The 1917-18 season - Everything we know

[tarheelhockey]

Images...

1918 Toronto Arenas (note that the dates say 1918-1919, presumably because the Cup wasn't awarded to anyone else till the following spring)

A very young George Hainsworth is in the middle of this 1918 photo of the Kitchener Greenshirts, winner of that year's Allan Cup.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

A very young George Hainsworth is in the middle of this 1918 photo of the Kitchener Greenshirts, winner of that year's Allan Cup.

Not that young. Hainsworth would have been 22 when that photo was taken. He played 10 seasons of senior hockey (and missed a season due to the war) before playing his first professional game at age 28. Although really, it's unlikely that he went completely unpaid in the OHA.

 

[Canadiens1958]

January 1918

Just came back from Montreal after spending time at the BanQ going thru the Montréal Herald microfilm files for January 1918.

Fascinating month that I will review during the upcoming few days.

The Westmount Arena, January 1, 1918 fire had greater consequences than simple causing a change of venue. Per Elmer Ferguson in the Montreal Herald.

The Canadiens moved to the east end Jubilee Rink while the Wanderers after toying with a move to the old Victoria Skating Rink while trying to get three players from the league - Joe Malone and Joe Hall from the Canadiens plus a forward from another team, were rebuffed and folded.

More to come.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Odie Cleghorn's Exemption

Cleghorn's exemption was not based on physical factors but on employment. Men who were working in employment that supported the war effort, such as farming or working in a munitions plant, could be exempted from service. His exemption was allowed only on the condition that he actually work and not play professional hockey. (Source: Deceptions & Doublecross.)

I'm not sure where he worked exactly, his draft papers list his profession as a clerk, the 1911 census says he was an oil merchant like his father, and in the 1921 census his profession is salesman.

1911 and 1921 are not relevent to what was happening in 1917 post conscription period in Canada.

The Odie Cleghorn situation is addressed by Elmer Ferguson in the December 21, 1917 issue of the Montreal Herald. Quoting Elmer Ferguson " By the ruling of a tribunal located in Montréal, Cleghorn is barred from participating in a sport at which he excels and thereby prevented from achieving the fine physical condition which is the aim of military endeavour and is an absolute necessity for a fighting man. Yet he is a prospective soldier."

War time privacy was in effect but the above suggests that Odie Cleghorn had a temporary physical condition that precluded military service. Other hockey players with flat feet - a permanent condition that precluded military service but not playing hockey were not barred from playing hockey even though they were working at jobs that were important to the war effort.

Elmer Ferguson caught the irony that Odie Cleghorn could have overcome the temporary physical problem by playing hockey which would have gotten him into the physical condition required for military service.

 

[Canadiens1958]

New Arena Debate

From the Montréal Herald, January 3, 1918. ashes were still smoldering on the site of the Westmount Arena but Elmer Ferguson wrote with certainty in the Montreal Herald that due to favourable landprices and no usage restrictions, the new arena will not be built in Westmount. Land prices were cheaper in Montréal, just outside the downtown area and Montréal allowed athletic events like wrestling and boxing which Westmount did not.

The First arena that was built was the Mount Royal, running parallel to Mount Royal street between St. Urbain and Clark on the South side.

The Montreal Forum was built a few years later at the NE corner of Ste Catherine and Atwater. Another building occupied the spot in 1918. In 1918 the Westmount Arena and the site of the future Montréal Forum were separated by a small baseball stadium.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

1911 and 1921 are not relevent to what was happening in 1917 post conscription period in Canada.

Just trying to find some information on what his profession might have been at the time, chum. The context should have made that clear enough.

War time privacy was in effect but the above suggests that Odie Cleghorn had a temporary physical condition that precluded military service.

That's an awfully vague passage, though, and does not state this, so I can't see it being conclusive. Also, I found this reference from the hockhist discussion group years ago:

WANDERERS PAY BIG PRICE FOR ODIE CLEGHORN'S EXEMPTION

At Exemption Tribunal "99" which sits in the City Hall, Westmount, James Oglivie Cleghorn (Odie) of 705 Grosvenor Avenue, Westmount, applied for exemption on business grounds by letter.

The Tribunal of which Mayor McKergow, is one of the judges, today granted exemption for strictly business reasons till the first of March 1918, but should the said applicant engage in any game of hockey, professional or otherwise, during this period, this temporary exemption shall become ipso facto null and void.

So this is direct evidence that his exemption was granted for working reasons, not health reasons.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Conflating

Just trying to find some information on what his profession might have been at the time, chum. The context should have made that clear enough.


That's an awfully vague passage, though, and does not state this, so I can't see it being conclusive. Also, I found this reference from the hockhist discussion group years ago:


So this is direct evidence that his exemption was granted for working reasons, not health reasons.

You are conflating two considerations. Physical ability to go to join the army and business reasons. As long as one was sufficient the tribunal would not have to address the second. They could preclude using one to game the process which is what may have happened here.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

You are conflating two considerations. Physical ability to go to join the army and business reasons. As long as one was sufficient the tribunal would not have to address the second. They could preclude using one to game the process which is what may have happened here.

Can you tell me exactly what a contemporary newspaper report would have had to have said in order for you to accept it? You now have a contemporary report the provides specific details about Cleghorn's exemption, and that it was granted "strictly" for business reasons.

So if you think it that he was also physically unfit, can you share with us the evidence for this belief? On what basis do you make this claim?

If he had two possible reasons for exemption, he presumably would have provided both of them, in case the tribunal rejected one of them.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Conscription

Can you tell me exactly what a contemporary newspaper report would have had to have said in order for you to accept it? You now have a contemporary report the provides specific details about Cleghorn's exemption, and that it was granted "strictly" for business reasons.

So if you think it that he was also physically unfit, can you share with us the evidence for this belief? On what basis do you make this claim?

If he had two possible reasons for exemption, he presumably would have provided both of them, in case the tribunal rejected one of them.

Previously you provided common knowledge data about Odie Cleghorn's exemption. None of this is in dispute. The address, top of the mountain Westmount as opposed to below the tracks Westmount etc.

However what you are not looking at is the attitudes about conscription which Elmer Ferguson addresses as exemplified by his quote.

As you may be aware a number of well known hockey players, volunteered and perished in WWI - Scotty Davidson, Frank McGee, amongst many. In Montréal Percival Molson had volunteered and died July 5, 1917,in WWI before conscription:

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

Elmer Ferguson had a probing style laced with irony. The papers of the day carried plenty of stories about local heroes lost in WWI.

Ferguson is basically asking why is a healthy qualified for the armed forces,hockey player getting a business exemption when others are dying in Europe.

 

[Canadiens1958]

January 5, 1918 Game

In the Montreal Herald,January 7,1918, Elmer Ferguson, reported on the first post fire game at the Jubilee Rink, Saturday January 5, 1918. Canadiens hosting the Ottawa Senators. Canadiens won 6-5 in OT in a game described as exciting but the size of the rink/playing surface was problematic. Canadiens played with new Equipment and uniforms borrowed from the local Hochelaga team.

Ferguson makes comments like "... players could not get away from each other..."
"... end to end without the rapidity and suddeness seen on a larger surface...".

Sadly we do not have the exact dimensions for all the NHL rinks of the day so that greater accuracy could be used when comparing rink sizes.

There are a few other comments about the nature of the game. Ferguson notes that Eddie Gerard of Ottawa played all seventy-seven plus minutes of the game so fatigue does not seem to be the same factor as on a larger rink. Also notes that it was a clean game without penalties for serious offenses.

Also the new three team schedule was released. Available here - HSP with results:

http://hsp.flyershistory.com/

With three teams, balancing the schedule, given that Jubilee had to juggle dates, produced quirks. Teams could go a week without playing yet three games in five nights were not avoidable.

 

[Canadiens1958]

January 8 and 9th 1918.

Midweek lull. Elmer Ferguson in the Montreal Herald mentions two rule changes that seemed rather inconsequential but did change the game long term.

January 8th, 1918, Ferguson writes about the PCHA and the new Penalty Rule " Previously substitution had been permited on ten minute major fouls. Effective immediately, no substitution for the first three minutes of such penalties. Offending team played short handed.

January 9,1918, Elmer Ferguson reports about the new NHL rule allowing goalies to flop - go down to the ice, to make saves. Comments about Clint Benedict abound.

More interesting but obscure is a note about the start of the high school hockey season. First season featuring six man hockey as opposed to the seven man game previously.

 

[Canadiens1958]

January 11, 1918

Minor note by Elmer Ferguson about the Canadiens signing Billy Bell, from the local senior ranks. Nothing of note untill you look at the teams roster and realize that Bell at the age of 26,was only the fourth player from the 1917-18 team under the age of 30. this would have conséquences in the weeks to come.

Ferguson writes "... filling a need for a fast backchecker to sub for Pitre."

Also mention is made about a new electrical clock and scoreboard being installed at Jubilee.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Previously you provided common knowledge data about Odie Cleghorn's exemption. None of this is in dispute.

If it was common knowledge, then why did you not know it to begin with? Your first post on this matter was:

The Odie Cleghorn issue was somewhat puzzling since it seems that either due to injury or a combination of physical factors he could not serve. Yet he could not play hockey either even though playing hockey could allow him to get into military shape faster and perhaps serve.

The reason he did not serve was a business exemption, yet you believed that it was purely physical factors, for which there is apparently no evidence.

So if you now accept that it was a strictly business exemption, why are you disputing it? You were specifically arguing that Cleghorn did have a physical issue:

War time privacy was in effect but the above suggests that Odie Cleghorn had a temporary physical condition that precluded military service.
...

Elmer Ferguson caught the irony that Odie Cleghorn could have overcome the temporary physical problem by playing hockey which would have gotten him into the physical condition required for military service.

So where is the evidence of a physical issue? This thread is supposed to be about what we know about the 1917/18 season. And yet, we have a contemporary report which states explicitly what the reason for Cleghorn's exemption was, and you still appear to be pursuing a conjecture that there was some physical problem?

Odie Cleghorn claimed a business exemption and the tribunal allowed it. They imposed a restriction from playing hockey to ensure that it was a legitimate business exemption, that Cleghorn wasn't simply using it as a pretense to continue playing hockey rather than serving in the military. There has been no evidence produced to fate that he had any physical problem at all. This is the only conclusion that I can see given what we currently know on the subject.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Conscription

If it was common knowledge, then why did you not know it to begin with? Your first post on this matter was:


The reason he did not serve was a business exemption, yet you believed that it was purely physical factors, for which there is apparently no evidence.

So if you now accept that it was a strictly business exemption, why are you disputing it? You were specifically arguing that Cleghorn did have a physical issue:


So where is the evidence of a physical issue? This thread is supposed to be about what we know about the 1917/18 season. And yet, we have a contemporary report which states explicitly what the reason for Cleghorn's exemption was, and you still appear to be pursuing a conjecture that there was some physical problem?

Odie Cleghorn claimed a business exemption and the tribunal allowed it. They imposed a restriction from playing hockey to ensure that it was a legitimate business exemption, that Cleghorn wasn't simply using it as a pretense to continue playing hockey rather than serving in the military. There has been no evidence produced to fate that he had any physical problem at all. This is the only conclusion that I can see given what we currently know on the subject.

The issue that Elmer Ferguson was alluding to was the larger issue of physically able men avoiding conscription and overseas service.

The tribunal simply said okay, if it is business then Odie Cleghorn may stay here instead of going overseas but in a strictly business capacity until the hockey season is over or the time to recruit new players ends. No 2 for 1 benefits.

Interestingly Odie Cleghorn scored over 200 goals combined in the NHA and NHL yet was never seen as a serious Hockey Hall of Fame candidate. Others with less impressive records who served in WWI were enshrined.

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

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The issue that Elmer Ferguson was alluding to was the larger issue of physically able men avoiding conscription and overseas service.

I'm not referring to what Ferguson was alluding to. I'm referring to what you were asserting, that Odie Cleghorn had a physical issue which exempted him from service. This has been demonstrated to be inaccurate.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Columbo Approach

I'm not referring to what Ferguson was alluding to. I'm referring to what you were asserting, that Odie Cleghorn had a physical issue which exempted him from service. This has been demonstrated to be inaccurate.

Columbo approach to investigative research.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Columbo approach to investigative research.

Evidence-based approach, actually, whereas Columbo really used gut feelings as much as investigation. ("Something just doesn't seem right.")

So do you accept that there is no evidence that Cleghorn had a physical issue, or are you still asserting that he did?

Edit: Sorry, I just realized that you might have been referring to your own research as Columbo-like, whereas I interpreted it as you referring to mine. A gut-feeling approach may work when the result of your research is determined by a scriptwriter, but when trying to establish historical fact it's inadvisable.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Researching

Evidence-based approach, actually, whereas Columbo really used gut feelings as much as investigation. ("Something just doesn't seem right.")

So do you accept that there is no evidence that Cleghorn had a physical issue, or are you still asserting that he did?

Just researching. Gut and experience reading Elmer Ferguson regularly for over ten years says that there was a basis for his position. How solid it was remains to be seen.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Just researching. Gut and experience reading Elmer Ferguson regularly for over ten years says that there was a basis for his position. How solid it was remains to be seen.

So just to be clear {Mod}, there is presently no evidence to support the idea that Cleghorn had a physical issue, while there is evidence that his exemption was strictly business-based.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Week of January 1-18, 1918.

January 12, 1918.According to Elmer Ferguson in the Montreal Herald the Canadiens beat the Ottawa Senators 9-4 in a blah game.

January 15, 1918 a report that the Canadiens players reduced their salaries by a total of $1,000 to compensate the team for its fire loses.

January 16, 1918, rumours of a trade. Toronto trying to trade for the Senators Frank Nighbor who is inactive. Corbett Denneny rumoured to be involved.

January 17, Frank Calder takes steps to preclude revenge fights in upcoming Toronto at Montreal game. Fighting to be penalized with a match penalty.

Interesting approach that borrowed from other sports but never became part of the NHL hockey landscape.

 

[Canadiens1958]

January 21, 1918

Reporting on the January 19,1918 game between Toronto and Montreal at the Jubilee Rink, Elmer Ferguson makes a number of interesting observations about the 5-1 Canadiens victory.

The game was worth the admission - reported in the January 19 edition that tickets were being scalped.

No fights during (or even before or after) the game.

Key observation - since the start of the three team league no team has won on foreign ice.

Key strategic observation " Canadiens used a whole substitute line at times when Toronto had an edge."

Rather interesting. Instead of substituting individual the Canadiens substituted a complete forward unit. This seems to be very similar to modern teams using an energy line when the mythical "momentum" shifts. Looking at the team rosters from a modern perspective the move was a natural. Of the 12 players used by the Canadiens during the 1917-18 season 8 were thirty or older.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1918.html

The opposition - Toronto used 14 players that season but only two were thirty or older.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TRA/1918.html

Ottawa used 13 players, only three over thirty.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/OTS/1918.html

The Canadiens victory virtually clinched first place for the first half of the schedule.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Interesting that the Habs were subbing an entire line.

Presumably that line would have been Bell - Berlinguette - Laviolette (the positions could of course have been different, Laviolette started at RW once that year).

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Presumably that line would have been Bell - Berlinguette - Laviolette (the positions could of course have been different, Laviolette started at RW once that year).

Berlinguette (LW) - Bell (C) - Laviolette (RW)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Elmer Ferguson

So just to be clear {Mod}, there is presently no evidence to support the idea that Cleghorn had a physical issue, while there is evidence that his exemption was strictly business-based.

The key point is Elmer Ferguson's take on the issue and how it was in tune with the newspaper position - stories of physically able men trying to avoid conscription were commonplace in Montréal papers. Neighbours stooling on neighbours, family on family members, etc.

Recent writings tend to portray Elmer Ferguson as the beneficiary of Frank Calder's mentorship. While the mentor / student relationship is true, Ferguson was the NHL's first statistician, having access to inside information that he did use to advantage in furthering his career as seen in his published efforts, he did show a great deal of independant or contrarian thought.

As seen in his writings from a very brief period, Elmer Ferguson tackled difficult topics, - conscription. The Wanderers trying to profit from the Westmount Arena Fire by asking for players or the problems caused by playing on a smaller rink surface, scheduling inequalities(interesting even today compared to 3 games in 4 days or the sitting at home waiting aspect of scheduling) or his pro-active comments about fighting putting Frank Calder on the spot pre game. Effectively challenging the on ice officials to follow directives during the game.

Elemer Ferguson comes across as an independent voice within the NHL community.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Probably

Interesting that the Habs were subbing an entire line.

Presumably that line would have been Bell - Berlinguette - Laviolette (the positions could of course have been different, Laviolette started at RW once that year).

Probably although there were a few other flow thru forwards that played a few games.

The key question with Elmer Ferguson was whether he was one of the rare reporters who noticed such nuances and thought that they merited mention or did others do likewise only to see their efforts edited?