Hull VS Richard

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by Kant Think, Nov 1, 2011.

View Users: View Users
  1. Kant Think

    Kant Think Chaotic Neutral

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,181
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Occupation:
    Philosophe
    Location:
    Gatineau
    Hi all,

    I'm personally undecided on this one, even though I prefer Richard it's mostly because I admire his clutch play (I might also be biased).

    But still, they are both surefire top 10 players of all-time, arguably # 5 and 6 (as per the 2008 top 100), primary goal scorers and great post-season performers.

    I would enjoy a good in-depth discussion between these 2 greats, as would, I'm sure of it, most of us.

    Let it be.
     
  2. begbeee

    begbeee Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Slovakia
    What's clutchness? Isn't it just coincidence?
    I would take Hull.
     
  3. KingGallagherXI

    KingGallagherXI Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,889
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    56
    I don't think it's coïncidence. Richard hated losing so much that it made him physically ill. He raged when he lost (though never at his teamates) and was a passionate winner, and he was at his absolute best when it counted the most.
     
  4. Montreal Shadow

    Montreal Shadow Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    5,167
    Likes Received:
    214
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Montreal
    When a player has a history of scoring timely goals, it's not just coincidence. It's also painfully obvious players do not react the same way in high-pressure situations.
     
  5. Killion

    Killion Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    36,488
    Likes Received:
    2,650
    Trophy Points:
    156
    For these reasons alone Id be going Richard all the way. Hull could be laissez faire at times. Though I never saw Richard play & grew up idolizing Hull for a few years in his prime, those who would know claim their was no one ever more determined from the blue-line in than Richard. Almost Supernatural. Like a man possessed. Id take that over Hull, slapshot n' all.
     
  6. Zine

    Zine Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,487
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Rostov-on-Don
    I don't think it has to do with winning and losing. If Richard was at his best when it counted most, that would insinuate that he chose not to be at his best at other times, which runs counter to him hating to lose.

    Rather, I think Richard had a unique ability to handle stressful situations, thus allowing him to be able to perform while under pressure.
     
  7. JaymzB

    JaymzB Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,731
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Toronto
    Bobby Hull is the better hockey player.
     
  8. Killion

    Killion Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    36,488
    Likes Received:
    2,650
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Thats akin to saying the Beatles are a better band than the Rolling Stones or that you think Expressionistic painting is better than Surrealism. Its not objective, its purely subjective. The era's & skill-sets both possessed were as different as chalk & cheese. Richard came up the hard way; Hull in comparison a pretty boy, and much more the "modern" player. For sheer grit & determination, Richard would be your Rolling Stones; Hull the Beatles. I love them both but if I had to choose in a winner take all game Id side with Keef & Mick... a Hell of a lot tougher than your ethereal George & lazy Ringo. :laugh:
     
  9. Canadiens1958

    Canadiens1958 Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    18,384
    Likes Received:
    1,565
    Trophy Points:
    179
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Lake Memphremagog, QC.
    Maurice Richard

    A few comments about Maurice Richard. For his size, 5'10" < 175 lbs he was incredibly strong, great stamina, low center of gravity, great balance and leverage. Very important assets late in a game and in overtime which he exploited to his advantage.
     
  10. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,277
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    Here's a basic statistical analysis I did on Richard's playoff goal scoring in the last ATD:

     
  11. Killion

    Killion Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    36,488
    Likes Received:
    2,650
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Excellent work & well laid out. I kinda feel gypped' that I wasnt around to see Richard in his prime however, virtually every single solitary person whose opinions are worth respecting put Maurice in a singular category; one of blood, guts, passion, determination, honor, integrity, reach. He wasnt a big guy really, not the most fluid of skaters, neither a heavy & hard nor terribly accurate shot, yet he got the job done & your stats back up those contentions.

    btw; whats an ATD?. :dunce:
     
  12. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,277
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    ATD is the "All Time Draft."

    If I was to do the above comparison again, I would have mentioned more prominently that judging Gordie Howe by goals was doing him a big disservice. Not just for the fact that he had much better intangibles than Richard or Hull. But despite his reputation, Howe seems to have actually been a slightly better playmaker than goal scorer in the regular season. And in the playoffs, his playmaking is particularly strong compared to his goal scoring.
     
  13. shazariahl

    shazariahl Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,983
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Going in to this I was ready to select Hull. For a long time I was on the fence between these two, but in recent years Hulls % of goal scoring dominance and other factors have swayed me heavily in his favor.

    Reading this thread again has reminded me how special Richard was, and how I used to consider the two of them so evenly matched. I think for now, I am once again undecided.
     
  14. Hardyvan123

    Hardyvan123 [email protected]

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    17,552
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Agree pretty much with the playoff analysis and will add a couple of points.

    Although goal scoring can be the most independent of variables when it comes to scoring team makeup and the opposition do come into play as well.

    Also 20% better over a small sample is easier to achieve than say the differences in regular season scoring. Hull also was the better point getter in the playoffs between the 2 guys.

    At the end of the day while I agree that Richard was more clutch and the better goal scorer in the playoffs sometimes too fine of a point is made of it and it's only part of the comparison between these 2 guys.

    If we look at the regular season and Hull's WHA days which have to count for something I'll take Hull over Richard 7 days a week although they really aren't that far apart.

    As a side note for those that take Richard for his playoff dominance I wonder if they will also take Lidstrom over Bourque for the same reasons?
     
  15. Stonefly

    Stonefly Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    84
    This is true. I remember meeting him as a boy, was 12 or 13, just after he retired. He was doing some kind of cross country tour, don't recall for what. But I remember thinking the man was huge, but not because he was tall. He had a barrel for a chest.
     
  16. Shameus

    Shameus Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,710
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Middle of a Migraine
    That's enough, keep on topic and discuss the topic and not posters.
     
  17. rymr66

    rymr66 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    english teacher
    Location:
    anyang
    sorry but the rolling stones aren't in the same league as the beatles.

    as for who was better hull or richard, i'd say you gotta go with the guy who won way more stanley cups and it's not even close (8 - 1 i think)
     
  18. Hardyvan123

    Hardyvan123 [email protected]

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    17,552
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Early Stones stuff was awesome although the beatles have a better body of work.

    also I didn't realize that they handed out Stanley cups to players now, last time i looked TEAMS won cups and not players.

    Even the great one didn't win a CUP all by himself outside of Edmonton which should tell us something.
     
  19. Maurice paved the way for 50 goal scorers. But I think Hull is the guy who made it sexy.
     
  20. mbhhofr

    mbhhofr Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I saw both play. I was on the ice as an Linesman when Hull played in the WHA. I met Richard in 1953 when I was 14 years old. I saw him score, what turned out to be, the last goal of his career, in the third game of the 1960 SCF. One of the biggest disappointments that I had was when Richard only coached the Quebec Nordiques for two games before quitting. I was so looking forward to participating in a game that he was involved in and I never got the opportunity. They were two different styles of players. In my opinion, Maurice Richard was a much more exciting player to watch than Bobby Hull.
     
  21. rymr66

    rymr66 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    english teacher
    Location:
    anyang
    as for the richard/hull thing, hull played on some really great teams with the hawks in the 60's and early 70's yet was only able to win one cup. i'm not saying that's his fault but big players are supposed to come up big when it matters most, and for whatever reason, the player who seemed to be able to do that most often and when his club needed a big goal, was richard. (i'm saying this as a jets fan, but maybe my opinion is a little slanted right now because i just watched the movie about richard. maybe if they make a movie called, 'the golden jet', i'll change my mind).

    i'm at a slight loss though because i never got to see either player play live so i had to look things up. interesting fact that i just discovered, apparently bobby hull, aka the golden jet, also played for the chicago blackhawks and not just the winnipeg jets. very interesting. (actually i learned this in kindergarten at my school library which had a section of books on great players from the nhl. what a shock it was to see them talking about bobby hull of the chicago blackhawks, because when i was 5, i only knew about bobby hull of the winnipeg jets)
     
    Last edited by moderator Bear of Bad News: Nov 2, 2011
  22. rymr66

    rymr66 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    english teacher
    Location:
    anyang
    oh, and why choose either of them. hull played lw and richard played rw. why not take them both and put them on the same line together. man would that ever have been scary.
     
  23. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,277
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    The vastly differing team situations makes it especially tough to compare Richard with Hull. With the search function down, I can't find it, but articles recently posted from the 1960s indicate that it wasn't uncommon for Hull and Mikita to see 40 minutes of ice time in particular games due to Chicago's lack of depth.

    I think this does an awful lot to explain why Hull and Mikita have traditionally been ranked lower than what their raw stats would indicate. (I mean in traditional historical canon where, for example, Richard is often thought of as the 4th best forward of all-time, not on HOH where it has practically become canon that Hull should have that title).

    I have also seen it posted fairly recently that all the ice time in the regular season was sometimes blamed for Chicago's stars being burnt out by the time the playoffs hit.

    So Bobby Hull's case over Richard (better regular season stats) and Richard's case over Hull (more individual contribution to team success) could both largely be functions of Montreal's superior depth.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  24. Killion

    Killion Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    36,488
    Likes Received:
    2,650
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Sure, but coming out of the depths of WW2 no way did the Habs' enjoy any particular 'luxury' in terms of depth so do me a favor & 'splain' that one?. Hell, if not for Torontonian Selke who begat Sam Pollock Montreal wouldve been DOA.
     
  25. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,277
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    Can you be more specific - in a lot of ways WW2 was the turning point in Canadiens history - not only did Montreal's roster escape relatively unscathed, but they also drafted Richard himself.

    Montreal by the late 50s at least, had useful forwards in every roster position and regularly used all its three lines.

    For most of his career, Richard had to share ice time at right wing with Bernard Geoffrion, a superstar in his own right. Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita were no doubt doubleshifted in close games because they were far better than the other options.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"