Convince me Paul Henderson belongs in the HHOF

[Mayor Bee]

[deleted]

 

[K Fleur]

lol, you cannot be serious.

Yeah come on! Everybody knows Rocky Balboa is the one who ended the Cold War.

 

[Epsilon]

If it were the NHL HOF, I'd agree with you...but its not.

It was a monumental, historic goal that every Canadian kid has heard or heard of.

I'm in my 30s but is Tretiak not in the HHOF despite not being an NHLer?

It basically is though. The only modern men's hockey players who have been inducted primarily or exclusively for non-NHL play are a handful of Soviet players (and a few of those had decent-to-substantial NHL careers): Tretiak, Kharlamov, Larianov, Fetisov, and Makarov. What separates them from someone like Henderson is that they weren't inducted solely because of an elite performance at a given short tournament, they were inducted because experts recognize all of them as among the very best hockey players in the world at their primes, and in some cases among the best players of all-time period. There is not one modern inductee that someone could point to and say "the main reason they are in the Hall of Fame is *insert discrete moment or collection of moments from some short time frame*". In some cases things like that might have put a player over the top (does someone like Lanny McDonald get in without an iconic photo of him holding the Cup at the end of his career with a memorable mustache? I don't know), but the meat of a player's case is their career and overall performance, NHL or not.

 

[Big Phil]

In some cases things like that might have put a player over the top (does someone like Lanny McDonald get in without an iconic photo of him holding the Cup at the end of his career with a memorable mustache? I don't know), but the meat of a player's case is their career and overall performance, NHL or not.

I think he still gets in and if he weren't in 2018 he would be a name we'd bring up a lot. Cup or not. How do I know? Because he and Rick Middleton had precisely the same career at the same time. The result was different. Middleton's last NHL season his Bruins got hammered in the Cup final by the Oilers. A year later McDonald scores an important goal (not the winner despite popular belief for the Cup, that was Gilmour) in Game 6. But it was his only goal that postseason.

The fact that Lanny got in first ballot and Middleton is still waiting despite the very real argument that Middleton probably is slightly better shows you the real problem that can exist with the committee. Lanny still should probably be in, but yes, popularity and an iconic look can help.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

No Hall for Paul.

 

[FerrisRox]

Well, the HOF isn't the NHL HOF. Scoring three straight winning goals in what was the most important (yea it's subjective) , series in hockey history has some weight.

First of all, why does it have some weight? It's just a tournament, and the Canadians went into it thinking it was a joke of a tournament, and International Friendly that they were going to mop the floor with the other teams in. It has, historically, grown dramatically in significance, but it's still just another tournament and if Russia had won it, nobody in Canada would be talking about like it was "the most important series in hockey history."

If you want to pretend that Henderson should have some "weight" for the HHOF then you need to start looking at all kinds of other tournaments and the efforts of all kinds of other international players and what they did in those tournaments that they may deem to "the most important series in hockey history."

For example, the Czechs think the 1998 Olympics are the most important tournament in hockey history, the Russians, in turn, point to the 1981 Canada Cup as the most important tournament in hockey history etc, etc.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

First of all, why does it have some weight? It's just a tournament, and the Canadians went into it thinking it was a joke of a tournament, and International Friendly that they were going to mop the floor with the other teams in. It has, historically, grown dramatically in significance, but it's still just another tournament and if Russia had won it, nobody in Canada would be talking about like it was "the most important series in hockey history."

Sorry if you weren't around in 1972. The tournament had significant importance in 1972. This country was a standstill, especially for that last game. So please don't say it has grown dramatically in significance (in time). Now I will agree with you, I wonder how the series would have been remembered in Canada had lost. Please read my further post.

 

[GlitchMarner]

I didn't know his NHL stats are as underwhelming as they are. The guy never received a single vote for the Hart and didn't make it to 300 goals or 500 points. He topped out at 60 points in a season.

Was he a very good defensive forward at least?

If not, Andreychuk's NHL career seems to have been easily better than Henderson's.

 

[Killion]

For example, the Czechs think the 1998 Olympics are the most important tournament in hockey history...

... I guess with the younger generations of Czechs perhaps.... but that 1969 World Championships when they beat the Russians after the Soviets had rolled into their country with tanks etc... entire country beyond electrified. The dancing in the streets & yes, rioting.... made whast happened in Montreal in the 50's, Vancouver in the 90's or 10's look like an Anglican Church's annual Strawberry Social... hosted by the Ministers wife & the Womens Auxiliary... 98 compared to 69 in Prague, the country as a whole rather tame actually.... But your point stands Ferris, sure.

 

[Jumptheshark]

You're not wrong. For me the only reason Cherry and Maguire give for reason is that he scored the three biggest goals in the Series of the Century. If he plays for CCCP and does it are they beating the drum for him? No. So that ends it for me. Good player. Rose to the occasion. But that's it.

Yeah. A few goals in one series does not get you in

 

[FerrisRox]

Sorry if you weren't around in 1972. The tournament had significant importance in 1972. This country was a standstill, especially for that last game. So please don't say it has grown dramatically in significance (in time). Now I will agree with you, I wonder how the series would have been remembered in Canada had lost. Please read my further post.

The country was at a stand still by the end of the tournament. Before it began, it was widely assumed Canada would easily waltz to eight straight victories and it wasn't taken very seriously at all.

You are, of course, free to dispute that, but that's coming straight from the mouthes of the players themselves who have freely admitted to not watching tape of the Russians, treating the pre-tournament practices like pre-game skates and and the tournament itself as a free trip to Russia.

This tournament, and its significance, has been dramatically re-framed over time.

Another thing that time has done is reframed Team Canada itself. The idea that this tournament is somehow the model of Canadian hockey and the Canadians refusal to quit and their ability to dig deep and slay the dragon is utter nonsense. The reality is this tournament features easily the most shameful act of poor sportsmanship in the history of Canadian international play. Had a Russian player gone out on the ice and intentionally broken the ankle of Phil Esposito people would be up in arms about how the Russians cheated to win and stooped to the lowest level possible. But Canada doing that - and make no mistake, they did exactly that - is somehow a humorous anecdote when they talk about the series.

It's embarrassing and a real low point for Canadian hockey. People subsequently talked about the "cowardly" Russians that left the ice in Philadelphia a few years later. Who could blame them after this precedent was set and it was clearly established what Bobby Clarke was willing to do to win?

 

[The Roy Of Ottawa]

How many Stanley Cups?

 

[The Roy Of Ottawa]

Paul Henderson - Wikipedia

Legends of Hockey -- NHL Player Search -- Player -- Paul Henderson

 

[Canadiens1958]

Alan Eagleson is really famous, but I don't think that he's someone who should be associated with the Hall.

Sean Avery is known by every hockey fan at every level, but that fame isn't something that should be in the Hall.

Alan Eagleson is notorious or nefarious not really famous. Likewise Avery.

 

[Killion]

The country was at a stand still by the end of the tournament. Before it began, it was widely assumed Canada would easily waltz to eight straight victories and it wasn't taken very seriously at all.

You are, of course, free to dispute that, but that's coming straight from the mouthes of the players themselves who have freely admitted to not watching tape of the Russians, treating the pre-tournament practices like pre-game skates and and the tournament itself as a free trip to Russia.

This tournament, and its significance, has been dramatically re-framed over time.

Another thing that time has done is reframed Team Canada itself. The idea that this tournament is somehow the model of Canadian hockey and the Canadians refusal to quit and their ability to dig deep and slay the dragon is utter nonsense. The reality is this tournament features easily the most shameful act of poor sportsmanship in the history of Canadian international play. Had a Russian player gone out on the ice and intentionally broken the ankle of Phil Esposito people would be up in arms about how the Russians cheated to win and stooped to the lowest level possible. But Canada doing that - and make no mistake, they did exactly that - is somehow a humorous anecdote when they talk about the series.

It's embarrassing and a real low point for Canadian hockey. People subsequently talked about the "cowardly" Russians that left the ice in Philadelphia a few years later. Who could blame them after this precedent was set and it was clearly established what Bobby Clarke was willing to do to win?

Indeed, good post, accurate... and I was around for it, playing hockey, teenager... in Toronto from which everything emanated, the Training Camp held & so on. And ya, the media, pundits, so called hockey intelligentsia almost all to a man & outlet really didnt take it seriously, like a "novelty event", be little more than a showcase for the NHL players who were gunna school the Russians. Cakewalk. For the vast majority of the fans & young guys such as myself, players, we didnt really pay a whole lot of attention to International Hockey as the general perception was that it was rigged... and to a large degree it was & had been since the 50's by the Soviets. So everyone was expecting to see them be handed their lunch on a tray. Come-uppance. All theyd ever faced from us were Seniors, Juniors, University players.

With the hype surrounding the series, pretty much everyone did tune in for Game 1, hardcore & casual fans. What unfolded however was a joke, a bad dream, that the media & everyone else could get things so wrong, then to watch as the out of shape caught on their heels reeling backwards Canadians decided to lower the bar, lowest common denominator with dirty play in a blatant attempt to slow down & stop the Russians.... absolutely disgusted me & I know a great many others... who did tune in sporadically thereafter to see if Team Canada had gotten their acts together, were playing it clean, to see if Sinden in the deployment of his troops had figured out the obvious in how to stop them at Center which he didnt do until Game 4 & just on & on & on. So no, I didnt watch much of it between Game 1 & 8, whenever I tuned in, quickly disgusted with what I was seeing with Team Canada's players. Game 8 I did watch in full.

History is constantly being re-written and ya, no question people overstate Hendersons heroics & not just in that final game but his clutch goals in others. Mythic status. That a player of that caliber, yes he was decent but not exactly the brightest star in the galaxy along with Eliis & a few others were the only Canadians playing it clean & finding success in doing so tells you all you need to know about where that crews heads were at. Yes Team Canada won the series however, so did the Russians. They won it in Game 1 actually when they came out there & skated circles around the pro's & continued to do so throughout the series. People seem to forget or perhaps unaware of all the handwringing & teeth gnashing following the Summit over the "crisis in hockey across Canada". How the game had become far too violent, that Canada was producing Goon's, playing Goon Hockey at every level & back then certainly from elite Bantam, Midget & Junior on up there was a whole lot of that going on & had been since the 50's. Some serious acts of violence. Absolutely.

The Russians playing the game, their approach the way it once was in Canada before professionalism became a thing, before the business of hockey even existed. A "Gentlemans Game". Of sportsmanship. Speed & grace.... Sure they too during the Summit got heated, some nasty stickwork but in every single case, retaliation. Only so much you can take, snap. And that was Sindens game plan. Got Morons on my team.... whole selection process of players was flawed.... discussion that weve had here countless times & even still raises at least my hackles, passions. They didnt lose the Summit Series. In many respects they won it. Hockey changed forever, they changed the game, and while no Russophobe, crimes of the beyond brutal Communist regime, mass murder, repression.. absolutely beyond heinous... one needs to separate the people, general population from leadership. It was of course framed East vs West, Our System vs Theirs, sport in general, way it was be it hockey, the Olympics... it was easy for Esposito, Clarke, Eagleson & others to demonize the Russian players, Coaches etc, people lapping it up... that they were Automatons, dirty.... propaganda... war of words. Scratch the surface, use your brain... not so much.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I think he still gets in and if he weren't in 2018 he would be a name we'd bring up a lot. Cup or not. How do I know? Because he and Rick Middleton had precisely the same career at the same time. The result was different. Middleton's last NHL season his Bruins got hammered in the Cup final by the Oilers. A year later McDonald scores an important goal (not the winner despite popular belief for the Cup, that was Gilmour) in Game 6. But it was his only goal that postseason.

The fact that Lanny got in first ballot and Middleton is still waiting despite the very real argument that Middleton probably is slightly better shows you the real problem that can exist with the committee. Lanny still should probably be in, but yes, popularity and an iconic look can help.

Middleton not being in has nothing to do with on ice things.

He's being black balled for being one of the ones that led the charge and helped spearhead the lawsuit against the NHL and the teams over Eagleson.

I get Henderson is a cult hero in Canada for the Summit Series, but that is not enough to warrant a HOF induction. Sorry. Feel free to put him in any Canadian athletic HOF you want, or make an exhibit about the 72 Summit Series. But a 7 game exhibition series (where he wasnt the best player on his own team...Esposito was) =/= a HOF'er.

Like I said before, if you're gonna say Henderson should be in, then you have to induct Eruzione too. He scored a more significant goal on a bigger international stage.

 

[FerrisRox]

Middleton not being in has nothing to do with on ice things.

He's being black balled for being one of the ones that led the charge and helped spearhead the lawsuit against the NHL and the teams over Eagleson.

I think this is nonsense.

Rick Middleton isn't in the Hockey Hall of Fame because he's just not good enough, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Big Phil]

Middleton not being in has nothing to do with on ice things.

He's being black balled for being one of the ones that led the charge and helped spearhead the lawsuit against the NHL and the teams over Eagleson.

I get Henderson is a cult hero in Canada for the Summit Series, but that is not enough to warrant a HOF induction. Sorry. Feel free to put him in any Canadian athletic HOF you want, or make an exhibit about the 72 Summit Series. But a 7 game exhibition series (where he wasnt the best player on his own team...Esposito was) =/= a HOF'er.

Like I said before, if you're gonna say Henderson should be in, then you have to induct Eruzione too. He scored a more significant goal on a bigger international stage.

I agree, I don't like the idea of him in either.

I think this is nonsense.

Rick Middleton isn't in the Hockey Hall of Fame because he's just not good enough, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know, I think personally he is good enough to get in there. McDonald gets in by playing in the same era, same position, same right handed shot, etc. Basically same career, but I think slightly inferior.

 

[BobbyAwe]

I think he was as good as Dick Duff?

(that's the best argument I can come up with)

 

[FerrisRox]

I don't know, I think personally he is good enough to get in there. McDonald gets in by playing in the same era, same position, same right handed shot, etc. Basically same career, but I think slightly inferior.

There's always going to be a line, a cut off point, and guys are always going to be right along that line and some will be on one side others will be on the opposite side and for many of them it's a coin toss on who goes where.

If Middleton spent the bulk of his career in Canada, joined the rare 60+ goal club and won a Stanley Cup I suspect he would be in the Hall of Fame wheres if Lanny spent his career in the States putting up solid numbers without ever doing anything to stand out from the crowd and never won a Cup, McDonald would be on the outside looking in.

I don't disagree that their careers are similar, but Lanny had a few things that separated him from the group (and some friends on the selection committee which certainly didn't hurt his cause.)

 

[The Panther]

There's always going to be a line, a cut off point, and guys are always going to be right along that line and some will be on one side others will be on the opposite side and for many of them it's a coin toss on who goes where.

If Middleton spent the bulk of his career in Canada, joined the rare 60+ goal club and won a Stanley Cup I suspect he would be in the Hall of Fame wheres if Lanny spent his career in the States putting up solid numbers without ever doing anything to stand out from the crowd and never won a Cup, McDonald would be on the outside looking in.

I don't disagree that their careers are similar, but Lanny had a few things that separated him from the group (and some friends on the selection committee which certainly didn't hurt his cause.)

I agree with all this. I doubt many people would take Lanny c.1975 to 1985 over Nifty-Rick of the same period (or would they?). But Lanny was not only on a Canadian team -- he was the fan-favorite on TWO Canadian teams, and won the Cup in his last game (scoring a big goal to boot). On top of that, he was very personable and friendly to fans/media, and, yeah, had his cronies.

It may or may not be fair, but just as you say, there HAS TO BE a cut-off point somewhere and around that edge some guys are going to fall on either side.

 

[Neutrinos]

Well, the HOF isn't the NHL HOF. Scoring three straight winning goals in what was the most important (yea it's subjective) , series in hockey history has some weight.

Does anybody care about it outside of Canada/Russia?

 

[feffan]

Henderson scored the most recognized goal in the history of CANADIAN hockey. If that's not fame, I don't know what it.

Fixed that for u. If u r not a real hockeynerd Paul Henderson or that goal is not regognicable from people under 50 in any other country than Canada. And to be honest, probably not the ones over that age as well. Well. Maybe in Russia. But I would suspect he is no more a houshold name in Russia than mentioned Shepelev is in Canada... Henderson getting in opens up a flood way of other players from other countries.

On a political level the most defining wins in hockey history I would say belongs to Czechoslovakias wins over Soviet in the 1969 WC. Not even one year after they where invaded by Soviet. In the rest of the world that probably has a better chance of being remembered outsied hockey nerds. And an HM to Poland beating Soviet in the WC 1976.

And to be honest, at the time the first game was probably more memorable than the tournament as a whole. That Soviet could beat Canadas NHL-players that way sent huge waves threw the hockey world. Canadas tournament win was in the end more a relief than a regular celebrating. The rivalry wasn´t there when the tournament started. It begun because of it and by the knowledge how great the Soviets really where.

This country was a standstill, especially for that last game. So please don't say it has grown dramatically in significance (in time).

This unintentional sums it up. Outside Canada (and maybe Russia, who I think have other wins and losses they remember more...) this tournament ain´t really remembered outside us real hockey nuts.

 

[Theokritos]

Does anybody care about it outside of Canada/Russia?

Certainly. It was a crucial series in the history of international hockey and arguably changed the hockey world forever.

Not that Paul Henderson should be in the HHOF though.

 

[sr edler]

Does anybody care about it outside of Canada/Russia?

I don't care personally, no, but I can't answer for other people.