Maurice Richard

[Saw Jiris Tlusty]

I need some information on the Rocket. I've looked for some info but couldn't find much. I know he was the first 50 goal scorer ever, but what else did he do that made him great? Some quotes would be great. Thanks in advance.

Click to read more...

 

[lextune]

For starters he led the league in goals five different seasons.

He finished top 5 twelve times.

Not to mention he's third all-time in playoff goals per game, (after Bossy and Mario).

And if you needed "a big goal" Richard was your man. He may very well be the most clutch goal scorer in NHL history.

 

[Riverboat Gambler]

-50 goals / 50 games
-1st to 500 goals
-8 Cups

 

[nik jr]

led the NHL in goals 5 times, top 5 in goals 12 times

2nd in scoring 5 times

post season all star 14 consecutive seasons ('44-'57). only howe, bourque and gretzky made the post season all star team more times. (bobby hull would have, but he went to WHA.)

hart in '47

82 goals in 133 playoff games. had the record for OT playoff goals until sakic broke the record a couple of years ago.
one of the greatest playoff scorers ever.

known for his determination to score and his offensive skill

very good shooter, both forehand and backhand, and had a very accurate shot.

also a very feisty, powerful player. richard had a bad temper.


richard was often considered the best player in history until howe passed him.


i think his 50 goals in 50 games is overrated, b/c he was essentially playing against minor leaguers. so many regular players went to WW2 that NHL was filled with minor league players. scoring was as high as the '80s, and about 1/2 of the star F's were in WW2.

i think every team but the habs had a minor league goalie.

 

[MXD]

i think his 50 goals in 50 games is overrated, b/c he was essentially playing against minor leaguers. so many regular players went to WW2 that NHL was filled with minor league players. scoring was as high as the '80s, and about 1/2 of the star F's were in WW2.

i think every team but the habs had a minor league goalie.

Overrated.... Yes and no.
I don't know if it's Richard himself who used to say that, but there was something to the effect that he (or somebody else...) said that his 46-47 season was ultimately better.

Easier or not... He still recorded 50 in 50, and it would take years before somebody would do it again. Even if, in retrospect, it might not have been his best season, goalscoring-wise.

As for goaltending... The only notable at the start of 43-44 was Mike Karakas. Technically, the Habs goalie was a minor leaguer as well, but the minor leaguer turned out to be -- arguably -- a top-10 goalie of all time.

 

[Matt714*]

Conscription for Canadians was made compulsory in 1944, but it wasn't for Montreal Canadiens players to appease the anti-conscription movement in Quebec lead by the nationalistc far-right.

It's easier to score 50 goals in 50 games when the netminders will actual hockey skills are being shot at on the beaches of Normandy.

 

[nik jr]

Overrated.... Yes and no.
I don't know if it's Richard himself who used to say that, but there was something to the effect that he (or somebody else...) said that his 46-47 season was ultimately better.

Easier or not... He still recorded 50 in 50, and it would take years before somebody would do it again. Even if, in retrospect, it might not have been his best season, goalscoring-wise.

As for goaltending... The only notable at the start of 43-44 was Mike Karakas. Technically, the Habs goalie was a minor leaguer as well, but the minor leaguer turned out to be -- arguably -- a top-10 goalie of all time.

50 in 50 was obviously a great accomplishment, and probably no one in the NHL at the time could have done it, but '47 may have been better.

in '47, richard scored 50% more than former goal leader (and 4 time runner-up) and future art ross winner roy conacher.
elmer lach also missed 1/2 of the '47 season, so richard's performance is even more impressive.

in '45, richard led the field by a larger margin, but many of the best goal scorers were not playing. schriner missed 1/2 the season and was on pace for 42g.
'45 was also only richard's 2nd season, so he probably peaked a bit later.

 

[Chili]

You won't find many here that saw him play so the relevant opinions are probably in the archives.

This old article (1956) summarizes notable opinions of some people who did see him play.

My favorite memory is from the cartoon "The sweater", and "we wear our hair like Maurice Richard...".

He was idolized especially in Quebec.

 

[MXD]

Conscription for Canadians was made compulsory in 1944, but it wasn't for Montreal Canadiens players to appease the anti-conscription movement in Quebec lead by the nationalistc far-right.

It's easier to score 50 goals in 50 games when the netminders will actual hockey skills are being shot at on the beaches of Normandy.

Hummm... That's an unbelievable load of garbage that you've just spewn there.

Ken Reardon went to war, as did his brother, Terry.
Maurice Richard was refused in the army, due to a bad ankle.
Emile Bouchard was granted permission to remain in Canada, because he was taking care of a business (he was a beefarmer, a bee keeper, or whatever an "apiculteur" is named in english). Basically, most farmers (I can't say for farmworkers) were NOT leaving during the war.
I don't know exactly for the other players of that team (I know that Phil Watson got a derogation for whatever reason, but he was a Ranger prior to 43-44 anyways).
Moreover, I suspect Elmer Lach had a medical condition as well (he did miss like the whole 42-43 year, if i remember...)

There was an interesting tidbit about Jack Adams (or was it Lester Patrick?) trying to forbid the 6 players with a non-medical derogation (that group includes Watson, Harmon, Bouchard, and 3 other guys I can't remember). It obviously didn't go through.

Moreover, the only group that could be considered "far right" in Quebec was the PNSC, which was ultimately unsuccessful and much, much more canadian nationalistic than québecois nationalistic. L'Union Nationale was at the right of the political spectrum, but they were as far from Far Right than, let's say, Gilles Duceppe is far from being a federalist. Let's just say that most québecois didn't really care about saving Great Britain's ass, which seems unforunate today when we look at it, but it's not like any of us could see the big picture by then, when most people were illeterate.

 

[Matt714*]

Maurice Richard was refused in the army, due to a bad ankle.

Richard applied in the army in 1939 and 1940, years before his professional hockey career.

L'Union Nationale was at the right of the political spectrum, but they were as far from Far Right

Yeah, sure. There's nothing far right about being sympathetic to Vichy France, and fascist Italy, nor arresting people randomly on chargers of being communist sympathizers.

The was never a substantial nationalistic far right in Quebec, exept maybe that marginal abbe that had almost as many antisemitic coated speeches than Hitler himself.

 

[pappyline]

Hummm... Right than, let's say, Gilles Duceppe is far from being a federalist. Let's just say that most québecois didn't really care about saving Great Britain's ass, which seems unforunate today when we look at it, but it's not like any of us could see the big picture by then, when most people were illeterate.

Guess they didn't care about saving France's ass either which was in a mich more precarious position.

 

[MXD]

The was never a substantial nationalistic far right in Quebec, exept maybe that marginal abbe that had almost as many antisemitic coated speeches than Hitler himself.

Oh, then it just happens we were not talking about the same phenomenon. I was talking about politics.

 

[MXD]

Guess they didn't care about saving France's ass either which was in a mich more precarious position.

It seems too.

Too bad we can't really trust history books here.

 

[Matt714*]

Oh, then it just happens we were not talking about the same phenomenon. I was talking about politics.

The clergy was definitely not involved in Quebec politics at that time.

 

[Mad Habber]

Guess they didn't care about saving France's ass either which was in a mich more precarious position.

Actually, I always figured that since Canada didn't enter the war earlier to help France, then people in Quebec didn't care to go help England.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Matt714*]

Actually, I always figured that since Canada didn't enter the war earlier to help France

Canada declared war as a sovereign and independent country on September 10th 1939, nine days after the first shots of World War II were fired by the battleship Schleswig-Holstein.

 

[MXD]

The clergy was definitely not involved in Quebec politics at that time.

My point is : obviously, they were involved. But they weren't a political party. Like I said, the only Far-Right party in Quebec, at that time, was the PNSC. A canadian-nationalistic party. Most of the clergy was backing Duplessis, but calling him a Right Wing/Far Right Prime minister would be like saying that the CATO institute is a socialist think-thank.

If Groulx was a guy of the Far Right, then I guess Canada's greatest prime minister was a Far Right guy as well, because I'm hard-pressed to find differences between Groulx's words and Mackenzie King's words as far as anti-semitism is concerned.

 

[MXD]

Actually, I always figured that since Canada didn't enter the war earlier to help France, then people in Quebec didn't care to go help England.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.

I think the truth has been distorted in this area... Trust history with facts : not with hypothetics.

 

[Mad Habber]

I think the truth has been distorted in this area... Trust history with facts : not with hypothetics.

What facts? I wasn't around back then. You also said we couldn't trust history books in an earlier post. (Not that I ever trusted any history books to begin with)

So where do we get our facts. And how do we verify if they are indeed facts and not made up like George Washington's cherry tree.