey matches. This is not my distinction, but Guay's. The first part of chapter one is spent discussing the difference between «des jeux» ("games") and «le sport» ("sport".) Guay suggests that it is important to differentiate between a sport and other forms of physical activity, and to do so he suggests six observable criteria resulting from an «étude empirique» ("empirical study") of sport and games. I'm not entirely sure it's proper to use the term empirical here, as we'll see when we discuss the criteria below, some of which seem rather subjective to me.
Guay summarizes these six criteria into a definition of sport (as opposed to a game) as follows:
«Le sport est donc une activité physique compétitve et amusante pratiquée en vue d'un enjeu selon des règles écrites et un esprit particulier, l'esprit sportif.» (Guay p.19)
"Sport is therefore a competitive, but fun, physical activity played with something at stake, using written rules and according to a spirit of sportsmanship."
The last part of this definition strikes me as possibly circular; sport is something played according to a spirit of sportsmanship. Okay, what is a sporting spirit then? Guay expands on this here:
«L'esprit sportif, la mentalité sportive comprend des valeurs qui orientent, guident les attitudes et les conduites des sportives et des sportifs. C'est une éthique fondée sur l'équité, le désir de vaincre et la loyauté. L'esprit sportif, c'est cette volunté de vaincre, mais de vaincre loyalement sure un adversaire de calibre.» (Guay p.19)
"Sportsmanship, or the sporting mindset, is defined by the values that guide the attitudes and actions of sportswomen and sportsmen. It's an ethic based on fairness, the desire to win and honour. Sportsmanship is this will to win, but to win honourably against a quality opponent."
You will notice that this is arguably results in quite a narrow definition, and my fear when reading it is that it will be later used by the author to exclude professional hockey from the definition of sport, or indeed whatever version of the activity that he wishes to exclude. Guay seems to be using a more old-fashioned, olde-tyme elitist definition of sport and sportsman, from the days when such activities were undertaken solely by gentlemen and gentlewomen, without the sweaty lower classes being involved. The implication seems to be one of praise for the mythic virtues of amateur sport above all else.
The reference to fun is also a bit odd. One might think that fun or enjoyment is more characteristic of a game than a sport, as a sport can often be far more competitive that a casual game. But Guay suggests that while opponents on a sporting playing field may be the greatest of rivals, for his purposes something is not a sport unless the participants take pleasure in the playing, because «le sport n'est qu'un jeu.» ("sport is nothing but a game.") I trust I'm not the only one confused by this bit; most of the criteria seem to be showing how much a sport is the same as a game, rather than differentiating them.
One also worries that this definition is established in order to later enshrine Montreal as the birthplace of hockey. It's too early so say, but I'm seeing signs of it going in that direction.For example, it refers to written rules. But why must the rules be written in order for something to be a sport, or sporting rather? Are unwritten rules insufficient for sporting gentlemen to engage in sport?
With respect to the «enjeu» ("stake"), Guay does not in fact mean that there must be some tangible prize, or else much of amateur sporting would be excluded by this. By the stake, he suggests that sportsmen are seeking victory «qui confère satisfaction, honneurs, gloire, argent, etc.» ("which provides satisfaction, honour, glory, money, etc."). So the stake can be anything (tangible or otherwise) that the participant values. This is fine, but I can't see how it serves any purpose to differentiate a sport from a game. Does anyone play a game without getting anything out of it? If satisfaction from participating in the activity is sufficient, then that's broad enough to cover pretty much every game ever played by anyone, be it a physical activity or not.
Indeed, since Guay is attempting to differentiate between two types of physical activity, one which he calls a game and one which he calls a sport, I don't think his definition accomplishes this goal. A sport is a physical activity; but in this context so is a game, since Guay refers only to non-sport physical activities and does not mean board games or anything similar by the term. A sport is competitive; but games can clearly be competitive as well. Most games are, I would suggest. A sport is fun, but so is a game, I think you'd agree (otherwise, why play it?) A sport has something at stake, but Guay's definition of stake is so broad that it cannot exclude someone playing a game because he or she simply enjoys doing so. A sport has written rules, but many games do as well, so that draws no distinction. This leaves only the final criteria, sportsmanship, to tell the difference between sports and games.
This distinction may actually be clearer in English than in French. The English term sportsmanship is recognized as a positive thing, while the similar term gamesmanship has a negative connotation. The former suggests being straightforward and honest, playing a game honourably as Guay would suggest, while the latter suggests underhandedness, doing whatever it takes to win, exploiting loopholes in the rules, that sort of thing. But I question whether this is a valid distinction between sports and games, since it has to do only with the mindset of the participants rather than the activity itself. It's surely possible to play a game in a sportsmanlike manner, and to use gamesmanship in a sport (using more everyday meanings of sport and game). Moreover, this means that a specific instance of an activity can be considered both a sport and a game at the same time, depending on which player's perspective you are examining. One player could be in it for honourable victory, while another may be thinking he would kill someone's grandmother just to score an extra point. Since Guay purports to be looking at the origins of hockey as a sport in Canada, the first time the sport of hockey was played in Canada, I suggest that he cannot rely on the mindset of individual participants to make such a determination. How could he know, for example, that of the 18 men who played in the March 3, 1875 hockey match in Montreal (which we will discuss), they all had honourable victory as their goal? No, it would be far better for the criteria to be solely about the nature of the activity itself, not dependant on what the participants may or may not have been thinking.
But even if Guay is drawing a valid distinction with the criteria of sportsmanship, I daresay this does not line up with what most people understand as the difference between sport and game. For example, compare modern shinny and hockey. The former can be called a game, and the latter a sport. Shinny is much more informal than hockey, often played on a pick-up basis with minimal rules, no referee, that sort of thing. Meanwhile hockey typically implies a scheduled match between organized teams. I suggest the modern understanding of games versus sports has much more to do with the level of organization in the activity, while Guay is putting forward something of an archaic distinction, based on ideals that (in my opinion) never really existed. Even at the time when amateur sports were placed on a pedestal above professional sports, these ideals were mythical. Amateur hockey, for example, had lots of gamesmanship and shenanigans, betraying the fact that the participants were often more interested in victory than making sure the victory was honourable.
As such, I find Guay's definition of sport to be unconvincing, incomplete, and ultimately unnecessary. Why do we even need to distinguish between a game and a sport? Why are the origins of the game of hockey not interesting, but the origins of the sport of hockey are? At any rate, let's move on. We'll keep this attempted distinction in mind if it becomes relevant later.
Actually, it becomes relevant almost immediately - this is what you get when I write a review as I read the book. Guay proceeds to discuss the idea that hockey had its origins in ancient civilizations, such as the Greeks or Persians. He's obviously now referring to hockey in the general sense of hitting a thing with a stick, rather than a specific form of such activity such as ice hockey. It's notable at this point that while Guay has tried to define what a sport is, he has made no attempt to define what hockey is. This is an unfortunate tendency in hockey historical writing, to jump around between meanings of hockey without noting that you are discussing different things.
Indeed, Guay criticizes others for seemingly attempting to push the history of hockey as far back as possible. He apparently fails to recognize the distinction between the modern meaning of hockey and the older, more general meaning. Of course, this may not be entirely his fault, since the authors he refers to may not have explicitly made that distinction themselves; as I said, that's a common problem. Guay states (p.23) that while these games «...aient une certaine ressemblance avec le hockey comtemporain, on ne peut affirmer que ce soit du hockey...» ("...have a certain resemblance to modern hockey, we cannot confirm that they are hockey...) I'm seeing more worrying signs here. This sounds like Guay is going to argue that while earlier, pre-Canadian versions of the game are not really hockey because they do not sufficiently resemble what we now call hockey. Of course, the first hockey matches played in Montreal in the 1870s also suffer from this issue, in that they were very different from the modern version of the game, but that is often glossed over by proponents of the Montreal birthplace idea. It's too early to judge, but I've seen this before so we'll keep out eyes open for it. It would help, of course, if Guay would define what he means by hockey, but unfortunately he does not.
Guay takes a different tack, referring to these ancient activities as games, not sports, thus illustrating why he built up a distinction in the first place. He says that since we cannot directly connect these "games" with the "sport" of hockey played in Canada since the late 19th century, they cannot be called hockey. Moreover, since as discussed above the distinction between game and sport that Guay makes seems predicated solely on "sportsmanship", he seems to be saying that sportsmanship is a recent invention, that ancient peoples could not have possessed it. A cynic might be inclined to say that the definition of sport is therefore written to exclude all forms of games from before the last couple of hundred years from the discussion. We'll see how it goes.
Next time, we'll look at Guay's discussion of a few "birthplace" claims for ice hockey, and his own statements about the birth of that sport.
The book is L'histoire du hockey au Québec: Origine et développement d'un phénomène culturel avant 1917 ("The History of Hockey in Quebec: The origin and development of a cultural phenomenon before 1917"), published in 1990. It was written by Donald Guay (b.1934), a Quebec historian who has published well over a dozen works, mostly on the subject of Quebec sports history. As you may have surmised, it's written in French. As such, any time I quote from the book, I will provide both the original passage in bold italics, followed by my translation in regular italics.
The book is made up of five chapters, and I intend to cover each one in some detail. I'm not going to read ahead, I'm going to review each chapter as I go through it. Some chapters, at least, will be broken up into multiple parts (I know this because chapter three is about four times as long as any other chapter in the book, and besides that, as you'll see I won't even get through chapter one in this fairly large post).
So let's introduce the series, naturally enough, by addressing the introduction.
Introduction
In the introduction, Guay posits that despite the enormous role hockey plays in Canadian society, historians and sociologists have not (at least as of 1990) devoted a great deal of attention to it. I think this is largely a fair comment; there was certainly nothing like The Hockey Conference at the time this book was written. As such, Guay suggests that he will be examining a number of important questions about the history of hockey in Canada, and specifically addressing them from a French-Canadian sociocultural perspective. I won't be spending too much time commenting on the French-Canadian perspective, since I cannot claim to have much insight in that regard. I will, however, be commenting on the information and arguments in the book having to do with hockey history specifically.
Some of the questions Guay intends to ask (and hopefully answer) are:
- When were the matches played in the sport of hockey?
- Who organized these first matches?
- How, when and by who were the first hockey clubs and leagues formed?
- What part did French Canadians play in the development of hockey in Canada?
Chapter One: Les origines du hockey ("the origins of hockey")
You may have noticed that in the first question above, I used the term "sport of hockey" when referring to the first hockey matches. This is not my distinction, but Guay's. The first part of chapter one is spent discussing the difference between «des jeux» ("games") and «le sport» ("sport".) Guay suggests that it is important to differentiate between a sport and other forms of physical activity, and to do so he suggests six observable criteria resulting from an «étude empirique» ("empirical study") of sport and games. I'm not entirely sure it's proper to use the term empirical here, as we'll see when we discuss the criteria below, some of which seem rather subjective to me.
Guay summarizes these six criteria into a definition of sport (as opposed to a game) as follows:
«Le sport est donc une activité physique compétitve et amusante pratiquée en vue d'un enjeu selon des règles écrites et un esprit particulier, l'esprit sportif.» (Guay p.19)
"Sport is therefore a competitive, but fun, physical activity played with something at stake, using written rules and according to a spirit of sportsmanship."
The last part of this definition strikes me as possibly circular; sport is something played according to a spirit of sportsmanship. Okay, what is a sporting spirit then? Guay expands on this here:
«L'esprit sportif, la mentalité sportive comprend des valeurs qui orientent, guident les attitudes et les conduites des sportives et des sportifs. C'est une éthique fondée sur l'équité, le désir de vaincre et la loyauté. L'esprit sportif, c'est cette volunté de vaincre, mais de vaincre loyalement sure un adversaire de calibre.» (Guay p.19)
"Sportsmanship, or the sporting mindset, is defined by the values that guide the attitudes and actions of sportswomen and sportsmen. It's an ethic based on fairness, the desire to win and honour. Sportsmanship is this will to win, but to win honourably against a quality opponent."
You will notice that this is arguably results in quite a narrow definition, and my fear when reading it is that it will be later used by the author to exclude professional hockey from the definition of sport, or indeed whatever version of the activity that he wishes to exclude. Guay seems to be using a more old-fashioned, olde-tyme elitist definition of sport and sportsman, from the days when such activities were undertaken solely by gentlemen and gentlewomen, without the sweaty lower classes being involved. The implication seems to be one of praise for the mythic virtues of amateur sport above all else.
The reference to fun is also a bit odd. One might think that fun or enjoyment is more characteristic of a game than a sport, as a sport can often be far more competitive that a casual game. But Guay suggests that while opponents on a sporting playing field may be the greatest of rivals, for his purposes something is not a sport unless the participants take pleasure in the playing, because «le sport n'est qu'un jeu.» ("sport is nothing but a game.") I trust I'm not the only one confused by this bit; most of the criteria seem to be showing how much a sport is the same as a game, rather than differentiating them.
One also worries that this definition is established in order to later enshrine Montreal as the birthplace of hockey. It's too early so say, but I'm seeing signs of it going in that direction.For example, it refers to written rules. But why must the rules be written in order for something to be a sport, or sporting rather? Are unwritten rules insufficient for sporting gentlemen to engage in sport?
With respect to the «enjeu» ("stake"), Guay does not in fact mean that there must be some tangible prize, or else much of amateur sporting would be excluded by this. By the stake, he suggests that sportsmen are seeking victory «qui confère satisfaction, honneurs, gloire, argent, etc.» ("which provides satisfaction, honour, glory, money, etc."). So the stake can be anything (tangible or otherwise) that the participant values. This is fine, but I can't see how it serves any purpose to differentiate a sport from a game. Does anyone play a game without getting anything out of it? If satisfaction from participating in the activity is sufficient, then that's broad enough to cover pretty much every game ever played by anyone, be it a physical activity or not.
Indeed, since Guay is attempting to differentiate between two types of physical activity, one which he calls a game and one which he calls a sport, I don't think his definition accomplishes this goal. A sport is a physical activity; but in this context so is a game, since Guay refers only to non-sport physical activities and does not mean board games or anything similar by the term. A sport is competitive; but games can clearly be competitive as well. Most games are, I would suggest. A sport is fun, but so is a game, I think you'd agree (otherwise, why play it?) A sport has something at stake, but Guay's definition of stake is so broad that it cannot exclude someone playing a game because he or she simply enjoys doing so. A sport has written rules, but many games do as well, so that draws no distinction. This leaves only the final criteria, sportsmanship, to tell the difference between sports and games.
This distinction may actually be clearer in English than in French. The English term sportsmanship is recognized as a positive thing, while the similar term gamesmanship has a negative connotation. The former suggests being straightforward and honest, playing a game honourably as Guay would suggest, while the latter suggests underhandedness, doing whatever it takes to win, exploiting loopholes in the rules, that sort of thing. But I question whether this is a valid distinction between sports and games, since it has to do only with the mindset of the participants rather than the activity itself. It's surely possible to play a game in a sportsmanlike manner, and to use gamesmanship in a sport (using more everyday meanings of sport and game). Moreover, this means that a specific instance of an activity can be considered both a sport and a game at the same time, depending on which player's perspective you are examining. One player could be in it for honourable victory, while another may be thinking he would kill someone's grandmother just to score an extra point. Since Guay purports to be looking at the origins of hockey as a sport in Canada, the first time the sport of hockey was played in Canada, I suggest that he cannot rely on the mindset of individual participants to make such a determination. How could he know, for example, that of the 18 men who played in the March 3, 1875 hockey match in Montreal (which we will discuss), they all had honourable victory as their goal? No, it would be far better for the criteria to be solely about the nature of the activity itself, not dependant on what the participants may or may not have been thinking.
But even if Guay is drawing a valid distinction with the criteria of sportsmanship, I daresay this does not line up with what most people understand as the difference between sport and game. For example, compare modern shinny and hockey. The former can be called a game, and the latter a sport. Shinny is much more informal than hockey, often played on a pick-up basis with minimal rules, no referee, that sort of thing. Meanwhile hockey typically implies a scheduled match between organized teams. I suggest the modern understanding of games versus sports has much more to do with the level of organization in the activity, while Guay is putting forward something of an archaic distinction, based on ideals that (in my opinion) never really existed. Even at the time when amateur sports were placed on a pedestal above professional sports, these ideals were mythical. Amateur hockey, for example, had lots of gamesmanship and shenanigans, betraying the fact that the participants were often more interested in victory than making sure the victory was honourable.
As such, I find Guay's definition of sport to be unconvincing, incomplete, and ultimately unnecessary. Why do we even need to distinguish between a game and a sport? Why are the origins of the game of hockey not interesting, but the origins of the sport of hockey are? At any rate, let's move on. We'll keep this attempted distinction in mind if it becomes relevant later.
Actually, it becomes relevant almost immediately - this is what you get when I write a review as I read the book. Guay proceeds to discuss the idea that hockey had its origins in ancient civilizations, such as the Greeks or Persians. He's obviously now referring to hockey in the general sense of hitting a thing with a stick, rather than a specific form of such activity such as ice hockey. It's notable at this point that while Guay has tried to define what a sport is, he has made no attempt to define what hockey is. This is an unfortunate tendency in hockey historical writing, to jump around between meanings of hockey without noting that you are discussing different things.
Indeed, Guay criticizes others for seemingly attempting to push the history of hockey as far back as possible. He apparently fails to recognize the distinction between the modern meaning of hockey and the older, more general meaning. Of course, this may not be entirely his fault, since the authors he refers to may not have explicitly made that distinction themselves; as I said, that's a common problem. Guay states (p.23) that while these games «...aient une certaine ressemblance avec le hockey comtemporain, on ne peut affirmer que ce soit du hockey...» ("...have a certain resemblance to modern hockey, we cannot confirm that they are hockey...) I'm seeing more worrying signs here. This sounds like Guay is going to argue that while earlier, pre-Canadian versions of the game are not really hockey because they do not sufficiently resemble what we now call hockey. Of course, the first hockey matches played in Montreal in the 1870s also suffer from this issue, in that they were very different from the modern version of the game, but that is often glossed over by proponents of the Montreal birthplace idea. It's too early to judge, but I've seen this before so we'll keep out eyes open for it. It would help, of course, if Guay would define what he means by hockey, but unfortunately he does not.
Guay takes a different tack, referring to these ancient activities as games, not sports, thus illustrating why he built up a distinction in the first place. He says that since we cannot directly connect these "games" with the "sport" of hockey played in Canada since the late 19th century, they cannot be called hockey. Moreover, since as discussed above the distinction between game and sport that Guay makes seems predicated solely on "sportsmanship", he seems to be saying that sportsmanship is a recent invention, that ancient peoples could not have possessed it. A cynic might be inclined to say that the definition of sport is therefore written to exclude all forms of games from before the last couple of hundred years from the discussion. We'll see how it goes.
Next time, we'll look at Guay's discussion of a few "birthplace" claims for ice hockey, and his own statements about the birth of that sport.
Monday, 2 June 2014
On the Origin of Organized Hockey
My last post was a review of the new book On the Origin of Hockey, which presents a great deal of new evidence about early ice hockey, especially as it was played in England. One of the conclusions you can draw from the book is that giving special status to the first recorded, organized hockey game in Canada (played in Montreal on March 3, 1875) does not make sense, given that there are earlier games played in England that were just as organized and just as much hockey as that one. That is, if the first Montreal game is an example of organized hockey, then there are several earlier matches in England that should be considered organized hockey as well. So I thought I'd take you through the process, to show that this conclusion is well-founded.
We start with the definition of hockey in general, which we take from the Society for International Hockey Research's (SIHR) Report of the Sub-Committee Looking into Claim that Windsor, Nova Scotia, is the Birthplace of Hockey. In 2002 this report concluded that all a game needs to be considered (ice) hockey is that it is played on an ice rink by two opposing teams of skaters who use curved sticks to try to drive a small propellant into or through opposite goals.
This definition was arrived at because the committee writing the report needed terms of reference to determine when something is hockey and when it is not. The committee correctly concluded that there is no compelling evidence to conclude that Windsor is the birthplace of hockey. The primary point presented by proponents of the Windsor claim, for example, was from a work of fiction wherein one fictional character is imagining what the youth of another fictional character might have been like. It is thoroughly unconvincing and is rightly dismissed as evidence that hockey was played at a particular time in a particular place. So in fact the definition of hockey was not really needed, due to the nature of the evidence being examined.
However, the committee did engage in a bit of digression about the first recorded hockey match played in Montreal, which was on March 3, 1875. This might have been relevant had the Windsor claim suggested that hockey began in Nova Scotia later than 1875, in which case the Montreal game would have been evidence against that. But that's not the case, so it seems the committee might have been suggesting that Montreal should be considered the birthplace of hockey, though they explicitly state that is not the intent.
The committee noted that the Montreal game seems to mark the transition of hockey from a pastime to a dedicated sporting endeavour: "The March 3 event, structured as it was, invites a distinction between formal and informal hockey..." This raises the question, of course, of what the committee saw in this match that is not present in earlier reports of hockey. They explained:
"The match appears to be unique. It is the earliest eyewitness account known, at least to this SIHR committee, of a specific game of hockey in a specific place at a specific time, and with a recorded score, between two identified teams."
So the purpose of discussing the Montreal game actually seems to have been to put it forward as the birthplace of formal, or organized, hockey rather than hockey in general. Based on newspaper reports, we know the following details about this first hockey match in Montreal: that it was played at the Victoria Skating Rink in Montreal on March 3, 1875 between two teams of nine men each (the names of which were recorded); that there was a captain for each team; that they used a flat, circular piece of wood instead of a ball; that they tried to drive said object through the opposing goal; that there were spectators; and that captain Creighton's team defeated captain Torrance's team by two goals to nil (but we do not know who scored the goals). Both teams were selected from members of the Victoria Skating Club.
If we combine the criteria for formality with the earlier criteria for hockey presented by the committee, we can derive the committee's implicit definition of formal hockey. Formal hockey would have the following characteristics:
On the Origin of Hockey produces several candidate games, that may be considered "organized hockey" using these criteria. Great credit must be given to the authors Carl Giden, Patrick Houda and Jean-Patrice Martel for unearthing and presenting the reports of these games. Let's examine a few.
Moor Park, Hertfordshire - February 2, 1871
I mentioned this match in the review. We know it was hockey, we know the teams, we know the score, we even know the lineups and the goal-scorers. We know about as much about this match as we do the first Montreal game. Specific reference is made to the ice, and the fact that it is called hockey necessarily entails sticks and a propellant, since all descriptions of hockey from that time period and before involve such things. The goals are also specifically mentioned, and the two seven-man teams are listed. A brief goal-by-goal account is provided, and a 10-minute intermission is also mentioned. Unfortunately it does not specifically refer to skates, so in theory someone could object to it on that basis. In the book, the authors present a convincing argument that the skates are implicit, however we do have to recognize that they are not specifically mentioned. Moreover, skates were also not specifically mentioned in the reports of the March 3, 1875 game in Montreal, so if the lack of a specific mention is a problem for Moor Park, then it's a problem for Montreal as well.
Elsham, Lincolnshire - January 6, 1871
On this date, two eight-man teams played to a draw after nearly 90 minutes of hockey. The two identified sides were Elsham and Brigg, and the newspaper reports make it clear that this match involved an ice rink, players wearing skates, using sticks and trying to drive an object through opposite goals. We know that the game was planned ahead of time (Colonel Astley had invited the men from Brigg to come play a match), and was played in a particular place at a particular time. We do not know the precise score, but we do know for certain that a score was kept because the match was declared a draw. All of the implicit criteria for formal hockey seem to be represented in this game.
In fact, these two teams later played a rematch, so it's clear that having a decision on the score was important to the players involved. The second match was played on February 4, 1871 and this time Elsham walked over Brigg by a score of eight to nil. Brigg surrendered 15 minutes before time was up, so we know that there was a specific time that was to be allowed for the game. The ice was said to be in excellent condition for the game.
Bluntisham-cum-Earith, Huntingdonshire - January 4, 1871
This was a big week for early organized hockey, with matches only two days apart, though over 150 kilometres in distance from each other. In this case the teams were 20-a-side, one representing Bluntisham & Earith (the "Bury Fen team") and the other from Over & Swavesey. The former side scored a victory two goals to nil. Once again all of the criteria for formal hockey as indicated by SIHR seem to be met in this match. We even know the names of the team captains.
Spetchley, Worcestershire - December 28, 1870
This is the second match mentioned in the review, and similar to the first we know the (10-man) teams, the score, the lineups and the goal-scorers. In one of the reports describing the game, it is under the heading "skating" so in this case (unlike Moor Park above), we know for certain that there were skates involved.
So the winter of 1870/71 was a busy time for early organized hockey in England. Unfortunately for the sporting fans of that country, it did not seem to really catch on, at least not the way it did in Canada some few years later. But there is an even older candidate for the earliest known game of organized ice hockey, over 13 years before this busy winter.
Swavesey, Cambridgeshire - February 5, 1857
On this date, teams from Over and Swavesey met in a match of "bandy", almost 24 years before they would band together to play against Bluntisham & Earith as noted above. At this time, of course, there is no way to differentiate between hockey and bandy when played on the ice, since the rules of each that would allow us to tell them apart had not been standardized yet. Bandy was simply a form of hockey, as the authors of the book argue in some detail. All of the criteria appear to be met in this game as well. Swavesey won the match, though the exact score was not reported. So this is not quite as good an example as some of the 1870/71 matches, but it is worth considering.
Conclusion
Not all of these games are precise matches for the apparent SIHR criteria to be considered organized hockey. But it is abundantly clear that the level of organization of the Montreal match of March 3, 1875 was not unique for its time. There were formal games of ice hockey played in England at least four years before that time, and perhaps as much as 18 years before.
What is unique about Montreal is what happened in the years after that first game, as the sport slowly grew in popularity, and interest really began to take off with the first Montreal Winter Carnival tournament in 1883. But assigning special value to the 1875 game is not supportable, given that we now have evidence of a number of very similar matches played previously in England. Canada certainly made hockey into the great winter game, but it was built upon a foundation that first arrived from England.
We start with the definition of hockey in general, which we take from the Society for International Hockey Research's (SIHR) Report of the Sub-Committee Looking into Claim that Windsor, Nova Scotia, is the Birthplace of Hockey. In 2002 this report concluded that all a game needs to be considered (ice) hockey is that it is played on an ice rink by two opposing teams of skaters who use curved sticks to try to drive a small propellant into or through opposite goals.
This definition was arrived at because the committee writing the report needed terms of reference to determine when something is hockey and when it is not. The committee correctly concluded that there is no compelling evidence to conclude that Windsor is the birthplace of hockey. The primary point presented by proponents of the Windsor claim, for example, was from a work of fiction wherein one fictional character is imagining what the youth of another fictional character might have been like. It is thoroughly unconvincing and is rightly dismissed as evidence that hockey was played at a particular time in a particular place. So in fact the definition of hockey was not really needed, due to the nature of the evidence being examined.
However, the committee did engage in a bit of digression about the first recorded hockey match played in Montreal, which was on March 3, 1875. This might have been relevant had the Windsor claim suggested that hockey began in Nova Scotia later than 1875, in which case the Montreal game would have been evidence against that. But that's not the case, so it seems the committee might have been suggesting that Montreal should be considered the birthplace of hockey, though they explicitly state that is not the intent.
The committee noted that the Montreal game seems to mark the transition of hockey from a pastime to a dedicated sporting endeavour: "The March 3 event, structured as it was, invites a distinction between formal and informal hockey..." This raises the question, of course, of what the committee saw in this match that is not present in earlier reports of hockey. They explained:
"The match appears to be unique. It is the earliest eyewitness account known, at least to this SIHR committee, of a specific game of hockey in a specific place at a specific time, and with a recorded score, between two identified teams."
So the purpose of discussing the Montreal game actually seems to have been to put it forward as the birthplace of formal, or organized, hockey rather than hockey in general. Based on newspaper reports, we know the following details about this first hockey match in Montreal: that it was played at the Victoria Skating Rink in Montreal on March 3, 1875 between two teams of nine men each (the names of which were recorded); that there was a captain for each team; that they used a flat, circular piece of wood instead of a ball; that they tried to drive said object through the opposing goal; that there were spectators; and that captain Creighton's team defeated captain Torrance's team by two goals to nil (but we do not know who scored the goals). Both teams were selected from members of the Victoria Skating Club.
If we combine the criteria for formality with the earlier criteria for hockey presented by the committee, we can derive the committee's implicit definition of formal hockey. Formal hockey would have the following characteristics:
- ice rink
- players wearing skates
- players using curved sticks
- trying to drive a small propellant
- opposite goals
- game played in a specific place at a specific time
- recorded score
- two identified, opposing teams
On the Origin of Hockey produces several candidate games, that may be considered "organized hockey" using these criteria. Great credit must be given to the authors Carl Giden, Patrick Houda and Jean-Patrice Martel for unearthing and presenting the reports of these games. Let's examine a few.
Moor Park, Hertfordshire - February 2, 1871
I mentioned this match in the review. We know it was hockey, we know the teams, we know the score, we even know the lineups and the goal-scorers. We know about as much about this match as we do the first Montreal game. Specific reference is made to the ice, and the fact that it is called hockey necessarily entails sticks and a propellant, since all descriptions of hockey from that time period and before involve such things. The goals are also specifically mentioned, and the two seven-man teams are listed. A brief goal-by-goal account is provided, and a 10-minute intermission is also mentioned. Unfortunately it does not specifically refer to skates, so in theory someone could object to it on that basis. In the book, the authors present a convincing argument that the skates are implicit, however we do have to recognize that they are not specifically mentioned. Moreover, skates were also not specifically mentioned in the reports of the March 3, 1875 game in Montreal, so if the lack of a specific mention is a problem for Moor Park, then it's a problem for Montreal as well.
Elsham, Lincolnshire - January 6, 1871
On this date, two eight-man teams played to a draw after nearly 90 minutes of hockey. The two identified sides were Elsham and Brigg, and the newspaper reports make it clear that this match involved an ice rink, players wearing skates, using sticks and trying to drive an object through opposite goals. We know that the game was planned ahead of time (Colonel Astley had invited the men from Brigg to come play a match), and was played in a particular place at a particular time. We do not know the precise score, but we do know for certain that a score was kept because the match was declared a draw. All of the implicit criteria for formal hockey seem to be represented in this game.
In fact, these two teams later played a rematch, so it's clear that having a decision on the score was important to the players involved. The second match was played on February 4, 1871 and this time Elsham walked over Brigg by a score of eight to nil. Brigg surrendered 15 minutes before time was up, so we know that there was a specific time that was to be allowed for the game. The ice was said to be in excellent condition for the game.
Bluntisham-cum-Earith, Huntingdonshire - January 4, 1871
This was a big week for early organized hockey, with matches only two days apart, though over 150 kilometres in distance from each other. In this case the teams were 20-a-side, one representing Bluntisham & Earith (the "Bury Fen team") and the other from Over & Swavesey. The former side scored a victory two goals to nil. Once again all of the criteria for formal hockey as indicated by SIHR seem to be met in this match. We even know the names of the team captains.
Spetchley, Worcestershire - December 28, 1870
This is the second match mentioned in the review, and similar to the first we know the (10-man) teams, the score, the lineups and the goal-scorers. In one of the reports describing the game, it is under the heading "skating" so in this case (unlike Moor Park above), we know for certain that there were skates involved.
So the winter of 1870/71 was a busy time for early organized hockey in England. Unfortunately for the sporting fans of that country, it did not seem to really catch on, at least not the way it did in Canada some few years later. But there is an even older candidate for the earliest known game of organized ice hockey, over 13 years before this busy winter.
Swavesey, Cambridgeshire - February 5, 1857
On this date, teams from Over and Swavesey met in a match of "bandy", almost 24 years before they would band together to play against Bluntisham & Earith as noted above. At this time, of course, there is no way to differentiate between hockey and bandy when played on the ice, since the rules of each that would allow us to tell them apart had not been standardized yet. Bandy was simply a form of hockey, as the authors of the book argue in some detail. All of the criteria appear to be met in this game as well. Swavesey won the match, though the exact score was not reported. So this is not quite as good an example as some of the 1870/71 matches, but it is worth considering.
Conclusion
Not all of these games are precise matches for the apparent SIHR criteria to be considered organized hockey. But it is abundantly clear that the level of organization of the Montreal match of March 3, 1875 was not unique for its time. There were formal games of ice hockey played in England at least four years before that time, and perhaps as much as 18 years before.
What is unique about Montreal is what happened in the years after that first game, as the sport slowly grew in popularity, and interest really began to take off with the first Montreal Winter Carnival tournament in 1883. But assigning special value to the 1875 game is not supportable, given that we now have evidence of a number of very similar matches played previously in England. Canada certainly made hockey into the great winter game, but it was built upon a foundation that first arrived from England.
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
The Voyage of the Puck, or the Ascent of Hockey
Full disclosure: I consider the authors of On the Origin of Hockey to be colleagues, and at least one of them to be a friend. I
received my copy of the book at no charge, however this was simply as
a result of attending the 2014 Annual General Meeting of the Society
for International Hockey Research; everyone there was given a copy.
Furthermore, the authors make at least one very complimentary
reference to my own book in their work. I suppose you could use all
of that to discount my opinion of their work entirely. All I can do is assure you
that the identity of the authors did not affect my reaction to this
book. Besides, there are already so many valid reasons to discount my opinion
entirely that you really don't need to go making another one up, now do you?
A review of On the Origin of Hockey
You may have seen some of the many headlines in response to the new book On the Origin of Hockey, which was launched this past weekend, declaring that “Hockey is actually an English game!” or words to that effect. The book is purported to prove that hockey, the game so long considered to be a Canadian one, was really born in England. Is this true? Have the Canadian origins of the great winter game been completely refuted?
The short answer is no, not really. But fortunately for the authors (Carl Giden, Patrick Houda and Jean-Patrice Martel, or GHM for short), that's not what they claim to prove. They are clear that the transition from the early forms of hockey to the modern version was given impetus and took place in Canada, and without the Canadian influence the sport would not be the great one that we have today. If we look at the very last paragraph in the book, for instance, we see that GHM have no interest in declaring hockey anything other than Canadian:
In order to reach such a conclusion, GHM rely on a definition of hockey developed by the Society for International Hockey Research (SIHR) in their 2002 Report of the Sub-Committee Looking into Claim that Windsor, Nova Scotia, is the Birthplace of Hockey. This definition consists of only six points: ice surface, two contesting teams, players on skates, use of curved sticks, small propellant (a ball or puck), objective of scoring on opposite goals. (p. 31) The authors clearly demonstrate that, using this definition of hockey, the game was played in England before it was played in Canada.They also forcefully demonstrate that based on this definition, early bandy is not merely a "hockey-like game", it is in fact hockey. If one wishes to call bandy a hockey-like game, one must call the first Montreal game in 1875 a hockey-like game as well.
This is not the first work to suggest that early forms of hockey originated in Britain, ultimately. However, the general consensus has long been that “organized” hockey had its beginnings in Montreal. This is the attitude presented in the SIHR report, which went beyond its mandate of examining the Windsor claim, and put forward Montreal as the birthplace of organized hockey. This is because an organized hockey match was played in Montreal on March 3, 1875, and it is the first recorded game of its kind. Or at least, it was the earliest known recorded match at the time the SIHR report was written.
GHM present volumes of evidence that has been uncovered in the years since the SIHR report was published. For example, the authors discuss a game of hockey that was played on December 27, 1870 in Spetchley, Worcestershire and that was reported in two newspapers. Two 10-man teams played in this match, one representing Worcester and the other, Spetchley. The latter club took the match by a score of 4-3, and we even know the identities of the goal-scorers (Tyler, Yeates and A. Everill for Worcester; Tayler, Wheeler, Dale and Francisco for Spetchley [p. 74]), which is information we are missing for the first Montreal game. As GHM point out, you may be able to develop a definition of organized hockey that would exclude this game but include the first Montreal match, however such a definition would have to be arbitrary and designed specifically to exclude the former. Such a definition would be unreasonable, since this 1870 game has far, far more in common with the 1875 Montreal game than the latter has in common with a 2014 NHL game (for example). It would therefore be silly to group the latter two together while keeping the former two separate.
In fact the authors take to task the very phrase "hockey as we know it today", since it is so often used to justify this division. Hockey before the first Montreal game was not hockey as we know it today, therefore it can be dismissed from being "true" ice hockey. But as GHM point out, the hockey played in Montreal in 1875 is also not "hockey as we know it today", so the argument has no basis. They list a number of examples of offenders in this regard, including me. So I will take this opportunity to retract my comment, with the explanation that it was more a case of lazy writing than actually making the offending argument. I intended to refer to the set of hockey games that can be shown to have evolved directly from the first Montreal game, not to suggest that the first Montreal game was indeed hockey as we know it today.
Astute readers may also notice that the definition or organized hockey that I used in On His Own Side of the Puck may appear to be just such an arbitrary definition, designed to exclude pre-Montreal hockey from consideration. To that I will say that my purpose in writing that definition is very narrow, and it is not intended for general use in the hockey origins discussion. In fact, I was never entirely happy with using the term "organized hockey" for it, but I was short on options. I was trying to describe the set of hockey games that can be shown to have evolved directly from the first Montreal game. I could have used "organized Montreal hockey", I suppose, but its later growth far beyond the borders of that city would make such a term problematic. A more precise term would be "the version of organized hockey that was first played in Montreal in 1875, and all subsequent versions of hockey that can be demonstrated to have developed directly from that version", but I think you'll agree that's more than a bit unwieldy. Ultimately my point is that nothing in GHM's work contradicts my own; they are looking at the entire spiderweb, while I was looking at only a single strand.
There was at least one other recorded game of organized hockey played in England before 1875. On February 2, 1871, the Moor Park team defeated an Oxford side by a score of 5-2. We again know the identities of the goal scorers, and Moor Park's Algernon Grosvenor (a noted sportsman in his lifetime) scored three of them (p. 72), making him the scorer of the first recorded ice hockey hat trick, contrary to what you've previously read here at Hockey Historysis (sorry, Mr. Geddes, that honour no longer belongs to you.)
These are just a few examples of the many astounding bits of evidence that GHM present to support their conclusions. As a researcher myself, the amount of information that these three historians have accumulated from a wide variety of sources is mind-boggling. The result is that there is nothing we can say about early ice hockey that has been shown to have happened in Canada that the authors cannot show happened in England even earlier, and that's the crux of the argument. If you must point at a place to be called ice hockey's birthplace, it would be England (based on the evidence currently available to us). The cradle, however, would be Canada, and that's where the game grew and matured to its heights.
If you are at all interested in the early years of hockey history, and in the development of the game, you absolutely need this book. If, however, you are more interested in holding on to cherished existing ideas about where hockey came from, then you should probably skip it (although I would encourage you to have more intellectual curiosity than that). But if you're looking for facts, this volume cannot be impugned, and it is perhaps the single most important contribution to the study of this aspect of hockey history that has ever been published. And I don't think I am exaggerating that point.
A review of On the Origin of Hockey
You may have seen some of the many headlines in response to the new book On the Origin of Hockey, which was launched this past weekend, declaring that “Hockey is actually an English game!” or words to that effect. The book is purported to prove that hockey, the game so long considered to be a Canadian one, was really born in England. Is this true? Have the Canadian origins of the great winter game been completely refuted?
The short answer is no, not really. But fortunately for the authors (Carl Giden, Patrick Houda and Jean-Patrice Martel, or GHM for short), that's not what they claim to prove. They are clear that the transition from the early forms of hockey to the modern version was given impetus and took place in Canada, and without the Canadian influence the sport would not be the great one that we have today. If we look at the very last paragraph in the book, for instance, we see that GHM have no interest in declaring hockey anything other than Canadian:
Today, regardless of where it is played, hockey is a truly Canadian game. That is the legacy of the first Montreal game, thanks in large part to the leadership of James Creighton, who recognized how ideally suited to Canada's climate and people the game of ice hockey was, and who masterfully gave it the impulse it needed to become the greatest winter sport that exists. (p. 267)So we apparently cannot rely on the mainstream media to provide an accurate picture of what the book it about, which is to be expected given the relatively nuanced position that the authors take. But if refuting hockey's Canadianness is not the point of the book, then what is? What conclusions do GHM actually put forth in their work? Fortunately for our purposes, they provide a concise summary of their findings in their final chapter. They are:
1. Ice hockey...was played in England for several decades before it was played in Canada.
2. There were several instances of organized hockey games played in England before the one played on March 3, 1875 in Montreal.
3. No reasonable definition of hockey could be imagined that would include all games played in Montreal since March 3, 1875, but exclude all games played in England to that date.
4. Prior to the 1890s...bandy and hockey were exactly the same activity, called by different names depending on the region.
5. The activity in which children and adults engaged on ice with skates in England in the 19th century – and even before – was not merely a variety of “stick and ball games.” It was hockey.
6. Ice hockey does not have mysterious origins. It came very naturally to English (and other British) field hockey players who took their game to the ice and put on skates when the weather provided such ice, which occurred almost every winter.None of these statements are merely asserted. Voluminous evidence and analysis is provided to lead the reader clearly to each conclusion. GHM do discuss the “birthplace of hockey” claims made about various Canadian locales, from those with almost nothing to support them (Windsor, Nova Scotia) to those with much more evidence behind them (Halifax, for example). However, the real point is that “birthplace” is an improper term to use, something that other hockey authors have argued in the past (such as Bill Fitsell in How Hockey Happened). The authors acknowledge that there is evidence that early forms of hockey were played at some of these locales in Canada, but present evidence that such hockey was played across the Atlantic before being played in Canada. Ice hockey was not first invented in Canada, but it was certainly grown and developed here. Indeed, the authors admit that they cannot say hockey was invented in England either, just that the earliest recorded evidence (which has been uncovered only recently) for hockey played on ice comes from that country.
(pp.257-259)
In order to reach such a conclusion, GHM rely on a definition of hockey developed by the Society for International Hockey Research (SIHR) in their 2002 Report of the Sub-Committee Looking into Claim that Windsor, Nova Scotia, is the Birthplace of Hockey. This definition consists of only six points: ice surface, two contesting teams, players on skates, use of curved sticks, small propellant (a ball or puck), objective of scoring on opposite goals. (p. 31) The authors clearly demonstrate that, using this definition of hockey, the game was played in England before it was played in Canada.They also forcefully demonstrate that based on this definition, early bandy is not merely a "hockey-like game", it is in fact hockey. If one wishes to call bandy a hockey-like game, one must call the first Montreal game in 1875 a hockey-like game as well.
This is not the first work to suggest that early forms of hockey originated in Britain, ultimately. However, the general consensus has long been that “organized” hockey had its beginnings in Montreal. This is the attitude presented in the SIHR report, which went beyond its mandate of examining the Windsor claim, and put forward Montreal as the birthplace of organized hockey. This is because an organized hockey match was played in Montreal on March 3, 1875, and it is the first recorded game of its kind. Or at least, it was the earliest known recorded match at the time the SIHR report was written.
GHM present volumes of evidence that has been uncovered in the years since the SIHR report was published. For example, the authors discuss a game of hockey that was played on December 27, 1870 in Spetchley, Worcestershire and that was reported in two newspapers. Two 10-man teams played in this match, one representing Worcester and the other, Spetchley. The latter club took the match by a score of 4-3, and we even know the identities of the goal-scorers (Tyler, Yeates and A. Everill for Worcester; Tayler, Wheeler, Dale and Francisco for Spetchley [p. 74]), which is information we are missing for the first Montreal game. As GHM point out, you may be able to develop a definition of organized hockey that would exclude this game but include the first Montreal match, however such a definition would have to be arbitrary and designed specifically to exclude the former. Such a definition would be unreasonable, since this 1870 game has far, far more in common with the 1875 Montreal game than the latter has in common with a 2014 NHL game (for example). It would therefore be silly to group the latter two together while keeping the former two separate.
In fact the authors take to task the very phrase "hockey as we know it today", since it is so often used to justify this division. Hockey before the first Montreal game was not hockey as we know it today, therefore it can be dismissed from being "true" ice hockey. But as GHM point out, the hockey played in Montreal in 1875 is also not "hockey as we know it today", so the argument has no basis. They list a number of examples of offenders in this regard, including me. So I will take this opportunity to retract my comment, with the explanation that it was more a case of lazy writing than actually making the offending argument. I intended to refer to the set of hockey games that can be shown to have evolved directly from the first Montreal game, not to suggest that the first Montreal game was indeed hockey as we know it today.
Astute readers may also notice that the definition or organized hockey that I used in On His Own Side of the Puck may appear to be just such an arbitrary definition, designed to exclude pre-Montreal hockey from consideration. To that I will say that my purpose in writing that definition is very narrow, and it is not intended for general use in the hockey origins discussion. In fact, I was never entirely happy with using the term "organized hockey" for it, but I was short on options. I was trying to describe the set of hockey games that can be shown to have evolved directly from the first Montreal game. I could have used "organized Montreal hockey", I suppose, but its later growth far beyond the borders of that city would make such a term problematic. A more precise term would be "the version of organized hockey that was first played in Montreal in 1875, and all subsequent versions of hockey that can be demonstrated to have developed directly from that version", but I think you'll agree that's more than a bit unwieldy. Ultimately my point is that nothing in GHM's work contradicts my own; they are looking at the entire spiderweb, while I was looking at only a single strand.
There was at least one other recorded game of organized hockey played in England before 1875. On February 2, 1871, the Moor Park team defeated an Oxford side by a score of 5-2. We again know the identities of the goal scorers, and Moor Park's Algernon Grosvenor (a noted sportsman in his lifetime) scored three of them (p. 72), making him the scorer of the first recorded ice hockey hat trick, contrary to what you've previously read here at Hockey Historysis (sorry, Mr. Geddes, that honour no longer belongs to you.)
These are just a few examples of the many astounding bits of evidence that GHM present to support their conclusions. As a researcher myself, the amount of information that these three historians have accumulated from a wide variety of sources is mind-boggling. The result is that there is nothing we can say about early ice hockey that has been shown to have happened in Canada that the authors cannot show happened in England even earlier, and that's the crux of the argument. If you must point at a place to be called ice hockey's birthplace, it would be England (based on the evidence currently available to us). The cradle, however, would be Canada, and that's where the game grew and matured to its heights.
If you are at all interested in the early years of hockey history, and in the development of the game, you absolutely need this book. If, however, you are more interested in holding on to cherished existing ideas about where hockey came from, then you should probably skip it (although I would encourage you to have more intellectual curiosity than that). But if you're looking for facts, this volume cannot be impugned, and it is perhaps the single most important contribution to the study of this aspect of hockey history that has ever been published. And I don't think I am exaggerating that point.
Thursday, 22 December 2011
Thoughts on Hockey's Origins
If you follow hockey history, you'll know that there's often been a lively debate about the "birthplace" of hockey. Several locales in Canada have laid their claims to this honour, amongst them Montreal, Kingston, Halifax and Windsor, Nova Scotia. These claims all have varying degrees of evidence supporting them (Windsor, for example, bases its claim on a passage in a work of fiction which is misrepresented as a "memoir"), but nothing has ever really been resolved. It always strikes me that part of the reason for the conflict is that people don't really define what they mean by "hockey" when they want to claim their home town as its birthplace.
Hockey can mean a number of things. Its original usage simply meant the activity of hitting a thing with a stick, and also referred to the stick with which you hit the thing. No ice need be involved, nor skates, nor teams. So finding a reference to "hockey" in the 17th century isn't enough to establish that hockey, as we know it today, was played then. You need more than that. That didn't stop the Fostys from making that mistake, of course. If you're going to quote a source talking about "hockey", you need to make sure they mean what you mean by the term. Otherwise any analysis is moot.
I have previously defined hockey (adding the qualifier "modern" for extra clarity) as follows:
I can't agree with that, since even today we have two separate words to describe these games: hockey and shinny. If informal games of hockey played on natural ice are the very same thing as the hockey played in the NHL, then why do we have a seperate term for the outdoor game? Any line you draw between "modern" hockey and "pre-modern" hockey will be at least somewhat arbitrary, but the delineation between modern, organized hockey and simple, informal hockey does seem appropriate. At the very least, it might help people to stop talking past each other when discussing the origins of the game.
The only thing that might approach general agreement among hockey historians is that the modern, organized version of hockey has its roots in Montreal, with the game played on March 3, 1875, organized by Halifax native James Creighton and played between two sides of nine men apiece, which a 2002 report by the Society for International Hockey Research calls "the earliest eyewitness account known ... of a specific game of hockey in a specific place at a specific time, and with a recorded score, between two identified teams." But I'm not sure that even this is sufficient to be recognized as "modern" hockey. The main differentiator between this game and earlier ones is that it was played indoors in the Victoria Skating Rink, rather than simply on a frozen lake, pond or river.
I've been of a mind lately that 1883 may be a better date for the beginnings of modern hockey, with the first Montreal Winter Carnival Tournament, which was arguably the first truly competitive hockey event. That is, I think "competitive" is a very important aspect of the definition of modern hockey, which is why informal games of shinny on frozen ponds should not be considered "modern" hockey.
Of course, just because something isn't modern, doesn't mean it's not important. I'm certainly not advocating that modern hockey is the only game we need concern ourselves with. I'm just trying to add a little perspective to the discussion, to help it along. You can't discuss the origins of hockey without first defining what you mean by hockey, and that crucial first step is often omitted entirely.
Hockey can mean a number of things. Its original usage simply meant the activity of hitting a thing with a stick, and also referred to the stick with which you hit the thing. No ice need be involved, nor skates, nor teams. So finding a reference to "hockey" in the 17th century isn't enough to establish that hockey, as we know it today, was played then. You need more than that. That didn't stop the Fostys from making that mistake, of course. If you're going to quote a source talking about "hockey", you need to make sure they mean what you mean by the term. Otherwise any analysis is moot.
I have previously defined hockey (adding the qualifier "modern" for extra clarity) as follows:
Modern hockey is a competitive game that is played on an ice rink by two teams made up of an equal number of players wearing skates, who play using a codified set of rules, and use sticks to try to propel a puck though their opponents' goal.I still don't know if that's a sufficient definition or not. By modern hockey, I want to mean the earliest formalized version of the game that we can trace back directly from the version of the game we know today. Some historians, when advocating for a particular birthplace of hockey, will argue that the current game we know, and the informal game mid-19th century folks played on their ponds and rivers, are the same thing.
I can't agree with that, since even today we have two separate words to describe these games: hockey and shinny. If informal games of hockey played on natural ice are the very same thing as the hockey played in the NHL, then why do we have a seperate term for the outdoor game? Any line you draw between "modern" hockey and "pre-modern" hockey will be at least somewhat arbitrary, but the delineation between modern, organized hockey and simple, informal hockey does seem appropriate. At the very least, it might help people to stop talking past each other when discussing the origins of the game.
The only thing that might approach general agreement among hockey historians is that the modern, organized version of hockey has its roots in Montreal, with the game played on March 3, 1875, organized by Halifax native James Creighton and played between two sides of nine men apiece, which a 2002 report by the Society for International Hockey Research calls "the earliest eyewitness account known ... of a specific game of hockey in a specific place at a specific time, and with a recorded score, between two identified teams." But I'm not sure that even this is sufficient to be recognized as "modern" hockey. The main differentiator between this game and earlier ones is that it was played indoors in the Victoria Skating Rink, rather than simply on a frozen lake, pond or river.
I've been of a mind lately that 1883 may be a better date for the beginnings of modern hockey, with the first Montreal Winter Carnival Tournament, which was arguably the first truly competitive hockey event. That is, I think "competitive" is a very important aspect of the definition of modern hockey, which is why informal games of shinny on frozen ponds should not be considered "modern" hockey.
Of course, just because something isn't modern, doesn't mean it's not important. I'm certainly not advocating that modern hockey is the only game we need concern ourselves with. I'm just trying to add a little perspective to the discussion, to help it along. You can't discuss the origins of hockey without first defining what you mean by hockey, and that crucial first step is often omitted entirely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)