Does Anybody Not Like Original Six Hockey?

[Peter9]

I'm very open minded but won't be swayed by opinions over what I can see on tapes and what I know about the game back then versus any other era.

As I said each era has it's benefits and pitfalls, I'd rather appreciate the game from every era and like most people I can only properly evaluate what I have seen and just because I started watching hockey in the 70's and grew up with the greats back then, I do not overvalue the era and I can fully see the pitfalls and contrasts from then till today.

Don't get me wrong there are things about the games that I prefer from past days, like the size of goalie equipment for "safety reasons" for instance.

The biggest problem I have with the glorification on the Original 6 era is that it had the best 100 players in the world compared to 600 guys today argument, like the population and player streams have remained the same or something. Which they obviously have not.

This argument on "how great the game was back then", simply doesn't hold any water when tested.

I think the hockey players of today are much better athletes than those of the Original Six era. They are stronger, fitter, bigger and faster. They are technically more proficient at whatever they put their hand to. They should be. They have better equipment, better diet, better training methods, better fitness programs, better everything.

But what I prefer from the Original Six era is the style of play. Part of the reason is that the increased size and speed of today's player has literally made the rinks on which the game is played smaller (even though the rinks actually measure bigger than the under-regulation size of a couple of the Original Six rinks). But it goes beyond that, as explained in some of the posts above. A lot of it has to do with the size of the goaltending equipment. And some of it has to do with playing the percentages and the emphasis on technical proficiency at the expense of artistry, which produces what I've referred to as robotic repetition rather than creativity. I'm not at all saying the players are better.

I still appreciate hockey today even if I think it often becomes comparatively boring. It is hardly ever boring in the absolute sense to me. I can also understand fans preferring the kind of hockey they grew up with. And I can understand different fans having different tastes when it comes to what they like to see in hockey.

 

[ocarina]

I really don't like the "goalie equipment is bigger" argument. Yes, it has gotten bigger, and it was abused during the 90's (I remember Theodore making a save with a "cheater" on his glove in 2003), but today's rules have really reigned it in.

I've always felt that the main reason why goalies are better today is that they are simpler smarter, not that they are a wall of equipment. The butterfly style is more efficient. I'm very confident that a goalie wearing 50's era equipment playing the butterfly style would do better then a stand-up style goalie wearing modern equipment.

Some of the goals I've seen stand-up goalies give up in old clips are just ghastly to watch.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

The goalie equipment is still bigger than it was in the O6 era or even the 70s and at the same time the goalies are much bigger.

Sawchuk, Hall, Plante, Bower, not big guys in any dimension. Guys today are on average taller and bulkier and that's as big a factor as the equipment.

I honestly think increasing the goal size by 2 inches in all dimensions would be perfectly reasonable.

 

[Killion]

I've always felt that the main reason why goalies are better today is that they are simpler smarter, not that they are a wall of equipment. The butterfly style is more efficient. I'm very confident that a goalie wearing 50's era equipment playing the butterfly style would do better then a stand-up style goalie wearing modern equipment.

Actually, it would be both impracticable & unsafe for todays goalies to use yesterdays equipment playing the style (exclusively Butterfly) they do today. Goalies are not "smarter", they were simply trained to play the BF through amateur & junior hockey. There also bigger. MUCH bigger. Most teams wont even bother drafting a goaltender, no matter how good, if he's less than 6'0 tall. Size, more than talent, matters. I wish it wasnt so, but thems' the facts. No way will we ever again see a 5'6" Roger Crozier dazzle the Hell out of us; gone is the Johnny Bower Pokecheck.

All sense of artistry has been stripped from the position. The main architect of the position, Glenn Hall, was a unique and fascinating player to study as he had more tricks in his bag than just the BF. Todays goalies do not. I dont consider the flailing Hasek style "goaltending", and despite his excellent record & Hall of Fame career, I neither appreciated nor cared for his style in the slightest, widely adopted by todays netminders. Equipment changes, starting with the cheater on the trapper (Palmateer) followed by the chest protector (Hextall) and pads (Snow) are all outsized nowadays. Suit up a Luongo or a Halak in a pair of Cooper GP59's, GM 12 blocker & trapper, youd' be looking at a sieve, and if they did stop the puck playing the style they do, its gonna hurt. Bad.

 

[ocarina]

Actually, it would be both impracticable & unsafe for todays goalies to use yesterdays equipment playing the style (exclusively Butterfly) they do today.

The point that I was making is that playing style is much more of a factor of why goalies are better today then equipment (which IMO is a rather minor reason). The butterfly works better no matter the equipment because it plays the percentages and relies mainly on the largest part of the body (the torso) rather then the extremities.

Goalies are not "smarter", they were simply trained to play the BF through amateur & junior hockey. There also bigger. MUCH bigger. Most teams wont even bother drafting a goaltender, no matter how good, if he's less than 6'0 tall. Size, more than talent, matters. I wish it wasnt so, but thems' the facts. No way will we ever again see a 5'6" Roger Crozier dazzle the Hell out of us; gone is the Johnny Bower Pokecheck.

So goalies are somehow not smarter because they are being taught a style that is much more efficient? If you are implying that the butterfly style is easy and anyone can play if effectively, then you are sorely mistaken.

I will agree with you that goalies are becoming bigger, but isn't that the case with hockey players in general?

And I'm sorry, but talent still matters much more then size. A goalie still needs to be very athletic and mentally strong if he wants a shot at the big leagues. Size helps, but it's only one factor. Otherwise, this guy would be getting a lot more press.

All sense of artistry has been stripped from the position. The main architect of the position, Glenn Hall, was a unique and fascinating player to study as he had more tricks in his bag than just the BF. Todays goalies do not. I dont consider the flailing Hasek style "goaltending", and despite his excellent record & Hall of Fame career, I neither appreciated nor cared for his style in the slightest, widely adopted by todays netminders.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, as no notable goalie has really adopted the "Hasek" style. Only Hasek himself could play it well.

And if you think all artistry has been stripped from the position, check out today's best goalies. Guys like Lundqvist, Thomas, Fleury, they quite often will make flashy saves out of the butterfly. Goalies today aren't exactly as robotic as you are making them out to be.

Equipment changes, starting with the cheater on the trapper (Palmateer) followed by the chest protector (Hextall) and pads (Snow) are all outsized nowadays. Suit up a Luongo or a Halak in a pair of Cooper GP59's, GM 12 blocker & trapper, youd' be looking at a sieve, and if they did stop the puck playing the style they do, its gonna hurt. Bad.

First off, the cheater is now illegal, and there are very strict regulations on equipment sizes now. If you don't believe me, it's in the rulebook: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26287

And of course goalies would get hurt if they used that type of equipment today, players shoot a lot harder today, but you're missing the point. I already said above why today's goalies wouldn't be "sieves" during the O6 era.

 

[Killion]

So goalies are somehow not smarter because they are being taught a style that is much more efficient? If you are implying that the butterfly style is easy and anyone can play if effectively, then you are sorely mistaken.

"Efficiency". Catch all phrase word of the late 20th & early 21st century. How boring. I wasnt implying nor suggesting the BF style was "easy" to learn, practice & execute. Quite the contrary, it's not at all easy. The human body wasnt meant to move like that. Youve practically gotta be a contortionist with olympian gymnastic abilities.....

With respect to Hasek, I was referring to his unorthodoxy; caught out of position, on his back, floundering around like a Largemouthed Bass on the bottom of a boat. This you see all the time with todays' goaltenders because they commit early, and once in the BF position, rather than standing up they'll dive......

No need to quote the rule book, not only do I believe you, could hardly argue the point as Im well aware of it. Equipment size was fortunately reeled in. I was simply pointing to the runaway trains of the past.....

And no, goalies are not "completely robotic", but there also nowhere nearly as entertaining as their predecessors either. Call me subjective if you wish, no offence taken. The goalies you mentioned (Thomas etc) are the better ones to watch, and sure they & others make incredible old school saves from time-time; dont quite get your point........

And finally, have to disagree about todays goalies being tossed back in time to the 06 era & being outstanding. The players had more time & space. Early committal to a shot meant you got scored on..... And ya, size matters more than talent. The link to the player you provided is 6'0 tall, so again, dont quite get your point on that score either. He's what, 21 & was drafted by the Habs'?.

 

[ocarina]

And finally, have to disagree about todays goalies being tossed back in time to the 06 era & being outstanding. The players had more time & space. Early committal to a shot meant you got scored on.....

I don't see how that would be much of a factor. From what I've seen of old-school clips during the era, a lot of goals were scored were on shots that a butterfly goalie of today would consider to be more routine (low-to-mid shots, low shots from the sides). They also would have an easier time on scrambles in front of the net then their contemporaries.

And ya, size matters more than talent. The link to the player you provided is 6'0 tall, so again, dont quite get your point on that score either. He's what, 21 & was drafted by the Habs'?.

The point that I brought that guy up was that he isn't highly regarded at all despite the fact that he's 6'8. Montreal didn't even sign him and let his rights expire. The Rangers did sign him, but I can tell you that a good amount of people were surprised he got an NHL contract.

Like I said, size is nice, but it doesn't mean anything if a goalie can't move around and play angles correctly. If anything, it means that he has a larger 5-hole and is more vulnerable in that area,

 

[Hardyvan123]

Actually, it would be both impracticable & unsafe for todays goalies to use yesterdays equipment playing the style (exclusively Butterfly) they do today. Goalies are not "smarter", they were simply trained to play the BF through amateur & junior hockey. There also bigger. MUCH bigger. Most teams wont even bother drafting a goaltender, no matter how good, if he's less than 6'0 tall. Size, more than talent, matters. I wish it wasnt so, but thems' the facts. No way will we ever again see a 5'6" Roger Crozier dazzle the Hell out of us; gone is the Johnny Bower Pokecheck.

All sense of artistry has been stripped from the position. The main architect of the position, Glenn Hall, was a unique and fascinating player to study as he had more tricks in his bag than just the BF. Todays goalies do not. I dont consider the flailing Hasek style "goaltending", and despite his excellent record & Hall of Fame career, I neither appreciated nor cared for his style in the slightest, widely adopted by todays netminders. Equipment changes, starting with the cheater on the trapper (Palmateer) followed by the chest protector (Hextall) and pads (Snow) are all outsized nowadays. Suit up a Luongo or a Halak in a pair of Cooper GP59's, GM 12 blocker & trapper, youd' be looking at a sieve, and if they did stop the puck playing the style they do, its gonna hurt. [/B] Bad.

Don't put those 2 in the same category.

Hasek would have done just fine in older pads as well.

You might prefer some of the 06 guys in style compared to Hasek whose style you don't like but the bottom line is that the goalie's job is to stop the puck and Hasek is one of, if not the alltime, greats in net.

 

[Killion]

I don't see how that would be much of a factor. From what I've seen of old-school clips during the era, a lot of goals were scored were on shots that a butterfly goalie of today would consider to be more routine (low-to-mid shots, low shots from the sides). They also would have an easier time on scrambles in front of the net then their contemporaries.

"Back in the day" the good ones did utilize the BF as I mentioned earlier but only in certain situations. The majority just went into a really low crouch when their was a jumble in front screening their view. You make some excellent points, though I must confess it to me is a purely subjective exercise which I unashamedly admit.

Don't put those 2 in the same category.

Sorry bout that!, and yes, I believe Hasek would have, as would Brodeur & others who are more or less hybrids.

 

[pappyline]

The biggest problem I have with the glorification on the Original 6 era is that it had the best 100 players in the world compared to 600 guys today argument, like the population and player streams have remained the same or something. Which they obviously have not.

This argument on "how great the game was back then", simply doesn't hold any water when tested.

I think most of us who prefer the original six actually experienced it. Regarding the top 100 players back then versus the top 600 now, I think what endears a lot of us to the original six was that we knew all the players & saw them often. Whether players now or players then were better is of no consequence. Most of us who saw it prefer the original six style of play. Many who missed it prefer other eras. To each his own. You obviously prefer the present game and constantly post to that effect. Odd for somebody that posts so much in the HOH forum.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Glenn Hall, Dec. 26, 1959

I'm very open minded but won't be swayed by opinions over what I can see on tapes and what I know about the game back then versus any other era.

As I said each era has it's benefits and pitfalls, I'd rather appreciate the game from every era and like most people I can only properly evaluate what I have seen and just because I started watching hockey in the 70's and grew up with the greats back then, I do not overvalue the era and I can fully see the pitfalls and contrasts from then till today.

Don't get me wrong there are things about the games that I prefer from past days, like the size of goalie equipment for "safety reasons" for instance.

The biggest problem I have with the glorification on the Original 6 era is that it had the best 100 players in the world compared to 600 guys today argument, like the population and player streams have remained the same or something. Which they obviously have not.

This argument on "how great the game was back then", simply doesn't hold any water when tested.

Sometimes seeing and forming an opinion is far from sufficient.

Dec. 26, !959, HNIC telecast the Canadiens at home beat Glenn Hall and the Blackhawks 9 - 2.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi

I the tape of the game existed and you were to see it as a stand alone example of a 1959 season game then you woul not conclude that Glenn Hall was a HHOF quality goalie. Saw the game on HNIC from the start of the second period, Canadiens leading 1-0, onwards. Midway thru the second period Beliveau, scores unassisted on a semi-slapper from outside the blueline, unscreened. Canadiens add two more, enter leading the third period 4-0, Hawks rally to 4-2, Canadiens re-dominate scoring five more en route to a 9-2 victory.Hall stops 39 of 48 shots,looking more like a high level minor league goalie.

But if you look at the schedule you will see the following. The Hawks were playing their third road game in four nights. Winning the first, 3-0 shutout,and the last 6-1.Losing the middle games 5-1 and 9-2. After the game they took the train back to Chicago arriving in time to dress and play their fourth game in five nights, beating Boston handily.Hall gave up one goal. Furthermore the powerhouse Canadiens had not played since Dec.20,1959. Showed in the third period. BTW Hall played every second of the four games part of his incredible streak.

So now we have a clearer picture of Glenn Hall's skills but leaving the following questions.

How often since 1990 have team or goalies played 4 games in 5 night, three on the road. How many goalies played every second of those games?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Doubtful

The point that I was making is that playing style is much more of a factor of why goalies are better today then equipment (which IMO is a rather minor reason). The butterfly works better no matter the equipment because it plays the percentages and relies mainly on the largest part of the body (the torso) rather then the extremities.



So goalies are somehow not smarter because they are being taught a style that is much more efficient? If you are implying that the butterfly style is easy and anyone can play if effectively, then you are sorely mistaken.

I will agree with you that goalies are becoming bigger, but isn't that the case with hockey players in general?

And I'm sorry, but talent still matters much more then size. A goalie still needs to be very athletic and mentally strong if he wants a shot at the big leagues. Size helps, but it's only one factor. Otherwise, this guy would be getting a lot more press.



I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, as no notable goalie has really adopted the "Hasek" style. Only Hasek himself could play it well.

And if you think all artistry has been stripped from the position, check out today's best goalies. Guys like Lundqvist, Thomas, Fleury, they quite often will make flashy saves out of the butterfly. Goalies today aren't exactly as robotic as you are making them out to be.



First off, the cheater is now illegal, and there are very strict regulations on equipment sizes now. If you don't believe me, it's in the rulebook: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26287

And of course goalies would get hurt if they used that type of equipment today, players shoot a lot harder today, but you're missing the point. I already said above why today's goalies wouldn't be "sieves" during the O6 era.

Extremities. Very importand for a butterfly goalie. Arms out to cover more space. thighs perpendicular to the ice. Fatigued or out of shape the thighs start angling backwards, dropping the hips and exposing more net.

Fleury still tends to be a reflex goalie one of the few left.

Hasek "Style". Not sure if style is the right word. Dr. No may have to correct this or provide greater specifics but here goes. Hasek had by far the greatest understanding of the 3-D geometry of the game of hockey. The arm and leg movement when seemingly beaten only to pull off a miracle save reflect using his limbs to occupy space and prevent goals. In other words throwing your body or limbs in the general direction of the net and where the puck is most likely going.

How teachable is this technique is another issue.

 

[Stephen]

And some of it has to do with playing the percentages and the emphasis on technical proficiency at the expense of artistry, which produces what I've referred to as robotic repetition rather than creativity. I'm not at all saying the players are better.

Obviously opinions are opinions and this won't change yours, but to me, there is an incredible amount of artistry in playing goalie in today's game. The technical proficiency, and ability of a goalie to move laterally by pushing off and sliding, doing it precisely on routine plays, in addition to being able to scramble when the situation calls for it is extremely difficult. To me, it's demonstrative of everything that makes the position as exciting as it is, there is tremendous athleticism, there's improvisation and there's a really exciting mental game aspect to it too.

 

[Stephen]

I think most of us who prefer the original six actually experienced it. Regarding the top 100 players back then versus the top 600 now, I think what endears a lot of us to the original six was that we knew all the players & saw them often. Whether players now or players then were better is of no consequence. Most of us who saw it prefer the original six style of play. Many who missed it prefer other eras. To each his own. You obviously prefer the present game and constantly post to that effect. Odd for somebody that posts so much in the HOH forum.

That's an interesting comment in and of itself. I wonder if a lot of the familiarity people have with the league has to do with the age they are when watching. Growing up in the 90s, those early to mid 90s rosters are permanently burned into my mind, the stars seemed bigger than life and the battles on the ice seemed way more epic compared to today.

 

[mbhhofr]

So now we have a clearer picture of Glenn Hall's skills

And he didn't wear a mask.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

The reason Hasek could and did play as he did, was his ability to read the play perfectly. He would stand awkwardly leaving an open part of the net as bait, knowing exactly where and when the player is going to shoot and is always prepared to whip a limb out and stop it. Like all greats it was his exceptional anticipation and reflexes/hand eye co-ordination that allowed him do dominate as he did.

 

[Killion]

How teachable is this technique is another issue.

Its not. The guy was running on pure instinct & reflexology, knew just enough science about playing the position to create his own form of alchemy. He got into players heads. Psychological Warfare. Those damn Russians. It wouldnt surprise me to learn he'd retired to a position with the FSB's Remote Viewing Squad. In fact, Im quite certain I can see him quite clearly even now from my perch out here in the mountains.....

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dominik Hasek Convergence

Its not. The guy was running on pure instinct & reflexology, knew just enough science about playing the position to create his own form of alchemy. He got into players heads. Psychological Warfare. Those damn Russians. It wouldnt surprise me to learn he'd retired to a position with the FSB's Remote Viewing Squad. In fact, Im quite certain I can see him quite clearly even now from my perch out here in the mountains.....

Agree. Not the ideal thread or time but my view is that Domink Hasek's NHL career with Buffalo is an example of the stars aligning perfectly. The near perfect convergence of team, player(s), coaching, circumstances,time, era and league producing desirable or interesting results.

Parallels may be drawn with Johnny Bower,Punch Imlach and their careers with the Maple Leafs or the Flyers" era with Clarke and Shero. Stanley Cups were won, they captured the imagination of the fans but when all is said and done, they did not show that they were the greatest NHL team, player, goalie or coach of all time.

 

[Zine]

Its not. The guy was running on pure instinct & reflexology, knew just enough science about playing the position to create his own form of alchemy. He got into players heads. Psychological Warfare. Those damn Russians. It wouldnt surprise me to learn he'd retired to a position with the FSB's Remote Viewing Squad. In fact, Im quite certain I can see him quite clearly even now from my perch out here in the mountains.....

Knew just enough about playing the position? Hasek was an individual with a rare combination of instinct, reflexology, pure athleticism AND an incredible knowledge of the position. Likely no goaltender in history understood angles to the extend Hasek did. That is why it's such a difficult style to teach.

I wish Doctor No was around....I recall a brilliant post of his in which described Hasek's style in detail. It's hardly a case of an goaltender dominating based on pure athleticism, chance and intimidation 'i.e. getting into the head of opponent'.