Is Gordie Howe Overrated?

[Canadiens1958]

I have no doubts that the recording of national registration statistics were not accurate back in the 40’s, and 12 fold seems very high, but it still begs to question, at what point did Canada have 50,000, 100,000, 200,000, etc., hockey players in organized leagues in the country? It was certainly a gradual process and it was very much a young sport at the start of the last century.

During the 25 years of the O6, which also falls closely in line with the baby boom, the country saw its population nearly double. Not only were there far more children to play hockey but there was a general societal prosperity taking place that allowed them to. Don’t lose sight of the fact that the baby boomers only started to play in the NHL at the very end of the O6. Maybe the O6ers has a different mentality due to the era they grew up in but that doesn’t mean they had more talent or faced as much competition.

With this in mind, and the obvious absence of Americans and Europeans, it should be very clear that the O6 lacked in terms of a deep talent pool. That doesn’t mean Canada didn’t still produce great players but the amount of great players probably pales in comparison with what came later.

It was a gradual situation that I will outline.

Early 20th century thru WWI youth hockey was basically limited to schools in Canada. During this period the age for compulsory education increased, new, bigger and better schools were built with greater recreational facilities. WWI brought with it a greater on militia like training for boys with a strong preference for competitive sports. Young males going to fight WWI created a situation where indoor rinks were able to accommodate high school hockey and with fathers away at work or at war community centers, churches, stepped into the breech organizing sporting events for youth. Still efforts at organized registration were sparse since enrollment in a school, membership in a church was deemed sufficient for eligibility. Community centers were usually affiliated with churches and schools.

This trend continued thru the 1920s encouraged by a shift in how open space parks were viewed. Initially parks were viewed as greenspace to be apppreciated. This changed to a view that parks were also a recreational space for sports and playgrounds. Municipalities started to put up temporary outdoor skating and hockey rinks for winter.

The Depression brought a lull then a boom. Boom started when job creation projects at the local, municipal, provincial and federal levels included hockey arenas, recreational facilitiels and outdoor recreational facilities with people being hired at low salaries to oversee and maintain. Most of the hockey was at the school or industrial level, militia training was still in vogue with the prospect of WWII looming so for the most part enrollment or a job was sufficient for eligibility. However as jobs became scarce and the need and interest for post high school, non industrial hockey grew relying on sponsorship at the junior and intermediate levels, the need for registration that was more formal grew. Especially in the second half of the 1930s when residency and mobility became a factor as young mercenary hockey players of junior and intermediate age grew in numbers. The old school registration no longer worked as across Canada and the provinces there was no common definition of school eligibility, some jurisdictions Used October 1st as the cut-off date, other used other dates. Some provinces ended high school at grade 11, others at grade 12, others at grade 13.

WWII saw a lot of young men go to war, while women entered the work force. This created a need to organize activities for youngsters between school and souper. Community centers mushroomed, hockey was carried along. The Pee Wee category was introduced as part of a NA trend to formalize youth sports. Little League baseball, Biddy Basketball, Golden Gloves boxing, all grew.

Post WWII youth sports exploded, CAHA agreements about eligibility and tracking gradually were accepted across Canada. The need for formal rules and procedures for Pee Wee hockey touching everything from registration to equipment to age to rink size and dimensions became evident. By 1950 the first tournaments and regional championships required strict registration and eligibility preocedures. By the sixties Pee Wee organization was solidly entrenched and attention turned to younger groupings, mosquito, atom, novice, tyke, intro.

Gradually and roughly in to year segments these were organized. This is why you see, sudden spikes in registration numbers at certain chronological points.

Also a parallel situation existed and continues to this day. Outlaw organizations that do not contribute to the Hockey Canada count of registered players and school hockey which is either a stand alone entity non - integrated in Hockey Canada or partially integrated. So the numbers remain fluid.

 

[zizbuka]

So I guess Babe Ruth wasn't so great either then?

Come back in 20 years and tell us how Crosby isn't that great because we didn't have martian players then.

 

[Canadiens1958]

are we assuming that players playing organized hockey are superior to players skating on real or proverbial ponds?

from my experience, which is kind of extreme because it was in both the warmest and the most expensive part of the country, i would have been a much much better player if i'd been able to just play outside instead of having access to 3-4 hours of icetime a week as a registered player in an organized league.

and as we start looking at registration numbers, are we accounting for how many are playing serious, competitive hockey and how many (like me) were playing completely for fun in house leagues? i certainly wouldn't count myself, or any of the hundreds of kids i played with and against in many leagues over my childhood and adolescence, as constituents of any "talent pool."

to extrapolate that, even if i happened to be really really good i seriously doubt i would have pursued the pro hockey path because, first i wouldn't have wanted to devote 50+ hours of my week to hockey, my parents certainly didn't want to invest that much time in it, and even if we all wanted it who could afford that, or make the necessary financial and lifestyle (and for parents, professional) sacrifices to be able to afford that very very very minute chance to make a living at the game as one of the 500-600-odd best players in the world? i'm willing to bet this is a common position for the majority of registered organized hockey players in the country.

so to respond back to that original request for the registration numbers (not you, @danincanada), i don't think that's useful data.

Level and quality of competition questions are valid. They are also seriously misunderstood.

Internal or house league hockey either school or community, regardless of the age group tends to feature integrated skill levels with coaching. In situations where you have house, rep and travel teams you inevitably had the rep and travel players also playing house league Benefitted all, increased the overall skill levels, elite players learned to play with lower skilled players, etc.

Likewise at the school level, intramural and intermural athletes co-mingled to the benefit of both within the school.

The troubling issue is that for invalid reasons people try to reduce the registration count by disqualifying participants since a smaller number suits their narrative.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pond or informal hockey be it skates,stick and puck at the local arena, outdoor rink, waterway, ball hockey in various forms at a gym or in the street or lane also has great value. Usually features some elite players working on skills, indirectly acting as teachers since other learn by osmosis.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The troubling issue is that for invalid reasons people try to reduce the registration count by disqualifying participants since a smaller number suits their narrative.

this is somsething you're suggesting i was doing?

Level and quality of competition questions are valid. They are also seriously misunderstood.

Internal or house league hockey either school or community, regardless of the age group tends to feature integrated skill levels with coaching. In situations where you have house, rep and travel teams you inevitably had the rep and travel players also playing house league Benefitted all, increased the overall skill levels, elite players learned to play with lower skilled players, etc.

Likewise at the school level, intramural and intermural athletes co-mingled to the benefit of both within the school.

aha, so there was hope for me yet.

there were a few travel players on my high school team, though none on my house league teams and as far as i know not generally any in our leagues. may be era or geography-specific though, i have no idea.

 

[Canadiens1958]

this is somsething you're suggesting i was doing?




aha, so there was hope for me yet.

there were a few travel players on my high school team, though none on my house league teams and as far as i know not generally any in our leagues. may be era or geography-specific though, i have no idea.

Everyone does it in their own way. Scouts stop paying attention when the star players end a shift, creating a narrative of 2 0r 3 worthwhile players. Another way of saying they do not wish to evaluate and report on the rest.

Basically a triage issue. Travel teams are usually the first to be determined. Ideally the players are proportionately distributed across the house league. Rep teams are then formed to represent the house league in external competitions. Strength of competition and merit determine the selection process. Ideally proportionate to the number of house league teams with travel players excluded.

Human nature is such that a few travel players may sneak in on a rep team with weak house league teams getting just a single player.

 

[Plural]

Most overrated player of all-time by casual fans is Wendel Clark, no question.

By the hockey media, it's probably Scott Niedermayer or Jonathan Toews.

On HFBoards specifically, and mostly sticking to retired/historical players, I'd probably go with Pavel Bure (note: I mean over the whole forum, not referring to HoH board regulars/veterans). I also think there's a bit of an exaggeration these days in terms of how "unstoppable" Eric Lindros was.

Totally agree with you on Toews/Nieds. But about Bure, I think HoH also has a knack for overrating him. His placement in the wingers project compared to Kariya, for example, is unjustifiable.

Lindros was pretty darn impossible to stop but it came in short bursts. I still remain the (not so popular) opinion that at his best Crosby played demonstrably better hockey than Lindros and was more unstoppable.

 

[Theokritos]

I have no doubts that the recording of national registration statistics were not accurate back in the 40’s, and 12 fold seems very high, but it still begs to question, at what point did Canada have 50,000, 100,000, 200,000, etc., hockey players in organized leagues in the country?

I don't have the means to answer this question (at least at this point) and it seems to me neither do you. All I'm saying is this: to suggest, as you did in the post of yours I was relying to, that the raw numbers should be taken at face value and that "most posters in this section" will "just" dismiss them is just wrong. The dismissal doesn't come without a serious argument.

 

[Howie Hodge]

In 50 years of being a hockey fan that is the first time I have ever, ever heard or read Gordie Howe in a sentence with the word overrated.

 

[danincanada]

I don't have the means to answer this question (at least at this point) and it seems to me neither do you. All I'm saying is this: to suggest, as you did in the post of yours I was relying to, that the raw numbers should be taken at face value and that "most posters in this section" will "just" dismiss them is just wrong. The dismissal doesn't come without a serious argument.

Of course neither of us have this answer. My point was it was a very gradual growth from nothing to larger numbers. Canada didn't suddenly wake up one day with 100,000 organized hockey players.

Let me clarify as well, I said "if" one takes those numbers at face value. I don't take them at face value nor should anyone else, but (clarifying again) many posters here do brush the numbers off completely and then act as though Canada had a large numbers of people playing organized hockey early in that century. Did we have the population and resources to even do that, especially considering the efforts the country put towards two world wars with a financial crisis in between. Hockey has always required skates, sticks, and ice. If we did it was very much a gradual process,

Even if that 24,000 discussed earlier was actually double, or even triple, in reality, what are we talking about? A very small pool of players compared to even just Canadian baby boomers because we do (did) have those numbers. That's why I've always maintained that the O6 talent pool was only a small fraction of the modern day NHL and this must be factored in, or at least discussed, when comparing across eras. Sadly, it rarely comes up unless an outsider brings it into the conversation.

Sidenote: Was Bobby Orr the first superstar, or even star, baby boomer in the NHL (born post WW2)? I'm thinking he may have been. Gretzky was a baby boomer, and Lemieux (and Roy and Yzerman) all came at the tail end in 1965.

 

[Theokritos]

Sadly, it rarely comes up unless an outsider brings it into the conversation.

I think the reason it rarely comes up is that we just hardly have anything tangible we could base the discussion on.

Even if that 24,000 discussed earlier was actually double, or even triple, in reality, what are we talking about? A very small pool of players compared to even just Canadian baby boomers because we do (did) have those numbers

The number cited was 240,000 registered players at the end of the O6 era.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Of course neither of us have this answer. My point was it was a very gradual growth from nothing to larger numbers. Canada didn't suddenly wake up one day with 100,000 organized hockey players.

Let me clarify as well, I said "if" one takes those numbers at face value. I don't take them at face value nor should anyone else, but (clarifying again) many posters here do brush the numbers off completely and then act as though Canada had a large numbers of people playing organized hockey early in that century. Did we have the population and resources to even do that, especially considering the efforts the country put towards two world wars with a financial crisis in between. Hockey has always required skates, sticks, and ice. If we did it was very much a gradual process,

Even if that 24,000 discussed earlier was actually double, or even triple, in reality, what are we talking about? A very small pool of players compared to even just Canadian baby boomers because we do (did) have those numbers. That's why I've always maintained that the O6 talent pool was only a small fraction of the modern day NHL and this must be factored in, or at least discussed, when comparing across eras. Sadly, it rarely comes up unless an outsider brings it into the conversation.

Sidenote: Was Bobby Orr the first superstar, or even star, baby boomer in the NHL (born post WW2)? I'm thinking he may have been. Gretzky was a baby boomer, and Lemieux (and Roy and Yzerman) all came at the tail end in 1965.

As Theo pointed out you lost a 0 from the 240,000 figure. O6 era was the period when Pee Wee numbers were officially registered and included. Since the numbers for levels below Pee Wee have always proven to be higher than the Pee Wee and above numbers in reasonable proportions, the extrapolations become valid producing excellent overall numbers.

Gretzky is a border line baby boomer, probably not. Born in Jan. 1961. Inner city grade schools in Montreal started showing declining enrollment and closures starting with the 1959-60 school year. At that time kindergarten was optional but class photos of grade 1 classes compared to 1958-59 classes show decreases from the 35 pupil range to the 25 pupil range. Grade 1 basically was the six year old age group so the Baby Boom was slowing down about six years earlier.

This would trend across Cannada. School populations steadily decreased with the only difference being the deplacement of students from the inner cities to the suburbs or satelite communities. Immigration slowed the decline in the inner city schools for two decades but by 1980 the majority of inner city schools had closed , consolidated or saw expanded catchment areas.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sports weren't taken very seriously back then. Come on! All of us played some sport when we were kids. Do you think people born in the 20s/30s had the same opportunities? All sports have their legends, it is the same with Pele. He on the other hand at least had insane stats for his time. He is still quite overrated tbh.

Look at Bobrov. Outscored Kharlamov by a mile while playing 'pro' football. Sports were a joke back then. One thing I have to give huge props to Howe for is that he kept improving and had amazing genetics which allowed him to play at such age.

Overlooking the reality that Soviets were considered amateur athletes even in soccer they did play against European pros.

Bobrov's multi-sport athletic skills helped him to the elite level in both sports. Post WWII and before this was common.

Gordie Howe practiced with the Detroit Tigers showing great power in batting practice. Not surprising given his prolific wrist shot. The correlation between a wrist shot and the use of one's wrists swinging a baseball bat is very strong.

Zdeno Chara made himself into a hockey player, future HHOF due to his athletic abilities. He has lasted well beyond his normal expiration date due to the same athleticism.

Previously I posted an article from the Ottawa Citizen about the declining athleticism amongst hockey players.

Here is a recent article from SI about Anders Lee of the Islanders who thru high school was also a star QB - running and passing.

Anders Lee went from football star to NHL standout

Watch Anders Lee play, especially in the slot and you will notice why his performance is at an elite level.

As a QB he learned to read defences and check down the options. As a running QB he developed the footwork and the ability to roll with contact, leverage contact to his advantage, spin into openings, etc.

To often players with a limited athletic portfolio create a situation where poor results are the only possible outcomes.

 

[blogofmike]

As a general rule of thumb, the tie to league quality is goals per game. The higher the goals per game, the weaker the talent pool is. The lower, the more competitive it is. This is seen plainly in respective verticals.

The best players have the ability to be multi-dimensional, as you dilute the talent pool, the skills fall off and deteriorate on a given spectrum or arc. Thus, the ballooning of scoring in the 1970's and 80's. The amount of pro teams went from six in 1966 to, roughly (and someone check me on this), 40 trillion by 1979. The teams out-paced the talent pool and stretched it too thin, so scoring goes up. As things normalized, coaching, defense, goaltending caught up to the scoring talent...one dimensional players started to lessen (or wise up) and scoring went down...only artificially inflated for a year and a half by the silly no-touching rules that got half the league's bell rung.

Howe in some seasons is probably shooting on a HOF goaltender, what, 50, 55, 60 nights in a season? Wayne Gretzky is getting tucks on Murray Bannerman...Wayne-o saw a HOF goalie, what, three nights a year? Six?

It's not a slight on Gretzky. He made the best of his situation. Howe made the best of his. The film is available to track the game back through history (and I would strongly recommend backwards) - that is clearly not being appreciated by our appropriately-named author here...as a coach at a decently-high level, I have a huge advantage of knowing what I know about the last 75 years of hockey and I use it. I also have a huge appreciation for how well-played the game was in the years leading up to the big expansion. That wasn't a Sunday skate through expansion teams...

I always felt that argument was overstated.

A) I always felt the HHOF inducted far too many pre-1980 goalies, just as they overinduct 1980s scorers. If they were in the same environment, how many goals do Chuck Rayner and Ed Giacomin save for you over Mike Richter or John Vanbiesbrouck? Or we could say Gretzky competed against more HHOF scorers, especially if you count only those that had the ice time to be top scorers. They often got more PP time than Gretzky too. In his prime (1980-1991) Gretzky scored 100 ES points per 80 games in his worst years which is around where top stars of the era peaked.

B) Mike Bossy was shooting on the same number of HHOF goalies. With 21 teams, the unbalanced 1980s schedule was more balanced in that regard. And it didn't help the other guys catch Gretzky.

Howe played 28 games against HHOF goalies in 1953. NHL.com - Stats
So using this HHOF goalie line of thinking, you could argue Howe had the advantage over someone in Montreal shooting on an HHOF goalie for 42 games.

 

[Mallard]

Yes we should also stop counting Jagr , Doan, Selanne, and others stats once they passed 36 too. It's unfair they were able to play for so long compared to others!

 

[David Bruce Banner]

So, OP kicked this hornets nest then bailed once the really knowledgable hornets showed up? Colour me surprised.

 

[danincanada]

I think the reason it rarely comes up is that we just hardly have anything tangible we could base the discussion on.

So it's just ignored completely and people pretend the talent pool has been consistent even though it very obviously hasn't been. For years I was told we don't have numbers for past registration. We get them and then it's all about them not being accurate. They may not be accurate but as I've stated several times already, hockey in Canada didn't start at 50,000, 100,000, or 200,000 organized players. It took time to build up to that and with very few Americans and no Europeans involved during the O6 it's extremely obvious it was a shallow pool when compared to what came later.

The number cited was 240,000 registered players at the end of the O6 era.

Sorry, I actually meant your "~20,000" number you referred to regarding the start of the O6, not 24,000 or 240,000. It should have been clear that I wasn't talking about the end of the O6 anyways.

 

[danincanada]

As Theo pointed out you lost a 0 from the 240,000 figure. O6 era was the period when Pee Wee numbers were officially registered and included. Since the numbers for levels below Pee Wee have always proven to be higher than the Pee Wee and above numbers in reasonable proportions, the extrapolations become valid producing excellent overall numbers.

Gretzky is a border line baby boomer, probably not. Born in Jan. 1961. Inner city grade schools in Montreal started showing declining enrollment and closures starting with the 1959-60 school year. At that time kindergarten was optional but class photos of grade 1 classes compared to 1958-59 classes show decreases from the 35 pupil range to the 25 pupil range. Grade 1 basically was the six year old age group so the Baby Boom was slowing down about six years earlier.

This would trend across Cannada. School populations steadily decreased with the only difference being the deplacement of students from the inner cities to the suburbs or satelite communities. Immigration slowed the decline in the inner city schools for two decades but by 1980 the majority of inner city schools had closed , consolidated or saw expanded catchment areas.

The baby boom was roughly from 1945 after the war ended to 1965. The birth rates were dropping the last 5 years of it but they were still abnormally high so it was still considered the baby boom. Therefore, Gretzky was a baby boomer. Lemieux is more debatable.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So it's just ignored completely and people pretend the talent pool has been consistent even though it very obviously hasn't been. For years I was told we don't have numbers for past registration. We get them and then it's all about them not being accurate. They may not be accurate but as I've stated several times already, hockey in Canada didn't start at 50,000, 100,000, or 200,000 organized players. It took time to build up to that and with very few Americans and no Europeans involved during the O6 it's extremely obvious it was a shallow pool when compared to what came later.

Not the issue(s) at all. You seem fixated on finding loopholes to sneak in your inaccuracies.

So let's look at the NHL from the inaugural 1917-18 season thru the 1942-43 season. First 25 seasons.

Total Canadian Skaters(626):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_played

Total Canadian Goalies(53):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie


Total American Skaters(50):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_played

Total American Goalies(5):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie

Next 25 seasons or the NHL O6 era:

Total Canadian Skaters(775):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie

Total Canadian Goalies(84):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie

Total American Skaters(32):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_played

Total American Goalies(10):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie

Given that initial NHL game roster sizes increased from 10 to 20 by the end of the O6 era, schedules increased from a low of 18 to 70 RS games and the two goalie system was made mandatory the last three O6 seasons all you proportionate to population arguments fall apart.

Factor out the overlap skaters and goalies that played in both in both eras you have a clear indication that while the American population grew significantly over 50 years, almost doubling:

https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?dsrcid=225439#rows:id=1

Your argument just fell apart. Likewise your nitpicking about Canadian hockey registration has no merit.

Perhaps you would care to explain the decline in American participation in the NHL during the O6 era. Hint - absolutely nothing to do with population, ratios or registration.

 

[danincanada]

Not the issue(s) at all. You seem fixated on finding loopholes to sneak in your inaccuracies.

So let's look at the NHL from the inaugural 1917-18 season thru the 1942-43 season. First 25 seasons.

Total Canadian Skaters(626):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_played

Total Canadian Goalies(53):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie


Total American Skaters(50):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_played

Total American Goalies(5):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie

Next 25 seasons or the NHL O6 era:

Total Canadian Skaters(775):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie

Total Canadian Goalies(84):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie

Total American Skaters(32):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_played

Total American Goalies(10):

https://www.hockey-reference.com/pl...&c1comp=gt&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie

Given that initial NHL game roster sizes increased from 10 to 20 by the end of the O6 era, schedules increased from a low of 18 to 70 RS games and the two goalie system was made mandatory the last three O6 seasons all you proportionate to population arguments fall apart.

Factor out the overlap skaters and goalies that played in both in both eras you have a clear indication that while the American population grew significantly over 50 years, almost doubling:

https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?dsrcid=225439#rows:id=1

Your argument just fell apart. Likewise your nitpicking about Canadian hockey registration has no merit.

Perhaps you would care to explain the decline in American participation in the NHL during the O6 era. Hint - absolutely nothing to do with population, ratios or registration.

I'm not sure how this relates to my paragraph that you quoted. Yes, the US had a smattering of NHLers over those two eras with a few stars. It's not what it is today or even what it was in the 80's and 90's. Let's see what's on it's way from the US because they're registration numbers and hockey programs are booming. We see a player like Auston Matthews come from a non-traditional hockey market.

Your post in no way makes my overall point "fall apart". It's common sense that hockey grew from nothing to something and that was a gradual process. The talent pool feeding the NHL at the start of the O6 was minuscule when compared to the international talent pool that has been present since the Wall came down. This shouldn't even be up for debate.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm not sure how this relates to my paragraph that you quoted. Yes, the US had a smattering of NHLers over those two eras with a few stars. It's not what it is today or even what it was in the 80's and 90's. Let's see what's on it's way from the US because they're registration numbers and hockey programs are booming. We see a player like Auston Matthews come from a non-traditional hockey market.

Your post in no way makes my overall point "fall apart". It's common sense that hockey grew from nothing to something and that was a gradual process. The talent pool feeding the NHL at the start of the O6 was minuscule when compared to the international talent pool that has been present since the Wall came down. This shouldn't even be up for debate.

You referenced a talent pool that has not been consistant. Yet with the growth of available NHL roster spots, the growth of the American population, the growth of American youth thru university hockey, improved USA performance in International hockey events the level of USA participation in the second half of the O6 decreased significantly.

Your points as a result do not have any logical foundation nor coherence.

 

[danincanada]

You referenced a talent pool that has not been consistant. Yet with the growth of available NHL roster spots, the growth of the American population, the growth of American youth thru university hockey, improved USA performance in International hockey events the level of USA participation in the second half of the O6 decreased significantly.

Your points as a result do not have any logical foundation nor coherence.

That's painting my points with an extremely broad brush and only cites one example that may have other factors involved. It's not like the US was a hot bed for hockey pre-O6 either. The fact that it was reduced down to practically nothing at times during the O6 and only Canada was feeding the league is not really a point in favour of the O6's talent pool. More streams of talent feeding the league is a good thing. That's my overall point and frankly I'm tired of debating it because there is nothing to debate - it's obvious.

The fact that hockey gradually grew in Canada has already been admitted by you up thread so I don't know what you're trying to get at anymore. At what point do you believe Canada hit 100,000 organized/undocumented "registrated" hockey players? 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930? Earlier or later? Maybe we need to start there. I think it may have actually been much later, possibly the 40's or even 50's. I wish my grandfather was still alive so I could ask him about the militia-like hockey programs we had during the world wars. I can envision some schools in the larger cities like Montreal and Toronto having nice programs but I'm not so sure it went far past that. Resources were not overly abundant with the wars going on and the financial crises in between and birth rates were quite low. It seems like you focus on Montreal mostly, which was a hot bed for hockey for a long time and was Canada's largest city, but what about the rest of Canada?

 

[Canadiens1958]

That's painting my points with an extremely broad brush and only cites one example that may have other factors involved. It's not like the US was a hot bed for hockey pre-O6 either. The fact that it was reduced down to practically nothing at times during the O6 and only Canada was feeding the league is not really a point in favour of the O6's talent pool. More streams of talent feeding the league is a good thing. That's my overall point and frankly I'm tired of debating it because there is nothing to debate - it's obvious.

The fact that hockey gradually grew in Canada has already been admitted by you up thread so I don't know what you're trying to get at anymore. At what point do you believe Canada hit 100,000 organized/undocumented "registrated" hockey players? 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930? Earlier or later? Maybe we need to start there. I think it may have actually been much later, possibly the 40's or even 50's. I wish my grandfather was still alive so I could ask him about the militia-like hockey programs we had during the world wars. I can envision some schools in the larger cities like Montreal and Toronto having nice programs but I'm not so sure it went far past that. Resources were not overly abundant with the wars going on and the financial crises in between and birth rates were quite low. It seems like you focus on Montreal mostly, which was a hot bed for hockey for a long time and was Canada's largest city, but what about the rest of Canada?

The bolded points. You are making things up now and trying for a "Golden BB" to salvage anything.

Militia style athletic training in Canada goes back to the 1830s with reports of soldiers playing hockey before organized hockey started in the 1870s.

Pre O6 USA hockey. Mid 1930s until WWII travel restrictions. USA universities played in an International League with Canadian universities like McGill etc. Previously since the late 19th century Canadian and American universities and amateur teams competed in friendlies. In all instances the level of competition was balanced with both sides producing quality players, some who would play pro and NHL hockey. Post WWII US university hockey grew tremendously. Offered athletic scholarships and was of a high calibre. NHL teams would encourage post junior age or players prefering an education to go to USA universities. Canadiens did so with players like Red Berenson, Bill Hay, Tony Esposito, Ken Dryden.

The reason US participation in the NHL dropped post 1942-43 is very basic. The NHL introduced the Center Red Line with related new rules. The CAHA followed suit. The NCAA and the various American governing bodies did not. They kept the international rules. So you had a CFL / NFL rule diachotomy which made it very difficult for players trained since pre teen days in the international rules to adapt quickly to the NHL rules. Even returning Canadian scholarship players at US universities did not transition back smoothly. 1969 when the basic NHL rules were adopted by the IIHF the barriers quickly disappeared and Americans followed by Internationals started to play in the NHL and other NA leagues.

The rest of Canada, you ask? You jest?

St Michael's College in Toronto since 1906 has been playing hockey, a seminary, also produced teaching priests that coach. hockey at Catholic schools across Canada.

Ottawa, had a great hockey program in the schools going back to pre NHL days, in the twenties it was at a level where certain high schools had upwards of three future NHLers on the school team.

Kingston, Winnipeg, Saskatchewan(Notre Dame) also had and still have great school hockey programs. Other towns and communities with boarding high schools featured hockey programs.

Most Quebec boarding schools - high school level had excellent hockey programs, some(Roussin, LCC, Loyola, Brebeuf, others) even built arenas pre NHL thru the pre WWII era.

Montreal, I use as a foundation to build and extend from.

 

[Killion]

Montreal, I use as a foundation to build and extend from.

Indeed.... and while Montreal built & maintained outdoor rinks in city parks & on school grounds on an industrial scale, pretty much epic, the same model followed in just about every other city large & small where climate was favorable throughout the late 19th & 20th centuries. A great many of these rinks were multi pads, figure skating ovals around a boarded hockey rink or adjacent to them. Many werent ever even used for league or school games, strictly shinny, pickup. Absolutely free of charge. Floodlighting in a lot of cases so you could play if you so wished from dawn through well past dusk. Within walking distance of home for hundreds of 1000's, generations.

 

[Thenameless]

I do agree with you to an extent. Back then in the 1950's and 1960's, there weren't any elite hockey players from BC, the Maritimes and the United States, let alone foreign europeans. 85% of the overall talent pool back then was simply Ontario and Quebec. The overall talent pool of registered hockey players was minuscule. If Gordie Howe was playing today I have doubts he would be considered a notch above Crosby, Ovechkin and Mcdavid.

I'm one of the few guys that has Howe at the bottom of the Big 4, but even I do not agree with the last sentence. In today's game, Gordie Howe would win more scoring titles than any of Crosby, Ovechkin, or McDavid. He would be more punishing physically than even Ovechkin. He would play much better defense than all 3. He is one of the most well rounded hockey players of all time, if not THE most well rounded when taking peak, prime, longevity, scoring ability, "clutchness", peer dominance, defensive ability, physicality, and intimidation into consideration. I would easily take him over today's best players.