Origin of Ice Hockey - Emmanuel Orlick 1943

[Canadiens1958]

In this thread I will try to present the full series of "Origin of Ice Hockey" published in The Gazette by Em Orlick in 1943. Not sure that all are available via archives since there are missing dates throughout 1943;

we start with the last in the series of four September 18, 1943:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ku0iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=G5kFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=4528,3037215

third of four:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ke0iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=G5kFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=4472,2833449

second of four:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kO0iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=G5kFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=2731,2632086

first of four:

Note the first article cannot be captured in link form but if the reader wishes they can go to The Gazette for September 15, 1943 and scroll to page 17:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19430915&printsec=frontpage&hl=fr

second and third columns below the "Open Letter".

Completing the series, we have an additional article by the same author contributed in November of 1943.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zXYtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fpgFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=5595,4611730

Click to read more...

 

[Killion]

^^^ Wow. Some serious digging there C58. Good job! Thats some voluminous information condensed & presented wonderfully by the journalist in what was then interestingly a battle Royale over where the Hockey Hall of Fame should be located. Not something one really considers at least since the 60's establishment of the HHOF in Toronto. But clearly back in the 40's fairly significant issue or matter with Kingston, Halifax & Montreal all vying for the right & predicated upon just exactly which could lay claim to being the "birthplace of hockey" as the winner, home to a Hockey Hall of Fame....

... and I must say, appears to me Montreal wins this one hands down unless someone from New England or Vermont discovers even earlier accounts moulding away in a libraries basements or the loft of an old barn. Orlick cleanly refutes any and all other claims in tracing the game to at least 1875 and logically asserting that absolutely, the game would have been played locally for many years even previous to that one as the participants were already well formed, played positionally including a Goalkeeper. He attributes the rules as being based or predicated largely upon Rugby, and again, refutes claims by those who suggest that no, the sport was based on Field Hockey. Individuals making such claims seriously confusing their dates & time-lines. These said same individuals also "claiming" they invented the puck, goalposts, 9 aside & so on. Field Hockey. 1879... Poppycock.

 

[Theokritos]

Great contribution. Very interesting comments & convincing argumentation by Orlick. Great quotes from the 1870s articles that are not available via the google news archive.

He attributes the rules as being based or predicated largely upon Rugby

Where does Orlick do that exactly?

refutes claims by those who suggest that no, the sport was based on Field Hockey.

What he refutes is the claim that ice hockey was invented as a result of W. F. Robertson watching a Field Hockey game in the year of 1879. Which was never the claim anyway when we discussed the matter earlier. Fact remains that the 1877 (!) ice hockey offside rules are almost a copy of the 1876 (Field) Hockey Association rules.

Individuals making such claims seriously confusing their dates & time-lines.

Among the claims of those seriously confused individuals was the one that they were "adapting English rugby football rules to the game" of ice hockey (W. L. Murray), so ...

 

[Canadiens1958]

McConnell Foundation

^^^ Wow. Some serious digging there C58. Good job! Thats some voluminous information condensed & presented wonderfully by the journalist in what was then interestingly a battle Royale over where the Hockey Hall of Fame should be located. Not something one really considers at least since the 60's establishment of the HHOF in Toronto. But clearly back in the 40's fairly significant issue or matter with Kingston, Halifax & Montreal all vying for the right & predicated upon just exactly which could lay claim to being the "birthplace of hockey" as the winner, home to a Hockey Hall of Fame....

... and I must say, appears to me Montreal wins this one hands down unless someone from New England or Vermont discovers even earlier accounts moulding away in a libraries basements or the loft of an old barn. Orlick cleanly refutes any and all other claims in tracing the game to at least 1875 and logically asserting that absolutely, the game would have been played locally for many years even previous to that one as the participants were already well formed, played positionally including a Goalkeeper. He attributes the rules as being based or predicated largely upon Rugby, and again, refutes claims by those who suggest that no, the sport was based on Field Hockey. Individuals making such claims seriously confusing their dates & time-lines. These said same individuals also "claiming" they invented the puck, goalposts, 9 aside & so on. Field Hockey. 1879... Poppycock.

This could get really interesting once I have a chance to check the Montreal Star for the same period. J.W. McConnell, publisher and owner was a huge contributor to the growth and renovation at McGill University during the era in question.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I love the argument over where hockey was invented--AS a Canadian living here in Europe and spending a lot of time in Scandinavian countries and Germany as well--it is fun when I suggest the first hockey game was played over here in the 1840's or earlier

 

[ot92s]

better double check that 1875, march 4th montreal gazette as well....just to be safe.

thanks again. looking forward to an interesting read intresting read. skimmed through for now...new england getting props as the home of hockey?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Chronological Order & Meeting of the Minds

Great contribution. Very interesting comments & convincing argumentation by Orlick. Great quotes from the 1870s articles that are not available via the google news archive.



Where does Orlick do that exactly?



What he refutes is the claim that ice hockey was invented as a result of W. F. Robertson watching a Field Hockey game in the year of 1879. Which was never the claim anyway when we discussed the matter earlier. Fact remains that the 1877 (!) ice hockey offside rules are almost a copy of the 1876 (Field) Hockey Association rules.



Among the claims of those seriously confused individuals was the one that they were "adapting English rugby football rules to the game" of ice hockey (W. L. Murray), so ...

The issue is one of chronological order and a "Meeting of the Minds" necessary for a fair contest to take place, continue and grow.

Quick outline without references.

Chronology

1867 Lacrosse organized in Canada.
1869 US College football recognized.
1871 Rugby Football(Rugger)
1873 US College football starts to organize.
1874* McGill vs Harvard(Rugby/Football)
1875 *March 3, Captain Torrance vs Captain Creighton, Ice Hockey in Montréal
1875* Lacrosse exhibition in Great Britain
1875/76 Field Hockey inc rules.

The chronology does not favour the Field Hockey interpretation especially when it is recognized that the field hockey association in question lasted all of seven years. One of the factors in the demise was the lack of agreement on rules.

Another consideration is that Henry Joseph was a playing participant in the events indicated with an *. So the field hockey participants were in a position of easy access to the other sports.

"Meeting of the Minds".

Before rules are established there has to be a "meeting of the minds" of interested participants. This would include but not limited to, spécifications, such as date, time, venue,dimensions, conditions,equipment - such as all playing participants play on ice skates(perhaps from a common source - Starr Company?)- out of Nova Scotia. James Creighton is reported as having provided standardized hockey sticks for all, ordering from Nova Scotia, etc.

Type of projectile - wooden puck was accepted, playing conduct was agreed upon, scoring that determined the superior team was agreed upon, a scoring target - goal was agreed upon(very similar to lacrosse). On ice officials were used - obviously versed and knowing about the aforementioned so they must have had previous experience and exposure to the rules, etc.

The reporter, spectators and non-attending readers showed an understanding of the game.Post game appreciation of the play/players is evident in the narrative, no criticism of the on ice officials or questions about the outcome. No criticism about boredom or violence, etc. So ice hockey seems to have been known and appreciated even by those not present.

That a hard copy of this "Meeting of the Minds" that facilitated the playing of the March 1875 game in Montreal is not available is sad, motivates additional research and hope but in the overall picture is very incidental since the sport of ice hockey continued and grew from that point.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Orlick's 21 Points

The articles from The Gazette by Emmanuel Orlick have been provided up thread but they are not his complete works on the subject.

The Montreal Daily Star, September 23, 1943 published another Emmanuel Orlick article that is key to understanding his position. In the article found below Professor Orlicklists 21 points that summarize the discussion very well. Reproduced without comment for the moment.

 

[Killion]

^^^ Very interesting. Im liking Orlicks objectivity in researching the origins of the game & completely agree with his opinion that Montreal was/is the birthplace of the game of hockey as we know it today. The Montreal Rules, the first completely & fully recorded games.... Does that mean hockey, even with loose rules of a more localized & regionalized nature wasnt played in New York & New England, the Dakota's & Minnesota, Kingston, Halifax & Dartmouth, in the high arctic during the Franklin Expedition & then back through the mists of time in the UK, the Lowlands of the Basque Countries, the Netherlands? Of course not. Clearly a form of it was being played. What we'd call shinny. Sometimes with skates if you had em, others no. Stick & ball games.

Amazing really how in reading Orlicks articles & others that the issue of where to establish the HHOF had become so politicized. The 1942 C.A.H.A. report or "study on the origins of the game of ice hockey" is clearly flawed & biased in giving the nod to Kingston. Then further suggesting that if not Kingston then possibly Ottawa. No question about it, that whole Ottawa Valley region from Ottawa down to Kingston was like a Hockey Cradle in producing innumerable players in the late 19th Century. Dozens upon hundreds of lakes & rivers stretching forever, ponds, the climate cold & winters long. If they could get them skates & skating, sticks & balls or frozen pieces of ice, wooden plug to play with. Shinny....honestly, you dont really have to look any further than at Captain James T. Sutherland in figuring out why the HHOF was established in Kingston. Book written on the subject in 2012 (Quarry Heritage Books) by J.W. (Bill) Fitsell documenting the story called appropriately: Captain James Sutherland and the Battle for the Original Hockey Hall of Fame. Here as well Joe Pelletier on Captain Sutherland with links at the bottom to his bio from the HHOF itself.

www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2013/02/captain-james-t-sutherland-battle-for.html

 

[Canadiens1958]

More to Come

^^^More to come as access to the various newspapers and documents widens. Very interesting story that is far from fully told.

 

[Killion]

^^^ Good reads, enjoying it. Thanks... heres a link to the "original" HHOF's new website & location (moved into a 4~Plex Arena in Kingston). Interesting inf throughout & the video worth a watch, just scroll down on the page I indexed. About 3:30 in length....

www.originalhockeyhalloffame.com/visiting/

 

[Iain Fyffe]

He attributes the rules as being based or predicated largely upon Rugby, and again, refutes claims by those who suggest that no, the sport was based on Field Hockey. Individuals making such claims seriously confusing their dates & time-lines. These said same individuals also "claiming" they invented the puck, goalposts, 9 aside & so on. Field Hockey. 1879... Poppycock.

I take it you still haven't read my book then, Killion? You told me you were really keen to get at it.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Chronology

1867 Lacrosse organized in Canada.
1869 US College football recognized.
1871 Rugby Football(Rugger)
1873 US College football starts to organize.
1874* McGill vs Harvard(Rugby/Football)
1875 *March 3, Captain Torrance vs Captain Creighton, Ice Hockey in Montréal
1875* Lacrosse exhibition in Great Britain
1875/76 Field Hockey inc rules.

The chronology does not favour the Field Hockey interpretation especially when it is recognized that the field hockey association in question lasted all of seven years. One of the factors in the demise was the lack of agreement on rules.

I take it you haven't read my book either?

Your chronology is incorrect, because it pretends that the 1875 field hockey rules were the first set of such rules. This is simply not the case, they developed in an organized fashion back into the 1860s when the first published sets of field hockey rules began to appear.

 

[Killion]

I take it you still haven't read my book then, Killion? You told me you were really keen to get at it.

Correct. On my Bucket List Iain but havent quite gotten around to it yet. Rest assured will do. Looking forward to it.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

He attributes the rules as being based or predicated largely upon Rugby, and again, refutes claims by those who suggest that no, the sport was based on Field Hockey.

Now, let's address the specific point. Orlick does not attribute the rules to rugby. He only relays three claims by other people who said that it was based on rugby.

First, when relaying the account of Richard Smith (which Orlick dismisses because it conflicts with contemporary evidence), and even then rugby is listed second after field hockey as an influence.

Second, when relaying Chick Murray's claim, which Orlick also dismisses because it conflicts with contemporary evidence.

Third, when relaying Joseph's claim (68 years after the fact), which Orlick does not comment on in the same manner as he did Smith and Murray. But if the game was patterned on rugby, where did the goaltenders come from? Contrary to the claim, we know they did not use rugby-sized goals in early hockey, that would have been ridiculous. (The goals were roughly lacrosse-sized, though).

So saying that Orlick concludes a rugby influence on the rules is, in fact, false. He rejects two of the three accounts that involve a rugby influence (and uses the word "conclusively" when rejecting them). As he should, because they do not hold water. And he does not comment on the third.

Moreover, we have three anecdotes here. Why do you personally accept Joseph's anecdote when it conflicts with the anecdotes of Murray and Smith? Based on the previous thread, this suggests confirmation bias, because you concluded a rugby influence before we even discussed any of the evidence. How do you determine which anecdote, if any, is the truth?

You look for corroborating evidence. And if you look for the evidence, as one of us involved in the conversation has, you'll find a strong direct lineage from older field hockey rules to early ice hockey rules, and you'll also find that contemporary rugby rules bear no resemblance to them whatsoever. There's a book about this out there, maybe you can track down a copy.

Interestingly, Orlick concludes that the puck was a Montreal contribution to the game, something which I also concluded in my work. Orlick says the claims by Chick Murray and Richard Smith do not hold water; which I also concluded in my work.

Orlick reached the wrong conclusion about the Hockey Association though - he reads the reference to mean that there was an association in Montreal (which there is no evidence of), while we know there was such a body in England some of the rules of which were copied verbatim by the Montrealers.

Altogether though, it's an impressive bit of scholarship on Orlick's part.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Public Domain

I take it you haven't read my book either?

Your chronology is incorrect, because it pretends that the 1875 field hockey rules were the first set of such rules. This is simply not the case, they developed in an organized fashion back into the 1860s when the first published sets of field hockey rules began to appear.

While I would be amongst the first to encourage, recognize and defend your right to promote your publication here or anywhere it still has to stand on merit and when you play coy with readily available public domain elements/references, it discourages readers from considering your book. Especially if they have access and the willingness to mine the references you would not provide.

Simply no one "has to" buy or read any book. It may be in the author's interest to entice them to do so. Some authors manage this very well. Others do not.

My chronology just puts the elements on a timeline that pertains to Montreal without pretensions.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Scope of the Debate

Now, let's address the specific point. Orlick does not attribute the rules to rugby. He only relays three claims by other people who said that it was based on rugby.

First, when relaying the account of Richard Smith (which Orlick dismisses because it conflicts with contemporary evidence), and even then rugby is listed second after field hockey as an influence.

Second, when relaying Chick Murray's claim, which Orlick also dismisses because it conflicts with contemporary evidence.

Third, when relaying Joseph's claim (68 years after the fact), which Orlick does not comment on in the same manner as he did Smith and Murray. But if the game was patterned on rugby, where did the goaltenders come from? Contrary to the claim, we know they did not use rugby-sized goals in early hockey, that would have been ridiculous. (The goals were roughly lacrosse-sized, though).

So saying that Orlick concludes a rugby influence on the rules is, in fact, false. He rejects two of the three accounts that involve a rugby influence (and uses the word "conclusively" when rejecting them). As he should, because they do not hold water. And he does not comment on the third.

Moreover, we have three anecdotes here. Why do you personally accept Joseph's anecdote when it conflicts with the anecdotes of Murray and Smith? Based on the previous thread, this suggests confirmation bias, because you concluded a rugby influence before we even discussed any of the evidence. How do you determine which anecdote, if any, is the truth?

You look for corroborating evidence. And if you look for the evidence, as one of us involved in the conversation has, you'll find a strong direct lineage from older field hockey rules to early ice hockey rules, and you'll also find that contemporary rugby rules bear no resemblance to them whatsoever. There's a book about this out there, maybe you can track down a copy.

Interestingly, Orlick concludes that the puck was a Montreal contribution to the game, something which I also concluded in my work. Orlick says the claims by Chick Murray and Richard Smith do not hold water; which I also concluded in my work.

Orlick reached the wrong conclusion about the Hockey Association though - he reads the reference to mean that there was an association in Montreal (which there is no evidence of), while we know there was such a body in England some of the rules of which were copied verbatim by the Montrealers.

Altogether though, it's an impressive bit of scholarship on Orlick's part.

Taking the scope of the 1943 debate involving professor Orlick completely out of context.

Brief summary. 1942 the CAHA produces what is perceived as an "old boys" opinion favouring Kingston in the HHOF venue debate. Other views are introduced with the objective of showing the error of the opinion. Included are the views of Professor Orlick. The various dissenting views quickly prevail as within a month of September 1943 Capt. Sutherland withdraws from his position of origins to one of central location favouring Kingston. Midway between Montreal and Toronto, proximity to Ottawa.

The consequences or extensions of Orlick's efforts are very interesting since they give additional weight to the Nova Scotia position that has gained support since 1943.

True there are shortcomings as well that have not been answered to date. Why New Brunswick was bypassed in the developmental line between Nova Scotia and Québec being one such issue that no one has raised.

Getting back to 1943. Still the research is lacking when it comes to examining the views of other leading newspapers - Montréal alone had the Herald and multiple French newspapers headed by leading journalists of the time.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

While I would be amongst the first to encourage, recognize and defend your right to promote your publication here or anywhere it still has to stand on merit and when you play coy with readily available public domain elements/references, it discourages readers from considering your book. Especially if they have access and the willingness to mine the references you would not provide.

I have no secret resources. However, given that many of the resources I used were available in hard copy and had to be purchased out of my own pocket, forgive me for not simply posting the entire text of my work for everyone to use.

That being said, I did lay out the basics of the evidence, and you rejected it out of hand repeatedly. If you'd like me to lay it out for you step-by-step, I will, but I've already done that and you weren't interested.

Simply no one "has to" buy or read any book.

You're misrepresenting my statements. You and Killion have specifically rejected my argument, without actually examining the evidence. Not remained neutral on it, mind you, but flat out stated that it is wrong.

That is something that you cannot do without having even read the work, if you're being intellectually honest.

My chronology just puts the elements on a timeline that pertains to Montreal without pretensions.

No it doesn't. If the Hockey Association pertains to Montreal, then the predecessors to the Hockey Association do as well. Yet you have left those off, apparently in an attempt to discredit the idea that the Hockey Association rules could have been used in Montreal at that time, even though this was specifically stated in 1876. This is, in fact, what you tried to argue in the other thread, but I pointed out at that time the Hockey Association rules were themselves based on exiting rules, so the argument does not hold water.

Taking the scope of the 1943 debate involving professor Orlick completely out of context.

Um, no. The context does not matter with respect to that one specific claim. Orlick read the reference to "Hockey Association rules" to mean that there was a Hockey Association in Montreal in 1876. That is false, regardless of the context.

His conclusion in this matter does not affect his overall conclusion one bit. But that doesn't mean he wasn't wrong about this one point. You fell into the same trap in the previous thread, suggesting that there must have been such an association in Montreal in 1876 and making arguments based on that assumption. But you have no evidence for it.

True there are shortcomings as well that have not been answered to date. Why New Brunswick was bypassed in the developmental line between Nova Scotia and Québec being one such issue that no one has raised.

I've raised the question myself often enough. But the answer seems fairly clear: James Creighton went from Halifax to Montreal. Organized hockey in the form that Creighton introduced was not played in New Brunswick until about 1895 so far as we can tell.

In fact it leapfrogged New Brunswick twice. The Montreal version of hockey was most likely taken back to Nova Scotia by the Old Chebuctos when travelled to Montreal to play some games in the late 1880s.

 

[Killion]

...You and Killion have specifically rejected my argument, without actually examining the evidence. Not remained neutral on it, mind you, but flat out stated that it is wrong.

Indeed I have. Highly suspect of your claim that ice hockey rules were based almost entirely on field hockey rules. Clearly someone mustve used the field hockey rule book as a template though as the verbiage though not all intent & critical thought the same. So no, my belief is that the games rules were founded on Rugby-Football and adopted rules from yes field hockey & lacrosse. Combination of that, bandy, ice polo, shinty etc.

But yes, I'll get around to reading your book Iain and keep an open mind. Obviously youve done much research on the matter so Im not about to dismissively & arrogantly suggest "I know better". Open to new evidence but sure, have preconceptions. Not your place nor mine, anyones to state empirically that that person's opinion is dead wrong, being intellectually dishonest, cant voice there opinion here on the HOH Board. Not helpful to civil discussion, just not Cricket.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Montreal

I take it you haven't read my book either?

Your chronology is incorrect, because it pretends that the 1875 field hockey rules were the first set of such rules. This is simply not the case, they developed in an organized fashion back into the 1860s when the first published sets of field hockey rules began to appear.

The chronology refers to sports being played with connections to Montreal or being exported from Montréal.

Show that actual field hockey (not an improvised version) was played in Montreal, or even with a Nova Scotia link or a Canada link pre 1876 and your objection may have legs.

Field hockey Canada shows field hockey arriving in Canada in the late 19th century which would be post 1875.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Details and Evidence

I have no secret resources. However, given that many of the resources I used were available in hard copy and had to be purchased out of my own pocket, forgive me for not simply posting the entire text of my work for everyone to use.

That being said, I did lay out the basics of the evidence, and you rejected it out of hand repeatedly. If you'd like me to lay it out for you step-by-step, I will, but I've already done that and you weren't interested.


You're misrepresenting my statements. You and Killion have specifically rejected my argument, without actually examining the evidence. Not remained neutral on it, mind you, but flat out stated that it is wrong.

That is something that you cannot do without having even read the work, if you're being intellectually honest.


No it doesn't. If the Hockey Association pertains to Montreal, then the predecessors to the Hockey Association do as well. Yet you have left those off, apparently in an attempt to discredit the idea that the Hockey Association rules could have been used in Montreal at that time, even though this was specifically stated in 1876. This is, in fact, what you tried to argue in the other thread, but I pointed out at that time the Hockey Association rules were themselves based on exiting rules, so the argument does not hold water.


Um, no. The context does not matter with respect to that one specific claim. Orlick read the reference to "Hockey Association rules" to mean that there was a Hockey Association in Montreal in 1876. That is false, regardless of the context.

His conclusion in this matter does not affect his overall conclusion one bit. But that doesn't mean he wasn't wrong about this one point. You fell into the same trap in the previous thread, suggesting that there must have been such an association in Montreal in 1876 and making arguments based on that assumption. But you have no evidence for it.


I've raised the question myself often enough. But the answer seems fairly clear: James Creighton went from Halifax to Montreal. Organized hockey in the form that Creighton introduced was not played in New Brunswick until about 1895 so far as we can tell.

In fact it leapfrogged New Brunswick twice. The Montreal version of hockey was most likely taken back to Nova Scotia by the Old Chebuctos when travelled to Montreal to play some games in the late 1880s.

Bolded, not the point. Everyone doing research is out of pocket one way or another. You were never asked to produce your complete book gratis. You were asked to produce complete copies of two newspaper tracts with an additional expectation of academically acceptable referencing of other works as a bare minimum.

You chose to respond by referring to passages you deemed relevant. Not sufficient. Producing the complete article or a link allows the reader to determine what is relevant.

Simply referring to Orlick, 1943 or similarly without a detailed reference per academic standards is not sufficient. An acceptable format would be Author, publication, specific date, page number(s).

See how my finds of Orlick articles were presented upthread. Interested reader gets full information and access to what is presented.

Once references are not adequately presented I quickly lose interest and mine my own sources.

The Old Chebuctos tidbit is interesting , especially since it clearly relates how they went to Montréal. No field hockey influence is stated by you.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Indeed I have. Highly suspect of your claim that ice hockey rules were based almost entirely on field hockey rules.

Being suspect of something does not mean you declare that it is wrong. I admire skepticism, but if you're pretending that I haven't presented evidence to support my claim then I don't know what to say. Go back to the older thread and read through it again. I spelled out an awful lot there.

My work in this area was originally fueled by my own skepticism. I had often heard the claim that the first ice hockey rules were taken verbatim from field hockey, with "ground" changed to "ice." That seemed unlikely to me, so I began to research it. And it's not literally true; the first set of hockey rules also leaves out a number of field hockey rules, and adds one of its own (likely inspired by lacrosse). But the most game-defining rule in early hockey, the offside rule, was taken verbatim from field hockey. I previously provided the quotes to demonstrate this.

So no, my belief is that the games rules were founded on Rugby-Football and adopted rules from yes field hockey & lacrosse. Combination of that, bandy, ice polo, shinty etc.

Of all of the games you mention here, early ice hockey rules bear the least resemblance to rugby. I mentioned this in the older thread as well. Compare the offside rules of contemporary rugby with those from field hockey. Then get back to me.

Your belief is specifically contradicted by the available evidence. For what reason do you hold it?

But yes, I'll get around to reading your book Iain and keep an open mind. Obviously youve done much research on the matter so Im not about to dismissively & arrogantly suggest "I know better".

You specifically stated that a 68-year-old anecdote "refuted" the idea that the rules were based on field hockey. In case you're unaware, refute means to "prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove".

Not your place nor mine, anyones to state empirically that that person's opinion is dead wrong, being intellectually dishonest, cant voice there opinion here on the HOH Board. Not helpful to civil discussion, just not Cricket.

If you voice an opinion that is contradicted by the available evidence, then I'm going to point that out. And you have specifically stated on a number of occasions that my opinion on the subject is wrong, so I do hope you take your own advice here in the future.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Bolded, not the point. Everyone doing research is out of pocket one way or another. You were never asked to produce your complete book gratis. You were asked to produce complete copies of two newspaper tracts with an additional expectation of academically acceptable referencing of other works as a bare minimum.

Ironically, as I recall the passages you were looking for were used by Orlick, so I guess you've provided them yourself.

My references are all in the book. And I've got more than just what's freely available online.

You chose to respond by referring to passages you deemed relevant.

Or, to put it another way, I tried to stay on-topic and avoid your digressions and diversions.

Not sufficient. Producing the complete article or a link allows the reader to determine what is relevant.

I provided complete text of the relevant field hockey rules as they relate to ice hockey, and noted they were verbatim. Even that wasn't enough for you.

The Old Chebuctos tidbit is interesting , especially since it clearly relates how they went to Montréal. No field hockey influence is stated by you.

Try to keep up, that has nothing to do with the field hockey question, since it's over a decade after organized hockey began in Montreal. It's an explanation of how the version of hockey that was based on field hockey skipped over New Brunswick. One would think that since it started in Montreal, it would first travel to NB before reaching Nova Scotia. However, that is not the case and the Old Chebuctus provide an explanation.

 

[Killion]

Being suspect of something does not mean you declare that it is wrong. I admire skepticism, but if you're pretending that I haven't presented evidence to support my claim then I don't know what to say.

All good points Iain. And yes, Im "skeptical". My choice of words suggests I totally and completely 110% utterly reject such a claim (that ice~hockey rules were based almost exclusively on field hockey rules) HOWEVER I'm open to the evidence youve uncovered, look forward to reading what youve unearthed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Recalling and Details

Ironically, as I recall the passages you were looking for were used by Orlick, so I guess you've provided them yourself.

My references are all in the book. And I've got more than just what's freely available online.


Or, to put it another way, I tried to stay on-topic and avoid your digressions and diversions.


I provided complete text of the relevant field hockey rules as they relate to ice hockey, and noted they were verbatim. Even that wasn't enough for you.


Try to keep up, that has nothing to do with the field hockey question, since it's over a decade after organized hockey began in Montreal. It's an explanation of how the version of hockey that was based on field hockey skipped over New Brunswick. One would think that since it started in Montreal, it would first travel to NB before reaching Nova Scotia. However, that is not the case and the Old Chebuctus provide an explanation.

Actually the request was for the game stories from The Gazette in 1876.

Again your view of relevant as opposed to providing the complete version and allowing the reader to decide what is relevant.

Back to the era in question, 1870s, +/- a few years either way, there are major obstacles for you to overcome.

How could an 1876 event, January 1876 Field Hockey rules influence 1875 events, indoor Ice Hockey game Captain Torrance vs Captain Creighton? This does not resonate.

Prime objective of the 1876 Hockey Association rules you reference is the continuity and growth of field hockey in England. The Hockey Association (field hockey) folded within 10 years, significant to the failure was that there were disputes about rules. Yet the point seems to be that failure at the prime objective level does not preclude influence and success unintentionally when it involves another sport? This does not resonate.

We do know that athletes from the era in question participated in varied athletic events and activities. Henry Joseph being an often cited example amongst many. We also know that playing facilities and Equipment was shared amongst various athletic activities and events. So spécifications, conditions of participations drafts of rules, etc would have made the rounds of various sports. But this does not define influence.Draft of a lease for a hardware business may be used to draft a lease for a clothing busines. This would not imply that the manufacture of nails influenced the manufacture of socks.

That working drafts, or documents circulated internationally without necessary permissions sought or granted goes to the adequacy of international copyright law in the 1870s. This was addressed later by the Hague Convention.

The submissions that you made while interesting are lacking substance from my vantage point to proceed further.