Goaltenders who started as skaters

[Robert Gordon Orr]

In order to understand the complete dynamics of the hockey origins, one has to do research on both sides of the pond. As it is now, you guys are doing the same mistake as all hockey researchers before you, only looking at it from one side (in this case North America, or specifically Canada).
Even though you are all posting old stuff known for quite some time, it is refreshing to see that you at least are looking back in time to the best of your ability. Iain Fyffe, you’ve made an honest effort to understand the beginnings, including making your own research, good for you.
If more people would take this approach then many misconceptions would be cleared up.

Even though this may not be the appropriate thread to discuss the early years of the sport, it is worth pointing out a few key elements of ice hockey that has its roots in England, like for example:

• The first use of the word hockey in connection with the game
• The first puck/bung used in connection with hockey on the ice
• First contemporary report of an actual game between two identified teams
• First goaltenders used
• First referees/umpires used
• First published ice hockey rules
• First published ice hockey rules by an organized sports organization
• First organized ice hockey game

One think that the above facts alone would capture the interest of Canadian hockey researchers.
With all that said, let us not forget that what Canada brought to the game was the most important “innovation” of the sport, namely taking it indoors.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Henry Joseph

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.

Not in the habit of quoting myself but may have found the possible "missing link" in the rules discussion.

Henry Joseph. Played ice hockey at McGill as early as 1873 plus was a member of the football team that played football against Harvard in 1874, more importantly was a member of one of the lacrosse teams that went over to England to introduce lacrosse to England in 1875. All this happened before the production of field hockey rules.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lu0iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=G5kFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=2687,3809239

 

[IMLACHnME]

No-goalie era

I began playing hockey before there was any use of goaltenders, and - boy - were there some high-scoring games. Exciting though.

 

[Killion]

Even though this may not be the appropriate thread to discuss the early years of the sport, it is worth pointing out a few key elements of ice hockey that has its roots in England, like for example:

• The first use of the word hockey in connection with the game
• The first puck/bung used in connection with hockey on the ice
• First contemporary report of an actual game between two identified teams
• First goaltenders used
• First referees/umpires used
• First published ice hockey rules
• First published ice hockey rules by an organized sports organization
• First organized ice hockey game

And where is your proof for all of these grandiose claims beyond the anecdotal? Links please.

 

[Robert Gordon Orr]

And where is your proof for all of these grandiose claims beyond the anecdotal? Links please.

I fully understand your skepticism. We'll take this discussion at the other thread ---> The Sport Ice Hockey

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Not in the habit of quoting myself but may have found the possible "missing link" in the rules discussion.

If they patterned it on rugby, why do you think they used a goalkeeper? And why would they have completely abandoned the rugby origin by the time the first ice hockey rules were published, which as we all know were mostly taken verbatim from a set of English field hockey rules?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Even though this may not be the appropriate thread to discuss the early years of the sport, it is worth pointing out a few key elements of ice hockey that has its roots in England, like for example:

• The first use of the word hockey in connection with the game
• The first puck/bung used in connection with hockey on the ice
• First contemporary report of an actual game between two identified teams
• First goaltenders used
• First referees/umpires used
• First published ice hockey rules
• First published ice hockey rules by an organized sports organization
• First organized ice hockey game

To be clear, you'll have to define what exactly you mean by "hockey.: One of the biggest hurdles in these discussions is that different people mean different things by the same word.

 

[Robert Gordon Orr]

To be clear, you'll have to define what exactly you mean by "hockey.: One of the biggest hurdles in these discussions is that different people mean different things by the same word.

Let us stick to he SIHR (Society For International Hockey Research) definition of (ice) hockey
For a game to be recognized as hockey, all that is required is the presence of six defining characteristics:

- Ice surface
- Two contesting teams
- Players on skates
- Use of curved sticks
- Small propellant
- Objective of scoring on opposite goals

The absence of any of these would exclude an activity from being accepted as hockey. Thus a game not played on ice is not hockey; a game in which players do not wear skates is not hockey, and so forth.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Let us stick to he SIHR (Society For International Hockey Research) definition of (ice) hockey
For a game to be recognized as hockey, all that is required is the presence of six defining characteristics:

- Ice surface
- Two contesting teams
- Players on skates
- Use of curved sticks
- Small propellant
- Objective of scoring on opposite goals

The absence of any of these would exclude an activity from being accepted as hockey. Thus a game not played on ice is not hockey; a game in which players do not wear skates is not hockey, and so forth.

So we're okay with including bandy in the discussion? And shinny? I'm just being clear in what you're talking about. You're talking about hockey-like games, not just the particular game that is now called ice hockey, is that right?

 

[Robert Gordon Orr]

So we're okay with including bandy in the discussion? And shinny? I'm just being clear in what you're talking about. You're talking about hockey-like games, not just the particular game that is now called ice hockey, is that right?

Of course it is okay to include bandy, shinny and hurley for example.
They all fulfill the six points of SIHR.

Also, the contemporary sources from 120+ years back agreed with that conclusion, as they pretty much said these games all were basically the same (on ice with skates). Only the regional names differed. So, is this our starting point ?, if not, why ?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Of course it is okay to include bandy, shinny and hurley for example.
They all fulfill the six points of SIHR.

My point is that, when many people talk about the "origins of hockey", they mean specifically the game that we now know as ice hockey and its direct ancestors. You can define hockey as you like, depending on what you're talking about, but you have to be absolutely clear what you're talking about or else you will wind up talking at cross-purposes with some people who are using a different definition than you are.

(Also, based on the purpose that the SIHR origins committee developed that definition for, I think they failed. They ended up anwering a different question than they said they were going to answer.)

Also, the contemporary sources from 120+ years back agreed with that conclusion, as they pretty much said these games all were basically the same (on ice with skates). Only the regional names differed. So, is this our starting point ?, if not, why ?

You can aim for whatever starting point you like, as I said. If you mean only the game that we now call ice hockey and its direct ancestors, it's probably 1875 in Montreal that you're looking for. If you mean a hockey-like game played on ice more generally, then you have to go back further than that obviously.

There's no one right question. Just make it clear exactly what question you're asking, or else apparent disagreements might arise that are actually only the result of misunderstanding.

 

[Robert Gordon Orr]

My point is that, when many people talk about the "origins of hockey", they mean specifically the game that we now know as ice hockey and its direct ancestors. You can define hockey as you like, depending on what you're talking about, but you have to be absolutely clear what you're talking about or else you will wind up talking at cross-purposes with some people who are using a different definition than you are.

(Also, based on the purpose that the SIHR origins committee developed that definition for, I think they failed. They ended up anwering a different question than they said they were going to answer.)

There you go Iain. You're the first one here who have grasped the general concept IMO. Of course it is about how people define (ice) hockey. Until we agree on a general consensus on what (ice) hockey is, it is difficult to discuss the topic. But I suspect we will never agree on that. So as I see it the SIHR definition is the best one out there at the moment.

You can aim for whatever starting point you like, as I said. If you mean only the game that we now call ice hockey and its direct ancestors, it's probably 1875 in Montreal that you're looking for. If you mean a hockey-like game played on ice more generally, then you have to go back further than that obviously.

There's no one right question. Just make it clear exactly what question you're asking, or else apparent disagreements might arise that are actually only the result of misunderstanding.

I of course don't have to tell you that the (ice) hockey games played prior to the Montreal games in 1875, had more in common with each other than with the games played today. It is naive to believe that the game(s) in 1875 were more closely related to todays game than the ones played in for example England in the 1860s. The people who still believe that, have not done the proper research.

Is there a right answer to the question ? I guess we don't have the answer yet, but at least it is a good starting point.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

There you go Iain. You're the first one here who have grasped the general concept IMO. Of course it is about how people define (ice) hockey. Until we agree on a general consensus on what (ice) hockey is, it is difficult to discuss the topic. But I suspect we will never agree on that. So as I see it the SIHR definition is the best one out there at the moment.

I still don't think you're being careful enough in how you're wording things. Whether the SIHR definition is the best one depends entirely on what it is you're trying to define.

We don't have to agree on one single definition of hockey, because as I say it can mean different things. Just clearly define what you're talking about and there shouldn't be any trouble.

There can be (and should be) multiple definitions of hockey, each suited to the meaning being studied at the time. In my book I developed a definition of hockey that was intended to define the specific game we now know as ice hockey, and is much more specific than the SIHR definition. I don't pretend it's the only definition of the word, but it was developed for a particular use. It's a definition of something that is only a subset of the broader term, but it's intended to be and I make that clear.

I of course don't have to tell you that the (ice) hockey games played prior to the Montreal games in 1875, had more in common with each other than with the games played today. It is naive to believe that the game(s) in 1875 were more closely related to todays game than the ones played in for example England in the 1860s.

This depends on how you're defining how something is related, of course. Is a cousin-like relationship more important than a grandparent-grandchild relationship? Depends entirely on what you're looking at.

Your dismissiveness suggests that you are not properly considering the different meanings of the word hockey. You mean something different by the term that these "naive" people you mention. Neither of you are wrong, you're just looking at different things.

Is there a right answer to the question ? I guess we don't have the answer yet, but at least it is a good starting point.

I didn't say there's no right answer, I said there's no right question. You seem more interested in the origins of hockey in the general sense, while others are more interested in the origins of the specific game we now call ice hockey. Both questions are interesting, just don't conflate them or it leads to confusion.

 

[Robert Gordon Orr]

I still don't think you're being careful enough in how you're wording things. Whether the SIHR definition is the best one depends entirely on what it is you're trying to define.

We don't have to agree on one single definition of hockey, because as I say it can mean different things. Just clearly define what you're talking about and there shouldn't be any trouble.

I am sticking to the SIHR definition as I got the impression that they were the ones who had/have more answers than others.
If we are not going by the SIHR definition, then I would be more than happy to see another definition by some other hockey "authority".

There can be (and should be) multiple definitions of hockey, each suited to the meaning being studied at the time.

Ok, fair enough. In my case I would like to know the origins of (ice) hockey as a game played that follows the SIHR definition.
But go ahead, I am all ears for the Iain Fyffe's definiton of hockey or any other definition by a random person.

In my book I developed a definition of hockey that was intended to define the specific game we now know as ice hockey, and is much more specific than the SIHR definition. I don't pretend it's the only definition of the word, but it was developed for a particular use. It's a definition of something that is only a subset of the broader term, but it's intended to be and I make that clear.

Ok, shoot. What are these so called more specific definitions ?

This depends on how you're defining how something is related, of course. Is a cousin-like relationship more important than a grandparent-grandchild relationship? Depends entirely on what you're looking at.

I am looking at the SIHR definition because that is the one which is generally regarded as the most accepted one. To tell you the truth, I have not seen any other definition from anyone else.

Your dismissiveness suggests that you are not properly considering the different meanings of the word hockey. You mean something different by the term that these "naive" people you mention. Neither of you are wrong, you're just looking at different things.

As I said, I am open to all meanings of the word hockey, and maybe as you say, we're all looking at different things.
That is why I am currently looking at the SIHR definition, because that is the only one that I am aware of, plus that you endorsed the organization, so it can't be all that bad.

I didn't say there's no right answer, I said there's no right question. You seem more interested in the origins of hockey in the general sense, while others are more interested in the origins of the specific game we now call ice hockey. Both questions are interesting, just don't conflate them or it leads to confusion.

Ok, let us then split it up in:

1. The origins of hockey in the general sense
2. The origins of a specific game that we now call hockey

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I am sticking to the SIHR definition as I got the impression that they were the ones who had/have more answers than others.

That's true, but that's not my point. Their definition is not intended to define the game that we now know as ice hockey and its direct ancestors only. It was a definition of the more general sense, which is suitable for your purposes since that's what you seem to be interested in.

However, when you listed the various specific bits of information you were looking for, you included among other things:

• The first puck/bung used in connection with hockey on the ice
• First goaltenders used
• First referees/umpires used
• First published ice hockey rules
• First published ice hockey rules by an organized sports organization

None of these items have any relevance to the SIHR definition (which does not specify a puck, allowing a ball as well). That definition makes no reference to rules or goalies or referees. The definition I developed, which is a narrower one for a subset of what's captured by the SIHR definition, does included references to a codified set of rules, and a puck.

This is why I'm still unsure exactly what you're going for. You say you're using a broad definition of hockey, but then looking for details about a much narrower definition. You need to decide exactly what it is that you're looking for, or what you find will not be coherent.

 

[Robert Gordon Orr]

That's true, but that's not my point. Their definition is not intended to define the game that we now know as ice hockey and its direct ancestors only. It was a definition of the more general sense, which is suitable for your purposes since that's what you seem to be interested in.

However, when you listed the various specific bits of information you were looking for, you included among other things:

• The first puck/bung used in connection with hockey on the ice
• First goaltenders used
• First referees/umpires used
• First published ice hockey rules
• First published ice hockey rules by an organized sports organization

None of these items have any relevance to the SIHR definition (which does not specify a puck, allowing a ball as well). That definition makes no reference to rules or goalies or referees. The definition I developed, which is a narrower one for a subset of what's captured by the SIHR definition, does included references to a codified set of rules, and a puck.

This is why I'm still unsure exactly what you're going for. You say you're using a broad definition of hockey, but then looking for details about a much narrower definition. You need to decide exactly what it is that you're looking for, or what you find will not be coherent.

It all depends on how narrow you want to have your definition. If you adapt your definitions in the "right way" to suit your purpose, you will fulfill your goal (whatever that might be). Now I haven't seen your definitions, so it is difficult to discuss it further. I myself am interested in the origins of hockey anyway you see it, be it the SIHR definition, the above points you mentioned or your own definitions.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

It all depends on how narrow you want to have your definition. If you adapt your definitions in the "right way" to suit your purpose, you will fulfill your goal (whatever that might be). Now I haven't seen your definitions, so it is difficult to discuss it further. I myself am interested in the origins of hockey anyway you see it, be it the SIHR definition, the above points you mentioned or your own definitions.

Alright, then the HORG database would almost certainly be of interest to you.

 

[Robert Gordon Orr]

Alright, then the HORG database would almost certainly be of interest to you.

Ok, thanks for the suggestion, I will check it out.
What about your own definitions ?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Ok, thanks for the suggestion, I will check it out.
What about your own definitions ?

This is the definition I used. I call it organized hockey rather than just hockey in an attempt to avoid some confusion.

Organized hockey is a competitive game that is played using a codified set of rules on an enclosed ice rink in which two teams of players wearing skates and using sticks that are curved at the end, attempt to propel a puck though their opponents' goal, the number of goals so scored by each team being used to determine the result of the match.