Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Comes down to the weight playoff performance is given. Horton's perceived advantage stems from handling the key physical defensive assignment with Allan Stanley for 9 consecutive playoffs 1959-1967, especially during the Leafs four SC where he faced: Bathgate/B.Hull, Beliveau/Howe twice, Hull/Beliveau.

An analogy would be the positives that Lidstrom draws from one series vs Lindros(1997) or Stevens from one hit/series vs Lindros.

Likewise you have to look at Chicago's record and Pilote's performance vs the same big forwards. Other than 1961 Pilote and the Hawks had problems.

This is not reflected in the AST or Norris voting which is regular season based. So the voters in the project have to balance the regular season performance with the playoffs. Depends on the weight given to each and the importance of defense vs offense for a defenseman.

I realize the bolded is just a side comment, but I have to protest. Lidstrom was praised for the 1997 series against Lindros as it was something of a coming out party for him, like Scott Niedermayer in the 2003 playoffs (though for Lidstrom, it was more defensive oriented).

As for Scott Stevens and Lindros? Just one hit? The Stevens vs. Lindros rivalry was arguably the best player vs. player rivalry of the mid-late 90s and Stevens usually came out ahead (or at least helped his team come out ahead on the score board). Lindros and the Legion of Doom were unstoppable, until they were stopped by Scott Stevens in the 1995 Eastern Conference finals. See also the article I posted upthread from the 1996-97 regular season about how the massive Eric Lindros would avoid Scott Stevens' side of the ice because he knew he couldn't win many battles against Stevens. All of this before the famous hit in 2000 (which was only a very small part of a Conn Smythe winning performance by the way).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When I finally post some kind of ranking, two persons almost makes fun of it. I suppose it was good that I didn't participate in this project, as it seems I would have destroyed it with my bad way of looking at players. Shame on us who aren't considered as elite as the majority of participants in the project.

If you don't want your list to be critiqued, don't post one. This is a project for historical analysis, not for patting everyone on the back. If anyone disagrees with anything I'm posting, I would hope they would publicly post so. The legacy of this project is determined by its documentation - in other words, the discussions and disagreements in these thread. I certainly don't expect anyone to agree with everything I post.

The longevity part was only between MacInnis and Pronger. I think those two are close, and put MacInnis ahead due to him playing more years at a high level. Of course that may change.
Longevity wasn't the reason I put Stevens below those two. I think all three are very close. It's just my impression that I find MacInnis and Pronger slightly ahead of Stevens. I know about Stevens defensive reputation and saw him play a number of times (just like I saw MacInnis and Pronger). Stevens was very good, and could dominate the play. But so I think Pronger could too. And MacInnis was in the last round here too, so obviously other than I ranked him ahead of Stevens.
Even if you think I'm underrating Stevens, do you still think I'm very wrong?

I don't see a justification for the large gap between MacInnis and Stevens.

More importantly, There is a reason this is a two-step process. Round 2 exists to fine tune the rankings from Round 1, which are only just a rough order - a rough ordered created before we discuss these players. Whoever was up last round is completely irrelevant to who is up this round.

But why do you say "huge" difference? To me it's a very small difference.
And again, wasn't MacInnis up in the last round, and if so some people must have rated him ahead of Stevens.

I already posted their respective Norris records in this thread - Pilote finished ahead of Horton every season for more than a decade, including three wins. Norris records don't take into account playoffs, but that is a large difference in terms of Norris records (which is what I said).

Again, it seems as if you think Stevens should be clearly ahead of MacInnis.
I'm sorry if I'm underrating Stevens.

I did not say that at all. My personal opinion is that Stevens > MacInnis, but I think it is close. I know that not everyone agrees with me and that's fine. But I'm going to tell them I disagree with them when I do. That's... the point of the discussion thread.

That's not very nice to hear. Is it so controversial to have Coffey at number one in this group? He was very good offensively, and some here rate him as number 2nd alltime in that category. Of course I think it would be great with players being great both offensively and defensively. But despite Coffey's flaws, and that he got traded, I would think that he often was pretty useful for his teams. To me, a defenceman does not have to be elite in all categories. His team could use other defencemen for more defensive roles, and let him focus on what he was best on. Coffey and Stevens on the same team, might be very useful. And even if Coffey is likely far from Mario offensively, Mario was by many considered basically all offence too. I know Coffey as a defenceman is expected to be good at defence. (Sorry if my argumentation is bad.)

As I already explained, there has been a long time trend on this board of always picking the more offensively inclined defenseman when two guys are close. And I personally disagree with the trend.

The generation MacInnis was part of, was as it currently seems to me - and according to a (not huge) study I've done - the best ever for defencemen. Bourque obviously was the best. Regarding Chelios, I'm not sure he is much ahead of MacInnis. (Both were up in the last round, and if I remember right the difference between them in the voting wasn't huge. Edit: OK, it was big I now see.) On lists I've seen, Coffey is often ranked higher than in this project, and I wouldn't think it's too controversial to rank him ahead of Pilote.

This is why I think you are preferring offense to defense. IMO, Chelios was clearly the 2nd best defenseman of his generation (after Bourque). This is supported by his Norris record, coaching polls, recognition in international tournaments, my eyes, etc. MacInnis was better on the powerplay; I'd rather have Chelios in all other situations. IMO, MacInnis and Stevens battlle for 3rd and 4th of that great generation (and IMO, playoffs gives it to Stevens).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Perceptions

I realize the bolded is just a side comment, but I have to protest. Lidstrom was praised for the 1997 series against Lindros as it was something of a coming out party for him, like Scott Niedermayer in the 2003 playoffs (though for Lidstrom, it was more defensive oriented).

As for Scott Stevens and Lindros? Just one hit? The Stevens vs. Lindros rivalry was arguably the best player vs. player rivalry of the mid-late 90s and Stevens usually came out ahead (or at least helped his team come out ahead on the score board). Lindros and the Legion of Doom were unstoppable, until they were stopped by Scott Stevens in the 1995 Eastern Conference finals. See also the article I posted upthread from the 1996-97 regular season about how the massive Eric Lindros would avoid Scott Stevens' side of the ice because he knew he couldn't win many battles against Stevens. All of this before the famous hit in 2000 (which was only a very small part of a Conn Smythe winning performance by the way).

My point was about perceptions and the trend to reduce ongoing battles to one moment or series.

Legion of Doom - nice name but overrated - never won anything significant.Stevens bounced Lindros a few times pre 1995 - rookie year onwards. 1995 Scott Stevens showed that they were just as I described. Reinforced the point in 2000

Back to Tim Horton/Pierre Pilote. Look at the overall career match-ups against Howe, B.Hull, Beliveau and the other big forwards of the O6 era it was an ongoing battle that could stretch upwards of 21 games regular season and playoffs, without a clearcut winner. The edge came at playoff time when the dman might face the forward seven times in fourteen days. Pilote a smaller player tended to weaken as the series wore on.

 

[plusandminus]

If you don't want your list to be critiqued, don't post one. This is a project for historical analysis, not for patting everyone on the back. If anyone disagrees with anything I'm posting, I would hope they would publicly post so. The legacy of this project is determined by its documentation - in other words, the discussions and disagreements in these thread. I certainly don't expect anyone to agree with everything I post.

I've never said one has to agree. I do however think there is a difference between "Aren't you underrating Stevens a bit? After all, he..." instead of for example calling my post an "epic" example of favouring offence before defence?

I don't see a justification for the large gap between MacInnis and Stevens.

Didn't you read me just (in the post you replied to) saying I don't think there's a big gap between them?

More importantly, There is a reason this is a two-step process. Round 2 exists to fine tune the rankings from Round 1, which are only just a rough order - a rough ordered created before we discuss these players. The players who were up last time are completely irrelevant to this round.

I know about that, and I think independantly of those lists. I just mentioned it as if you made it sound as if I was being ignorant in having MacInnis ahead of Stevens, and I said that - if so - others obviously must have been that too.

I do however, based on your feedback here, think twice. Why are you so hard on me?

I already posted their respective Norris records in this thread - Pilote finished ahead of Horton every season for more than a decade, including three wins. Norris records don't take into account playoffs, but that is a large difference in terms of Norris records (which is what I said).

Didn't you also mention that Norris favoured offensive defencemen? But maybe that wasn't when Pilote played?

I did not say that at all. My personal opinion is that Stevens > MacInnis, but I think it is close. If you disagree, that's fine, but I'm going to tell you that I disagree with you!

I didn't say you did. I just asked if you did, based on your reply to me. You say it's close, and I say it's close. Then we at least agree that it's relatively close?

You are welcome to disagree with me. I do respect you, and I do think you have better knowledge of these things than I do.

Again, the perhaps biggest reason I didn't participate in this project, was because I found myself inferior (? the opposite to superior) to you and some of the others. I didn't want to "bias" the rankings.
(I guess I shouldn't be surprised if you think I'm polluting the project with my thoughts on different players and things.)

As I already explained, there has been a long time trend on this board of always picking the more offensively inclined defenseman when two guys are close. And I personally disagree with the trend.

I have never participated in any such project, and I don't think you should label me as favouring offensive inclined defencemen. I would, for example, not rate Coffey anywhere close to 2nd alltime overall among defencemen, just because he's arguably top-2 alltime offensively.
My nickname here is plusandminus, and I chose it because I think hockey is both about plus and minus. Offence and defence.

This is why I think you are preferring offense to defense. IMO, Chelios was clearly the 2nd best defenseman of his generation (after Bourque). This is supported by his Norris record, coaching polls, my eyes, etc. MacInnis was better on the powerplay; I'd rather have Chelios in all other situations. IMO, MacInnis and Stevens battlle for 3rd and 4th of that great generation (and IMO, playoffs gives it to Stevens).

Isn't one of the goals of this project to help people expand their knowledge and learn more about historical players. I myself is learning all the time.
Maybe some years from now - if ever - I might have reached the level you are on now.

I do learn. Bourque > Chelios > Stevens >= MacInnis it should obviously be according to you.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Sprague Cleghorn started his career as a forward then was moved to defense. Obvious question is why was he moved.

To say he started his career as a forward is an overstatement. He played centre for the one season he played in New York. We don't actually know what he played before then, which I believe was in Montreal playing in a city senior league. He was a defenceman from day one as a professional, playing point for Renfrew in 1910-11.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've never said one has to agree. I do however think there is a difference between "Aren't you underrating Stevens a bit? After all, he..." instead of for example calling my post an "epic" example of favouring offence before defence?

I wasn't just referring to your post. Didn't mean for it to be personally directed at just you.

Didn't you also mention that Norris favoured offensive defencemen? But maybe that wasn't when Pilote played?

Pilote and Horton played in the original 6 era when each team played each other 14 times per season. IMO, this means they were less reliant on stats. (As I said in other posts in this thread).

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Pilote and Horton Playoffs

Here is a look of how Pierre Pilote and Tim Horton did against big scorers (Howe, Beliveau, Hull, Bathgate) in the playoffs (data from HSP)...

I will list who they would be trying to shut down followed by that player's scoring line. If applicable I will then list how that same player did against other competition that playoff year.

1961
Pilote vs. Beliveau: 0G-5A-5Pts-6GP (0.83ppg)
Pilote vs. Howe: 1G-7A-8Pts-6GP (1.33ppg)
Horton vs. Howe: 3G-4A-7Pts-6GP (1.17ppg)

1962
Pilote vs. Beliveau: 2G-1A-3Pts-5GP (0.60ppg)
Horton vs. Bathgate: 1G-2A-3Pts-6GP (0.50ppg)
Horton vs. Hull: 4G-3A-7Pts-6GP (1.17ppg)
MTL vs. Hull: 6G-4A-10Pts-6GP (1.67ppg)

1963
Pilote vs. Howe: 4G-6A-10Pts-6GP (1.67ppg)
Horton vs. Howe: 3G-3A-6Pts-6GP (1.00ppg)
Horton vs. Beliveau: 2G-1A-3Pts-5GP (0.60ppg)

1964
Pilote vs. Howe: 5G-5A-10Pts-7GP (1.43ppg)
Horton vs. Howe: 4G-5A-9Pts-7GP (1.29ppg)
Horton vs. Beliveau: 2G-0A-2Pts-5GP (0.40ppg)

1965
Pilote vs. Howe: 3G-2A-5Pts-7GP (0.71ppg)
Pilote vs. Beliveau: 5G-5A-10Pts-7GP (1.43ppg)
Horton vs. Beliveau: 3G-3A-6Pts-6GP (1.00ppg)

1966
Pilote vs. Howe: 4G-5A-9Pts-7GP (1.29ppg)
MTL vs. Howe: 0G-1A-1Pts-5GP (0.20ppg)
Horton vs. Beliveau: 2G-3A-5Pts-4GP (1.25ppg)
DRW vs. Beliveau: 3G-2A-5Pts-6GP (0.83ppg)

1967
Horton vs. Hull: 4G-2A-6Pts-6GP (1.00ppg)
Horton vs. Beliveau: 4G-2A-6Pts-6GP (1.00ppg)
NYR vs. Beliveau: 2G-3A-5Pts-4GP (1.25ppg)


Summary by Player Opponent
Pilote vs. Howe: 42Pts in 33GP (1.27ppg)
Horton vs. Howe: 22Pts in 19GP (1.16ppg)

Pilote vs. Beliveau: 18Pts in 18GP (1.00ppg)
Horton vs. Beliveau: 22Pts in 28GP (0.79ppg)

Horton vs. Hull: 13Pts in 12GP (1.08ppg)
Horton vs. Bathgate: 1G-2A-3Pts-6GP (0.50ppg)


Comparison by Same Season
3 times Pilote and Horton faced Howe the same playoff year
On average Howe scored 0.31 more ppg against Pilote in those years.

Only once did they both face Beliveau in the same year. That year Beliveau scored 0.43ppg more vs. Pilote.


Offense
Pilote: 7G-46A-53Pts in 61GP (0.87ppg)
Horton: 8G-27A-35Pts in 63GP (0.56ppg)

Pilote vs. DRW: 4G-26A-30Pts-33GP (0.91ppg)
Horton vs. DRW: 1G-5A-6Pts-19GP (0.36ppg)

Pilote vs. MTL: 1G-12A-13Pts-18GP (0.72ppg)
Horton vs. MTL: 3G-7A-10Pts-28GP (0.36ppg)


Final Summary
Horton beats out Pilote defensively vs. Howe by 0.11ppg and vs. Beliveau by 0.21ppg

Pilote outscores Horton offensively by 0.31ppg overall and by 0.55ppg vs. DRW and 0.36ppg vs. MTL

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Excellent work, Hawkey Town. The one thing that might confound the data a bit is that Horton's partner (Allan Stanley) was probably better than whoever Pilote played with.

(Did Pilote regularly play with Moose Vasko or did those two play on seperate pairings? Pappy?)

 

[seventieslord]

Why are you so hard on me?

He isn't; you are just being too sensitive, as usual.

 

[seventieslord]

Sprague Cleghorn started his career as a forward then was moved to defense. Obvious question is why was he moved.

You are free to answer it. They had newspapers back then.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Vote is in although if I did it tomorrow morning it might be different this round was the hardest yet IMO.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Excellent work, Hawkey Town. The one thing that might confound the data a bit is that Horton's partner (Allan Stanley) was probably better than whoever Pilote played with.

(Did Pilote regularly play with Moose Vasko or did those two play on seperate pairings? Pappy?)

Dave Keon and Red Kelly were probably better defensive centers than those of Chicago during that period too, who I guess would've been primarily Mikita, Hay, Nesterenko, and Esposito towards the end.

EDIT: On the other hand, Toronto didn't have any offensive players of the caliber of Hull and Mikita.

 

[Pear Juice]

This is why I think you are preferring offense to defense. IMO, Chelios was clearly the 2nd best defenseman of his generation (after Bourque). This is supported by his Norris record, coaching polls, recognition in international tournaments, my eyes, etc. MacInnis was better on the powerplay; I'd rather have Chelios in all other situations. IMO, MacInnis and Stevens battlle for 3rd and 4th of that great generation (and IMO, playoffs gives it to Stevens).

Also depends on what generation Fetisov belongs to. He's a clear #2 if he belongs to that group.

 

[pappyline]

Excellent work, Hawkey Town. The one thing that might confound the data a bit is that Horton's partner (Allan Stanley) was probably better than whoever Pilote played with.

(Did Pilote regularly play with Moose Vasko or did those two play on seperate pairings? Pappy?)

Pilote and Vasko were a regular pairing from the get go.

I think Vasko is under-rated and really don't think Stanley is much better (if at all). Would be an interesting comparison if they both come up in the same round.

 

[seventieslord]

Also depends on what generation Fetisov belongs to. He's a clear #2 if he belongs to that group.

Is it clear?

 

[Pear Juice]

Is it clear?

In my opinion I have him quite clearly ahead of Chelios, yes. I believe he's closer to making the top 5 than staying out of the top 10. But I know that I rate him very highly compared to others. Let's not delve further into it, it is off-topic to this thread.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Votes received from: Canadiens1958; chaosrevolver; DaveG; Dennis Bonvie; Der Kaiser; Dreakmur; Epsilon; Hardyvan123; Hockey Outsider; intylerwetrust; JaysCyYoung; MXD; overpass; pappyline; reckoning; seventieslord; TheDevilMadeMe; tarheelhockey; tony D

Need votes from: BiLLY_ShOE1721; Hawkey Town 18; McNuts; VanIslander

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Vote Sent

 

[VanIslander]

vote sent

 

[nik jr]

Here is a chronicle of the way that teams' fortunes changed when Sprague Cleghorn changed teams.

I have left out the Montreal Wanderers, as their arena burned down after Cleghorn left and they did not play a full season. (Did Cleghorn have an alibi for the night of the fire?)

Year | Team | With or Without? | Win% | GF | GA | GF+ | GA+
1917-18 | Ottawa | Without Cleghorn | 0.409 | 102 | 114 | 0.98 | 1.09
1918-19 | Ottawa | With Cleghorn | 0.667 | 71 | 54 | 0.95 | 0.72

Year | Team | With or Without? | Win% | GF | GA | GF+ | GA+
1919-20 | Ottawa | With Cleghorn | 0.792 | 121 | 64 | 1.05 | 0.56
1920-21 | Ottawa | Without Cleghorn | 0.583 | 97 | 75 | 0.96 | 0.74

Year | Team | Cleghorn? | Win% | GF | GA | GF+ | GA+
1919-20 | Ottawa | With Cleghorn | 0.792 | 121 | 64 | 1.05 | 0.56
1920-21 | Ottawa | Without Cleghorn | 0.583 | 97 | 75 | 0.96 | 0.74

Year | Team | With or Without? | Win% | GF | GA | GF+ | GA+
1919-20 | Toronto | Without Cleghorn | 0.500 | 119 | 106 | 1.03 | 0.92
1920-21 | Toronto | With Cleghorn | 0.625 | 105 | 100 | 1.03 | 0.99

Year | Team | With or Without? | Win% | GF | GA | GF+ | GA+
1920-21 | Toronto | With Cleghorn | 0.625 | 105 | 100 | 1.03 | 0.99
1921-22 | Toronto | Without Cleghorn | 0.563 | 98 | 97 | 1.03 | 1.02

Year | Team | With or Without? | Win% | GF | GA | GF+ | GA+
1920-21 | Montreal | Without Cleghorn | 0.542 | 112 | 99 | 1.10 | 0.98
1921-22 | Montreal | With Cleghorn | 0.521 | 88 | 94 | 0.93 | 0.99

Year | Team | With or Without? | Win% | GF | GA | GF+ | GA+
1924-25 | Montreal | With Cleghorn | 0.600 | 93 | 56 | 1.24 | 0.75
1925-26 | Montreal | Without Cleghorn | 0.319 | 79 | 108 | 0.95 | 1.30

Year | Team | With or Without? | Win% | GF | GA | GF+ | GA+
1924-25 | Boston | Without Cleghorn | 0.200 | 49 | 119 | 0.65 | 1.59
1925-26 | Boston | With Cleghorn | 0.528 | 92 | 85 | 1.11 | 1.02

Year | Team | With or Without? | Win% | GF | GA | GF+ | GA+
Total | Total | With Cleghorn | 0.614 | 675 | 553 | 1.05 | 0.86
Total | Total | Without Cleghorn | 0.429 | 656 | 718 | 0.97 | 1.06

Teams almost invariably improved when Cleghorn arrived and declined when he left. Especially on the defensive side, where the pre/post Cleghorn squads were 6% worse than league average, as compared to 14% better than league average with Cleghorn. The offensive difference was also positive - 5% above league average with Cleghorn, and 3% below league average without him.

This analysis doesn't take into account the fact that Cleghorn only played the second part of the 1920-21 regular season for Toronto. Looking within that season, and splitting it up by first half and second half:

Year | Team | With or Without? | W | L | Win% | GF | GA | GF/G | GA/G
1920-21 | Toronto | Without Cleghorn | 5 | 5 | 0.500 | 39 | 47 | 3.90 | 4.70
1920-21 | Toronto | With Cleghorn | 10 | 4 | 0.714 | 66 | 53 | 4.71 | 3.79

Once again, Cleghorn had a large impact on his team's fortunes.

Again, you could compare him to Chris Pronger...he moved around a bit but he transformed every team he played on.

in the dishing the dirt thread in ATD section, BM67 posted game summaries of the 3 games sprague cleghorn played with ottawa in '21 before being transferred to hamilton and then transferred to toronto. punch broadbent was also given to hamilton, and like cleghorn, did not report to hamilton.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=31196228&postcount=45


these were games 1, 2 and 3 of the '20-'21 season. ottawa won all 3 games, 6-3, 3-1 and 8-1. i checked in the ottawa citizen, and cleghorn did play in at least the last game, and thus presumably in the previous 2. cleghorn scored 2g, 3a, 5p in those 3 games.

Season|Team|With or Without?|W|L|Win%|GF|GA|GF/G|GA/G
1920-21|Ottawa|Without Cleghorn| 11|10|0.524|80|70|3.81|3.33
1920-21|Ottawa|With Cleghorn|3|0|1.000|17|5|5.67|1.67

sample size is very small, but effect is similar.

 

[nik jr]

It also makes an interesting comparison to Cleghorn, whose personal life also intruded on his career. On a Google news archive search, you can see an NYT article from 7/29/21 reporting that a "chance visit" of Cleghorn's wife to Ottawa the previous fall (that is, fall 1920) found her husband (described as "missing") living with another woman whom he was introducing as "Mrs Cleghorn". The article concerns a Supreme Court decision granting her a divorce and what sounds like a very sizeable alimony for the time of $1000/month.

I can't find an article saying so explicitly, but surely all of this was frowned upon by Ottawa management and affected Cleghorn's performance. That December the league ordered him to report to Hamilton for the sake of parity, but he refused and ended up traded to Toronto... then negotiated his way back to Ottawa for the playoffs and won the Cup there. Only a month later the league ordered him back to Hamilton, and he again refused to report... Montreal intervened and sent 2 good players to Hamilton for Cleghorn, who agreed to the deal as his brother Odie already played for the Habs. It was that next season, in February 1922, that Cleghorn was arrested for his violent play... against Ottawa, the team that had just released him twice. In fact, his worst incidents always involved the Senators. It's hard to draw any definite conclusions from the articles that exist in digital archives, but I think there's good reason to believe that Cleghorn's vendetta against the Ottawa team traces back to his time living with "Mrs Cleghorn" and the fallout from that affair. And unlike Pronger, he didn't have a McCrimmon or Keenan to straighten him out and focus his energies in the right direction... though he did seem to play awfully well against Ottawa in between taking all those cheap shots.

in ATD section, overpass linked the book "Old Scores, New Goals, The Story of the Ottawa Senators," which was written by joan finnigan, daughter of former ottawa senator frank finnigan. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=30943339&postcount=31

finnigan played for ottawa after cleghorn had left, and said something on this same subject.

We seldom had pitched battles the way they do today. I remember one night in Ottawa Buck Boucher was down on the ice and Cleghorn, who was a tough customer — and he was a big man, too — anyway, Cleghorn kicked Buck. And of course Cleghorn had no use for Ottawa because years and years ago when they went out West to Vancouver to play — he was playing for Ottawa at the time — and something happened in the playoffs out there. Ottawa got rid of him, sold him to Montreal Canadiens. It was said Cleghorn had taken a woman on the train and some of the other players were taking their wives. And Cleghorn sent her ahead out to Vancouver on another train and met her there. But it was a scandal to the other women, breaking the moral code. But, oh, Cleghorn cut them all — Gerard, Nighbor, Cy Denneny — with his stick.

http://ventsenator.narod.ru/OldScoresNewGoals/4/TheChampionsOfTheWorld.htm
near the bottom