Origin of Ice Hockey - Emmanuel Orlick 1943

[Iain Fyffe]

All good points Iain. And yes, Im "skeptical". My choice of words suggests I totally and completely 110% utterly reject such a claim (that ice~hockey rules were based almost exclusively on field hockey rules) HOWEVER I'm open to the evidence youve uncovered, look forward to reading what youve unearthed.

You may recall a thread some months ago when I laid out quite a but of the evidence. Please do not insinuate that the only way you can see my argument is through my book. I've discussed it here before.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Actually the request was for the game stories from The Gazette in 1876.

Sorry, that's right, you couldn't be bothered to go to the library yourself so you wanted me to type them out for you. You're correct, my mistake.

How could an 1876 event, January 1876 Field Hockey rules influence 1875 events, indoor Ice Hockey game Captain Torrance vs Captain Creighton? This does not resonate.

I have addressed this specific question, from you, several times in several threads already. Here it is again:

The Hockey Association rules were based on existing field hockey rules. Which in turn were based on association football rules, which existed long before the Hockey Association.

I'm quite sure I provided the relevant text in the older thread. So the English version of the rules did not originate in 1876. This is established by the wording of certain rules, which carried through verbatim.

Prime objective of the 1876 Hockey Association rules you reference is the continuity and growth of field hockey in England.

Citation needed.

The Hockey Association (field hockey) folded within 10 years, significant to the failure was that there were disputes about rules.

Citation needed.

Yet the point seems to be that failure at the prime objective level does not preclude influence and success unintentionally when it involves another sport? This does not resonate.

Why would it matter what happened in England 10 years afterward? At that point the game had taken hold in Canada, so this objection does not resonate.

We do know that athletes from the era in question participated in varied athletic events and activities. Henry Joseph being an often cited example amongst many. We also know that playing facilities and Equipment was shared amongst various athletic activities and events. So spécifications, conditions of participations drafts of rules, etc would have made the rounds of various sports. But this does not define influence.

That's great, but that's not how I'm defining influence. The influence is determined by the fact that so much of the rules are copied verbatim. As I've pointed out to you, over and over again. This is not a vague notion of influence, this is an obvious case of copying rules.

 

[Gary Gillman]

I thought it was interesting, a propos the discussion in other threads on whether ice hockey was first played in North America or England, that in the Star article (1943) Orlick states in a general way, as a kind of preface, that skating spread from Europe and (I am paraphrasing) would have been adapted to hockey in Scotland, England and Ireland before being brought to Canada by military and other travelers. As I read him, he seems to have had no doubt that ice hockey, possibly under that very name, was played first in Britain. I wonder if he had any evidence, the kind the The Origins of Hockey explores, or just assumed that this was the case.

Gary

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I thought it was interesting, a propos the discussion in other threads on whether ice hockey was first played in North America or England, that in the Star article (1943) Orlick states in a general way, as a kind of preface, that skating spread from Europe and (I am paraphrasing) would have been adapted to hockey in Scotland, England and Ireland before being brought to Canada by military and other travelers. As I read him, he seems to have had no doubt that ice hockey, possibly under that very name, was played first in Britain. I wonder if he had any evidence, the kind the The Origins of Hockey explores, or just assumed that this was the case.

Seems most likely it was only an inference, though an eminently reasonable one. Much of the evidence presented in the new book has only recenlty become readily available via digitaization.