Pre-1926 Defensemen

[Triffy]

NHL became the premier hockey league in the world for the 1926-27 season. From that point on, Eddie Shore was the dominating defenseman in the world until 1940. But who were the best defensemen before him, and how would you rank them? Here are some of the most obvious candidates, alphabetically listed. I did not mention Cyclone Taylor because, to my knowledge, he played more as a forward. King Clancy had a promising start to his career but is missing because he had a notable career after 1926.

- Boucher, George
- Cameron, Harry
- Cleghorn, Sprague
- Gerard, Eddie
- Grant, Mike
- Griffins, Si
- Hall, Joe
- Johnson, Ernie
- Patrick, Frank
- Patrick, Lester
- Ross, Art
- Stuart, Hod

How do you feel each of these players would adapt to the modern game considering their strengths and weaknesses? Who should be added to the discussion? If you consider the best players of the pre-1926 era, how highly are these players valued in comparison to them? How has the role and importance of a defenseman changed?

To get the discussion going, I would group the defensemen like this

Cleghorn, Johnson / Boucher, Gerard, L. Patrick / Stuart, Cameron, Grant, Ross, Hall / Griffins, F. Patrick

Click to read more...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I think you're ranking looks pretty good. Cleghorn was pretty much Eddie Shore before there was Eddie Shore. Physical and violent to the point that it became a negative rather than a positve at times. Not as offensively dominant as Shore, but still one of the best in his day. I'd also have him at the top of the list. My modern comparable would be Chris Chelios.

Moose Johnson was a great defenseman for a long time, and I'd probably put him second on the list like you have. More of a stay at home player than guys like Cleghorn or Cameron, and famous for using an extremely long stick to harrass oncoming forwards in addition to his huge size. A rough player, but not a dirty or vicious player like some of the others in his era. Tough to say how he would adapt to today's game as these advantages would be lessened. Modern comparable might be a Derian Hatcher.

In comparing them to the forwards of the pre-26 era, I have Taylor, Lalonde, and Nighbor a good measure ahead of these defensemen. Malone as well, but not by such a large margin. There was probably more depth at the defense position though, with none of them really standing out as greatly superior to their peers as we would see in most future eras.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Harvey Pulford and Jack Laviolette

Consider Harvey Pulford and Jack Laviolette.

Harvey Pulford was the first of the great defensive defensemen, career dates back to 1893.Introduced alot of the basics of defensive play. Extremely stay at home.

Jack Laviolette,pre NHA brought offense to the position while advancing how the position was played.

 

[nik jr]

i will comment on the ones i know more about.


ernie johnson would not adapt well at all, imo. he was missing at least several fingers on his right hand and according to a montreal newspaper from 1908, when johnson was a LW, he was a bad shooter and stickhandler (newspaper does not mention his lack of fingers). he also relied on a very long stick that would now be illegal.
i think he would not be able to be a pro player, and would be last on my list.


difficult to say for joe hall, but i am inclined to think he would not be as good. he was very physical and dirty, in a time when that could mean trying to injure the other team's players. i cannot say anything about his level of hockey sense or anything similar, but relying on brute force when forward passing was illegal is very different from today's game.


georges boucher was apparently slow, but had great puck skills. also a physical player. he also played F early in his career. lack of speed would hurt him much more than it did in his era of 60 minute players, but that seems to be his only weakness.



from what i have read, lester and frank patrick were good at everything, so i assume they would adapt well. they were also great innovators who became coaches and GMs.
patrick brothers had great minds for the game, which, imo, makes it much more likely that they would be great players today.
i think they were also both quite a bit bigger than average size.

i read something in a '30s newspaper a couple of days ago in which lester patrick predicted that "blockers" would be replaced by more well rounded players. blockers were d-men who focused almost entirely on D and blocked opponents from getting near the net.



art ross and eddie gerard are similar cases as lester and frank patrick, and would probably adapt well. gerard and ross were both successful coaches. art ross was also an innovator. gerard played both F and D at a high level.


hod stuart died very young, so i don't know anything about his understanding of the game as we do with the others, but his game had no weakness.
he was very big (over 6 feet tall and about 175 pounds according to a contemporary newspaper), a great skater, and was good at everything. he also often stayed back to focus on D, as most d-men do today, and did not rely on attempts to injure, which seems to have been common. he was also a hard but clean hitter.

stuart was described in several papers as the best player in the world around the time of his death. he was also the leader and sometimes manager of his teams.

here is something i posted in the all time draft:

While he was on the ice, Stuart exhibited many of those qualities which have gained him renown in the hockey world. He handled his stick with marvelous dexterity, skated rings around most of the men on the ice, broke up rush after rush with ease, and several times carried the puck down through the whole Toronto team, his great speed carrying his huge bulk along with almost irresistible force.
....
When he was at cover-point Stuart was generally the turning point of every attack, and during the entire period the defense appeared well nigh impregnable. After his retirement the locals had comparatively little difficulty in sifting through or circling right up to the posts. With Stuart in the dressing room, the Wanderers appeared to be little better than the average team. The big fellow appears to be the backbone as well as the brains of the outfit. He instills confidence and spirit into the men in front of him, wakens them when they lag, steadies them when they are inclined to give way to the rattles, is cool and collected in an emergency, and is in every way the life of the team.

a potential weakness of stuart is his devotion to the game. shortly before his death at (i think) age 28, there was talk that he would retire to raise his family. a newspaper reporter who interviewed hod stuart said later that he got the impression that stuart did not really care whether he played hockey or not.


cleghorn's only weakness was his dirty, undisciplined play. he was big, physical, and very good both ways. cleghorn is probably the best of these players.


cameron was very talented but was a prima donna and liked alcohol. i read in an old toronto paper that he was traded b/c of his habit of trying to make a dry county into a wet county. his offensive numbers relative to F's would most likely not be as high today as they were then, but he was a great offensive player, and was apparently not bad defensively.



HO once posted (i think in the award and all star thread) something from a '30s paper about eddie shore. it said shore was roughly as good as cyclone taylor, hod stuart and sprague cleghorn as one of the greatest d-men of all time.



based on some things i have read, those most often considered the best of all time were hod stuart, lester and frank patrick, cameron and cleghorn.

 

[seventieslord]

If I had to rank these guys I'd put them as follows:

- Cleghorn, Sprague - The 2nd-best offensively of the bunch. Always among the top-4 offensively in his league. A mentor to other great defenseman. Underrated as a teammate. Exceptional defensively and a blazing fast skater. Could be violent which is a double edged sword.

- Johnson, Ernie - Don't buy this nonsense about how he couldn't adapt because of a few missing fingers. The guy was the best defenseman in the PCHA for his whole career, notwithstanding the loss of fingers. It could be argued that, having grown up in modern times, the scenario of him receiving a catastrophic electric shock would never have occurred. He was nothing special offensively but impeccable defensively and a very physical, yet mostly clean player.

- Gerard, Eddie - Remarkable leadership capabilities. Probably the only player who compared to Johnson defensively. Decent offensively. Tough yet known for being very clean.

- Boucher, George - A slow skater but a remarkable stickhandler with end-to-end capabilities. Physical and tough and no real weakness to his game aside from skating (which did not seem to stop him from scoring and defending at a high level)

It gets really, really hard after this. Stuart and Grant, for example, were surely the most dominant of their time, but then competition level comes into play. As well as length of career for Stuart.


- Cameron, Harry - An offensive whiz but don't let that make you think he was a specialist. Anecdotes exist supporting his defensive and physical strengths, too. He dominated every league he played in offensively. In that regard, he is the best of this bunch. Prima donna though.

- Grant, Mike - Not much exists on Grant, but he was THE star of his era.

- Stuart, Hod - He was sometimes said to be the best player in the world in his time. Again, not much exists on him. Great size for when he played.

- Patrick, Lester - A great defenseman with size, speed, leadership qualities and exceptional longevity. His comeback at 40 to lead Victoria to the finals is legendary. During this time he led the team offensively, defensively, and physically.

- Ross, Art - I wish we knew more about Ross. From what I can gather, he was about average offensively among this class. He was a "tower of strength" and had good size, physicality, and confidence. He was very highly regarded but I have never researched him through old newspapers like I have so many others.

- Griffis, Si - Griffis, not Griffins. A gentle giant. Not much offensively but a good all-around player. Perrennial PCHA all-star.

- Hall, Joe - Was the top defenseman on Quebec's two stanley cup winners in the NHA. Never think of him as just a goon. He was around Ross' level offensively, The Trail states that no one played their position as well as him, and he was obviously very tough.

- Patrick, Frank - I would put him in the HHOF along with the rest, but he's a step below, mainly because of the short career comparitively. But there is lots to like. In 1913, the New York Times called him "the best defenseman in the world". He was tough. And his offense was great. He only played four full PCHA seasons, but in each of them he was the league's top-scoring defenseman.

 

[nik jr]

70s, could you give a reasonable explanation for how someone with missing fingers and poor puck skills would adapt to modern hockey?


why do you think players miss games b/c of broken fingers? why did a 1907 newspaper praise hod stuart for playing in a stanley cup series with a broken finger?

how can anyone who has played hockey think "a few missing fingers" is not a huge problem?


even if he had all his fingers, he had poor puck skills. would a player who had poor puck skills in 1910 be a pro player in 2010?

 

[seventieslord]

70s, could you give a reasonable explanation for how someone with missing fingers and poor puck skills would adapt to modern hockey?

First, explain how in today's world, a highly talented hockey player with the ability to make it big would ever be in a position to receive an electric shock and lose his fingers. Such a player would never even be in some factory doing manual labour in his teen years for that to happen. It was a symptom of the era. I'm concerned with what talents the player was born with, not what digits he had intact.

why do you think players miss games b/c of broken fingers? why did a 1907 newspaper praise hod stuart for playing in a stanley cup series with a broken finger?

how can anyone who has played hockey think "a few missing fingers" is not a huge problem?

Uh, that doesn't work for your case here. it works against it. So a broken finger is a game-missing-worthy injury, and Hod Stuart is a legend for playing in three games with one broken finger, but Johnson gets no credit, in fact, the opposite of credit, for not just one broken finger, but 2-4 missing ones? Doesn't work that way. The guy played his entire career that way and he perfomed fantastically.

even if he had all his fingers, he had poor puck skills. would a player who had poor puck skills in 1910 be a pro player in 2010?

...And Sprague Cleghorn and Joe Hall would be too dirty; they'd just get penalized every shift. And Russell Bowie would just be too small. And Georges Boucher would be too slow. And Cyclone Taylor would get rocked every shift as soon as he faced a tough defenseman who could skate. And every player would complain about their ice time because they are used to playing every minute. And let's not forget the schedule length back then. Everyone would be tired by the 25th game of the season in modern times.

His puck skills were obviously good enough to keep him in the league and good enough that he was considered either the best or second-best defenseman of his era by those who saw him play. You're out to lunch.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Fingers

Hard to believe the turns that certain topics take.

Reporting from the early twentieth century is often incomplete. Example would be "Three Finger" Mordecai Brown the HOF baseball pitcher who lost parts of two fingers. Some claim that this gave him a bit of an advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai_Brown

With Ernie Johnson the question remains whether it was a complete or partial loss of fingers.

Playing with a broken finger. Early 1900's the gloves were not overly protective so it would have been an accomplishment. Regardless still come down to which finger on which hand ( lower or upper hand on the stick) and the severity.

History of hockey has many examples of players - Bobby Baun, Jacques Laperriere playing with fractures. You also have all the old time, pre mask goalies who returned to games after serious injuries.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think the fact that Moose Johnson used a stick that wouldn't even be close to legal and basically admitted that he'd be nothing without it means that he wouldn't be able to play the modern game.

He was dubbed Moose because of his ridiculous reach, aided by a 99-inch stick in the days long before stick regulations.
...
Playing in an era where equipment was not regulated, Johnson was well known for his 2.5 metre stick, which he used to perfect the poke-check. “The year I quit they buried my stick," said Johnson. "It was the longest stick ever used. In those days there was no size regulations and they couldn't take it from me because it was my livelihood."
.

From the picture on Pelletier's site, it looks like he would hold the stick in one and and outstretch his arm, giving him ridiculous reach.

Still, it takes nothing away from what he accomplished within the rules of the time. If everyone (or at least every defenseman) could handle a stick that long, they would have used one, right?

 

[BM67]

The rule limiting stick length didn't come into being until several years after Johnson retired. There were many players playing with extra long sticks. Johnson gets extra attention because his was said to have been the longest, but I would have to think that playing with a shorter stick would actually improve his ability to handle the puck. A shorter stick, by a foot, would still leave him with his incredible 99" reach.

 

[hfboardsuser]

I ran across this Globe and Mail piece from 1933 entitled "Eddie Shore and Stars of Yester Years"

"Comparing him to the old-timers is a bit more difficult. Among the older players, fans, and writers the name of the late Hod Stuart immediately conjures up memories of that great star. He was a man of tremendous strength, a great skater, superb stickhandler, six-footer who weighed close to the 200-mark.

Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Gerard, Frank Patrick, Ernie Johnson and the great Cyclone Taylor were among the others who would have given Shore stout argument were they playing today. Taylor exceeded him for spectacular appeal. He could skate backward as fast as he could forward, was distinctly a circus type player who could handle his stick with a finish seldom seen nowadays, despite his great speed. Still, in all, Shore belongs with the best."

 

[seventieslord]

Still, it takes nothing away from what he accomplished within the rules of the time. If everyone (or at least every defenseman) could handle a stick that long, they would have used one, right?

Agree. Any argument in a conversation of "best of all-time" that downplays a player over the conditions of his era is flawed. (competition level being an obvious exception)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The rule limiting stick length didn't come into being until several years after Johnson retired. There were many players playing with extra long sticks. Johnson gets extra attention because his was said to have been the longest, but I would have to think that playing with a shorter stick would actually improve his ability to handle the puck. A shorter stick, by a foot, would still leave him with his incredible 99" reach.

How well could he really have handled the puck while missing the fingers on one hand?

It seems to me that Johnson was a smart guy who adapted to his disability in a way that enabled him to still be one of the best of his era. Johnson wasn't going to be a great stickhandler no matter what (at least after the accident), so he went with becoming a dominating defensive player and poke checker.

 

[BM67]

He obviously handled it well enough to be a star for 18 years of major league hockey in the era of no forward pass. There are lots of players that are/were poor stickhandlers, that still played some pretty decent hockey. A poor stickhandler has many more options in the modern game than he had back then.

Unless someone can say for sure which fingers, and indeed how much of each finger, he was missing, any assessment of impact is pure guesswork.

 

[nik jr]

First, explain how in today's world, a highly talented hockey player with the ability to make it big would ever be in a position to receive an electric shock and lose his fingers. Such a player would never even be in some factory doing manual labour in his teen years for that to happen. It was a symptom of the era. I'm concerned with what talents the player was born with, not what digits he had intact.

is that a serious question? it is not at all difficult to think of examples.

fixing some household wiring, stealing cable TV, construction work, fallen powerline after an ice storm, industrial accident, etc.


and i think you already know that it does not actually matter how it happened. it would be the same problem if he had an accident with farm machinery, or if he was working as an automobile mechanic and had his hand crushed, or if he had been in the military and had his fingers destroyed in an explosion.


innate talent is not nearly as useful when there is a physical limitation. hockey is a physical game, and for players, all or nearly all talent is thus expressed physically.

we have all seen players with great talent fail for various reasons. injuries, too small, too slow, not hard working, selfish, etc.

Uh, that doesn't work for your case here. it works against it. So a broken finger is a game-missing-worthy injury, and Hod Stuart is a legend for playing in three games with one broken finger, but Johnson gets no credit, in fact, the opposite of credit, for not just one broken finger, but 2-4 missing ones? Doesn't work that way. The guy played his entire career that way and he performed fantastically.

i assume you already know this, but hod stuart is not a legend for playing with a broken finger. he was a legend b/c of his ability.

you are here not even arguing that johnson would be able to adapt to modern hockey. you are only arguing that he was a great player about 100 years ago, which was already known.

...And Sprague Cleghorn and Joe Hall would be too dirty; they'd just get penalized every shift. And Russell Bowie would just be too small. And Georges Boucher would be too slow. And Cyclone Taylor would get rocked every shift as soon as he faced a tough defenseman who could skate. And every player would complain about their ice time because they are used to playing every minute. And let's not forget the schedule length back then. Everyone would be tired by the 25th game of the season in modern times.

yes, less exaggerated versions of those are important things to consider.

but as i think you already know, dirty play was not intrinsic to hall or cleghorn. 60 minute shifts were not intrinsic to any of those players (and they sometimes were subs, or left games before the game ended). cyclone taylor's speed would not be as much an advantage now as it was then. same for orr, morenz, etc.

that is one of the reasons most of us do not think every era is equal.


that is why we are arguing about adaptation. but you are not actually making any argument that johnson would be able to adapt. you are only saying he was a great player, as was already known.

His puck skills were obviously good enough to keep him in the league and good enough that he was considered either the best or second-best defenseman of his era by those who saw him play. You're out to lunch.

you have not made a single argument that johnson's physical disability would not (imo, severely) hurt his ability to play modern hockey at a high level. you have only argued that he was a great player 100 years ago.

you did not answer any of my questions.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ernie Johnson

Some quotes from "The Trail of the Stanley Cup" Vol. I, by Charles L. Coleman, pages 604 & 605, about Ernie Johnson.

.....it wasn't until his seventh year in hockey that he became a regular defence man with Jack Marshall..............

..... he was described as a six-footer with terrific speed, a shot like a bullet .................

No mention was made of any type of handicap.

 

[jarek]

Regarding Johnson:

I don't see why we should hold his physical disability against him. Yeah, he was probably a bad stick handler for obvious reasons, but he excelled in other facets of the game and worked around it. His disability would have worked itself into his legacy, and he STILL comes out as the best defenseman ever of the PCHA. Sure, he had a huge stick, but a huge stick won't help if you don't know how to use a poke check effectively. He was obviously a stellar poke checker and positional player. DESPITE his handicap, the PCHA actually did a pre-game ceremony to honor Johnson as the best defenseman of his time. If he could work around his disability to become that great of a defenseman, I don't see why he couldn't do the same in the modern game - how is irrelevant, but if he could do it then, he could surely do it now. To think otherwise is to not look at things relatively.

 

[seventieslord]

is that a serious question? it is not at all difficult to think of examples.

fixing some household wiring, stealing cable TV, construction work, fallen powerline after an ice storm, industrial accident, etc.


and i think you already know that it does not actually matter how it happened. it would be the same problem if he had an accident with farm machinery, or if he was working as an automobile mechanic and had his hand crushed, or if he had been in the military and had his fingers destroyed in an explosion.

That simply wouldn't happen nowadays. It's privileged kids with the money to go to hockey school every summer who get to major junior and to the NHL. those kids simply would not be doing any manual labour and it's not likely that they would be involved in any of the above situations you've described.

innate talent is not nearly as useful when there is a physical limitation. hockey is a physical game, and for players, all or nearly all talent is thus expressed physically.

we have all seen players with great talent fail for various reasons. injuries, too small, too slow, not hard working, selfish, etc.

And I named a number of great players with similar question marks that are just as valid as your question about Johnson. How do they overcome and adjust? Why does Johnson not? Puck skills were not intrinsic to his game either. He was one of the biggest and fastest players of his day, and displayed great physicality and defensive ability. As a forward he was a fairly high scorer, very important to a dynasty, and had a bullet shot. One quote you found about bad puck skills which apparently confirms that losing fingers was a catastrophic disability, does not override all of the above.

you are here not even arguing that johnson would be able to adapt to modern hockey. you are only arguing that he was a great player about 100 years ago, which was already known.

I am arguing that all of his skills and question marks, when packaged together, add up to a player that was unanimously the 2nd-best (maybe even best, but not likely) defenseman of his era. Yes, I am arguing that if you extrapolate his greatness forward, he would have no problems adjusting, or at least no more than the other names on this list.

yes, less exaggerated versions of those are important things to consider.

but as i think you already know, dirty play was not intrinsic to hall or cleghorn. 60 minute shifts were not intrinsic to any of those players (and they sometimes were subs, or left games before the game ended). cyclone taylor's speed would not be as much an advantage now as it was then. same for orr, morenz, etc.

that is one of the reasons most of us do not think every era is equal.

No one thinks the eras are equal. But as a longtime ATD participant, by now you have to understand that players are judged by their dominance of their peers in various respects, not just a straight comparison. Like FissionFire says:

Well, the list is the Top 100 Hockey Players in History, not the Top 100 Most Skilled Players in history. There is little doubt that if you grabbed a player from the pre-NHL era and dropped them into a game today they'd be overmatched. When looking for the best players in history you have to take into account eras and performance against peers to try and compare across a timeline. If you don't you simply end up taking a list of the best 100 players from the last 20 years and completely ignore the history of the sport, which is just a horrible way to compile a "Best in History" list.

Also, it's pretty weak to assume Modern Player A would dominate in Era B just because he's modern and better. If you placed that player in Era B he would be playing with inferior equipment, with different rules, without the benefits of year-round training and nutrition regimens, forced to work another job half the year when not playing just to survive, likely to be shipped off to war, etc. just to name a few of the issues. A guy like Peter Forsberg may not have lasted longer than 5 seasons without the benefits of modern medicine and custom skates for all his aches, pains, injuries, and ankle woes.

Conversely, Player B moved to Era A would have all the benefits of being groomed through juniors from an early age and essentially training to be a hockey player as a young child. They'd have year-round training and dieticians to ensure peak physical performace. They'd have modern equipment and coaching. They'd have world-class medical care and rehabilitation methods and technology. Who's to say given all these modern advantages they wouldn't perform just as well or better?

The point is, the top tier talent relative to the league is pretty much a fixed percentage throughout history so how a player performs against other players in the same era is generally a good indication of how they would probably perform against players in a different era if they had been given all the same benefits as the modern player.

that is why we are arguing about adaptation. but you are not actually making any argument that johnson would be able to adapt. you are only saying he was a great player, as was already known.

you have not made a single argument that johnson's physical disability would not (imo, severely) hurt his ability to play modern hockey at a high level. you have only argued that he was a great player 100 years ago.

you did not answer any of my questions.

- He was not born missing fingers. In modern times he would not lose them. Circumstances should absolutely be considered.
- He was great without them, greater than many players with 10 fingers. Why can't he adjust if they can?
- As far as I am concerned, the best player is the best player. The ranking doesn't suddenly change when trying to fit them into a modern framework. So if you're attempting to do that with all these players, my answer is "he would be the second-best out of all of them, except for cleghorn, just like he actually was."
- BM67 is absolutely correct when he says "Unless someone can say for sure which fingers, and indeed how much of each finger, he was missing, any assessment of impact is pure guesswork."
- C1958 is absolutely correct when he says "No mention was made of any type of handicap."
- I find it interesting that you are so quick to hold something aganst him that never held him back in actual games, that was never a disability, and whose impact has never been quantified (number of fingers, which ones, how much of each). I also find it especially interesting that you publicly rate Johnson last among these players despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Slow Down

That simply wouldn't happen nowadays. It's privileged kids with the money to go to hockey school every summer who get to major junior and to the NHL. those kids simply would not be doing any manual labour and it's not likely that they would be involved in any of the above situations you've described.



And I named a number of great players with similar question marks that are just as valid as your question about Johnson. How do they overcome and adjust? Why does Johnson not? Puck skills were not intrinsic to his game either. He was one of the biggest and fastest players of his day, and displayed great physicality and defensive ability. As a forward he was a fairly high scorer, very important to a dynasty, and had a bullet shot. One quote you found about bad puck skills which apparently confirms that losing fingers was a catastrophic disability, does not override all of the above.



I am arguing that all of his skills and question marks, when packaged together, add up to a player that was unanimously the 2nd-best (maybe even best, but not likely) defenseman of his era. Yes, I am arguing that if you extrapolate his greatness forward, he would have no problems adjusting, or at least no more than the other names on this list.



No one thinks the eras are equal. But as a longtime ATD participant, by now you have to understand that players are judged by their dominance of their peers in various respects, not just a straight comparison. Like FissionFire says:





- He was not born missing fingers. In modern times he would not lose them. Circumstances should absolutely be considered.
- He was great without them, greater than many players with 10 fingers. Why can't he adjust if they can?
- As far as I am concerned, the best player is the best player. The ranking doesn't suddenly change when trying to fit them into a modern framework. So if you're attempting to do that with all these players, my answer is "he would be the second-best out of all of them, except for cleghorn, just like he actually was."
- BM67 is absolutely correct when he says "Unless someone can say for sure which fingers, and indeed how much of each finger, he was missing, any assessment of impact is pure guesswork."
- C1958 is absolutely correct when he says "No mention was made of any type of handicap."
- I find it interesting that you are so quick to hold something aganst him that never held him back in actual games, that was never a disability, and whose impact has never been quantified (number of fingers, which ones, how much of each). I also find it especially interesting that you publicly rate Johnson last among these players despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Slow down a little bit.

Plenty of kids from poor areas make the NHL - Glen Metropolit, Francis Bouillon, to name a few, made the NHL. Midget "AAA" and other elite leagues seek talent and subsidize it one way or another.

Also these kids do work - labourers for pool installers, landscapers, plus similar type jobs which require physical labour with some risk of injury.

Also consider that other hockey players - Frank McGee played after the loss of an eye.

 

[nik jr]

That simply wouldn't happen nowadays. It's privileged kids with the money to go to hockey school every summer who get to major junior and to the NHL. those kids simply would not be doing any manual labour and it's not likely that they would be involved in any of the above situations you've described.

And I named a number of great players with similar question marks that are just as valid as your question about Johnson. How do they overcome and adjust? Why does Johnson not? Puck skills were not intrinsic to his game either. He was one of the biggest and fastest players of his day, and displayed great physicality and defensive ability. As a forward he was a fairly high scorer, very important to a dynasty, and had a bullet shot. One quote you found about bad puck skills which apparently confirms that losing fingers was a catastrophic disability, does not override all of the above.

i think bad puck skills probably were intrinsic to his play, since he was missing fingers.

none of the other players in the thread that i am aware of had such a physical limitation.


the quote i found about johnson being a weak shooter and stickhandler is not based on 1 game. it was a summary of the wanderers' players, written after the 1908 season.

I am arguing that all of his skills and question marks, when packaged together, add up to a player that was unanimously the 2nd-best (maybe even best, but not likely) defenseman of his era. Yes, I am arguing that if you extrapolate his greatness forward, he would have no problems adjusting, or at least no more than the other names on this list.

you cannot say that moose johnson was unanimously 2nd best.

trail of the stanley cup has him 2nd, but of the all time teams i have found, none of them have moose johnson, and i have found very little information on him. i have seen shore, clancy, cleghorn, stuart, lester or frank patrick (which probably means that list was not biased against western leagues), cameron, noble, and probably 1 or 2 others, but never johnson.

is it possible that johnson was named 2nd to represent the west?



i do not think it makes any sense that a player who was missing fingers, and who had poor puck skills in 1908, when the overall skill level was much lower, would have the requisite skill to be a star player, and i am surprised anyone seriously believes that.


even if we assume johnson had all his fingers, he still had poor puck skills and relied on an unusually long stick, which he said was his livelihood. how many great players in recent history had poor puck skills and needed an unfair advantage in equipment (other than possibly goalies)?

No one thinks the eras are equal. But as a longtime ATD participant, by now you have to understand that players are judged by their dominance of their peers in various respects, not just a straight comparison. Like FissionFire says:

Triffy asked:
"How do you feel each of these players would adapt to the modern game considering their strengths and weaknesses?"

- He was not born missing fingers. In modern times he would not lose them. Circumstances should absolutely be considered.

that is what if. in modern times, he might lose his whole arm or his life. in modern times he might prefer to be a politician. he did get a government job in the montreal customs office in 1910.

- He was great without them, greater than many players with 10 fingers. Why can't he adjust if they can?

b/c his physical limitation would put an upper limit on how skilled he can be.

- As far as I am concerned, the best player is the best player. The ranking doesn't suddenly change when trying to fit them into a modern framework. So if you're attempting to do that with all these players, my answer is "he would be the second-best out of all of them, except for cleghorn, just like he actually was."

i don't think there is any reason to assume all players would adapt equally well to modern conditions.


for example, some d-men were not as effective after the lockout.

i don't think gretzky would be the same dominant goalscorer under the conditions of today.

i don't think frank nighbor and jack walker would be such dominant defensive players after the forward pass.

i don't think the production line's tactic of dumping the puck into the corner would work as well today, when goalies come out to get the puck.

- BM67 is absolutely correct when he says "Unless someone can say for sure which fingers, and indeed how much of each finger, he was missing, any assessment of impact is pure guesswork."

i do not think that is right.

exactly what impact is pure guesswork, but it is very much common sense that missing fingers is a big problem for a hockey player. i think most of us have seen players play with hand injuries and be clearly less effective. most of us probably have seen players miss games due to hand injuries.
probably some of us have tried playing hockey with a hand injury, and have noticed the impact on passing and shooting and stickhandling.

that is probably one of the reasons montreal gazette mentioned in 1907 that hod stuart was playing with a broken finger.


it is also common sense that relying on a stick much longer than normal would give moose johnson an unnatural, and now illegal, advantage, which is another reason he would probably not adapt as well as most others.

- C1958 is absolutely correct when he says "No mention was made of any type of handicap."

i have also not found any mention of it.

it has been more difficult to find information on johnson than for many other players, probably b/c he played mostly in PCHA.

- I find it interesting that you are so quick to hold something against him that never held him back in actual games, that was never a disability, and whose impact has never been quantified (number of fingers, which ones, how much of each). I also find it especially interesting that you publicly rate Johnson last among these players despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

if it never held him back in actual games, why did the montreal gazette mention that johnson (at LW, not D) was "not often effective when he does work through a defense"? why did it say "where he fails is stick handling, his shooting being weak"?

it did not hold him back from being a great player, but it held him back from being better.

i don't think he was the worst of these players in his time, but i think he probably would be now.


it is very common on the history of hockey section and in ATD and even in the general NHL section to compare players from different eras. it is debated how well various europeans would have played in the NHL. it is debated how well some player would have done under different circumstances: without X as a linemate, with a better team, with a better coach, with better medical technology, etc.

how well certain players from earlier eras would adapt to the modern era is a similar interesting question. and i think there is no reason to think every player would adapt equally well.

 

[seventieslord]

Slow down a little bit.

Plenty of kids from poor areas make the NHL - Glen Metropolit, Francis Bouillon, to name a few, made the NHL. Midget "AAA" and other elite leagues seek talent and subsidize it one way or another.

I agree that is a generalization. It's getting more and more true every year though. The money that it takes to raise an NHL player is simply not something that every family can come up with. Talent can override this but I see that becoming more and more difficult.

i think bad puck skills probably were intrinsic to his play, since he was missing fingers.

none of the other players in the thread that i am aware of had such a physical limitation.

the quote i found about johnson being a weak shooter and stickhandler is not based on 1 game. it was a summary of the wanderers' players, written after the 1908 season.

you cannot say that moose johnson was unanimously 2nd best.

trail of the stanley cup has him 2nd, but of the all time teams i have found, none of them have moose johnson, and i have found very little information on him. i have seen shore, clancy, cleghorn, stuart, lester or frank patrick (which probably means that list was not biased against western leagues), cameron, noble, and probably 1 or 2 others, but never johnson.

is it possible that johnson was named 2nd to represent the west?

Yes, it is possible. But Mickey MacKay could have easily been named among the forwards too, if Coleman wanted to include a "token" Western player. He chose Johnson.

i do not think it makes any sense that a player who was missing fingers, and who had poor puck skills in 1908, when the overall skill level was much lower, would have the requisite skill to be a star player, and i am surprised anyone seriously believes that.

even if we assume johnson had all his fingers, he still had poor puck skills and relied on an unusually long stick, which he said was his livelihood. how many great players in recent history had poor puck skills and needed an unfair advantage in equipment (other than possibly goalies)?


Triffy asked:
"How do you feel each of these players would adapt to the modern game considering their strengths and weaknesses?"

And my answer is "he would be the second-best out of all of them, except for cleghorn, just like he actually was."

that is what if. in modern times, he might lose his whole arm or his life. in modern times he might prefer to be a politician. he did get a government job in the montreal customs office in 1910.

That's more unlikely now than ever. Hockey is where the money is. Those who can make it big, do.

b/c his physical limitation would put an upper limit on how skilled he can be.


i don't think there is any reason to assume all players would adapt equally well to modern conditions.


for example, some d-men were not as effective after the lockout.

i don't think gretzky would be the same dominant goalscorer under the conditions of today.

i don't think frank nighbor and jack walker would be such dominant defensive players after the forward pass.

i don't think the production line's tactic of dumping the puck into the corner would work as well today, when goalies come out to get the puck.

The cream rises to the top.

i do not think that is right.

exactly what impact is pure guesswork, but it is very much common sense that missing fingers is a big problem for a hockey player. i think most of us have seen players play with hand injuries and be clearly less effective. most of us probably have seen players miss games due to hand injuries.
probably some of us have tried playing hockey with a hand injury, and have noticed the impact on passing and shooting and stickhandling.

that is probably one of the reasons montreal gazette mentioned in 1907 that hod stuart was playing with a broken finger.

Suppose it was just his ring and pinky fingers on his upper hand. Could you play without those fingers? I could. Pretty sure my thumb and remaining two fingers would get stronger too.

There are far too many scenarios and you said yourself that "exactly what impact is pure guesswork".

it is also common sense that relying on a stick much longer than normal would give moose johnson an unnatural, and now illegal, advantage, which is another reason he would probably not adapt as well as most others.

TheDevilMadeMe is absolutely right when he says "If everyone (or at least every defenseman) could handle a stick that long, they would have used one, right?"

i have also not found any mention of it.

it has been more difficult to find information on johnson than for many other players, probably b/c he played mostly in PCHA.


if it never held him back in actual games, why did the montreal gazette mention that johnson (at LW, not D) was "not often effective when he does work through a defense"? why did it say "where he fails is stick handling, his shooting being weak"?

it did not hold him back from being a great player, but it held him back from being better.

i don't think he was the worst of these players in his time, but i think he probably would be now.


it is very common on the history of hockey section and in ATD and even in the general NHL section to compare players from different eras. it is debated how well various europeans would have played in the NHL. it is debated how well some player would have done under different circumstances: without X as a linemate, with a better team, with a better coach, with better medical technology, etc.

how well certain players from earlier eras would adapt to the modern era is a similar interesting question. and i think there is no reason to think every player would adapt equally well.

And question marks surrounding Johnson are no more profound than question marks surrounding other greats. Employ relativity and the end result should be the same list, if only with very minor changes. Johnson ecoming the worst is an absurd scenario.

 

[raleh]

Losing his fingers in a factory (or whatever it actually was) likely is, as Seventies says, a product of era and you could make the assumption that a kid with those abilities wouldn't be working etc.

You could also make the assumption that a lot of these guys, even the ones who are viewed as the intelligent players, might get their hand stuck in a snow blower and never play hockey again.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Asking the Obvious

To date no one has asked the obvious. How was the extra long stick used by Ernie Johnson? When did he start using the extra long stick? PCHA or before?

Have not seen any detailed or descriptive newspaper accounts.

Little kids if given a long stick will slide their top hand down the shaft to the appropriate height and manage to shoot with a high degree of efficiency.