Hockey Arguments that are older than we think

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,718
274
North Bay
I was recently reading an article that quoted a piece from the Globe and Mail in 1938 where Dick Irvin Sr. "Recalls some hockey disappointments, and explains why super stars are fading out". I had to do a double take to be sure that it was from 1938. The quote in question is this...

"youngsters are being over-coached. I don't think young fellows who are getting in pro hockey these days are developing their own natural ability as did the players of twenty and twenty-five years ago. Let me illustrate what I mean. During my youth in Winnipeg there was very little organized hockey and no junior hockey at all. We played in the open air on corner lots and on the Assiniboine and Red rivers. Generally there were from fifty to one hundred kids chasing one puck. If you didn't learn to stickhandle... well, you never got the chance to keep the puck, and you had to learn to be adept at checking in order to get the puck.

It was just dog-eat-dog, and the kids who had skill and stamina became individual stars. They stood out far above the rest.

These days kids are coached, coached, coached from pee-wee and juvenile ranks right up through to pro. Six or seven coaches may handle a youngster before he reaches an N.H.L. coach.

Many of the kids these days have never played on a frozen river or pond...where they could play and practice all day. Instead they only have short practice hours in an artificial ice arena, and they've never got the real groundwork or background."

The last paragraph especially really got me. The idea of the majority of kids coming up in the 30s not having ever played on natural ice seems to very foreign to the picture we get of hockey from the time. And the idea that kids then only had a few hours time to practice seems very backwards to what we are normally told. That said it of course it makes perfect sense after considering that the majority of the youth of the time were in cities as they are now so they wouldn't have the space to play on natural ice or open air. But it feels like I could read this argument in the paper tomorrow.

Are they any others people have come across in a similar vein? These sorts of 'hockey arguments' feel like they are perpetually new for each generation I am sure, would be curious what things some of the older posters here have been hearing thru their entire lives.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
"The refs suck".I've seen (illustrated) caricatures of poor refereeing from the 1930s.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I was recently reading an article that quoted a piece from the Globe and Mail in 1938 where Dick Irvin Sr. "Recalls some hockey disappointments, and explains why super stars are fading out". I had to do a double take to be sure that it was from 1938. The quote in question is this...

"youngsters are being over-coached. I don't think young fellows who are getting in pro hockey these days are developing their own natural ability as did the players of twenty and twenty-five years ago. Let me illustrate what I mean. During my youth in Winnipeg there was very little organized hockey and no junior hockey at all. We played in the open air on corner lots and on the Assiniboine and Red rivers. Generally there were from fifty to one hundred kids chasing one puck. If you didn't learn to stickhandle... well, you never got the chance to keep the puck, and you had to learn to be adept at checking in order to get the puck.

It was just dog-eat-dog, and the kids who had skill and stamina became individual stars. They stood out far above the rest.

These days kids are coached, coached, coached from pee-wee and juvenile ranks right up through to pro. Six or seven coaches may handle a youngster before he reaches an N.H.L. coach.

Many of the kids these days have never played on a frozen river or pond...where they could play and practice all day. Instead they only have short practice hours in an artificial ice arena, and they've never got the real groundwork or background."

The last paragraph especially really got me. The idea of the majority of kids coming up in the 30s not having ever played on natural ice seems to very foreign to the picture we get of hockey from the time. And the idea that kids then only had a few hours time to practice seems very backwards to what we are normally told. That said it of course it makes perfect sense after considering that the majority of the youth of the time were in cities as they are now so they wouldn't have the space to play on natural ice or open air. But it feels like I could read this argument in the paper tomorrow.

Are they any others people have come across in a similar vein? These sorts of 'hockey arguments' feel like they are perpetually new for each generation I am sure, would be curious what things some of the older posters here have been hearing thru their entire lives.


Describes youth school hockey. Private schools tended to build arenas which needed tenants. Also using Toronto and Montreal as examples, once The Forum and MLG were built, the previous NHL arenas needed tenants so youth hockey moved indoors. Elite junior played in NHL arenas - doubleheaders,
high schools played afternoon games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kruezer

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,410
5,068
Didn't do any check, but the new generation is softer than the previous one is probably quite common.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,410
5,068
Quite true also. We played outside in 20 below temps w/o the wind chill and got mild frost bite everytime. Today it's child abuse.

Most long run argument will tend to be quite true I would imagine, but that one has probably being going on since the ancient Greek. Not sure the WW2 generation of Hockey players was quite really softer than their parents or the one that played peek goon era and so on (could have.... yes, but not necessarily)
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Most long run argument will tend to be quite true I would imagine, but that one has probably being going on since the ancient Greek. Not sure the WW2 generation of Hockey players was quite really softer than their parents or the one that played peek goon era and so on (could have.... yes, but not necessarily)

In reality it is probably just slightly true in every generation. Think even 150 years ago minus hockey and just everyday life. Today we turn on the thermostat, heck some of us can set it with our phones, back then you'd better have a ton of wood stored up for the fireplace and if you were 12 you weren't playing Xbox or texting anyone either. You were working. So yeah, it is an OLD argument, but always a true one because life gets easier as the days go on. The average man was stronger in 1979 than in 2019 simply because there were more manual labour jobs and if you worked in 1939 laying bricks you probably scoffed at men in 1979 and so on.

Anyways...................about hockey arguments...........hmmm. Not as old as others but I know Tony Esposito admitted to stuffing his pads and when inspectors would come to check it out he'd take the stuffing out. He has said so much in interviews.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Nothing shocking here, but there were complaints about salaries back when the players were making peanuts as well, just on a different scale. Jean Beliveau didn't start playing with the Habs until he was 22 because he was making good money with the Quebec Aces. The difference is the owners held all the power then in the pre-union days.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
Every generation thinks that the generation that follows is softer and more spoiled. It's, like, one of the humanity's biggest constant, unless there's some sort of calamity that makes civilization go backwards (in some specific area)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeffrey Pedler

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,134
6,429
Arthur Farrell, a HHOF-inducted 2-time Stanley Cup champion forward (whom Lester Patrick identified as one of the greatest hockey minds ever) has argued in a book he published over a hundred years ago (in 1899) that puck hogs get all the attention but teamwork has more success, that 'combination play' is superior to individual rushes.

 
Last edited:

Peiskos

Registered User
Jan 4, 2018
3,665
3,614
Its obviously possible for a kid to grow up and become a superstar doing nothing more than playing on frozen ponds near his house/backyard..isn't that the story of Gretzky?

You DON'T need to play in pee-wee or other junior leagues to become a superstar, but the thing is how do you get recognized and drafted if you don't? I'm sure throughout history that have been kids who could have become superstar players but were never discovered at all because they didn't have the means ($$) to join leagues and go through all of that process.

It's interesting to think of how many players there have been and who are still out there who could easily play in the NHL today but never got the opportunities other kids did. As we all know playing hockey is already a sport for the upper class.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,410
5,068
In reality it is probably just slightly true in every generation. Think even 150 years ago minus hockey and just everyday life. Today we turn on the thermostat, heck some of us can set it with our phones, back then you'd better have a ton of wood stored up for the fireplace and if you were 12 you weren't playing Xbox or texting anyone either. You were working. So yeah, it is an OLD argument, but always a true one because life gets easier as the days go on. The average man was stronger in 1979 than in 2019 simply because there were more manual labour jobs and if you worked in 1939 laying bricks you probably scoffed at men in 1979 and so on.

Anyways...................about hockey arguments...........hmmm. Not as old as others but I know Tony Esposito admitted to stuffing his pads and when inspectors would come to check it out he'd take the stuffing out. He has said so much in interviews.

It is generaly true, but in the 5,000 last year's that argument has being going on, not necessarily, life didn't got easier for every generation, the WW1-spanish flue-great drepression-followed by WW2 didn't necessarily had it easier than their parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Phil

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,410
5,068
Its obviously possible for a kid to grow up and become a superstar doing nothing more than playing on frozen ponds near his house/backyard..isn't that the story of Gretzky?

Gretzky was breaking junior league records before turning pro I think and always played organized hockey as a young kid.

1969-70
3.png
Brantford Nadrofsky Steelers
Atom6210463167-|
1970-71
3.png
Brantford Nadrofsky Steelers
Atom76196120316-|
1971-72
3.png
Brantford Nadrofsky Steelers
Atom85378139517-|
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,247
10,127
Didn't do any check, but the new generation is softer than the previous one is probably quite common.

Stephen Harper, yes the former Canadian PM, has a really god book about the early days of professional ice hockey and I'm sure the "people really don't respect the oldtimers" started around then in the early 1910's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kruezer

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,247
10,127
Every generation thinks that the generation that follows is softer and more spoiled. It's, like, one of the humanity's biggest constant, unless there's some sort of calamity that makes civilization go backwards (in some specific area)

Currently

33201266-silhouette-of-theory-of-evolution-of-man.jpg
 

Thenameless

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
3,854
1,788
I have no idea but who is the last great player who came to the game late?

I have a hard time imagining a player coming to know hockey late, and making the NHL, as skating is such a vital part of hockey. I was half-decent at street hockey, having immigrated to Canada at a young age, but my skating prevented me from competing in real hockey. Even fourth line goons from the 70's and 80's would skate circles around beer league players, hahahaha.

From a different perspective, Akeem Olajuwon (played primarily as a soccer goalie in Nigeria) and Dennis Rodman (I think he was a janitor or something) came to basketball late (and became NBA legends), but both were already tall and athletic - and again, didn't have to learn to skate.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,247
10,127
Ed Jovanovski may be stretching the definition of "great", but he didn't play hockey until he was 11.

Yes I remember reading about that but his skill set was outstanding, toolbox not so much.

One of the reasons he was called "special ed" but he actually had a pretty good career and was a good #1 pick (in relation to the rest of the top prospects) in his draft year.
 

BlueBull

Habby Man
Oct 11, 2017
1,696
1,434
Vancouver Island

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Every generation thinks that the generation that follows is softer and more spoiled. It's, like, one of the humanity's biggest constant, unless there's some sort of calamity that makes civilization go backwards (in some specific area)

Life has gotten easier no doubt. Think of the things we take for granted. By saying "easier" it doesn't mean it is a knock by any means. It just means no one is churning butter anymore or having to kill deer on their own just to eat.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,114
15,573
Tokyo, Japan

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->