Goaltenders who started as skaters

[Iain Fyffe]

One of the alternative claims, outlined in December of 1933, in The Gazette by D.A.L MacDonald:

Let's have a look-see.

"sometimes with as many as ten men aside." Certainly plausible, recorded games have up to nine a side, so ten would not be a stretch.

"A match was won when one team scored." No evidence of this in any recorded match.

"The rules usually called for a two-hour limit." In early recorded game, 90 minutes was the usual time.

"The longest game on record was one which lasted six hours and 20 minutes." You'd think if it was on record, that they'd provide some detail to confirm this.

"McGill had a hockey team in 1880...but it was not organized as such and it was not hockey they played in those days, [Smith] emphatically states." No suggestion of what he thought they were playing.

"Games were played in the old Victoria rink and any number of players could take part. About 70 figured in one contest." The Victoria rink was about the size of a standard NHL rink. I might agree with Mr. Smith that if there were that many players on that surface, it would not be hockey that they were playing.

"[Smith] joined the Victorias (he writes) in 1884 and the club won the carnival that year." The Victorias did win the Carnival in 1884, but there's no record of Smith being on that team. He did play with the Montreal HC in 1885, but the article claims this team did not exist until 1886.

"M.A.A.A. played Quebec in the semi-final of the carnival tourney and the game went 6 hours and 20 minutes. The contest started on a Friday but had to be halted and was decided by the fourth "sudden death" rule at 12:30 p.m. Saturday. They plated McGill again Saturday night." So here's that game they mentioned before. They don't specify which year it was. It had the AAA playing against Quebec in a semi-final match, however, which means it must have been in 1883, since that was the only year Quebec ever participated in the carnival. So the AAA, which the article claims did not exist until 1886, played Quebec in 1883. Well, the Montreal HC did play Quebec on a Friday in the 1883 Carnival. And it was a tie game. But somehow the game report failed to mention that it took so long, instead saying "Play was had for two half hours, with an intermission of ten minutes....at the end of the hour it was declared 'a draw.'" (Montreal Daily Witness 27 Jan 1883). And then Quebec played a second match that evening.

"In 1879, sticks were not to be raised above the knee. In 1883, a regulation was passed that sticks were not to be raised above the waist." In fact, in 1877 stick were not to be raised above the shoulder, a rule that persisted for many years.

Fairly typical results when relying on 50-plus-year-old memories.

Well your information is far from complete.

My information establishes that the rules text published in 1877 exactly matches the Hockey Association code. It's going to take a heck of a something to demonstrate that it was coincidence.

The 1876 Gazette excerpt is not the complete article, so if you have the complete article support the bolded. Nor was any evidence presented of cross-checking against other Montreal newspapers French and English. French would be particularly interesting.

All available newspapers have been thoroughly searched, mostly by Pat Houda and Carl Giden, who despite being Swedish have assembled more relevant information about early hockey in Canada probably than all Canadian researchers combined.

I have already supported the bolded, and explained why it's support. I'm not going to do it again. Read the thread.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

As for Orlick's claim. Does your information show that there were no hockey associations in Montreal in 1876?

One cannot prove a negative. There were no 1876 newspapers reports with the headline "Still No Hockey Association in Montreal!"

What we have is an 1876 reference to a Hockey Association, and rules published in 1877 showing word-for-word transcriptions from the English Hockey Association rules.

And of course, no evidence that there was a hockey association in Montreal in 1876. Despite these papers being searched thoroughly by very competent researchers.

Taken all together, there is only one rational conclusion. I'm sorry if you can't accept that, but it's plain as day. If only everything in early hockey history were this obvious.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Whats also odd is that it was mentioned up-page that Percy had played Right Wing or Forward before playing goal, quite true

That's very interesting. Someone should start a thread about that!

That right there is a 3-4yr gap, and its important as I for one would like to know exactly when it was that goalies started wearing pads.

Whitey Merritt wore cricket pads in the 1896 Stanley Cup challenge, the first recorded instance.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Exactly

Let's have a look-see.

"sometimes with as many as ten men aside." Certainly plausible, recorded games have up to nine a side, so ten would not be a stretch.

"A match was won when one team scored." No evidence of this in any recorded match.

"The rules usually called for a two-hour limit." In early recorded game, 90 minutes was the usual time.

"The longest game on record was one which lasted six hours and 20 minutes." You'd think if it was on record, that they'd provide some detail to confirm this.

"McGill had a hockey team in 1880...but it was not organized as such and it was not hockey they played in those days, [Smith] emphatically states." No suggestion of what he thought they were playing.

"Games were played in the old Victoria rink and any number of players could take part. About 70 figured in one contest." The Victoria rink was about the size of a standard NHL rink. I might agree with Mr. Smith that if there were that many players on that surface, it would not be hockey that they were playing.

"[Smith] joined the Victorias (he writes) in 1884 and the club won the carnival that year." The Victorias did win the Carnival in 1884, but there's no record of Smith being on that team. He did play with the Montreal HC in 1885, but the article claims this team did not exist until 1886.

"M.A.A.A. played Quebec in the semi-final of the carnival tourney and the game went 6 hours and 20 minutes. The contest started on a Friday but had to be halted and was decided by the fourth "sudden death" rule at 12:30 p.m. Saturday. They plated McGill again Saturday night." So here's that game they mentioned before. They don't specify which year it was. It had the AAA playing against Quebec in a semi-final match, however, which means it must have been in 1883, since that was the only year Quebec ever participated in the carnival. So the AAA, which the article claims did not exist until 1886, played Quebec in 1883. Well, the Montreal HC did play Quebec on a Friday in the 1883 Carnival. And it was a tie game. But somehow the game report failed to mention that it took so long, instead saying "Play was had for two half hours, with an intermission of ten minutes....at the end of the hour it was declared 'a draw.'" (Montreal Daily Witness 27 Jan 1883). And then Quebec played a second match that evening.

"In 1879, sticks were not to be raised above the knee. In 1883, a regulation was passed that sticks were not to be raised above the waist." In fact, in 1877 stick were not to be raised above the shoulder, a rule that persisted for many years.

Fairly typical results when relying on 50-plus-year-old memories.


My information establishes that the rules text published in 1877 exactly matches the Hockey Association code. It's going to take a heck of a something to demonstrate that it was coincidence.


All available newspapers have been thoroughly searched, mostly by Pat Houda and Carl Giden, who despite being Swedish have assembled more relevant information about early hockey in Canada probably than all Canadian researchers combined.

I have already supported the bolded, and explained why it's support. I'm not going to do it again. Read the thread.

Presented an alternative claim in full article form with a link so that everyone reading can examine and comment. The questions raised are well known

Kindly produce the complete article from the February 7, 1876 article in The Gazette for similar examination by all.

I sense your access to all available Montreal newspapers may be deficient.

Will make it a very simple counting exercise. How many February 7, 1876 Montreal newspapers are available to you?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Presented an alternative claim in full article form with a link so that everyone reading can examine and comment. The questions raised are well known

Kindly produce the complete article from the February 7, 1876 article in The Gazette for similar examination by all.

I sense your access to all available Montreal newspapers may be deficient.

Will make it a very simple counting exercise. How many February 7, 1876 Montreal newspapers are available to you?

How can he present an article that is only available on microfilm at his library? Well, I guess he could print a copy, scan, and post, but that's a lot of work.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Kindly produce the complete article from the February 7, 1876 article in The Gazette for similar examination by all.

Sorry, can't do it. I don't have a link, and it was provided to me by someone else. Specifically Giden and Houda.

Will make it a very simple counting exercise. How many February 7, 1876 Montreal newspapers are available to you?

Don't know. Probably about the same as are available to you. Heck, maybe it's less. Maybe far less. And if you have any evidence, anything at all, even a scrap to support your guesswork, I'd love to see it. Use all those newspapers that at your fingertips and find some evidence.

That's how this should be going, in fact. You should start with the evidence, and draw conclusions from it. But throughout this thread, you've just been making unsubstantiated guesses (many that contradict the existing evidence) and are now implying that if I just had access to more newspapers there'd be something to support it.

I've published my research. Do you have any evidence at all for any of your claims?

 

[Killion]

Whitey Merritt wore cricket pads in the 1896 Stanley Cup challenge, the first recorded instance.

Interesting. Then Id assume that they were in use previously as well, though just how widely likely shrouded in the mists of time absent any further documented evidence. Certainly seems odd that Percy, playing Goal in 1903 some 7yrs after Whitey & the first recorded mention of the use of pads would be ridiculed for wearing them.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

At this point I'd even take a rational explanation of how the 1877 rules are word-for-word from the English Hockey Association code, if the "Hockey Association" mentioned in 1876 was not in fact that one.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Interesting. Then Id assume that they were in use previously as well, though just how widely likely shrouded in the mists of time absent any further documented evidence. Certainly seems odd that Percy, playing Goal in 1903 some 7yrs after Whitey & the first recorded mention of the use of pads would be ridiculed for wearing them.

I don't take that claim of ridicule seriously. Players wore plenty of protection on their shins.

I doubt Merritt only first wore the pads in the Stanley Cup game. You'd think he'd want to be comfortable in them before using them in such an important match.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

How can he present an article that is only available on microfilm at his library? Well, I guess he could print a copy, scan, and post, but that's a lot of work.

Indeed. As I said, not everything is freely available to everyone. Unfortunate but reality.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Technology

How can he present an article that is only available on microfilm at his library? Well, I guess he could print a copy, scan, and post, but that's a lot of work.

That is old. Technology is now available to two step from microfilm, saving the page or article and reproducing on the internet.Also faster and cheaper.

Also the various libraries and archives are slowly putting newspapers on the web and other materials into internet accessible formats.

So what is unavailable or was unavailable previously may be available now or in the future. Just a question of patience and working with sources.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Details

Sorry, can't do it. I don't have a link, and it was provided to me by someone else. Specifically Giden and Houda.


Don't know. Probably about the same as are available to you. Heck, maybe it's less. Maybe far less. And if you have any evidence, anything at all, even a scrap to support your guesswork, I'd love to see it. Use all those newspapers that at your fingertips and find some evidence.

That's how this should be going, in fact. You should start with the evidence, and draw conclusions from it. But throughout this thread, you've just been making unsubstantiated guesses (many that contradict the existing evidence) and are now implying that if I just had access to more newspapers there'd be something to support it.

I've published my research. Do you have any evidence at all for any of your claims?

Specifically the quoted phrase or the complete article?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Specifically the quoted phrase or the complete article?

The complete article. I already quoted the relevant bit.

Do you have any evidence for any of your claims?

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Article

The complete article. I already quoted the relevant bit.

Do you have any evidence for any of your claims?

Let's see the article, which is the contentious issue here. The readership will decide what is relevant. Likewise the need for further evidence from other sources supporting other positions will then be determined.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Let's see the article, which is the contentious issue here. The readership will decide what is relevant. Likewise the need for further evidence from other sources supporting other positions will then be determined.

I'm going to take that as a no.

The reference to the Hockey Association in that article is very brief. It only mentions it by name, says nothing else about it. The big part of the evidence, which you keep skipping over, is the fact that the 1877-published rules are word-for-word transcriptions of the Enlglish Hockey Association rules.

I'm not going to type out any more of my book for you. If you are genuinely interested in the subject, you will buy one, or you will find someone who has a copy and borrow it. Then and only then will you be able to adequately address my arguments, because until then you will not have seen them in their entireties. And even then, you'll need to bring some evidence of your own, which to date you have not done.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Name

I'm going to take that as a no.

The reference to the Hockey Association in that article is very brief. It only mentions it by name, says nothing else about it. The big part of the evidence, which you keep skipping over, is the fact that the 1877-published rules are word-for-word transcriptions of the Enlglish Hockey Association rules.

I'm not going to type out any more of my book for you. If you are genuinely interested in the subject, you will buy one, or you will find someone who has a copy and borrow it. Then and only then will you be able to adequately address my arguments, because until then you will not have seen them in their entireties. And even then, you'll need to bring some evidence of your own, which to date you have not done.

Previously no mention of a name was made. Now you raise the issue
of a name. As things stand you have Hockey Association without viewing it in its original and entire article form then you have English Hockey Association, the source of the rules in question plus you raise a name issue so we are faced with the possibility with twp distinct maybe three entities.

Also from your research and posting to date it is far from clear that follow-up research was done to verify, using the same newspaper or others to see if a hockey association had been formed in Montreal previous to February 7, 1876.

This would not require proving a negative just back tracking information.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Previously no mention of a name was made. Now you raise the issue of a name.

Are you saying that until now I did not mention the Hockey Association by name with respect to this reference? Try here. Or here, which is a post that only includes the relevant passage.

As things stand you have Hockey Association without viewing it in its original and entire article form then you have English Hockey Association, the source of the rules in question plus you raise a name issue so we are faced with the possibility with twp distinct maybe three entities.

Perhaps by name issue, you mean that you think English Hockey Association is the name? It's not. The "English" in that phrase is an adjective, to specify where that association was located. Its name was the Hockey Association. This was done to differentiate it from your hypothetical Canadian Hockey Association. And there is no evidence to date that there was any such association in Canada at the time. If you have some evidence to that end, please present it already.

Also from your research and posting to date it is far from clear that follow-up research was done to verify, using the same newspaper or others to see if a hockey association had been formed in Montreal previous to February 7, 1876.

You are not qualified to say that, because you have not, in fact, read my research, now have you?

Do you have any evidence that there was a Hockey Association in Montreal at that time? There's an entire society of hockey historians who have found no evidence of it, despite searching Montreal papers.

Unless you have any evidence, you're just making stuff up. You have no reason to suggest that there was such an association, especially when the word-for-word nature of the rules presents the very obvious link to the HA in England.

This would not require proving a negative just back tracking information.

Knowing that Montreal newspapers have been combed through by extremely precise and diligent researchers such as Houda and Giden is as close to negative proof as you're going to get.

That's the thing about research, chum. You build upon it. You seem to want everyone to re-do research that has already been done, because you think there must be something there that was missed. You can do that if you like, but I've taken all of the available information on this subjects, and dug up some more on my own, and synthesized it into a coherent shape with conclusions that follow the evidence.

Do you have any evidence to support any of your claims? A couple of pages ago, for instance, you claimed that field hockey had no influence on early hockey rules. I provided evidence that firmly rebuts this claim. Do you want to provide anything in support of it, or are you happy leaving it as a refuted assertion?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

A Montreal-based HA doesn't explain the rules

Let's be clear. Even if there was a Montreal-based Hockey Association, and the local teams were using the rules of this Montreal-based Hockey Association, we still know that the rules they were using, printed in 1877, are word-for-word transcriptions of the England-based Hockey Association, which we know for a fact existed.

It makes no difference. They were still getting their rules from England, regardless of whether they had an association already or not. We know this because of the text of the rules.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Early mention of a goal-keeper

The rules of ricket, as it was played in Nove Scotia, were published in 1859 and include a reference to a person assigned to guard the goal. Ricket was a hockey-like game which most likely led to the Halifax version of hockey that was playd in the 1880s.

"Rule 6: A ricket (goal) is chosen by each side and placed in charge of a man whose duty it is to prevent the ball from passing through."

 

[Canadiens1958]

Actual Article

Montreal Gazette, 07 Feb 1876:

"The game was conducted under the 'Hockey Association' rules."

The actual article is interesting. One of the teams involved was actually a football team.

The reporting shows that hockey was not a very familiar activity.

Note the quality of the article is not the best but is readible once magnified. to the 100-150% range

 

[Theokritos]

The actual article is interesting. One of the teams involved was actually a football team.

The reporting shows that hockey was not a very familiar activity.

Note the quality of the article is not the best but is readible once magnified. to the 100-150% range

Thanks for the scan! I'm still working on the deciphering though.

Note that the "Montreal Football Club" featured none other than James Creighton plus goalie Esdaile and maybe others who were also members of the Victoria Skating Rink & had already taken part in the 1875 game.

Also interesting: The term "puck" still refers to the ball in this early game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Quality

Thanks for the scan! I'm still working on the deciphering though.

Note that the "Montreal Football Club" featured none other than James Creighton plus goalie Esdaile and maybe others who were also members of the Victoria Skating Rink & had already taken part in the 1875 game.

Also interesting: The term "puck" still refers to the ball in this early game.

Quality is somewhat lacking but the data as you point out is interesting especially the link to football and the 1875 game.

Will look at other papers from the era and other dates as time and opportunity permits.

 

[Killion]

Quality is somewhat lacking but the data as you point out is interesting especially the link to football and the 1875 game.

Indeed, and thanks C58. Though a decent counterarguments been presented, Im still convinced Rugby-Football influenced the game to no small measure. Simply had to have. Anyone who's watched or better yet played both games & considered ice hockeys early rules would just assume such. And though never a good idea to assume anything the evidence your turning up strongly suggests as much.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Emmanuel Orlick

Indeed, that idea has been mentioned before. When Emanuel Orlick did his research in 1943, he saw the reference to the Hockey Association to mean that there was a hockey association in Montreal at that time. He did not have the information that I collected, however, and his conclusion was clearly erroneous.

Referenced above presented a number of articles in The Gazette in 1943. One such article appeared November 27, 1943 - below:

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

Details about hockey being played in the Montréal area back back to 1873 with mention of the March 9, 1875 game. Interview with one of the participants Henry Joseph - 88 years old in 1943

Also touches on the Kingston / Montréal discussion.

More articles and details by Emmanuel Orlick as they become available.

 

[Killion]

^^^ Finally, the "original". Great job finding that nugget C58. As I and many many MANY others have argued, absolutely, the game founded on Rugby-Football Rules in its earliest days. Absolutely had to have been. Anyone familiar with the rules or better yet played both sports even into the 21st Century would just naturally make such an assumption if they ever really gave it a lot of critical thought... which in & of itself is a bit peculiar as its just, to me at anyrate, just common sense and here you have an obviously still very much together elderly gentleman still working at 88, sharp as a tack recounting & confirming precisely that. That this merry band of fellows including Creighton in playing informal pickup prior to the creation of the Montreal Rules had in fact all played Rugby & did indeed base the entire games rules around Rugby however it does appear that they did lift some of the passages & format from the Field Hockey Rules Handbook (and likely as a matter of expediency in forming a template) which they created the Ice Hockey Rules Handbook but make no mistake, these "new rules" and the game itself clearly & unequivocally based on Rugby-Football and theres your smoking gun right there. That article from 1943 and I'll bet theres further proof of such however it simply hasnt been turned up yet. Mines unexplored. Moldy old diaries & journals still entombed in attics or barn lofts, wherever.