Hull or Richard

Who was the better player. they had more in common than just wearing the same number. Both were legendary players. In 1997 The Hockey News made a Top 100 list and Hull was very close to Richard in terms of ranking. So who was better?

All-star selections
Bobby Hull 12 (10 first team, 2 second team)
Maurice Richard 14 (8 first team, 6 second team)

Stanley Cups
Hull: 1
Richard: 8

Art Ross Trophies
Hull: 3
Richard: 0

Hart Trophies
Hull: 2
Richard: 1

Goal scoring leader
Hull: 7 (all-time record)
Richard: 5

So there you have it. That's a fair breakdown. Hull has the edge in individual awards but Rocket won more and was more clutch. All-star team selections are pretty close, only Gretzky, Howe and Bourque have more than Rocket all-time.

 

Richard's cups don;t really mean much in a time when almost all Canadian players had a choice and wanted to play for the Montreal Canadians and there were only 6 teams. I only really consider cups after expansions meaningful. 6 teams isn't a long hard playoff run, or anything remarkable for that matter.

However, nobody can deny his goal scoring achievements. The guy has an award named after him for pete's sake. First to score 50 in 50, and it held for years until Bossy tied it and Gretzky obliterated it.

The guy wasn't a points man. He was a bonefied goal scoring machine. If the rocket richard trophy was out back then, he would have won almost every one.

 

Hull & it is not even close. Richard was a great player & played on some great teams. However, he was very one-dimensional. His forte was scoring goals And he was considered the best player from the blueline in. However, his best years were during WW II when many of the best players were overseas so the competition was pretty soft. Also, he never won an Art Ross.

Hull had the hardest shot of all time and may have been the fastest skater of all time. He could score from outside the blue line or power his way in like the rocket. Overall, he was a better goal scorer than the Rocket as he could score in many different ways. Hull was able to consistently wind up & go end to end wheras the Rockets area of expertise was behind his opponent's blue line. Hull was also a much better play maker & won 3 Art Ross trophies. Hull could also beat you defensively and punish you physically. An example was the 76 Canada cup where he cleanly crushed Salming & took his game away.

When Hull left the NHL at age 33, he was still the top left winger in the league & would have had several more all star selections & 50 goal seasons.

Yes, Richard won more cups but that was more a reflection of the incredible depth those Hab teams had. Hull may have won only one but he led his team to the finals several times and always performed at a high level.

 

Its more Richard and it aint close.

Richard never won an Art Ross but he should do it but back in the time they was adding points to the star player in the other... They didnt want to give the Ross during that time to a french canadian players... BTW your argument for the Stanley Cup on 6 teams is BRUTAL... You said that was more easy ? Are you kidding me, the teams where a lot more talented then now... 6 teams, but 6 quality teams... Get a clue !

Go watch his movie folks !

 

Don't believe everthing you see in the movies. BTW, Hull best years were in the 6 team NHL-postwar.

 

So could Richard though as well...and he was just plain nasty on (and off) the ice.

 

duplicate

 

No doubt Richard was nasty & would carve you with his stick. However, in many ways his temper explosions hurt his team(example 1955). Hull was basically a clean player but could use his strength to hurt his opponents & lift his team.

 

Richard gets much of the "mythical" vote much like Bobby Orr does in polls like this. When you analyze the facts and look at the dominance of their careers, Hull is ahead.

 

Do you have any evidence or are you just perpetuating a myth?

 

Uh, off topic, how does Orr get a mythical vote?
He is undisputedly the best defenseman of all time, and argueably among the best 3 players of all time. There is no "Myth" its just fact.

He was the best offensively, best defensively, and clutch. Nobody could catch him because he was the best skater, and he was incredible at everything.

 

You should read the recent "Orr vs Gretzky" thread and you wil know exactly what I mean.

Some like to say that Orr was the best player ever by a wide margin and even bringing the name Gretzky or Howe into the conversation is blasphemous.

That is what I call "Mythical".

 

No way was he better than Gretzky or Lemieux by a wide Margin. As far as Defensemen go, he was better by a wide margin though.

 

If the Conn Smythe would have been awarded in Richard years. You would look at the facts, the rings, the 50/50, the era he played in, the adversity he had.

There's no «myth» about french canadian being disadvantaged in 40/50's hockey. Heck. Look at Don Cherry and Avery today and try to picture good old canadian hockey back in 1955 before Quebec quiet revolution.

There's no evidence he's been stolen many assist, I conceed but I'll beleive the Rocket on that one.

 

You must be one of those "mythical" votes that ogo refers to. The Hof retro voted the Conn Smythe & the Rocket won exactly one. As far as having assists stole from him, that sounds like whining to me. Other Habs won the AR during the Rockets era. Both Lach & Geoffrion won a couple. I guess, they only stole assists from poor Rocket not his team mates.

Don't get me wrong. I like the Rocket. I even saw him play albeit it was his last few years. I think he was one of the greatest ever & the best Hab of all time. However, he was not as good as Hull.

 

Not true, he played 3 seasons in a weakened NHL. His best years were 44-45, 46-47, 49-50, & 50-51. Only one of those were war years.

 

I stand corrected but the 50 in 50 was a war year. Not that it wasn't a great accomplishment but a lot of good players were in the military.

 

Agreed, thats why myself and many others think his 45 goals in 60 games in 46-47 was the more impressive feat.

 

Funny that folks would portray Richard as one-dimensional and Hull as a better all-around player. I watched a fair bit of Hull in his prime and don't remember him as a devastating physical presence. Can't remember any crushing bodychecks, effective backchecking, great penalty killing or a lot of work in heavy traffic from him. Do remember speed down the wing and a big shot off the banana blade although I never saw him break the glass with it like his kid brother did one night in my impressionable youth.

Hulll was a great ambassador for the game with his big smile and the fact he always had time to talk to writers or kids while Richard wasn't nearly as comfortable in the spotlight but this don't mean a whole lot on the ice.

When it comes to the more intangible elements of the game, Richard has it hands down in terms of both leadership and performance in the postseason in particular. Chicago had a whack of talent in the late 50s and 1960s but only took home the silverware once. They just didn't bring up their level of play enough to go anywhere in most years, losing to a fair number of teams that were inferior on paper but came to play in the springtime. Have read an interesting analysis that indicates the fault wasn't with the stars but with the support players. Seems the stars' numbers were similar in the playoffs to what they were in the regular season. Lack of leadership is indicated if none of the big guys can get the scrubs to step it up or set an example by raising their own level of play.

In Montreal players were as frightened of Richard's ire as they were of Irvin's or Blake's. Year after year they seemed to dig deep enough to go all the way, winning the Cup in almost half of Richard's seasons with the team. Even if he wasn't on the ice The Rocket contributed. Marcel Bonin borrowed his injured captain's gloves in the 1959 playoffs and got 10 goals with them on, including the Cup winner.

But what do I know, after all I never saw Richard play live and may not even be qualified to fully answer the question, although I did give it a bit of thought.

 

Hull's great WHA years can't be entirely discounted either. If he'd chosen to stay in the NHL, there was a chance he would have broken Gordie Howe's goal scoring record long before Gretzky. He left the NHL after a 50 goal season, and scoring was on the rise. If he stays with Chicago his 610 career goals are possibly 810. If that were the case, we'd probably be debating between him and Howe instead. But of course the Rocket is a legend too, I don't mean to discount him here at all.

 

I admit that I was a big Bobby Hull fan so I am not unbiased but to say he wasn't a devasting physical presence bogles my mind. Watch the Sweden Canada game from 76, they wanted Salming off his game and 37 year old Hull crunched him twice & salming was a strong guy. He fought & beat John Ferguson twice,once with a broken jaw. A lot of his goals were from skating through& over big defencemen. In the 63 playoffs he scored a hat trick while playing with a severely broken nose & eyes so swollen he could hardly see. He was a physical presence every moment he was on the ice. As far a killing penalties he did it a lot. I picked up a DVD of a 65 Chi/Det game recently & hull was hardly off the ice. He must have played 45 minutes (Howe the same). He was out for every penalty kill & powerplay plus being double shifted.

As far as playoffs, Richard played on much more loaded teams than Hull did but Hull was fantastic in the playoffs. In 71, if Espo hadn't choked & Chicago had won, Hull was an easy Smythe winner. Also he won a couple of WHA championships not too mention carrying the damn league on his back.

 

I don't remember any Ferguson-Hull fight when Hull's jaw was broken. Ferguson did go after Hull in one game but a fight never materialized. Richard played on a loaded tem from '55 - '60 but some of the teams he played on before that weren't that good.

 

Funny how Bobby Orr is an icon with a short NHL career but Hull jumping to the WHA hurts his rep' even after 15 NHL seasons most of which he was the premier player. Note that I am not duscrediting Orr as IMO he is the best all time but Hull IMO is top 5 easily but is downgraded because he didn't finish his career in the NHL. Don't understand it.

 

Those not so good teams didn't win the cup. The Ferguson versus Hull with the broken jaw happened.. It is a fact,

 

He won his last 5 seasons in the NHL. The other 3 cup winners weren't stacked teams.