Jim,

I can't say it was any worse or any better then those incidents you
mentioned with one exception. What Schultz did was part of the way the
Flyers played. They delighted in cheating (as in breaking the rules) and
hurting people. No one would argue that the Canucks or Bruins used
premeditated violence as part of their overall strategy. They were lack a
pack of wolves who attacked at the slighest provocation or excuse (usually
created by themselves). No NHL team before or since played like that.

That web site I attached a link to is not mine by the way. I came across it
while looking for information on the Schultz/Rolfe incident.

Now did the Flyers wreck hockey? As I said earlier that is hard to say. The
NHL is still operating so in one sense no they didn't. But the writer of the
post which I posted made some good points about TV contracts and such. The
fact that the NHL did have network TV contracts up to then and really has
struggled since then. I know from personal experience, that the image of
hockey in much of the US is disastrous. I work for a US based firm and when
I am in the US and talk about sports to my colleagues most laugh at hockey
and don't take it seriously as a legitimate sport. The reason for that is
fighting. Many view it as the WWE on skates. Is that fair or accurate? No it
isn't. But perception become reality. I am sure many people walked away from
baseball after the Black Sox scandal - even after baseball took such strong
measures to deal with the players. We'll never know how many fans hockey
lost due to the Flyers.

Craig



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Dornberger" <jpdornberger@...>
To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 4:42 PM
Subject: [hockhist] Re: Broad St. Bullies, the bane of hockey


> Craig,
>
> I pointed out that Schultz attack on Rolfe was indefensible.  But
> what exactly makes it worse than Eddie Shore's, Marty McSorley's &
> Todd Bertuzzi's which were 30 years before AND after.  As to the
> Flyers ruining the sport, it was you who quoted, and therefore we
> assume you endorse, the long diatribe that someone wrote on your
> website that did say this:
>
> "No one person, just as no one team has been the catalyst for the
> demise of any sport in recent history. Even the 1919 Black Sox
> couldnt kill the National Pastime. It was down but not out. Just as
> the likes of Sosa, McGuire and Palmeiro may give it a large and shiny
> but temporary black eye; they cant knock out baseball.
>
> However, the Philadelphia Flyers of the 1970s may have come closest."
>
> I don't think that one 5 year period in the early 70s is what current
> fans and non-fans are concentrating on when they do or don't watch
> today's game.
>
> Jim
>
>
> --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "Craig" <argonauts25@s...> wrote:
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> Just a couple of points.
>>
>> 1. In so far as the Rolfe/Schultz "fight" while you are correct in
> that
>> Rolfe did play again I'd suggest you watch a tape of the incident
> (game 7 is
>> available on video tape - I own it.) This was not a normal (if
> there is such
>> a thing) hockey fight. This was a mugging pure and simple. Schultz
> (who
>> started the fight) not only drove his fist with great force into
> Rolfe's
>> face numerous times, he grabbed Rolfe's hair and hung onto that
> while he
>> pummelled him. Schultz was doing his very best to commit bodily
> harm to a
>> player who certainly was not well known for his fighting prowess.
> In the
>> "real world" Dave would have faced charges. In the somewhat bizarre
> world of
>> the NHL many considered him a hero.
>>
>> Now did this turn out well for the Flyers? It sure did. Think of
> this.
>> Nobody from the Rangers jumped into the fight and so there was a
> perception
>> that the Schultz assault or attack (let us use the correct
> terminology here
>> please) "cowed" the Rangers. However what if a Ranger did jump in?
> The other
>> players on the ice at the time were Brad Park, Ed Giacomin, and I
> believe
>> the GAG line of Jean Ratelle, Rod Gilbert, and Vic Hadfield. If one
> of those
>> players get's involved the Flyers still win as the Rangers lose an
> all star
>> in the most important game of the year. If Schultz get's thrown out
> who
>> cares? The guy couldn't play and they still had other mouth
> breathing,
>> knuckle dragging baboons like Bob Kelly, Ed Van Impe, Don Saleski,
> and Andre
>> Dupont among others they could throw out there as cannon fodder.
> Let me say
>> something else hear. If any the Flyers who were on the ice at that
> time had
>> even an iota of class or ethics, one of them would have pulled
> Schultz off
>> an obviously endangered Rolfe. Instead you see smirks on several of
> their
>> faces. Shows the level of human decency they possesed. But I guess
> that is
>> okay. Commit a criminal act by beating up a helpless person as long
> as it
>> helps you line your pockets with playoff money.
>>
>> 2. Watch game 3 of that series (also available on video tape) and
> watch how
>> the Flyers fared when there was a referee handling the game
> who...gasp...
>> actually enforced the rule book to the letter. Brian Lewis called
> everything
>> the Flyers did in that game and that allowed the Rangers to skate.
> When that
>> happened it was very clear the Flyers could not compete. Rod
> Gilbert, Steve
>> Vickers, Brad Park, Walter Tkaczuk, etc skated circles around the
> befuddled
>> Flyers. So much for Shero's great system! It relied on the fact
> that most
>> NHL referees would only call so many penalties against them. If you
> got
>> somebody like a Bruce Hood or Brian Lewis who would actually
> enforce the
>> rule book they were sunk.
>>
>> The Flyers were not without talent. Rick MacLeish, Bobby Clarke,
> Bill
>> Barber, Bernie Parent, Jimmy Watson, and Reg Leach were outstanding
> hockey
>> players. But this was not a true championship calibre team if (and
> this is a
>> big if in the world of the NHL) the rule book was actually
> enforced. There
>> were other tough teams in the past. Teams like the late 60's Boston
> Bruins
>> or as was mentioned the St. Louis Blues of the late 60's. But the
> difference
>> between them and the Flyers was the tough guys on those teams could
> play.
>> The Plagers while not stars had long NHL careers and were very
> capable
>> defensemen. Derek Sanderson, John McKenzie, Ted Green, etc of
> Boston were
>> fine players who were also tough. Take fighting out of the game and
> these
>> guys are still in the league. The Flyers though became the first
> team to win
>> through brutal violence using players like Dave Schultz who clearly
> lacked
>> the talent to be a legitimate NHL player.
>>
>> Did they wreck the NHL? I don't know about that. They were a good
> draw
>> (however so is a plane crash - people are drawn to morbid things)
> so in the
>> short term they didn't seem to hurt thing. But in that era how many
> teams
>> failed and either had to move or folded? And (and we can never be
> sure of
>> this) how many fans simply walked away from the game due to the
> violece and
>> didn't let their kids get invol;ved in it. More then a few.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jim Dornberger" <jpdornberger@c...>
>> To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:40 PM
>> Subject: [hockhist] Re: Broad St. Bullies, the bane of hockey
>>
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> I wrote my defense of the Flyers because of the original "The Flyers
>> Impact on Hockey" thread by Craig who quoted this other idio.
>> gentleman who postulated that the 74-75 Flyers were nearly the
>> ruination of hockey.  Craig also decried the beating that Dale Rolfe
>> took at the hands of Dave Schultz in the playoffs (I was 8 rows
>> behind Eddie Giacomin in the 1st & 3rd for that one).  Clearly,
>> though indefensible, it is not better or worse than incidents before
>> and after that one.  Rolfe did play again, unlike Steve Moore and
>> others who have taken beatings in the game (how about all the facial
>> surgeries that Lou Fontanato endured after being pummeled by Gordie
>> Howe, or "Mr. Old Tyme Hockey, Eddie Shore ending Ace Baileys career
>> with a stick over the head that damn near killed him and requiring
>> brain surgery).
>>
>> I am also replying to JP Martel who said:
>>
>> > NHL Franchise Records 1926-04
>> >
>> > Team GP W L T OTL Pts %
>> > Montreal Canadiens 5352 2751 1742 831 32 .595
>> > Philadelphia 2965 1488 999 457 24 .583
>>
>> "Jim, nobody ever said that the tactics used by the Flyers in the
>> 1970s didn't work. The argument is that they nearly killed hockey."
>>
>> and
>>
>> "This other guy had never watched a single hockey game in his life,
>> even though he was usually interested in sports. When I asked him
> how
>> come he'd never even tried it once, he answered: "Well, hockey, it's
>> like roller derby on skates, right?" And that's what he honestly
>> believed."
>>
>> My point is that the Flyers did not invent the violence inherent in
>> hockey it was there before and it exists today (notwithstanding the
>> current rules changes and teams not wanting addition PIMs for
>> fighting).  My other point is that they are the 2nd winningest team
>> ever and they did most of it on skill - they only did the goon stuff
>> for about 5 years - but there reputation seems cast in stone.
>>
>> The thing is that the franchise is known for that because that's
> what
>> put it on the map.  Also, the collective conscience of non-fans only
>> knows hockey when it was in Time or Newsweek (as the Flyers did in
>> the 70s) or the evening news for stuff like what Mart McSorley or
>> Todd Bertuzzi did.  To blame the leagues' reputation with non-fans
> on
>> the Flyers ignores over 100 years of brutal violence that has been
>> part of the sport.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> By the way they were designed to "goon first" Parent, Clarke,
> Barber,
>> MacLeish, Flett were all on the team prior to Schultz, Saleski and
>> Dupont.
>>
>> I don't know what people mean by "they were allowed to get away with
>> it".  They rung more penalty minutes than any other team -- what did
>> they get away with?
>>
>> --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "goaliedave" <goaliedave@s...>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > Jim,
>> >
>> > I think the main point we are saying is that the idea of a team
>> designed
>> > "goon first", that was tolerated by the league to put caual USA
>> fans in the
>> > seats at any cost, with an easy ride through the playoffs... was
>> more a
>> > speed bump in the history of hockey than a major contributor.
> True,
>> after
>> > Beliveau and Ferguson retired there were a few years while the
> Habs
>> retooled
>> > and other teams got to win a few cups, but surely you can't
> compare
>> Philly's
>> > success to the Habs' prominence in 25 of 30 years in the 50s, 60s,
>> 70s ?
>> > (not to mention the Leafs and Wings). I'd put the Flyers Cups with
>> > Pittsburgh's ... things came together for a couple of years and
>> great for
>> > them, but not much impact on the NHL in the long term.
>> >
>> > Most fans these days weren't watching back then, and Gretzky is
>> sort of the
>> > starting block for the latest generation of the game. The Oilers,
>> much as I
>> > hated them, took over the Habs team design using  the traditional
>> policeman
>> > on a line of great players and rode it to deserved glory. The Habs
>> > management has fumbled around since the last dynasty, and with the
>> new NHL
>> > we see much more even competition, most teams have realized the
>> goon game is
>> > gone and the play is back to free flowing. I don't hear many fans
>> wishing
>> > for the old clutch and grab, hold and whack, gang up and pound,
> WHA
>> talent
>> > drained, days of the early 70s.
>> >
>> > Dave in Whitby
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
>> hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
> hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Craig,

Fighting in hockey is not cheating.  Doing more of it than anyone else
and still winning is almost counter-intuitive.  Despite that fact
that the Schultz-Rolfe incident seems to be indelibly scribed in your
memory -- it was just another of the numerous example of a fight
getting out of hand.

Jim

By the way the fight that stands the test of time in the mind of
Philly fans was Simon Nolet throttling John Ferguson on a nationally
televised game 2 months before the first Cup.


--- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "Craig" <argonauts25@s...> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> I can't say it was any worse or any better then those incidents you
> mentioned with one exception. What Schultz did was part of the way
the
> Flyers played. They delighted in cheating (as in breaking the
rules) and
> hurting people. No one would argue that the Canucks or Bruins used
> premeditated violence as part of their overall strategy. They were
lack a
> pack of wolves who attacked at the slighest provocation or excuse
(usually
> created by themselves). No NHL team before or since played like
that.
>
> That web site I attached a link to is not mine by the way. I came
across it
> while looking for information on the Schultz/Rolfe incident.
>
> Now did the Flyers wreck hockey? As I said earlier that is hard to
say. The
> NHL is still operating so in one sense no they didn't. But the
writer of the
> post which I posted made some good points about TV contracts and
such. The
> fact that the NHL did have network TV contracts up to then and
really has
> struggled since then. I know from personal experience, that the
image of
> hockey in much of the US is disastrous. I work for a US based firm
and when
> I am in the US and talk about sports to my colleagues most laugh at
hockey
> and don't take it seriously as a legitimate sport. The reason for
that is
> fighting. Many view it as the WWE on skates. Is that fair or
accurate? No it
> isn't. But perception become reality. I am sure many people walked
away from
> baseball after the Black Sox scandal - even after baseball took
such strong
> measures to deal with the players. We'll never know how many fans
hockey
> lost due to the Flyers.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Dornberger" <jpdornberger@c...>
> To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 4:42 PM
> Subject: [hockhist] Re: Broad St. Bullies, the bane of hockey
>
>
> > Craig,
> >
> > I pointed out that Schultz attack on Rolfe was indefensible.  But
> > what exactly makes it worse than Eddie Shore's, Marty McSorley's &
> > Todd Bertuzzi's which were 30 years before AND after.  As to the
> > Flyers ruining the sport, it was you who quoted, and therefore we
> > assume you endorse, the long diatribe that someone wrote on your
> > website that did say this:
> >
> > "No one person, just as no one team has been the catalyst for the
> > demise of any sport in recent history. Even the 1919 Black Sox
> > couldnt kill the National Pastime. It was down but not out. Just
as
> > the likes of Sosa, McGuire and Palmeiro may give it a large and
shiny
> > but temporary black eye; they cant knock out baseball.
> >
> > However, the Philadelphia Flyers of the 1970s may have come
closest."
> >
> > I don't think that one 5 year period in the early 70s is what
current
> > fans and non-fans are concentrating on when they do or don't watch
> > today's game.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "Craig" <argonauts25@s...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jim,
> >>
> >> Just a couple of points.
> >>
> >> 1. In so far as the Rolfe/Schultz "fight" while you are correct
in
> > that
> >> Rolfe did play again I'd suggest you watch a tape of the incident
> > (game 7 is
> >> available on video tape - I own it.) This was not a normal (if
> > there is such
> >> a thing) hockey fight. This was a mugging pure and simple.
Schultz
> > (who
> >> started the fight) not only drove his fist with great force into
> > Rolfe's
> >> face numerous times, he grabbed Rolfe's hair and hung onto that
> > while he
> >> pummelled him. Schultz was doing his very best to commit bodily
> > harm to a
> >> player who certainly was not well known for his fighting prowess.
> > In the
> >> "real world" Dave would have faced charges. In the somewhat
bizarre
> > world of
> >> the NHL many considered him a hero.
> >>
> >> Now did this turn out well for the Flyers? It sure did. Think of
> > this.
> >> Nobody from the Rangers jumped into the fight and so there was a
> > perception
> >> that the Schultz assault or attack (let us use the correct
> > terminology here
> >> please) "cowed" the Rangers. However what if a Ranger did jump
in?
> > The other
> >> players on the ice at the time were Brad Park, Ed Giacomin, and I
> > believe
> >> the GAG line of Jean Ratelle, Rod Gilbert, and Vic Hadfield. If
one
> > of those
> >> players get's involved the Flyers still win as the Rangers lose
an
> > all star
> >> in the most important game of the year. If Schultz get's thrown
out
> > who
> >> cares? The guy couldn't play and they still had other mouth
> > breathing,
> >> knuckle dragging baboons like Bob Kelly, Ed Van Impe, Don
Saleski,
> > and Andre
> >> Dupont among others they could throw out there as cannon fodder.
> > Let me say
> >> something else hear. If any the Flyers who were on the ice at
that
> > time had
> >> even an iota of class or ethics, one of them would have pulled
> > Schultz off
> >> an obviously endangered Rolfe. Instead you see smirks on several
of
> > their
> >> faces. Shows the level of human decency they possesed. But I
guess
> > that is
> >> okay. Commit a criminal act by beating up a helpless person as
long
> > as it
> >> helps you line your pockets with playoff money.
> >>
> >> 2. Watch game 3 of that series (also available on video tape) and
> > watch how
> >> the Flyers fared when there was a referee handling the game
> > who...gasp...
> >> actually enforced the rule book to the letter. Brian Lewis called
> > everything
> >> the Flyers did in that game and that allowed the Rangers to
skate.
> > When that
> >> happened it was very clear the Flyers could not compete. Rod
> > Gilbert, Steve
> >> Vickers, Brad Park, Walter Tkaczuk, etc skated circles around the
> > befuddled
> >> Flyers. So much for Shero's great system! It relied on the fact
> > that most
> >> NHL referees would only call so many penalties against them. If
you
> > got
> >> somebody like a Bruce Hood or Brian Lewis who would actually
> > enforce the
> >> rule book they were sunk.
> >>
> >> The Flyers were not without talent. Rick MacLeish, Bobby Clarke,
> > Bill
> >> Barber, Bernie Parent, Jimmy Watson, and Reg Leach were
outstanding
> > hockey
> >> players. But this was not a true championship calibre team if
(and
> > this is a
> >> big if in the world of the NHL) the rule book was actually
> > enforced. There
> >> were other tough teams in the past. Teams like the late 60's
Boston
> > Bruins
> >> or as was mentioned the St. Louis Blues of the late 60's. But the
> > difference
> >> between them and the Flyers was the tough guys on those teams
could
> > play.
> >> The Plagers while not stars had long NHL careers and were very
> > capable
> >> defensemen. Derek Sanderson, John McKenzie, Ted Green, etc of
> > Boston were
> >> fine players who were also tough. Take fighting out of the game
and
> > these
> >> guys are still in the league. The Flyers though became the first
> > team to win
> >> through brutal violence using players like Dave Schultz who
clearly
> > lacked
> >> the talent to be a legitimate NHL player.
> >>
> >> Did they wreck the NHL? I don't know about that. They were a good
> > draw
> >> (however so is a plane crash - people are drawn to morbid things)
> > so in the
> >> short term they didn't seem to hurt thing. But in that era how
many
> > teams
> >> failed and either had to move or folded? And (and we can never be
> > sure of
> >> this) how many fans simply walked away from the game due to the
> > violece and
> >> didn't let their kids get invol;ved in it. More then a few.
> >>
> >> Craig
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Jim Dornberger" <jpdornberger@c...>
> >> To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:40 PM
> >> Subject: [hockhist] Re: Broad St. Bullies, the bane of hockey
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave,
> >>
> >> I wrote my defense of the Flyers because of the original "The
Flyers
> >> Impact on Hockey" thread by Craig who quoted this other idio.
> >> gentleman who postulated that the 74-75 Flyers were nearly the
> >> ruination of hockey.  Craig also decried the beating that Dale
Rolfe
> >> took at the hands of Dave Schultz in the playoffs (I was 8 rows
> >> behind Eddie Giacomin in the 1st & 3rd for that one).  Clearly,
> >> though indefensible, it is not better or worse than incidents
before
> >> and after that one.  Rolfe did play again, unlike Steve Moore and
> >> others who have taken beatings in the game (how about all the
facial
> >> surgeries that Lou Fontanato endured after being pummeled by
Gordie
> >> Howe, or "Mr. Old Tyme Hockey, Eddie Shore ending Ace Baileys
career
> >> with a stick over the head that damn near killed him and
requiring
> >> brain surgery).
> >>
> >> I am also replying to JP Martel who said:
> >>
> >> > NHL Franchise Records 1926-04
> >> >
> >> > Team GP W L T OTL Pts %
> >> > Montreal Canadiens 5352 2751 1742 831 32 .595
> >> > Philadelphia 2965 1488 999 457 24 .583
> >>
> >> "Jim, nobody ever said that the tactics used by the Flyers in the
> >> 1970s didn't work. The argument is that they nearly killed
hockey."
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> "This other guy had never watched a single hockey game in his
life,
> >> even though he was usually interested in sports. When I asked him
> > how
> >> come he'd never even tried it once, he answered: "Well, hockey,
it's
> >> like roller derby on skates, right?" And that's what he honestly
> >> believed."
> >>
> >> My point is that the Flyers did not invent the violence inherent
in
> >> hockey it was there before and it exists today (notwithstanding
the
> >> current rules changes and teams not wanting addition PIMs for
> >> fighting).  My other point is that they are the 2nd winningest
team
> >> ever and they did most of it on skill - they only did the goon
stuff
> >> for about 5 years - but there reputation seems cast in stone.
> >>
> >> The thing is that the franchise is known for that because that's
> > what
> >> put it on the map.  Also, the collective conscience of non-fans
only
> >> knows hockey when it was in Time or Newsweek (as the Flyers did
in
> >> the 70s) or the evening news for stuff like what Mart McSorley or
> >> Todd Bertuzzi did.  To blame the leagues' reputation with non-
fans
> > on
> >> the Flyers ignores over 100 years of brutal violence that has
been
> >> part of the sport.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> By the way they were designed to "goon first" Parent, Clarke,
> > Barber,
> >> MacLeish, Flett were all on the team prior to Schultz, Saleski
and
> >> Dupont.
> >>
> >> I don't know what people mean by "they were allowed to get away
with
> >> it".  They rung more penalty minutes than any other team -- what
did
> >> they get away with?
> >>
> >> --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "goaliedave" <goaliedave@s...>
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Jim,
> >> >
> >> > I think the main point we are saying is that the idea of a team
> >> designed
> >> > "goon first", that was tolerated by the league to put caual USA
> >> fans in the
> >> > seats at any cost, with an easy ride through the playoffs...
was
> >> more a
> >> > speed bump in the history of hockey than a major contributor.
> > True,
> >> after
> >> > Beliveau and Ferguson retired there were a few years while the
> > Habs
> >> retooled
> >> > and other teams got to win a few cups, but surely you can't
> > compare
> >> Philly's
> >> > success to the Habs' prominence in 25 of 30 years in the 50s,
60s,
> >> 70s ?
> >> > (not to mention the Leafs and Wings). I'd put the Flyers Cups
with
> >> > Pittsburgh's ... things came together for a couple of years and
> >> great for
> >> > them, but not much impact on the NHL in the long term.
> >> >
> >> > Most fans these days weren't watching back then, and Gretzky is
> >> sort of the
> >> > starting block for the latest generation of the game. The
Oilers,
> >> much as I
> >> > hated them, took over the Habs team design using  the
traditional
> >> policeman
> >> > on a line of great players and rode it to deserved glory. The
Habs
> >> > management has fumbled around since the last dynasty, and with
the
> >> new NHL
> >> > we see much more even competition, most teams have realized the
> >> goon game is
> >> > gone and the play is back to free flowing. I don't hear many
fans
> >> wishing
> >> > for the old clutch and grab, hold and whack, gang up and pound,
> > WHA
> >> talent
> >> > drained, days of the early 70s.
> >> >
> >> > Dave in Whitby
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
> >> hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
> > hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Whoa!  Sorry about the old messages.  Should have snipped 'em.

Just a few points on several issues...please read ALL before
responding...and it is long...and you will see that I think that there
is a middle ground between pacifist and free for all...

First of all Craig, you may say that some people snicker at hockey
resembling the WWE...The last time that I looked the WWE did pretty well
on TV and has a bottom line that the NHL would kill for and the WWEE
could probably afford to buy and sell the NHL...and I am not just
speculating. McMahon has a VERY PROFITABLE billion dollar bottom line.
Hence your assertion that America runs away with revulsion to violence
is an absurdity. If we did, Schwartzenegger would just be an muscle
bound ex body builder, Van Damme, and Segal would be struggling kick
boxers working out of sweaty gyms, not millionaires and baseball, would
have stayed the national pastime over football! Violence is not why
American don't watch hockey. It is interesting when I talk to people
like that I always suggest college hockey and you know something there
is always another excuse. We just had a women's game around here that
went over like lead balloon--sorry Dave but I can tell you a market to
not even look at! In fact, even the reporters were saying to me "it was
the most boring evening I ever spent in a rink--I'd rather watch a high
school game." One of the MANY big problems was the lack of real contact.
In fact that is one thing that I am hearing about the "new NHL"...a lot
of fans want more hitting. I know some long time fans that say "I can't
even watch it anymore..." Does that mean we ought to go back to clutch
and grab...NO! But they DO want to see some more plain good old fashion
hitting and as the players and refs adjust and we see more there is
nothing but approval.

Violence sells. For every purist like you and Mike who avoid paying to
see it there are many others for whom it is a major attraction. Jim is
right, The Flyers did not "destroy hockey" nor come close, if anything
they may brought people out to see the game that would not have done so
if not for hearing about this wild and wooly bunch of Western Canadians.
But an odd thing happened they found out that there was MORE to hockey
than just the fights. I think it actually had an odd sort of reverse
effect. People came out for the violence and found out that there was a
great game wrapped around it. It was sort of like the movie that shows a
ton of T and A in their ads and people come out for that but find out
that there is a plot there too. Dave, it was bad publicity, but at the
same time sometimes bad publicity ifs better than NO publicity.
Controversy can work in your favor.
Philly got turned on to hockey because of that rough and tumble style,
but the game has transcended it. Sure Philadelphians still love their
tough guys but they also see that there is a game there too to watch. I
lived through that era here in Philly and have an interesting
perspective as I was a young hockey player at the time. I always looked
at the Schultz's Army type of fan as a bunch of idiots who couldn't
appreciate my game. But as time went on I found out that there was more
to them than that. Violence drew them to the game but they got more
educated as they followed it and their kids are real hockey fans. They
like fighting, sure but they also see beyond it.

As for people not allowing their kids to play...violence is not the big
issue as to why we don't have more players in the US. It is a
combination of reasons. One, the game is not an infused part of our
culture like the big three. Odds are your dad didn't play it, odds are
the local town doesn't rotate around it like high school football, there
are less college scholarships available and to get one you are usually
waiting until you are 20 in this game to get one and you are not out
there skating in gym class learning to play it like the other three.
Just as importantly it is plain old EXPENSIVE to play! It is totally
tuition based down here and in most of the country it will run into
thousands per year to play at the travel level. In this area you are
talking about 1500 to 2000 tuition to play HIGH SCHOOL hockey, the costs
are prohibitive to schools to sponsor it. Ice time runs between 200 and
300 dollars an hour! To play travel the tuition alone not counting the
travel cost or equipment goes from 2500 to 6000! This stuff scares
people off more than violence!

Fighting is there to stay unless we see a trend away from the appeal of
violence to the general public. But as Mike points out that appeal is an
old thing and goes way past sports and there is no end to that appeal in
sight.

Regarding Bertuzzi...I think people forget something...Todd Bertuzzi is
not a bad hockey player! He is a big guy that has hands and skill! He is
the sort of guy that it is not easy to stop and he and others offer a
dimension that gives Canada a big edge. NO OTHER team has the number of
big guys with skill that they have and most team defenses in the
Olympics don't match up well to that. He is not having a great year I'll
grant you but I think people have forgotten that the guy can PLAY!
People say that Hockey Canada ought to make a statement on violence by
him...but then again at what point does a guy serve his sentence? The
legal authorities say he is clear, the NHL says he is clear. He was
punished for the deed and now we go on. I'm not saying that he was a
slam dunk for the team but if not for the Moore episode would many
people question his ability? I can see an argument for his selection to
the team. He is a big power forward. Big guys that can move and have
hands will ALWAYS be a MAJOR commodity. Like I always say to people "you
couldn't stop an Iginla when you could mug him, so what are you going to
do now?" In international play a big guy that can move and has hands is
a commodity just like in the "new NHL". Now if we are talking current
form it is another thing altogether but then we would also have to talk
Nash who has missed the year. Then we get into the debate of do you
select the best team on form or abilities and seek chemistry in the
context of those abilities. And that is an age old question...And
Bertuzzi is not the only questionable selection top the roster nor
Crosby the only questionable omission from it. But this is the beauty of
the Canadian talent pool it is so DEEP! But it also means I don't care
WHO selected this team, there will be controversy! And you know
something if Bertuzzi caught fire the next month and began top light
things up more and you guys lost to our "USA USA" chanting face painting
masses in February there would be folks saying "you should have brought
him..." The selectors have a tough job, nothing less than a gold medal
can be acceptable and if the team loses so much as one game they come
under fire. Running Team Canada is the toughest job in hockey, there is
NO margin for error and anything less than perfection gets lambasted!

And speaking of making statements...I now see that Jack "Head Hunter"
Johnson is going to skate away scott free in the world junior from his
attempted lynching of Downie...the guy takes a head hunting elbow at a
guy after a goal was scored in open ice yet he gets "5 for
kneeing"...KNEEING? He would have to be Bruce Lee to have gotten Downie
in the head with a knee! It was after all his head not his nether
regiosn that he was grabbing after the cheap shot! And of course the
IIHF is listening to what their ref said...not what the tape tells us
and is copping out! Johnson should be DONE FOR THE TOURNEY. No ifs ands
or buts still he will play as if NOTHING happened. After a pre meditated
cheap shot like that he is allowed to walk? Instead of bleating on about
fighting and the NHL we ought to be screaming about this travesty? What
he did was a disgrace to the US team and the tournament. There is NO
ROOM for it!

Now to light a fire...may be he wouldn't have done it if fighting was
allowed in international play. Downie is an irritant and no angel. He
also was VERY effective all game playing Johnson HARD. Had he been able
to challenge Downie earlier the frustration may not have mounted to the
point of him going head hunter. Now one can say that even with fighting
stuff happens...which is true but there is a counter argument. You can
also say that other sports don't need fighting but then again other
sports don't involve a stick and football gives you a chance to croke
the other so and so the very next play, hockey does not always do that
as there are very delineated circumstances of contact especially today.

Now I have never been a big believer that fighting is a necessity from
anything except marketing but I know a lot of junior hockey types from
leagues that have no gate to speak of; administrators, coaches and
players who are SCREAMING that some of their leagues have dropped it.
They say it is tougher to keep the players under control from taking
cheap shots. I hear the same thing in my summer league where I do not
allow fighting and use NCAA rules. Now in the summer I see it as the
less of two evils, if I didn't use NCAA rules I'd have a nightly riot!
But in the fall, where the penalties for a player are more important to
a guy's career so I was very interested to hear this and I must say a
bit surprised. These guys have no gate that they draw so money is not
the issue. They do have and have had their own kids playing and are
responsible for their player's behavior. It is interesting to hear THEM
say "bring back fighting." To me, their saying this holds more weight
than when I have heard pros use the safety valve argument on the issue.
I always come back and say that the rule makes sense as these kids are
training to play college hockey where there is no fighting...the return
is that "we have to cope with them in the meantime and it doesn't work."
And watching midget hockey where fighting is not allowed, I have to say
that when thongs degenerate it is MUCH worse than in junior leagues
where it is allowed. I have seen some NASTY cheap shots over the years
in those situations and one kid ends up sitting 30 days and the other
hurt as opposed to both sitting for 5 minutes and no one going to the
hospital.

Why does it work in college? I don't know. All I can do is to theorize.
And in all honesty there is stick work as well as some NASTY hits from
behind in college hockey that probably would not happen if there was an
alternative. Is fighting a deterrent? The farthest I would go is to say
"sometimes." Of course a better solution would be less teams thus there
would be no real talent shortage and more inspiration to have a higher
level of skill in the game, yes, including some bona fide fights between
legit players like the old days...but that falls on deaf ears at ALL
levels! Euro leagues can go decades with no expansion but we have this
overdriving concept of "more is better" that has been our ruination from
day one. The more players that we need the more standards slip...and
tactics degenerate with them.

Finally in answer to Mike's postulation of a shorter schedule...quite
frankly there IS NO reason outside of money plain and simple. I can't
avoid one of the two reason that you said "please don't say" which is
your answer...there is NO OTHER reason. And take note what I say
above...European leagues have different economics and philosophies. From
a purely hockey stand point it would be better if we were more like
them. If we had shorter schedules, promo/relegation as opposed to
expansion and the pro teams themselves running youth development from
knee high op up guaranteeing better training standards as we would make
development paramount not ego at the youth level or economics at the
higher youth levels. But our system is entrenched and if anything I
expect that they will become more like us...money doesn't talk it
screams! So much for dreaming...

>The last time that I looked the WWE did pretty well
> on TV and has a bottom line that the NHL would kill for and the WWEE
> could probably afford to buy and sell the NHL...and I am not just
> speculating. McMahon has a VERY PROFITABLE billion dollar bottom line.

Vince McMahon had a piece of the original Atlantic Coast Hockey League.

Keith Lenn, The Hockey Collector
hockeycollector@...

Bill,

I won't argue your points except for one. I didn't assert Americans run from
violence at all. My point was hockey isn't accepted as a "serious" sport due
to the fighting. There is a big difference between what you felt I said and
what I actually meant. And I realize the WWE is very profitable but it is
not a serious "sport." In fact it isn't a sport at all. (Which reminds me of
a radio show I was listening to in the mid 80's when it was announced that
NHL pros could now play in the Olympics. A caller called in and asked if
that meant Hulk Hogan could not wrestle for the US in the Olympics. The host
said he believed that was the case, however Mr. Hogan would have to learn
how to wrestle first!)

Craig


----- Original Message -----
From: "William Underwood" <wausport@...>
To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: [hockhist] Digest Number 3355


> Just a few points on several issues...please read ALL before
> responding...and it is long...and you will see that I think that there
> is a middle ground between pacifist and free for all...
>
> First of all Craig, you may say that some people snicker at hockey
> resembling the WWE...The last time that I looked the WWE did pretty well
> on TV and has a bottom line that the NHL would kill for and the WWEE
> could probably afford to buy and sell the NHL...and I am not just
> speculating. McMahon has a VERY PROFITABLE billion dollar bottom line.
> Hence your assertion that America runs away with revulsion to violence
> is an absurdity. If we did, Schwartzenegger would just be an muscle
> bound ex body builder, Van Damme, and Segal would be struggling kick
> boxers working out of sweaty gyms, not millionaires and baseball, would
> have stayed the national pastime over football! Violence is not why
> American don't watch hockey. It is interesting when I talk to people
> like that I always suggest college hockey and you know something there
> is always another excuse. We just had a women's game around here that
> went over like lead balloon--sorry Dave but I can tell you a market to
> not even look at! In fact, even the reporters were saying to me "it was
> the most boring evening I ever spent in a rink--I'd rather watch a high
> school game." One of the MANY big problems was the lack of real contact.
> In fact that is one thing that I am hearing about the "new NHL"...a lot
> of fans want more hitting. I know some long time fans that say "I can't
> even watch it anymore..." Does that mean we ought to go back to clutch
> and grab...NO! But they DO want to see some more plain good old fashion
> hitting and as the players and refs adjust and we see more there is
> nothing but approval.
>
> Violence sells. For every purist like you and Mike who avoid paying to
> see it there are many others for whom it is a major attraction. Jim is
> right, The Flyers did not "destroy hockey" nor come close, if anything
> they may brought people out to see the game that would not have done so
> if not for hearing about this wild and wooly bunch of Western Canadians.
> But an odd thing happened they found out that there was MORE to hockey
> than just the fights. I think it actually had an odd sort of reverse
> effect. People came out for the violence and found out that there was a
> great game wrapped around it. It was sort of like the movie that shows a
> ton of T and A in their ads and people come out for that but find out
> that there is a plot there too. Dave, it was bad publicity, but at the
> same time sometimes bad publicity ifs better than NO publicity.
> Controversy can work in your favor.
> Philly got turned on to hockey because of that rough and tumble style,
> but the game has transcended it. Sure Philadelphians still love their
> tough guys but they also see that there is a game there too to watch. I
> lived through that era here in Philly and have an interesting
> perspective as I was a young hockey player at the time. I always looked
> at the Schultz's Army type of fan as a bunch of idiots who couldn't
> appreciate my game. But as time went on I found out that there was more
> to them than that. Violence drew them to the game but they got more
> educated as they followed it and their kids are real hockey fans. They
> like fighting, sure but they also see beyond it.
>
> As for people not allowing their kids to play...violence is not the big
> issue as to why we don't have more players in the US. It is a
> combination of reasons. One, the game is not an infused part of our
> culture like the big three. Odds are your dad didn't play it, odds are
> the local town doesn't rotate around it like high school football, there
> are less college scholarships available and to get one you are usually
> waiting until you are 20 in this game to get one and you are not out
> there skating in gym class learning to play it like the other three.
> Just as importantly it is plain old EXPENSIVE to play! It is totally
> tuition based down here and in most of the country it will run into
> thousands per year to play at the travel level. In this area you are
> talking about 1500 to 2000 tuition to play HIGH SCHOOL hockey, the costs
> are prohibitive to schools to sponsor it. Ice time runs between 200 and
> 300 dollars an hour! To play travel the tuition alone not counting the
> travel cost or equipment goes from 2500 to 6000! This stuff scares
> people off more than violence!
>
> Fighting is there to stay unless we see a trend away from the appeal of
> violence to the general public. But as Mike points out that appeal is an
> old thing and goes way past sports and there is no end to that appeal in
> sight.
>
> Regarding Bertuzzi...I think people forget something...Todd Bertuzzi is
> not a bad hockey player! He is a big guy that has hands and skill! He is
> the sort of guy that it is not easy to stop and he and others offer a
> dimension that gives Canada a big edge. NO OTHER team has the number of
> big guys with skill that they have and most team defenses in the
> Olympics don't match up well to that. He is not having a great year I'll
> grant you but I think people have forgotten that the guy can PLAY!
> People say that Hockey Canada ought to make a statement on violence by
> him...but then again at what point does a guy serve his sentence? The
> legal authorities say he is clear, the NHL says he is clear. He was
> punished for the deed and now we go on. I'm not saying that he was a
> slam dunk for the team but if not for the Moore episode would many
> people question his ability? I can see an argument for his selection to
> the team. He is a big power forward. Big guys that can move and have
> hands will ALWAYS be a MAJOR commodity. Like I always say to people "you
> couldn't stop an Iginla when you could mug him, so what are you going to
> do now?" In international play a big guy that can move and has hands is
> a commodity just like in the "new NHL". Now if we are talking current
> form it is another thing altogether but then we would also have to talk
> Nash who has missed the year. Then we get into the debate of do you
> select the best team on form or abilities and seek chemistry in the
> context of those abilities. And that is an age old question...And
> Bertuzzi is not the only questionable selection top the roster nor
> Crosby the only questionable omission from it. But this is the beauty of
> the Canadian talent pool it is so DEEP! But it also means I don't care
> WHO selected this team, there will be controversy! And you know
> something if Bertuzzi caught fire the next month and began top light
> things up more and you guys lost to our "USA USA" chanting face painting
> masses in February there would be folks saying "you should have brought
> him..." The selectors have a tough job, nothing less than a gold medal
> can be acceptable and if the team loses so much as one game they come
> under fire. Running Team Canada is the toughest job in hockey, there is
> NO margin for error and anything less than perfection gets lambasted!
>
> And speaking of making statements...I now see that Jack "Head Hunter"
> Johnson is going to skate away scott free in the world junior from his
> attempted lynching of Downie...the guy takes a head hunting elbow at a
> guy after a goal was scored in open ice yet he gets "5 for
> kneeing"...KNEEING? He would have to be Bruce Lee to have gotten Downie
> in the head with a knee! It was after all his head not his nether
> regiosn that he was grabbing after the cheap shot! And of course the
> IIHF is listening to what their ref said...not what the tape tells us
> and is copping out! Johnson should be DONE FOR THE TOURNEY. No ifs ands
> or buts still he will play as if NOTHING happened. After a pre meditated
> cheap shot like that he is allowed to walk? Instead of bleating on about
> fighting and the NHL we ought to be screaming about this travesty? What
> he did was a disgrace to the US team and the tournament. There is NO
> ROOM for it!
>
> Now to light a fire...may be he wouldn't have done it if fighting was
> allowed in international play. Downie is an irritant and no angel. He
> also was VERY effective all game playing Johnson HARD. Had he been able
> to challenge Downie earlier the frustration may not have mounted to the
> point of him going head hunter. Now one can say that even with fighting
> stuff happens...which is true but there is a counter argument. You can
> also say that other sports don't need fighting but then again other
> sports don't involve a stick and football gives you a chance to croke
> the other so and so the very next play, hockey does not always do that
> as there are very delineated circumstances of contact especially today.
>
> Now I have never been a big believer that fighting is a necessity from
> anything except marketing but I know a lot of junior hockey types from
> leagues that have no gate to speak of; administrators, coaches and
> players who are SCREAMING that some of their leagues have dropped it.
> They say it is tougher to keep the players under control from taking
> cheap shots. I hear the same thing in my summer league where I do not
> allow fighting and use NCAA rules. Now in the summer I see it as the
> less of two evils, if I didn't use NCAA rules I'd have a nightly riot!
> But in the fall, where the penalties for a player are more important to
> a guy's career so I was very interested to hear this and I must say a
> bit surprised. These guys have no gate that they draw so money is not
> the issue. They do have and have had their own kids playing and are
> responsible for their player's behavior. It is interesting to hear THEM
> say "bring back fighting." To me, their saying this holds more weight
> than when I have heard pros use the safety valve argument on the issue.
> I always come back and say that the rule makes sense as these kids are
> training to play college hockey where there is no fighting...the return
> is that "we have to cope with them in the meantime and it doesn't work."
> And watching midget hockey where fighting is not allowed, I have to say
> that when thongs degenerate it is MUCH worse than in junior leagues
> where it is allowed. I have seen some NASTY cheap shots over the years
> in those situations and one kid ends up sitting 30 days and the other
> hurt as opposed to both sitting for 5 minutes and no one going to the
> hospital.
>
> Why does it work in college? I don't know. All I can do is to theorize.
> And in all honesty there is stick work as well as some NASTY hits from
> behind in college hockey that probably would not happen if there was an
> alternative. Is fighting a deterrent? The farthest I would go is to say
> "sometimes." Of course a better solution would be less teams thus there
> would be no real talent shortage and more inspiration to have a higher
> level of skill in the game, yes, including some bona fide fights between
> legit players like the old days...but that falls on deaf ears at ALL
> levels! Euro leagues can go decades with no expansion but we have this
> overdriving concept of "more is better" that has been our ruination from
> day one. The more players that we need the more standards slip...and
> tactics degenerate with them.
>
> Finally in answer to Mike's postulation of a shorter schedule...quite
> frankly there IS NO reason outside of money plain and simple. I can't
> avoid one of the two reason that you said "please don't say" which is
> your answer...there is NO OTHER reason. And take note what I say
> above...European leagues have different economics and philosophies. From
> a purely hockey stand point it would be better if we were more like
> them. If we had shorter schedules, promo/relegation as opposed to
> expansion and the pro teams themselves running youth development from
> knee high op up guaranteeing better training standards as we would make
> development paramount not ego at the youth level or economics at the
> higher youth levels. But our system is entrenched and if anything I
> expect that they will become more like us...money doesn't talk it
> screams! So much for dreaming...
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
> hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oops - one more point here. I don't in any way view hitting (as in body
checking) as violence. And I do feel that it should be allowed in women's
hockey. To me I really enjoy a well played, hard hitting game.

Craig



----- Original Message -----
From: "William Underwood" <wausport@...>
To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: [hockhist] Digest Number 3355


> Just a few points on several issues...please read ALL before
> responding...and it is long...and you will see that I think that there
> is a middle ground between pacifist and free for all...
>
> First of all Craig, you may say that some people snicker at hockey
> resembling the WWE...The last time that I looked the WWE did pretty well
> on TV and has a bottom line that the NHL would kill for and the WWEE
> could probably afford to buy and sell the NHL...and I am not just
> speculating. McMahon has a VERY PROFITABLE billion dollar bottom line.
> Hence your assertion that America runs away with revulsion to violence
> is an absurdity. If we did, Schwartzenegger would just be an muscle
> bound ex body builder, Van Damme, and Segal would be struggling kick
> boxers working out of sweaty gyms, not millionaires and baseball, would
> have stayed the national pastime over football! Violence is not why
> American don't watch hockey. It is interesting when I talk to people
> like that I always suggest college hockey and you know something there
> is always another excuse. We just had a women's game around here that
> went over like lead balloon--sorry Dave but I can tell you a market to
> not even look at! In fact, even the reporters were saying to me "it was
> the most boring evening I ever spent in a rink--I'd rather watch a high
> school game." One of the MANY big problems was the lack of real contact.
> In fact that is one thing that I am hearing about the "new NHL"...a lot
> of fans want more hitting. I know some long time fans that say "I can't
> even watch it anymore..." Does that mean we ought to go back to clutch
> and grab...NO! But they DO want to see some more plain good old fashion
> hitting and as the players and refs adjust and we see more there is
> nothing but approval.
>
> Violence sells. For every purist like you and Mike who avoid paying to
> see it there are many others for whom it is a major attraction. Jim is
> right, The Flyers did not "destroy hockey" nor come close, if anything
> they may brought people out to see the game that would not have done so
> if not for hearing about this wild and wooly bunch of Western Canadians.
> But an odd thing happened they found out that there was MORE to hockey
> than just the fights. I think it actually had an odd sort of reverse
> effect. People came out for the violence and found out that there was a
> great game wrapped around it. It was sort of like the movie that shows a
> ton of T and A in their ads and people come out for that but find out
> that there is a plot there too. Dave, it was bad publicity, but at the
> same time sometimes bad publicity ifs better than NO publicity.
> Controversy can work in your favor.
> Philly got turned on to hockey because of that rough and tumble style,
> but the game has transcended it. Sure Philadelphians still love their
> tough guys but they also see that there is a game there too to watch. I
> lived through that era here in Philly and have an interesting
> perspective as I was a young hockey player at the time. I always looked
> at the Schultz's Army type of fan as a bunch of idiots who couldn't
> appreciate my game. But as time went on I found out that there was more
> to them than that. Violence drew them to the game but they got more
> educated as they followed it and their kids are real hockey fans. They
> like fighting, sure but they also see beyond it.
>
> As for people not allowing their kids to play...violence is not the big
> issue as to why we don't have more players in the US. It is a
> combination of reasons. One, the game is not an infused part of our
> culture like the big three. Odds are your dad didn't play it, odds are
> the local town doesn't rotate around it like high school football, there
> are less college scholarships available and to get one you are usually
> waiting until you are 20 in this game to get one and you are not out
> there skating in gym class learning to play it like the other three.
> Just as importantly it is plain old EXPENSIVE to play! It is totally
> tuition based down here and in most of the country it will run into
> thousands per year to play at the travel level. In this area you are
> talking about 1500 to 2000 tuition to play HIGH SCHOOL hockey, the costs
> are prohibitive to schools to sponsor it. Ice time runs between 200 and
> 300 dollars an hour! To play travel the tuition alone not counting the
> travel cost or equipment goes from 2500 to 6000! This stuff scares
> people off more than violence!
>
> Fighting is there to stay unless we see a trend away from the appeal of
> violence to the general public. But as Mike points out that appeal is an
> old thing and goes way past sports and there is no end to that appeal in
> sight.
>
> Regarding Bertuzzi...I think people forget something...Todd Bertuzzi is
> not a bad hockey player! He is a big guy that has hands and skill! He is
> the sort of guy that it is not easy to stop and he and others offer a
> dimension that gives Canada a big edge. NO OTHER team has the number of
> big guys with skill that they have and most team defenses in the
> Olympics don't match up well to that. He is not having a great year I'll
> grant you but I think people have forgotten that the guy can PLAY!
> People say that Hockey Canada ought to make a statement on violence by
> him...but then again at what point does a guy serve his sentence? The
> legal authorities say he is clear, the NHL says he is clear. He was
> punished for the deed and now we go on. I'm not saying that he was a
> slam dunk for the team but if not for the Moore episode would many
> people question his ability? I can see an argument for his selection to
> the team. He is a big power forward. Big guys that can move and have
> hands will ALWAYS be a MAJOR commodity. Like I always say to people "you
> couldn't stop an Iginla when you could mug him, so what are you going to
> do now?" In international play a big guy that can move and has hands is
> a commodity just like in the "new NHL". Now if we are talking current
> form it is another thing altogether but then we would also have to talk
> Nash who has missed the year. Then we get into the debate of do you
> select the best team on form or abilities and seek chemistry in the
> context of those abilities. And that is an age old question...And
> Bertuzzi is not the only questionable selection top the roster nor
> Crosby the only questionable omission from it. But this is the beauty of
> the Canadian talent pool it is so DEEP! But it also means I don't care
> WHO selected this team, there will be controversy! And you know
> something if Bertuzzi caught fire the next month and began top light
> things up more and you guys lost to our "USA USA" chanting face painting
> masses in February there would be folks saying "you should have brought
> him..." The selectors have a tough job, nothing less than a gold medal
> can be acceptable and if the team loses so much as one game they come
> under fire. Running Team Canada is the toughest job in hockey, there is
> NO margin for error and anything less than perfection gets lambasted!
>
> And speaking of making statements...I now see that Jack "Head Hunter"
> Johnson is going to skate away scott free in the world junior from his
> attempted lynching of Downie...the guy takes a head hunting elbow at a
> guy after a goal was scored in open ice yet he gets "5 for
> kneeing"...KNEEING? He would have to be Bruce Lee to have gotten Downie
> in the head with a knee! It was after all his head not his nether
> regiosn that he was grabbing after the cheap shot! And of course the
> IIHF is listening to what their ref said...not what the tape tells us
> and is copping out! Johnson should be DONE FOR THE TOURNEY. No ifs ands
> or buts still he will play as if NOTHING happened. After a pre meditated
> cheap shot like that he is allowed to walk? Instead of bleating on about
> fighting and the NHL we ought to be screaming about this travesty? What
> he did was a disgrace to the US team and the tournament. There is NO
> ROOM for it!
>
> Now to light a fire...may be he wouldn't have done it if fighting was
> allowed in international play. Downie is an irritant and no angel. He
> also was VERY effective all game playing Johnson HARD. Had he been able
> to challenge Downie earlier the frustration may not have mounted to the
> point of him going head hunter. Now one can say that even with fighting
> stuff happens...which is true but there is a counter argument. You can
> also say that other sports don't need fighting but then again other
> sports don't involve a stick and football gives you a chance to croke
> the other so and so the very next play, hockey does not always do that
> as there are very delineated circumstances of contact especially today.
>
> Now I have never been a big believer that fighting is a necessity from
> anything except marketing but I know a lot of junior hockey types from
> leagues that have no gate to speak of; administrators, coaches and
> players who are SCREAMING that some of their leagues have dropped it.
> They say it is tougher to keep the players under control from taking
> cheap shots. I hear the same thing in my summer league where I do not
> allow fighting and use NCAA rules. Now in the summer I see it as the
> less of two evils, if I didn't use NCAA rules I'd have a nightly riot!
> But in the fall, where the penalties for a player are more important to
> a guy's career so I was very interested to hear this and I must say a
> bit surprised. These guys have no gate that they draw so money is not
> the issue. They do have and have had their own kids playing and are
> responsible for their player's behavior. It is interesting to hear THEM
> say "bring back fighting." To me, their saying this holds more weight
> than when I have heard pros use the safety valve argument on the issue.
> I always come back and say that the rule makes sense as these kids are
> training to play college hockey where there is no fighting...the return
> is that "we have to cope with them in the meantime and it doesn't work."
> And watching midget hockey where fighting is not allowed, I have to say
> that when thongs degenerate it is MUCH worse than in junior leagues
> where it is allowed. I have seen some NASTY cheap shots over the years
> in those situations and one kid ends up sitting 30 days and the other
> hurt as opposed to both sitting for 5 minutes and no one going to the
> hospital.
>
> Why does it work in college? I don't know. All I can do is to theorize.
> And in all honesty there is stick work as well as some NASTY hits from
> behind in college hockey that probably would not happen if there was an
> alternative. Is fighting a deterrent? The farthest I would go is to say
> "sometimes." Of course a better solution would be less teams thus there
> would be no real talent shortage and more inspiration to have a higher
> level of skill in the game, yes, including some bona fide fights between
> legit players like the old days...but that falls on deaf ears at ALL
> levels! Euro leagues can go decades with no expansion but we have this
> overdriving concept of "more is better" that has been our ruination from
> day one. The more players that we need the more standards slip...and
> tactics degenerate with them.
>
> Finally in answer to Mike's postulation of a shorter schedule...quite
> frankly there IS NO reason outside of money plain and simple. I can't
> avoid one of the two reason that you said "please don't say" which is
> your answer...there is NO OTHER reason. And take note what I say
> above...European leagues have different economics and philosophies. From
> a purely hockey stand point it would be better if we were more like
> them. If we had shorter schedules, promo/relegation as opposed to
> expansion and the pro teams themselves running youth development from
> knee high op up guaranteeing better training standards as we would make
> development paramount not ego at the youth level or economics at the
> higher youth levels. But our system is entrenched and if anything I
> expect that they will become more like us...money doesn't talk it
> screams! So much for dreaming...
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
> hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just wanted to step in with a woman's point of view on this discussion of
fighting and violence  (although I don't pretend to represent all women).

First, I have to confess that I am a hockey purist and I love to watch a
speedy game with hits along the boards. I have never enjoyed watching Forsberg,
Messier or Bertuzzi act like goons, particularly when all of them are so
talented. Schultz, who in my opinion had no skill, was in another class
completely.
But goonery in any form is different in my eyes than fighting.

When I go to games in the US and sit in the stands, at no matter which pro
level, most men sitting near me love the fights. They cheer at goals, but
nothing gets them as excited as the fighting. From my vantage point, its almost
like
they are vicariously participating in it. I wonder if it is partly that in
the US, where few fans actually play hockey, it is easier to identify with the
fighters than with the skilled players. Maybe its because these fans know that
the fighters really are marginal players, regular guys, doing what these guys
in the stands would love to do. It is controlled aggression and I don't know
that many guys that don't like this idea.

This behavior is not attractive to females and young children, but honestly,
how many of them are really the paying customers. I don't know that many
wives, girlfriends, and younger children whose idea it is to go to a game. Its
almost always the guy and he brings along the others. So its the guys that
hockey
is looking to attract, at least at the pro level.

For me this is all just an annoyance and a waste of time, but I wait for it
to be over and the penalties handed out and hope that the flow of the game is
not too distrupted. Yes, that part of the "show" is like WWF, but it is
meaningless and if it brings males into the seats, its okay with me. (BTW, at
the
junior, college, and amateur level, I am totally opposed to fighting; in my
opinion, the kids' judgment is not sufficiently well developed to allow that
kind
of shinanegans; one kid goes too far and the other can really get hurt).

Now goonery is another story. In my opinion, it brings shame on all of hockey
and seriously damages the game. Whether its stick swinging incidents, driving
a player's head into the ice in retaliation, or an elbow to a player's head
because you have been scuffling, its totally not acceptable. I really don't
care that it has been going on since the begginning of days. So has murder, and
we don't allow that (unless its by someone in hollywood). I am of the opinion
that if you intentionally injure someone and they never play again, you should
not either; no exceptions. Bertuzzi should not be on the ice in organized
hockey anywhere. If the powers that be enforced this once, the players would
clean
up their act, but quick. Additionally, anyone conspiring with a player that
injures another should get the same penalty. As for Jack Johnson, he should be
out of the WJCs for this year and not invited to return (I think he will still
be eligible next year, but I have not looked at his birthdate). If this
penalty would be doled out, the US may lose any chance of winning this year, but
the coaches would amke sure that it would never happen again. Understand that I
am not talking about playing on the edge, or even taking penalties. I am
discussing intent to injure.

Earlier on I brought up Forsberg and Messier as examples of highly skilled
players who played in a way that I believe is over the edge. I think that should
be stopped too, and I believe that under the new NHL rules it mostly has, at
least on the NHL and AHL levels. (On the ECHL level, where the new rules are
not enforced in a real way, things can get out of hand rather quickly. But the
more out of hand things get, the more some of the fans at this level seem to
enjoy the game. As an aside, someone ought to do a psychological study of the
ECHL fans; although some of the cities seem to attract normal folks, in others,
they are a rather scary bunch).

Thanks for listening to my rant. Happy holidays to all.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(1)  What is this obsession with the Schultz-Rolfe fight?

   From what I read at the time and watched at the time, for as ugly as the
Schultz-Rolfe fight was, it was an order of magnitude less barbarian than what
the Flyers were alleged to have done to Barry Cummins of the California Golden
Seals in December of 1973.

   Maybe JP saw the game on cable, maybe Brad Kurtzberg has a tape.  The wire
service stories described it well at the time, but nobody editorializes about
THAT incident any more, basically because it wasn't a Stanley Cup Game on HNIC.

   I thought Schultz's bloodying of John Van Boxmeer in an NBC-televised
game-of-the-week was just as bad as the Rolfe affair--I watched both--this was
the game in which Ted Lindsay, who was doing colour for NBC, responded to this
immediately, in a very animated fashion, by saying that Van Boxmeer had better
get out there right away (after stitches at the Clinic) to re-assert himself or
he would be done.  Lindsay caught a lot of flack for that (mostly from the
Canadian press).

   (2)  Why are those Flyers teams described as having 'added' goons to their
talented (Clarke, Parent, MacLeish) line-up?  Ed Van Impe, Gary Dornhoefer and
Ross Lonsberry weren't exactly Lady Byng Trophy candidates in the mid-to-late
1960's.  They played tough hockey, a little on the chippy side, and even if
teams didn't fight with Schultz, Saleski or Kelly, they had to contend with the
endless elbows, butt-ends and spears of that supporting cast (including Clarke),
line after line, shift after shift.  The Flyers just wore you down.  They would
fight you a lot, but I would suggest it was the little game (inside stickwork)
-- more than the fights -- which intimidated teams.  I remember Van Impe
blatantly spearing a young Don Lever, and the rest of the Canucks, especially
the French kids (Richard Lemieux, Bobby Lalonde and Jocelyn Guevremont) just
quit.  [Not impugning French Canadians with that comment, they just didn't play
that style.]  I think even Jim Robson got ticked off, not
  with the Flyers, but with the rest of the Canucks.  Schultz et al weren't
needed versus the Canucks after that.

   (3)  Craig touched on a good point about the small number of referees who
would actually call penalty after penalty against the Flyers.  This is part of
the bigger question of officiating and 'evening things up'.  For whatever
reason, almost all referees will not let the game finish up with a lop-sided
tally of minor penalties.  Fred Shero must be acknowledged for having been
perhaps the first major league coach to exploit this truism of officiating.  (I
am assuming he learned this in the minors, where it must have been used
successfully in the 1960's EHL and discussed amongst the hockey coaching
brethren.)

   Referees will let a lot go before calling a second infraction against a
short-handed team.  So the Flyers laid on the lumber, cross checked, grabbed,
facewashed, you name it, daring the official to call the second penalty.  So
what if they did, they had Clarke, Watson, Ashbee and Parent to kill it off. 
Then what.  What referee was going to call three in a row?  So it was mayhem in
front of Parent.  Then you're back at even strength and Kelly takes a run at
somebody with his stick up.  Same thing.  What referee is going to put a team
two men short twice in a period?  More contact, legal and illegal, and the
Flyers are out of the first period equal on the scoreboard, or maybe up on a
goal or two by MacLeish, Barber or Leach, and the opposition has called it a
night after 20 minutes.  Game over right there.  Parent sees eight more floater
shots for the rest of the night.  Flyers win, Flyers win.

   Funny thing, this tactic didn't go away with the Habs' Cup win in 1976 or the
departure of Freddy the Fog for Broadway.  Mike Keenan used exactly the same
tactics in the 1994 Stanley Cup Final versus Vancouver.  Dare the officials to
call the second and third penalty, and most deliciously of all, know that there
are going to be some wonderful 'even-up' calls against Dana Murzyn or Tim
Hunter.  He had Pat Quinn completely flustered because of it.  If nothing else,
he got Pat Quinn off his game, worrying about the officiating, and that was part
of the edge the Rangers needed and used to win the Cup in seven.

   (4)  Craig, do you want to retract your inference about there being US network
coverage of the NHL before the Flyers, and none now, as a consequence of the
Bullies?  That is patently bizarre.  There was network coverage of the NHL after
the Flyers' rise and after the Flyers' fall.  The tastes of viewers have evolved
so much in the past 25 years...the rise in popularity and proliferation of NFL
games, of college sports, of the NBA, of NASCAR, of golf...so many more choices
today than before.  The NHL has been squeezed out by other options.

   That the NHL has been incapable in the past 25 years of connecting with
viewers in the same way as the other alternatives, is an arugment worth
debating, but I don't believe the Broad Street Bullies are the reason there is
no connectivity.  If somebody thought they could make a buck on the NHL product
they'd buy the time on the networks.  Don't forget, there was the great
breakthrough of the 1980 US Olympic team, the NHL did everything they could to
capitalize on it (Jim Craig of the Atlanta Flames on the cover of SI), they had
a US-based dynasty to start the 80's who played it straight, then fire wagon
hockey for the rest of the 1980's, Gretzky in LA, what more could you want...the
game still doesn't sell on TV, as others have said, it is not a 'native'
American game which kids grow up playing on the playgrounds.

   My rant to star the New Year.  Peace to all of you for 2006.

   Rob in 905


---------------------------------
  Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 1/1/2006 2:22:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hockeycollector@... writes:
Vince McMahon had a piece of the original Atlantic Coast Hockey League.
He took over the Cape Cod Buccaneers prior to the start of the 81-82 season
when the original owner failed to pay the franchise fee to the league. McMahon
owned the Cape Cod Coliseum and was originally going to be the team's landlord.

It was a real shock when the Buccaneers folded mid season.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

List Rules

1. Do not be rude to you fellow list members. (Please don't get offended too
easily either.)

2. NO SPAM. It's all right to advertise items for sell for now. DON'T LET IT GET
OUT OF HAND. This list isn't intended to be a flea market.

3. Don't contact other list members about Amway, USANA or other multi-level
marketing schemes. We should all remain friends here.

4. Do not attach files. Instead, give list members a FTP or WWW location where
they can download the file. You can upload files to the group website at
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/hockhist/files/. Please use this
responsibly.

5. Languages other than English are permitted. Again, don't be rude. Some of us
are multi-lingual.

6. A list member may post no more than 5 messages a day with a 2 message leaway.

7. List members will keep their posts under 30Kb in size. If your not sure what
30Kb is, you should be safe if you keep posts under 45 lines.

8. Violation of any of these rules may result in a warning, temporary removal or
permanent removal from this list. You may also be restricted to what you can
post.

Hi Everybody and Happy New Year:

I think the obsession with the Schultz-Rolfe fight is because it was in the
deciding game of the playoffs and on national TV.  It was also the first time an
expansion team beat an established team in a playoff series and the Flyers went
on the to win the Cup shortly thereafter.

Anyway, as for the Cummins incident, I wish I had a videotape of it.  Because
the Seals didn't have any TV coverage that year (or radio for that matter) and
the Flyers didn't send a crew all the way to Oakland, the league didn't even
have a videotape of the incident when Clarence Campbell was handing down fines
and suspensions.  I know when I interviewed Cummins for my book, he mentioned
that the incident probably ended his NHL career.  He lost some confidence after
the incident and wondered what he had become.  He was also shocked by the
reaction of the Flyers, several of whom he knew from juniors.

The Flyers also had a horrible incident with the Seals a year later when 4
Flyers went into the penalty box to beat up Mike Christie, again in Oakland.

The Broad Street Bullies are tough to assess.  I think there's little doubt they
hurt the NHL's chances of keeping a national TV deal in the U.S.   When the
league should have been promoting Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito and Marcel Dionne, it
was stuck with the Flyers and their bully tactics.  The casual American sports
fan who barely followed hockey only saw stories about fights on the news, on 60
Minutes or Time Magazine.  Also, in a span of about 5 years, major league hockey
had gone from 6 teams and 120 jobs to 16 NHL teams and 12 or more WHA teams. 
The talent dilution was huge and this was before players from Europe or the U.S.
started competing at the NHL level.   I think it did hurt the perception of the
league and the sport.

Tougness and physical play are not a problem.  Lord knows the NFL markets toward
it.  But the image of the Flyers, a team that would beat up the opposition into
submission, hurt the NHL at the time in my opinion.

Happy new year to all.  Take care.

Brad Kurtzberg

-----Original Message-----
From: francz <francz39@...>
To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:00:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [hockhist] Re: Flyers, Rolfe, Cummins, yada





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I know the purists hate to admit it (and I am kind of purist) but the
fact is that the average NHL game does not feature an Orr, Gretsky,
LaFluer or any premier skater/playmaker of this type.  So how do you
sell a game where +60% of the games have no premier talent involved?
To reiterate what Bill said before the violence "SOLD WELL".  The
Flyers put more butts in seats than any other team of the era.  Hey, do
you people think that Nascar fans want to watch 3 hours of guys driving
in a circle?  The talk from fans on Monday is "did you see that 22 car
pile up" or "how did that guy survive when his car flipped over and
went down the back stretch on its roof?"  On the other hand the NBA is
currently losing its base because it isn't a team sport anymore just a
sucession of individual highlight real moves.

Jim Dornberger

I'd love to see what the US national TV ratings were for the Flyers
games were in that era compared to the rest of the games.

--- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, sealshockey@a... wrote:
>
> The Broad Street Bullies are tough to assess.  I think there's little
doubt they hurt the NHL's chances of keeping a national TV deal in the
U.S.   When the league should have been promoting Bobby Orr, Phil
Esposito and Marcel Dionne, it was stuck with the Flyers and their
bully tactics.  The casual American sports fan who barely followed
hockey only saw stories about fights on the news, on 60 Minutes or Time
Magazine.

Hi Jim,

I grew up absolutely hating the Flyers.  And I watched them and
rooted against them every chance I could.  Let me bring up Game 6 of
the 1980 Finals, and I have one comment, "Sweet revenge!"

But you are absolutely right.  Most of the anti-violence people
haven't been to an NHL game in years.  Think of Francine in Slapshot
when she returns for the championship match, and that character hits
the nail on the head of the anti-violence movement.

During the Ducks-Devils Finals a couple of years back, I remember
reading that the telecast was the highest rated since the Flyers-
Bruins in 74.  Which is a pathetic state of the sport, if you ask me.

Having said that, I think the NHL has made some great strides
towards rekindling the hatred this season.  Yes, some folks complain
that they don't get to see Lemieux, but maybe that means they don't
get to see the Blackhawks either.  They can also hope on a plane -
after all, growing up in Detroit, we didn't see Enie Banks play
baseball in his entire career!

Morey


--- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Dornberger"
<jpdornberger@c...> wrote:
>
> I know the purists hate to admit it (and I am kind of purist) but
the
> fact is that the average NHL game does not feature an Orr,
Gretsky,
> LaFluer or any premier skater/playmaker of this type.  So how do
you
> sell a game where +60% of the games have no premier talent
involved?
> To reiterate what Bill said before the violence "SOLD WELL".  The
> Flyers put more butts in seats than any other team of the era.
Hey, do
> you people think that Nascar fans want to watch 3 hours of guys
driving
> in a circle?  The talk from fans on Monday is "did you see that 22
car
> pile up" or "how did that guy survive when his car flipped over
and
> went down the back stretch on its roof?"  On the other hand the
NBA is
> currently losing its base because it isn't a team sport anymore
just a
> sucession of individual highlight real moves.
>
> Jim Dornberger
>
> I'd love to see what the US national TV ratings were for the
Flyers
> games were in that era compared to the rest of the games.
>
> --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, sealshockey@a... wrote:
> >
> > The Broad Street Bullies are tough to assess.  I think there's
little
> doubt they hurt the NHL's chances of keeping a national TV deal in
the
> U.S.   When the league should have been promoting Bobby Orr, Phil
> Esposito and Marcel Dionne, it was stuck with the Flyers and their
> bully tactics.  The casual American sports fan who barely followed
> hockey only saw stories about fights on the news, on 60 Minutes or
Time
> Magazine.
>

On 1/2/06, Morey Holzman <epenaltybox@...> wrote:
> Having said that, I think the NHL has made some great strides
> towards rekindling the hatred this season.  Yes, some folks complain
> that they don't get to see Lemieux, but maybe that means they don't
> get to see the Blackhawks either.  They can also hope on a plane -
> after all, growing up in Detroit, we didn't see Enie Banks play
> baseball in his entire career!

At least baseball was nominally "two leagues". The current NHL is
still supposedly one league and with an 82 game schedule still can't
figure out how to have all 30 teams play each other. In effect, the
NHL is two leagues as 72 of 82 games are against the same conference,
and only 10 of 15 non-conference teams are met. It's not very
different from current MLB interleague play.

Somebody pointed out to me that the Canadian teams do not meet each
other at all one year out of three. Talk about the NHL trying to
exploit regional interest, a region like Canada where hockey is a
traditional sport.

--
Mike

Thank you for such a thoughful post. I enjoyed reading this.

Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: <Leslee47@...>
To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [hockhist] Digest Number 3355


> Just wanted to step in with a woman's point of view on this discussion of
> fighting and violence  (although I don't pretend to represent all women).
>
> First, I have to confess that I am a hockey purist and I love to watch a
> speedy game with hits along the boards. I have never enjoyed watching
> Forsberg,
> Messier or Bertuzzi act like goons, particularly when all of them are so
> talented. Schultz, who in my opinion had no skill, was in another class
> completely.
> But goonery in any form is different in my eyes than fighting.
>
> When I go to games in the US and sit in the stands, at no matter which pro
> level, most men sitting near me love the fights. They cheer at goals, but
> nothing gets them as excited as the fighting. From my vantage point, its
> almost like
> they are vicariously participating in it. I wonder if it is partly that in
> the US, where few fans actually play hockey, it is easier to identify with
> the
> fighters than with the skilled players. Maybe its because these fans know
> that
> the fighters really are marginal players, regular guys, doing what these
> guys
> in the stands would love to do. It is controlled aggression and I don't
> know
> that many guys that don't like this idea.
>
> This behavior is not attractive to females and young children, but
> honestly,
> how many of them are really the paying customers. I don't know that many
> wives, girlfriends, and younger children whose idea it is to go to a game.
> Its
> almost always the guy and he brings along the others. So its the guys that
> hockey
> is looking to attract, at least at the pro level.
>
> For me this is all just an annoyance and a waste of time, but I wait for
> it
> to be over and the penalties handed out and hope that the flow of the game
> is
> not too distrupted. Yes, that part of the "show" is like WWF, but it is
> meaningless and if it brings males into the seats, its okay with me. (BTW,
> at the
> junior, college, and amateur level, I am totally opposed to fighting; in
> my
> opinion, the kids' judgment is not sufficiently well developed to allow
> that kind
> of shinanegans; one kid goes too far and the other can really get hurt).
>
> Now goonery is another story. In my opinion, it brings shame on all of
> hockey
> and seriously damages the game. Whether its stick swinging incidents,
> driving
> a player's head into the ice in retaliation, or an elbow to a player's
> head
> because you have been scuffling, its totally not acceptable. I really
> don't
> care that it has been going on since the begginning of days. So has
> murder, and
> we don't allow that (unless its by someone in hollywood). I am of the
> opinion
> that if you intentionally injure someone and they never play again, you
> should
> not either; no exceptions. Bertuzzi should not be on the ice in organized
> hockey anywhere. If the powers that be enforced this once, the players
> would clean
> up their act, but quick. Additionally, anyone conspiring with a player
> that
> injures another should get the same penalty. As for Jack Johnson, he
> should be
> out of the WJCs for this year and not invited to return (I think he will
> still
> be eligible next year, but I have not looked at his birthdate). If this
> penalty would be doled out, the US may lose any chance of winning this
> year, but
> the coaches would amke sure that it would never happen again. Understand
> that I
> am not talking about playing on the edge, or even taking penalties. I am
> discussing intent to injure.
>
> Earlier on I brought up Forsberg and Messier as examples of highly skilled
> players who played in a way that I believe is over the edge. I think that
> should
> be stopped too, and I believe that under the new NHL rules it mostly has,
> at
> least on the NHL and AHL levels. (On the ECHL level, where the new rules
> are
> not enforced in a real way, things can get out of hand rather quickly. But
> the
> more out of hand things get, the more some of the fans at this level seem
> to
> enjoy the game. As an aside, someone ought to do a psychological study of
> the
> ECHL fans; although some of the cities seem to attract normal folks, in
> others,
> they are a rather scary bunch).
>
> Thanks for listening to my rant. Happy holidays to all.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
> hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Does anyone have the rosters (and stats) of the
US National Team in the World Championships (Group B)
in 1972, 1974 and 1983?

Morey,

Can you email me, I lost your email address?  Thanks

Michel Vigneault


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John,

   I do not have any trouble with access.

   Try

   http://micromedia.pagesofthepast.ca/PageView.asp

   and when you see the a blank page with only a header banner, click on the "New
Search" link in blue letters at the top.  It will take you to the regular search
page, and you're good to go.

   Rob


John Heffron <John.Heffron@...> wrote:
   Did they stop allowing free access?

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos
  Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,
whatever.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Four-time Stanley Cup winner, Ken Mosdell, passed away yesterday at the
age of 83.

A stroke some years ago left him with severe speech and mobility
difficulties.

Mosdell, a Montreal native, broke into the NHL with the Brooklyn
Americans in the last year of their existance. He suited up for the
Canadiens for the next eleven years before being traded to Chicago
before the 56-57 season.

He returned to the Canadiens, playing 4 games with the team in 58-59.

He hung up his skates following the 59-60 campaign, spent with the QSHL
Montreal Royals and operated a gas station the city's west end for a
number of years.

I have a hockey game program I am trying to date. It had the following
stories from the pros in the program:

  "Freddie Thurier of the Cleveland Barons scored three goals in one minute
and 44 seconds on December 28th. This is really pouring the rubber in. This
however was far short of the record in the American Hockey League. Bill
Jennings playing for Indianapolis on Feb. 16, 1941 scored three goals in 57
seconds.
  Recently at the Chicago Stadium an excited spectator threw a card-board box
on the ice, and out hopped a live rabbit. The rabbit really put on a show
before Bill Barilko of the Mapleleafs caught up to him."

I have gone thru the program page by page and can not come up with any other
clues as to the date.

This program was with other 1948-49 programs, I checked the bios of Thurier
and Barilko and it looks like they were playing with the mentioned teams
during the 48-49 season. (What I found curious, is that I did not see these
natural hat tricks in either of their bios and they seem worthy of mention
to me!)

Please let me know if this would not be a 1848-49 program.
Thanks.

Connie
CJ   <(©¿©)>

The wascilly wabbit appeared on December 5, 1948.

68e1674.jpg


Jim Vipond wrote  in the next day's Globe  & Mail:

The highlight of fandom foolishness was reached in the second period when a
live rabbit was thrown on the ice cage et al. The box broke and the scared
rabbit scampered across the ice only to be captured by Timmins huntsman,
Bill Barilko.

The Leafs won, 2-0.



>Message: 1
>    Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:08:22 -0500
>    From: C Julien <cjulien7@...>
>Subject: live rabbit on the ice
>
>I have a hockey game program I am trying to date. It had the following
>stories from the pros in the program:
>
>  "Freddie Thurier of the Cleveland Barons scored three goals in one minute
>and 44 seconds on December 28th. This is really pouring the rubber in. This
>however was far short of the record in the American Hockey League. Bill
>Jennings playing for Indianapolis on Feb. 16, 1941 scored three goals in 57
>seconds.
>  Recently at the Chicago Stadium an excited spectator threw a card-board box
>on the ice, and out hopped a live rabbit. The rabbit really put on a show
>before Bill Barilko of the Mapleleafs caught up to him."
>
>I have gone thru the program page by page and can not come up with any other
>clues as to the date.
>
>This program was with other 1948-49 programs, I checked the bios of Thurier
>and Barilko and it looks like they were playing with the mentioned teams
>during the 48-49 season. (What I found curious, is that I did not see these
>natural hat tricks in either of their bios and they seem worthy of mention
>to me!)
>
>Please let me know if this would not be a 1848-49 program.
>Thanks.
>
>Connie
>CJ   <(©¿©)>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And upon reaching the center-ice face-off spot, was heard to say, "Now,
where did I go wrong? Must've been that left turn at Alburquerque..."

on 1/9/06 4:00 PM, Mike Harling at mharling@... wrote:

> The wascilly wabbit appeared on December 5, 1948.

--
Lloyd Davis Communications
304-115 Danforth Ave., Toronto, ON  M4K 1N2
416 465 6999 /// 416 462 0230 (fax)
ldavis@...

Hi everybody.  I'm sorry to report the passing of Toledo hockey legend Paul
Tantardini.  This article is from the Toledo Blade.



PAUL TANTARDINI, 1953-2006
Toledo legend found in river Hockey enforcer was a scorer, too


Paul Tantardini


  Zoom | Photo Reprints


The body of a local hockey champion was found floating in the Maumee River
beneath the Anthony Wayne Bridge last night.


Paul Tantardini, 52, of 2043 Balkan Pl., a member of Toledo Goaldigger teams
which won four Turner Cup championships, was found intertwined in a pile of
driftwood against the shore of the river at about 5:30 p.m. Tantardini was
identified by documentation found with him.
The body was discovered by two young girls who glanced down as they were
starting to walk over the bridge from the downtown side. It was on a stretch of
undeveloped land almost directly under the bridge.
A missing persons report on Tantardini was filed with the Toledo police
department on Jan. 2. In it, Tantardini's ex-wife told officers the ex-hockey
player had been suffering from depression. She said he had left the house at
2:30 a.m. on New Year's Day.
At first glance, the condition of the body was "consistent with that of somebody
who had jumped into the river," said David Roberts, an investigator with the
Lucas County coroner's office, adding there were no evident signs of violence.
But Roberts stressed that a full autopsy would have to be performed before an
accurate cause of death could be determined.
Tantardini, a 6-foot, 175-pound Guelph, Ont., native, retired as the
International Hockey League's all-time leader in penalty minutes (he had 1,630
in seven seasons in Toledo), but was much more than an enforcer. He had a
reputation for playing his heart out every game.
Tantardini also had a softer side that wasn't apparent in a game. At team
Christmas parties he enjoyed skating around the ice, carrying children.
"We've lost a legend,'' said Mike Miller, former general manager of the Toledo
Storm who was with the Toledo Goaldiggers when Tantardini played.
"On the ice, Paul won four Turner Cup championships [1974-75, 1977-78, 1981-82
and 1982-83]. I think he's the only one who ever won four championships in a
Toledo uniform."
At one time he played on a line popularly known as "Murder Incorporated'' with
Willie Trognitz and Doug Mahood. Tantardini's No. 16 was retired by the Diggers
in 1985.
"I don't know if there's a player in the history of Toledo hockey who was more
popular than Paul Tantardini. He had a reputation as a fighter, but if you look
at his numbers, he had some tremendous seasons scoring [in 358 games in a Toledo
uniform, he scored 102 goals among 292 points; in the 1976-77 season he had 66
points in 64 games],'' Miller said.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tampa Bay Lightning are holding an 11:30 presser
regarding Andreychuk.

Signs are pointing toward the possibility of a
retirement announcement.

-Andrew



__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

From ESPN:

The Lightning parted ways with captain Dave Andreychuk on Tuesday,
placing the 42-year-old on waivers.

Profile
2006 SEASON STATISTICS
GM G A PTS +/- PIM
42 6 12 18 -13 16


If Andreychuk isn't claimed, he will the 23-year NHL veteran be
assigned to the Springfield Falcons of the AHL, but the Lightning
said they won't require him to report.

If Andreychuk retired, the Lightning wouldn't be required to pay his
2005-06 salary, but by placing him on waivers, the team can pay his
full $800,000 salary.

"When we entered into the contract with David this summer, both
sides did so in good faith, recognizing that no one would work
harder in the summer preparing for the new season than David,"
Lightning Executive Vice President and General Manager Jay Feaster
said in a statement.


"At the same time, both sides understood that it would take some
time to work through the impact of missing an entire season. What
neither side could foresee was the type of game the 'new NHL' would
be upon its return -- a game in which speed and quickness carry the
day. After giving ourselves half a season to evaluate and analyze,
it became clear to us that David's game was not suited to the 'new
NHL.'"

Andreychuk has appeared in 42 of the Lightning's 43 games this
season, scoring six goals with 12 assists. He has appeared in 1,639
games (fourth most in NHL history) in his career and is the NHLs all-
time leader in power play goals with 274.



--- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew <puppa93@y...> wrote:
>
> Tampa Bay Lightning are holding an 11:30 presser
> regarding Andreychuk.
>
> Signs are pointing toward the possibility of a
> retirement announcement.
>
> -Andrew
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>

On 1/10/06, Morey Holzman <epenaltybox@...> wrote:

> "At the same time, both sides understood that it would take some
> time to work through the impact of missing an entire season. What
> neither side could foresee was the type of game the 'new NHL' would
> be upon its return -- a game in which speed and quickness carry the
> day. After giving ourselves half a season to evaluate and analyze,
> it became clear to us that David's game was not suited to the 'new
> NHL.'"

I would think that the new NHL, where penalties are supposed to be
called, would be suited for any type of skill player, and that's what
Dave Andreychuk is. I think it would be more honest to say the man is
42 years old, has been a defensive liability for several years, and
now can't score enough as his reaction times have slowed down.

Andreychuk had a nice long career and thankfully he didn't meet the
same fate as Craig Simpson and Tim Kerr, two guys who fell victim to
being constantly abused as slot players (remember those?). Kerr is
only 46, Simpson is 38, and both of them have been out of the NHL for
a long time.

--
Mike

Even in his 20s Andreychuk was not known for his wheels.  He's still
a potential 20-goal man in the slot on the power play a la Johnny
Bucyk in 77 or Paul Gardner with the Pens in the 80s, but that would
be about it.

Morey

--- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Michael Poplawski
<michael.poplawski@g...> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/06, Morey Holzman <epenaltybox@y...> wrote:
>
> > "At the same time, both sides understood that it would take some
> > time to work through the impact of missing an entire season. What
> > neither side could foresee was the type of game the 'new NHL'
would
> > be upon its return -- a game in which speed and quickness carry
the
> > day. After giving ourselves half a season to evaluate and
analyze,
> > it became clear to us that David's game was not suited to
the 'new
> > NHL.'"
>
> I would think that the new NHL, where penalties are supposed to be
> called, would be suited for any type of skill player, and that's
what
> Dave Andreychuk is. I think it would be more honest to say the man
is
> 42 years old, has been a defensive liability for several years, and
> now can't score enough as his reaction times have slowed down.
>
> Andreychuk had a nice long career and thankfully he didn't meet the
> same fate as Craig Simpson and Tim Kerr, two guys who fell victim
to
> being constantly abused as slot players (remember those?). Kerr is
> only 46, Simpson is 38, and both of them have been out of the NHL
for
> a long time.
>
> --
> Mike
>

...and this season, Coach Torts was not setting Andy
in front of the crease, which would be a safe place
under new rules since he wouldn't have to deal with
the classic 'clearing the crease' that used to be
allowed.

Dave is an all class guy that the league will miss as
a player, and any organization that takes him in as
either a player or ambassador would do well with him.

--- Morey Holzman <epenaltybox@...> wrote:

> Even in his 20s Andreychuk was not known for his
> wheels.  He's still
> a potential 20-goal man in the slot on the power
> play a la Johnny
> Bucyk in 77 or Paul Gardner with the Pens in the
> 80s, but that would
> be about it.
>
> Morey
>
> --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Michael Poplawski
> <michael.poplawski@g...> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/10/06, Morey Holzman <epenaltybox@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > "At the same time, both sides understood that it
> would take some
> > > time to work through the impact of missing an
> entire season. What
> > > neither side could foresee was the type of game
> the 'new NHL'
> would
> > > be upon its return -- a game in which speed and
> quickness carry
> the
> > > day. After giving ourselves half a season to
> evaluate and
> analyze,
> > > it became clear to us that David's game was not
> suited to
> the 'new
> > > NHL.'"
> >
> > I would think that the new NHL, where penalties
> are supposed to be
> > called, would be suited for any type of skill
> player, and that's
> what
> > Dave Andreychuk is. I think it would be more
> honest to say the man
> is
> > 42 years old, has been a defensive liability for
> several years, and
> > now can't score enough as his reaction times have
> slowed down.
> >
> > Andreychuk had a nice long career and thankfully
> he didn't meet the
> > same fate as Craig Simpson and Tim Kerr, two guys
> who fell victim
> to
> > being constantly abused as slot players (remember
> those?). Kerr is
> > only 46, Simpson is 38, and both of them have been
> out of the NHL
> for
> > a long time.
> >
> > --
> > Mike
> >
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I agree...Andreychuk was a class act...I was glad to see him win a Cup.
Time just caught up with him. The game has changed and the year off
didn't help...but in the end he was also 42 years old! It is an
achievement to play to that age and win a Cup at 40...he has just
reached his time. As Morey says he could keep playing and score 20 goals
maybe but there is the limit and a 20 goal season is just not what it
was before the new rules...it isn't bad but just doesn't stand out as
much. Given his lack of wheels that hurt in this era...it probably was
time. But at 42, that day was coming sooner than later...