Book Feature Lloyd Percival: Coach and Visionary. Revised and Fully Referenced Edition (by Gary Mossman)

[Gary M]

On Jan. 18 & 19 at 8 PM, CBC "Ideas" will be airing a documentary on Lloyd Percival, titled "Canada's Sports Prophet." A podcast will also be available on that date, as well as the revised edition of Lloyd Percival: Coach and Visionary. Part II of the documentary, airing in Jan. 19, will be largely devoted to hockey, but don't miss Part I. Lloyd Percival had a profound influence on sport and culture in Canada during the 20th century and his influence on hockey represents only the tip of the iceberg.

When the first edition of Lloyd Percival: Coach and Visionary was published in 2013, an editorial decision was imposed upon the author to eliminate more than 1,000 endnotes. The decision to make the book more accessible to the average reader backfired when the book failed to sell. The only feedback the author received was from academics who complained that there were no "references." That criticism, along with conversations with the CBC regarding a documentary on Percival, led to the decision to reintegrate the endnotes into the book and to publish a revised edition. The inclusion of those endnotes dramatically changes an interesting biography into an important study of sport in Canada during the 20th century.

For all of those who did not read the book in 2013, learning about Lloyd Percival and the way he impacted the understanding of sport and fitness in Canada, as well as on more than one dozen specific sports, will be a revelation. For hockey fans in particular, even those who have heard 0f Percival, learning about how much he impacted hockey in Canada and how much more he could have done for the game, had the NHL listened to him, this is must reading. For those few who read it, the endnotes will change the book; so too will the revised section on international hockey, where research from two SIHR members has helped the author challenge academic criticism regarding Percival's influence on Soviet hockey.

Listen to the "Ideas" documentary, then read the book. Some of you will also be able to advance the research Percival, Tarasov and the development of hockey in the Soviet Union; everyone is welcome to comment and to be part of the discussion.

Now available on Amazon

Click to read more...

 

[Theokritos]

Great to have you!

As someone who has never written a book, I can only imagine how much it must suck to do all the work and then...have the editor unilaterally decide to do away with all the references. A tragedy. It's great that you finally have the opportunity to right this wrong.

 

[Theokritos]

Both the paperback and the e-book (Kindle) are now available on Amazon

 

[Theokritos]

Part 1 of the CBC broadcast is online:

 

[Gary M]

I am sorry that the page was late being posted. Thanks to anyone who did listen to CBC "Ideas" last night.
Don't miss Part II tonight!! It's all about hockey, beginning in the 1940's through to the 1972 Summit Series and Percival's role in the development of hockey in the Soviet Union

 

[Theokritos]

Part 2 is available too: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/lloyd-percival-canada-s-sports-prophet-1.6318337

---

@Gary M: How did you develop an interest in Lloyd Percival? And just how much work was it to produce the book (the original edition, that is)? Considering the scope of Percival's work and the number of telephon interviews in the references to the second edition, it must have taken years.

 

[Gary M]

Part 2 is available too: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/lloyd-percival-canada-s-sports-prophet-1.6318337

---

@Gary M: How did you develop an interest in Lloyd Percival? And just how much work was it to produce the book (the original edition, that is)? Considering the scope of Percival's work and the number of telephon interviews in the references to the second edition, it must have taken years.

Thank you for the interest in this book. My father, Jim Mossman, was the Canadian Olympic coach for Canoe/Kayak Canada from 1959-1971, and Technical Director from 1971-1976. Percival helped my father prepare his teams for competition and they became friends. I only met Percival once, but my father's stories stayed with me.
I began researching Lloyd Percival in 2005. Because he had been involved with so many sports, as well as with radio, television, and the development of government policy, I interviewed well over 100 people. Archival material was also extensive but, since Percival had been such a public figure, it was relatively easy to locate. By 2011, I had a draft to present to an agent and/or publisher. It took a couple of years, however, before I had fine tuned the manuscript and found a publisher willing to take a chance on a book about a dead, forgotten Canadian sports figure. Sadly the publisher decided that the book would be more accessable to the average reader without the 1,000 plus endnotes.
Promotion of the book was minimal, as were the sales. Apart from a few positive reviews my only feedback was from academics who discounted the book because it lacked "references."
The combination of inspiration supplied by new research from SIHR members Jim Genac and Marcel Lang regarding Percival and Tarasov, a planned CBC "Ideas" documentary and Covid self isolation, inspired me to update the book and re-integrate the endnotes. It was daunting, but well worth it. The book before you is the book I attempted to publish in 2013 - complete with corrections and updates. It is a book I hope that researchers looking at Canadian sport (especially hockey researchers) will be able to trust when examining Canadian sport in the 20th century.

 

[Theokritos]

@Gary M:

It's well known (and cited in the CBC documentary) that Lloyd Percival wasn't exactly appreciated by the NHL establishment. In particular, Dick Irvin spoke very disparagingly about Percival, albeit apparently not based on reading Percival himself but on a newspaper portrayal of Percival's research. On the other hand, Detroit Red Wings and later Minnesota North Stars worked with Percival for some time and of course there were individual NHL players who did the same.

Do you think Percival would have had a better shot at influencing the NHL if he didn't come across as quite as self-promoting as he did? Because that's one thing that seems hard to deny about him, even if one appreciates his research. He was good at marketing himself, but over the long run a more low-profile approach might have been more effective.

 

[Gary M]

That is an interesting question. The first time Percival angered a member of the Smythe family occurred in 1932 when he was coaching a midget hockey team. In spite of this, the Maple Leafs, as well as the other 5 NHL teams, were very co-operative when Percival launched Sports College of the Air" in 1944. NHL players were frequent guests and the Leafs even coughed up game tickets and a jersey that Percival awarded to contest winners. Later in the decade, when Percival began offering more and more advice on nutrition and training methods that conflicted with their traditional ways, the NHL backed off. However, it was in the 1950's that Percival really ran afoul of the NHL, not because of self-promotion, but because the press got hold of stories that proved embarrassing to the NHL. The problems Eric Nesterenko was having with the Maple Leafs due to following a Percival diet and the hue and cry that went up when Percival claimed that scientific tests he had conducted proved that Gordie Howe was a far better hockey player than Maurice Richard, both hit the newspapers in 1951, the same year that Percival published The Hockey Handbook. It was also in 1951 that Percival began working with the Detroit Red Wings. In spite of the tremendous success of the Red Wings during his tenure there, Percival received little credit and in the latter years, they listened to him less and less. During the remainder of the 1950s and the 1960s, Percival was constantly criticizing the NHL over diet, nutrition, training methods, and the way young hockey players were treated like chattel and denied an education. In addition, he started telling them that the Russians knew of a better way and would soon be able to defeat them on the ice. This was not self-promotion. This was legitimate criticism. Naturally, Lloyd Percival's very public image was a problem for the NHL, but the bigger problem was that he was giving them advice that they did not want to hear.

 

[Theokritos]

That is an interesting question. The first time Percival angered a member of the Smythe family occurred in 1932 when he was coaching a midget hockey team. In spite of this, the Maple Leafs, as well as the other 5 NHL teams, were very co-operative when Percival launched Sports College of the Air" in 1944. NHL players were frequent guests and the Leafs even coughed up game tickets and a jersey that Percival awarded to contest winners. Later in the decade, when Percival began offering more and more advice on nutrition and training methods that conflicted with their traditional ways, the NHL backed off. However, it was in the 1950's that Percival really ran afoul of the NHL, not because of self-promotion, but because the press got hold of stories that proved embarrassing to the NHL. The problems Eric Nesterenko was having with the Maple Leafs due to following a Percival diet and the hue and cry that went up when Percival claimed that scientific tests he had conducted proved that Gordie Howe was a far better hockey player than Maurice Richard, both hit the newspapers in 1951, the same year that Percival published The Hockey Handbook.

It's not surprising that Percival's claim about Richard and Howe caused waves in Montreal anno 1951, but I think only a few years later this was almost consensus in the NHL (perhaps with the exception of Québec) with Howe winning four consecutive scoring titles.

It was also in 1951 that Percival began working with the Detroit Red Wings. In spite of the tremendous success of the Red Wings during his tenure there, Percival received little credit and in the latter years, they listened to him less and less. During the remainder of the 1950s and the 1960s, Percival was constantly criticizing the NHL over diet, nutrition, training methods, and the way young hockey players were treated like chattel and denied an education. In addition, he started telling them that the Russians knew of a better way and would soon be able to defeat them on the ice. This was not self-promotion. This was legitimate criticism. Naturally, Lloyd Percival's very public image was a problem for the NHL, but the bigger problem was that he was giving them advice that they did not want to hear.

On the other hand of there were the Russians who were eager to hear his advice, starting no later than 1953 when Anatoli Tarasov received a copy of either The Hockey Handbook or How To Play Better Hockey.

It's quite ironic and – depending on how one looks at it – either sad or a little satisfying that it took the subsequent Percival-influenced emergence of the Soviet Union as a hockey power (in particular the 1972 Summit Series) to give Percival's work on hockey a big boost of attention in Canada.

 

[Sanf]

Sounds very interesting. I´m not an expert on Percival by any means. Sadly I have never even seen his books (from Finland). But I have done some research on his goalie training/opinions.

I first did some reading when I found out that Dave Dryden trained with him in the Fitness institute few summers (In early 70´s). I don´t have my clippings here, but one of the method that they used was that Dryden was on some small platform infront of goal and faced somesort of electric machine with lights of different color. Every color meaned different kind of shot and the machine flashed those in random order and Dryden had to react to those. They timed his reactions and filmed it to show the mistakes in technique.

Then I found his "Hockey Hints" series that was published in several papers. He seemed heavily emphatize agility, reflexes and vision in goaltending. I tend to remember he had made some "correct" calculation from which distance accurate shot is impossible for goaltender.

Only things about positioning I have read (indirectly) are from the Tarasov´s preface from the Russian translation of the Hockey Handbook (Thanks for Theo for translating it to us). Some of those seemed somewhat quirky even for the time.

Seems very interesting "Jack of all trades" person who probably was trailblazer in many things.

 

[Theokritos]

I first did some reading when I found out that Dave Dryden trained with him in the Fitness institute few summers (In early 70´s). I don´t have my clippings here, but one of the method that they used was that Dryden was on some small platform infront of goal and faced somesort of electric machine with lights of different color. Every color meaned different kind of shot and the machine flashed those in random order and Dryden had to react to those. They timed his reactions and filmed it to show the mistakes in technique.

Dave Dryden, the more interesting of the Dryden brothers – I think @Doctor No is going to like this.

 

[Doctor No]

I wish I could find my notes on the color simulator - I have printed microfilm on it from back when I was in grad school (~25 years ago now) but it didn't survive one of my many moves since then.

 

[Gary M]

Dave Dryden, the more interesting of the Dryden brothers – I think @Doctor No is going to like this.

You're quite correct. Dave Dryden did work with Percival for a number of years and became something of a prized pupil. The board you mention with the coloured lights was indeed built by Percival for Dryden to develop his reflexes. A similar device was manufactured in the 1980s and used by NHL goalies and race car drivers. Curiously, Dave's brother Ken told everyone in 1972 that there were no modern ideas on goaltender training in Canada.

 

[Gary M]

It's not surprising that Percival's claim about Richard and Howe caused waves in Montreal anno 1951, but I think only a few years later this was almost consensus in the NHL (perhaps with the exception of Québec) with Howe winning four consecutive scoring titles.



On the other hand of there were the Russians who were eager to hear his advice, starting no later than 1953 when Anatoli Tarasov received a copy of either The Hockey Handbook or How To Play Better Hockey.

It's quite ironic and – depending on how one looks at it – either sad or a little satisfying that it took the subsequent Percival-influenced emergence of the Soviet Union as a hockey power (in particular the 1972 Summit Series) to give Percival's work on hockey a big boost of attention in Canada.

When I wrote the first edition in 2013, I posited the link between Percival and Tarasov, but had only circumstantial evidence and an impossible to prove hockey story. While the 'smoking gun' has yet to be found, this revised edition introduces recent research by Theo and others that establishes what the Soviets always denied, an early interest in learning about hockey from Canadians. The only book of any value on Canadian hockey at that time had been written by Lloyd Percival. He published How To Play Better Hockey in 1946, at the same time that the Soviets became interested in Canadian hockey. In 1948, Soviet officials approached Percival at the Olympics in London. They already knew who he was and they wanted to know more. Percival began sending them material on sport. To say that Tarasov did not read Percival long before 1953, and well before he wrote any of his own books, is no longer defensible

 

[Theokritos]

In 1948, Soviet officials approached Percival at the Olympics in London. They already knew who he was and they wanted to know more. Percival began sending them material on sport.

If I understand it right this will be discussed in another book supposed to appear later this year and I'm very much looking forward to it.

----

Gary, do you think Mossman's work ended up impacting the later development of NHL hockey after all? Even if he personally was restricted to short stints with Detroit and Minnesota, apart from training individual players? Did the insights of The Hockey Handbook find their way to the top of the hockey food chain via other channels over the following decades or did the NHL end up reinventing the wheel?

 

[Gary M]

If I understand it right this will be discussed in another book supposed to appear later this year and I'm very much looking forward to it.

----

Gary, do you think Mossman's work ended up impacting the later development of NHL hockey after all? Even if he personally was restricted to short stints with Detroit and Minnesota, apart from training individual players? Did the insights of The Hockey Handbook find their way to the top of the hockey food chain via other channels over the following decades or did the NHL end up reinventing the wheel?

Quite definitely. I reveal in the book how many people were influenced by Percival and how that influenced the NHL - even if it did take 40 years. Furthermore, I argue that the faster, more athletic "New NHL" of 2006, would not have happened had the Europeans and Russians not brought a Lloyd Percival style of hockey to the NHL.

 

[Theokritos]

Quite definitely. I reveal in the book how many people were influenced by Percival and how that influenced the NHL - even if it did take 40 years. Furthermore, I argue that the faster, more athletic "New NHL" of 2006, would not have happened had the Europeans and Russians not brought a Lloyd Percival style of hockey to the NHL.

Here's hoping that the recent CBC documentary and this book publication will serve to raise his profile and give Percival the attention he deserves.

Last year I had a conversation about Lloyd Percival with Jack Han who has worked as an analyst with Toronto Maple Leafs from 2017-2019 and as an assistant coach with Toronto Marlies in 2019/2020. He came across The Hockey Handbook as a curious nine-year old:

"I read it cover-to-cover and revel in the detailed explanations of how to do hockey, better. A rare book of substance, I conclude. I would never be the same again."

Then, in 2020, he picked the book up again:

"I digest the book for the first time as an adult and come away disappointed: so much of what Percival preaches is outdated or simply incorrect. I intended to write a summary of the book for the newsletter, to bring Percival’s findings to a modern audience. But it now seems easier to create an anti-summary, a list of all the things wrong with the book (...) But therein lies The Hockey Handbook’s greatest strength. It is a comprehensive and falsifiable document. It provides us with testable hypotheses. Whether they are right or wrong, by testing them our understanding of the sport deepens. Since 1951 we’ve gotten much better at playing and teaching the game, so the book has indeed served its purpose, as intended by Percival."

(Link)

Han also told me the one chapter he thinks has hold up best over the course of 70 years is the Skating chapter where Percival puts a great emphasis on agility.

Would you agree with this assessment from your point of view?

 

[Gary M]

I agree in the sense that all of the chapters hold up in terms of intent. We have plenty of technicians in hockey today and most have gone beyond what Percival offered. However, when Percival wrote the Hockey Handbook, no one was teaching skating, or any of the other hockey skill, and they didn't start for at least thirty years. Where you will find Percival's training advice on hockey still remarkably fresh, is in the training program he wrote for the 1951 Detroit Red Wings. I have written extensively on it in this book because it included so many aspects of preparing for and playing hockey - some of which are still considered new to hockey training in the 21st century. Moreover, it is probably the first all-embracing, holistic training program prepared for a team in any sport.

 

[Theokritos]

I agree in the sense that all of the chapters hold up in terms of intent. We have plenty of technicians in hockey today and most have gone beyond what Percival offered. However, when Percival wrote the Hockey Handbook, no one was teaching skating, or any of the other hockey skill, and they didn't start for at least thirty years.

Right. He was certainly a pioneer. I'd also like to stress that in The Hockey Handbook he tries to support all of his teachings with arguments and with data won from systematic testing and measuring. "72% of the successful shots were taken from this range", "the average player needed 12 seconds to do this", stuff like that. That approach was cutting-edge and has stood the test of time. It's also one of the reasons why he kicked in an open door with the Soviets (beside the oft-cited fact that they, as relative newbies in hockey, understood they still had a lot to learn): in early Soviet hockey there was a significant affinity to both theoretical education and empirical studies. There was an Institute of Physical Culture in Moscow and it had a Higher School of Coaches, from which future hockey coaches like Tarasov and Chernyshov graduated and where, in the words of Tarasov, they learned the "coaching science". Tarasov's mentor Tovarovsky had a degree from the Medical Institute in Kiev. Those people switched back and forth between the soccer pitch and ice rink and an almost academic setting where they gave or heard lectures and wrote articles. Percival's mindset was right up their alley. In him they found a Canadian counterpart, a representative of the same "coaching science".

In 1955 copies of the Hockey Handbook were shipped to Moscow. One year later Porfiri Sheleshnyov, lecturer at the Institute of Physical Culture, filmed countless hockey players (with front and overhead cameras) performing shots and measured e.g. how long it took to get the shot off for players who used their strong hand at the bottom and for players who used their strong hand on top. The surprising result: Players who used their strong hand at the bottom only needed 0.093-0.106 seconds while players who used their strong hand on top needed 0.106-0.124 seconds. Sounds exactly like something Percival could have come up with.

By the way, the article in which Sheleshnyov published these findings was partially a critique of statements made by Anatoli Tarasov in earlier publications. That's how it worked: Tarasov said something in a book, Sheleshnyov replied with an article. Percival said something in a book, Tarasov replied with a preface to the Russian edition.

Now, can you imagine what Lloyd Percival could have done with a government-supported "Institute of Sport" or "Coaching School" in Ottawa? And how productive it would have been if a Montreal Canadiens' coach published a critical review of Percival's work?

Where you will find Percival's training advice on hockey still remarkably fresh, is in the training program he wrote for the 1951 Detroit Red Wings. I have written extensively on it in this book because it included so many aspects of preparing for and playing hockey - some of which are still considered new to hockey training in the 21st century. Moreover, it is probably the first all-embracing, holistic training program prepared for a team in any sport.

I remember reading about that in the first edition and I will re-read it in the second edition soon.

 

[Theokritos]

@Gary M:

While the scope and approach of Percival's hockey writings were certainly groundbreaking in the late 1940s/early 1950s (and beyond), it's not like there was no prior literature on how to play hockey. For example, the 1930s saw the publication of such titles as Ice Hockey: How to Play and Understand the Game (Sayles/Hallock), Hockey: The Fastest Game on Earth (Dutton) and Hockey: For Spectator, Coach, and Player (Vaughan). Do you know whether Percival was aware of this existing literature or had even read it? And if so, what he thought about it?

 

[Gary M]

@Gary M:

While the scope and approach of Percival's hockey writings were certainly groundbreaking in the late 1940s/early 1950s (and beyond), it's not like there was no prior literature on how to play hockey. For example, the 1930s saw the publication of such titles as Ice Hockey: How to Play and Understand the Game (Sayles/Hallock), Hockey: The Fastest Game on Earth (Dutton) and Hockey: For Spectator, Coach, and Player (Vaughan). Do you know whether Percival was aware of this existing literature or had even read it? And if so, what he thought about it?

Lloyd Percival read everything and he had something of a photographic memory. Associates at the Fitness Institute would return from conferences in late afternoon, drop a thick pile of research papers on his desk, and be queried on the minute details in the morning.
Percival never made reference to these books, or any other hockey books that I know of, except Tarasov's.

 

[Gary M]

Right. He was certainly a pioneer. I'd also like to stress that in The Hockey Handbook he tries to support all of his teachings with arguments and with data won from systematic testing and measuring. "72% of the successful shots were taken from this range", "the average player needed 12 seconds to do this", stuff like that. That approach was cutting-edge and has stood the test of time. It's also one of the reasons why he kicked in an open door with the Soviets (beside the oft-cited fact that they, as relative newbies in hockey, understood they still had a lot to learn): in early Soviet hockey there was a significant affinity to both theoretical education and empirical studies. There was an Institute of Physical Culture in Moscow and it had a Higher School of Coaches, from which future hockey coaches like Tarasov and Chernyshov graduated and where, in the words of Tarasov, they learned the "coaching science". Tarasov's mentor Tovarovsky had a degree from the Medical Institute in Kiev. Those people switched back and forth between the soccer pitch and ice rink and an almost academic setting where they gave or heard lectures and wrote articles. Percival's mindset was right up their alley. In him they found a Canadian counterpart, a representative of the same "coaching science".

In 1955 copies of the Hockey Handbook were shipped to Moscow. One year later Porfiri Sheleshnyov, lecturer at the Institute of Physical Culture, filmed countless hockey players (with front and overhead cameras) performing shots and measured e.g. how long it took to get the shot off for players who used their strong hand at the bottom and for players who used their strong hand on top. The surprising result: Players who used their strong hand at the bottom only needed 0.093-0.106 seconds while players who used their strong hand on top needed 0.106-0.124 seconds. Sounds exactly like something Percival could have come up with.

By the way, the article in which Sheleshnyov published these findings was partially a critique of statements made by Anatoli Tarasov in earlier publications. That's how it worked: Tarasov said something in a book, Sheleshnyov replied with an article. Percival said something in a book, Tarasov replied with a preface to the Russian edition.

Now, can you imagine what Lloyd Percival could have done with a government-supported "Institute of Sport" or "Coaching School" in Ottawa? And how productive it would have been if a Montreal Canadiens' coach published a critical review of Percival's work?

Regarding an Institute of Physical Culture in Canada. Percival started lobbying Ottawa for just such a thing in 1936, and didn't stop until the Report of The Task Force on Sport for Canadians in 1967 spawned the sport bureaucracy we have in Canada today. This another of the remarkable facets of Percival's influence on sport and culture that is laid out in the book.

 

[Theokritos]

Lloyd Percival read everything and he had something of a photographic memory. Associates at the Fitness Institute would return from conferences in late afternoon, drop a thick pile of research papers on his desk, and be queried on the minute details in the morning.
Percival never made reference to these books, or any other hockey books that I know of, except Tarasov's.

Regarding an Institute of Physical Culture in Canada. Percival started lobbying Ottawa for just such a thing in 1936, and didn't stop until the Report of The Task Force on Sport for Canadians in 1967 spawned the sport bureaucracy we have in Canada today. This another of the remarkable facets of Percival's influence on sport and culture that is laid out in the book.

Thanks for your replies.

Perhaps a last question: Do you have any insight into how many editions of the Hockey Handbook were published over the decades? I know there were several, but it would be interesting to know how many and when the new ones were exactly published. E.g. I know that Percival got some renewed attention in Canada in 1972 on occasion of the Summit Series and I think there was a new edition of the Hockey Handbook around that time, perhaps shortly afterwards.

 

[Gary M]

Thanks for your replies.

Perhaps a last question: Do you have any insight into how many editions of the Hockey Handbook were published over the decades? I know there were several, but it would be interesting to know how many and when the new ones were exactly published. E.g. I know that Percival got some renewed attention in Canada in 1972 on occasion of the Summit Series and I think there was a new edition of the Hockey Handbook around that time, perhaps shortly afterwards.

The original edition of the Hockey Handbook (HH) was published in 1951. A revised edition was published in 1957, even though the changes were minimal. No other editions were published during Percival's lifetime, although he was working on one when he died and planned to include information on aspects of Russian hockey - an early copy of Percival's notes and a copy of the HH with marginalia has been donated to the HHOF Archives. In 1992 Major, Sadler and Thom were charged with publishing an updated HH, and were surprised at how little of the content actually needed updating.