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.