The State of Hockey

[Tofveve]

History is looked at with rose-colored glasses.

I miss a little of the sand-paper that might be missing a little today.

But do I miss the outright violent gong-shows that some of the games turned into where serious injury and even at times fan safety was in jeopardy? Do I miss stars smoking between periods (Lafleur and I think Lemieux even did for a bit)? Do I miss players coming into training camp to get in shape (instead of already being in elite athlete shape)? Do I miss players coming to games hungover and on illegal substances oversight didn't exist?

I think overall things are better and continually improving.

 

[Jack Flask]

Ah good. We aren’t supposed to call players garbage for being a bunch of pluggers because they bring intangibles. Thank you for clarifying this to us keyboard warriors who don’t know how to watch the game properly

Exactly. You watch.

 

[Jack Flask]

History is looked at with rose-colored glasses.

I miss a little of the sand-paper that might be missing a little today.

But do I miss the outright violent gong-shows that some of the games turned into where serious injury and even at times fan safety was in jeopardy? Do I miss stars smoking between periods (Lafleur and I think Lemieux even did for a bit)? Do I miss players coming into training camp to get in shape (instead of already being in elite athlete shape)? Do I miss players coming to games hungover and on illegal substances oversight didn't exist?

I think overall things are better and continually improving.

I think you're getting a little carried away...

 

[Tofveve]

I think you're getting a little carried away...

Not really. Not sure what point you're disputing.







And there were several well known players, big stars even, with substance abuse problems like Bob Probert and John Kordic for example.

Many have died due to drug issues and eventual suicide.

List of NHL enforcers who have passed away gets longer | The Star

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si.com/.amp/nhl/2012/02/29/players-smokingcigarettesnhlhockey

"I had just come from Philadelphia, where there really weren't a lot of guys who smoked," he says. "But I walk in and see those ashtrays everywhere, and the first thing I told the guys was: 'OK, no more smoking in the dressing room. If you gotta smoke, do it out in the hallway.' So I'm coaching my first exhibition game and I go into the dressing room after the first period to talk, and there's no one in there. I'm wondering what in hell is going on, and take a walk out to the other side of the hallway and the whole team is out there, smoking cigarettes."

. . .

"If you ever saw the Montreal Canadiens' Hall of Fame winger Guy Lafleur away from a rink, chances are he had a cigarette between his right thumb and forefinger.
Mike Bossy, the Hall of Fame sniper who helped the New York Islanders win four straight Stanley Cups, smoked while answering postgame questions from reporters, as E.M. Swift's Sports Illustrated story from May 1983 documents.
Pittsburgh Penguins great Mario Lemieux smoked well into his brilliant career, but finally gave it up, perhaps due to his scary bout with Hodgkin's Disease.
Chicago's Denis Savard scored 473 goals during his 18-year Hall of Fame career despite a habit that was estimated to be at least a pack a day. His Blackhawks linemates, Steve Larmer and Al Secord, also were said to be big smokers, which contributed to their nickname of "The Party Line" although Secord recently told SI.com that he never lit up."

Johnston, in his 65th training camp, reflects on the sport's evolution

"Training camp is nothing new for Johnston. In fact, Johnston - or "EJ" as he's affectionately known as - has been involved in NHL training camps for the past 65 years.
"I came in at 19 (years old). That was my first camp. That would be 1954 in Montreal," Johnston said.
"It was a couple years ago," he added with a laugh.
Johnston has seen the game evolve drastically in the past six-plus decades. Everything from the equipment to the staffing to the length of camp has changed.
"Back then you used training camp to get into shape," he said. "You just enjoyed yourself in the summertime because you wouldn't put a pair of skates on until September. Then the first two, three weeks was to get into shape. You didn't even play a game.
"Now you have three days of camp and you play a game. Nowadays you better come (to camp) in shape for your job."
In the 50s and 60s when the players arrived they would practice for 90 minutes every day, and on game days they would work on their conditioning following the game.
. . .

"I was with the (Boston) Bruins in 1962 and we had tough guys," Johnston said. "They would fight and you'd finish practice, 10 or 12 would go and have a beer. Then you sweat it out the next day. That doesn't happen now."

 

[Imnotagoodposter]

Yeah old time hockey wasn’t very good by today’s standard, the sport has come a long way.
It used to have no regard for player or fan safety, a lot of hits that were celebrated in the past are disgustingly illegal today. There was no mesh to block stray pucks and people died as a result.

Hell, team canada back in the Cold War were celebrated as national heroes, even though to beat the soviets they had to snap bones and play dirty to win.
The argument for violence in the game has always been its part of the integrity of the sport and that it’s what makes it entertaining.
If it’s part of the integrity of the sport to scramble brains and have obligatory fights after clean hits, or celebrate wins accomplished by injuring the opponent, then it isn’t a sport worth watching imo.

In any case, hockey will always be a niche sport. I don’t see the increase in safety standards leading to no one watching, in all honesty. If you want to watch people get horrifically injured to entertain you, go watch nascar

 

[BigKing]

STH'er to the Kings since 2001 - 02 and, before it is said, I'm not a Boomer.

The stretch from the 2016 season to now is the worst entertainment value during that entire time. That includes a stretch of seven straight non-playoff seasons prior to the Kings being very good for a short stint.

Back then, going to watch a losing team was still fun because there was more hitting, fighting and animosity. Like, we are probably losing tonight but Sean Avery might start a riot. Now, bad teams generally just eat shit all game on the scoreboard, say "thank you" and go on to the next ass kicking while the paying home fans wonder why they are wasting their time.

That being said, I don't completely blame the NHL or the younger generation of white knights campaigning for an end to fighting, although the latter are infuriating since they are generally watching on TV anyways and are helping ruin it for those of us that actually shell out for every home game. At the end of the day, these guys make way more money now across the board than back then and they aren't interested in killing someone in Game 17 of the season so they can "make an impression" and stick around longer. It used to feel like there was general hatred between certain players where now there is more respect. I mean, that's a good thing but it also lowers the intensity, thereby lowering the entertainment value.

If your team is winning, then you probably think it is a great product. Winning is fun. If your team is a contender, they will also be involved in more intense regular season games so that is a big help. If you've grown up on post-lockout hockey or, even worse, post 2013 lockout hockey, you probably think it is awesome as you have no frame of reference and you just buy in to the current narratives of how "it has never been better" because a couple of more goals are scored and 4th lines are now generally filled with guys that don't hit, fight or score but they can skate and don't get scored on.

It isn't better though. The period around 2008-2013ish was enough of a compromise between maintaining physical hockey and bad blood while also ridding the league of "staged fights" (stupid term) and strictly enforcer types. We've moved past a good balance and too far into soft territory.

Hockey will always be a niche sport in the US but, man, what an amazing niche it used to be. Trying to make it more like the other sports by minimizing the extreme violence that used to be blended with the beauty of the game has definitely lowered the level of entertainment but, alas, that is how everything goes. Society keeps getting softer and we get "progress". Its better for the players but we are definitely losing out.

 

[Avsboy]

What about Minnesota?

 

[North Cole]

Look at the Metro division, one loss can have your team slipping in the standings. It's pretty damn epic right now.

According to the Pacific thread, it just means your division is bad.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Exactly. You watch.

I think you’re missing the point of my post.

Hockey can be enjoyed for many different parts. I don’t get this stupid lame ass gate keeping of how hockey is only good when it’s a complete crap show like in the 1970s.

I like physical hockey. I also enjoy today’s hockey much better than the dead puck era I grew up in.

People are allowed to enjoy hockey as they see fit.

 

[El Travo]

Everyone wants big hits until their own guy gets hit - then we get the main board threads complaining about them.

 

[cliffclaven]

STH'er to the Kings since 2001 - 02 and, before it is said, I'm not a Boomer.

The stretch from the 2016 season to now is the worst entertainment value during that entire time. That includes a stretch of seven straight non-playoff seasons prior to the Kings being very good for a short stint.

Back then, going to watch a losing team was still fun because there was more hitting, fighting and animosity. Like, we are probably losing tonight but Sean Avery might start a riot. Now, bad teams generally just eat **** all game on the scoreboard, say "thank you" and go on to the next ass kicking while the paying home fans wonder why they are wasting their time.

That being said, I don't completely blame the NHL or the younger generation of white knights campaigning for an end to fighting, although the latter are infuriating since they are generally watching on TV anyways and are helping ruin it for those of us that actually shell out for every home game. At the end of the day, these guys make way more money now across the board than back then and they aren't interested in killing someone in Game 17 of the season so they can "make an impression" and stick around longer. It used to feel like there was general hatred between certain players where now there is more respect. I mean, that's a good thing but it also lowers the intensity, thereby lowering the entertainment value.

If your team is winning, then you probably think it is a great product. Winning is fun. If your team is a contender, they will also be involved in more intense regular season games so that is a big help. If you've grown up on post-lockout hockey or, even worse, post 2013 lockout hockey, you probably think it is awesome as you have no frame of reference and you just buy in to the current narratives of how "it has never been better" because a couple of more goals are scored and 4th lines are now generally filled with guys that don't hit, fight or score but they can skate and don't get scored on.

It isn't better though. The period around 2008-2013ish was enough of a compromise between maintaining physical hockey and bad blood while also ridding the league of "staged fights" (stupid term) and strictly enforcer types. We've moved past a good balance and too far into soft territory.

Hockey will always be a niche sport in the US but, man, what an amazing niche it used to be. Trying to make it more like the other sports by minimizing the extreme violence that used to be blended with the beauty of the game has definitely lowered the level of entertainment but, alas, that is how everything goes. Society keeps getting softer and we get "progress". Its better for the players but we are definitely losing out.

This couldn’t be anymore on point. The new game sucks, quite frankly. I’ll still have it on in the background, but I won’t pay for a tv package anymore.

 

[Jack Flask]

Not really. Not sure what point you're disputing.







And there were several well known players, big stars even, with substance abuse problems like Bob Probert and John Kordic for example.

Many have died due to drug issues and eventual suicide.

List of NHL enforcers who have passed away gets longer | The Star

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si.com/.amp/nhl/2012/02/29/players-smokingcigarettesnhlhockey

"I had just come from Philadelphia, where there really weren't a lot of guys who smoked," he says. "But I walk in and see those ashtrays everywhere, and the first thing I told the guys was: 'OK, no more smoking in the dressing room. If you gotta smoke, do it out in the hallway.' So I'm coaching my first exhibition game and I go into the dressing room after the first period to talk, and there's no one in there. I'm wondering what in hell is going on, and take a walk out to the other side of the hallway and the whole team is out there, smoking cigarettes."

. . .

"If you ever saw the Montreal Canadiens' Hall of Fame winger Guy Lafleur away from a rink, chances are he had a cigarette between his right thumb and forefinger.
Mike Bossy, the Hall of Fame sniper who helped the New York Islanders win four straight Stanley Cups, smoked while answering postgame questions from reporters, as E.M. Swift's Sports Illustrated story from May 1983 documents.
Pittsburgh Penguins great Mario Lemieux smoked well into his brilliant career, but finally gave it up, perhaps due to his scary bout with Hodgkin's Disease.
Chicago's Denis Savard scored 473 goals during his 18-year Hall of Fame career despite a habit that was estimated to be at least a pack a day. His Blackhawks linemates, Steve Larmer and Al Secord, also were said to be big smokers, which contributed to their nickname of "The Party Line" although Secord recently told SI.com that he never lit up."

Johnston, in his 65th training camp, reflects on the sport's evolution

"Training camp is nothing new for Johnston. In fact, Johnston - or "EJ" as he's affectionately known as - has been involved in NHL training camps for the past 65 years.
"I came in at 19 (years old). That was my first camp. That would be 1954 in Montreal," Johnston said.
"It was a couple years ago," he added with a laugh.
Johnston has seen the game evolve drastically in the past six-plus decades. Everything from the equipment to the staffing to the length of camp has changed.
"Back then you used training camp to get into shape," he said. "You just enjoyed yourself in the summertime because you wouldn't put a pair of skates on until September. Then the first two, three weeks was to get into shape. You didn't even play a game.
"Now you have three days of camp and you play a game. Nowadays you better come (to camp) in shape for your job."
In the 50s and 60s when the players arrived they would practice for 90 minutes every day, and on game days they would work on their conditioning following the game.
. . .

"I was with the (Boston) Bruins in 1962 and we had tough guys," Johnston said. "They would fight and you'd finish practice, 10 or 12 would go and have a beer. Then you sweat it out the next day. That doesn't happen now."

Thanks for the History of the world lesson. Yes so basically myself and apparently many others are looking to see players smoke a pack a game, fight fans, abuse drugs and alcohol and multiple fights and injuries every game, making peanuts while they are at it.
Ok buddy you lost us all on this now...

 

[Jack Flask]

STH'er to the Kings since 2001 - 02 and, before it is said, I'm not a Boomer.

The stretch from the 2016 season to now is the worst entertainment value during that entire time. That includes a stretch of seven straight non-playoff seasons prior to the Kings being very good for a short stint.

Back then, going to watch a losing team was still fun because there was more hitting, fighting and animosity. Like, we are probably losing tonight but Sean Avery might start a riot. Now, bad teams generally just eat **** all game on the scoreboard, say "thank you" and go on to the next ass kicking while the paying home fans wonder why they are wasting their time.

That being said, I don't completely blame the NHL or the younger generation of white knights campaigning for an end to fighting, although the latter are infuriating since they are generally watching on TV anyways and are helping ruin it for those of us that actually shell out for every home game. At the end of the day, these guys make way more money now across the board than back then and they aren't interested in killing someone in Game 17 of the season so they can "make an impression" and stick around longer. It used to feel like there was general hatred between certain players where now there is more respect. I mean, that's a good thing but it also lowers the intensity, thereby lowering the entertainment value.

If your team is winning, then you probably think it is a great product. Winning is fun. If your team is a contender, they will also be involved in more intense regular season games so that is a big help. If you've grown up on post-lockout hockey or, even worse, post 2013 lockout hockey, you probably think it is awesome as you have no frame of reference and you just buy in to the current narratives of how "it has never been better" because a couple of more goals are scored and 4th lines are now generally filled with guys that don't hit, fight or score but they can skate and don't get scored on.

It isn't better though. The period around 2008-2013ish was enough of a compromise between maintaining physical hockey and bad blood while also ridding the league of "staged fights" (stupid term) and strictly enforcer types. We've moved past a good balance and too far into soft territory.

Hockey will always be a niche sport in the US but, man, what an amazing niche it used to be. Trying to make it more like the other sports by minimizing the extreme violence that used to be blended with the beauty of the game has definitely lowered the level of entertainment but, alas, that is how everything goes. Society keeps getting softer and we get "progress". Its better for the players but we are definitely losing out.

Well said. And its clear theres alot of true hockey fans who feel the same way.
Bring back the sandpaper, rivalries and compete and it makes it a much better game. Its about perspective. I agree 70s hockey was brutal but 2020 hockey is equally brutal for opposite reasons. I really believe this era will be goofed on in the future for how lame it is.

 

[cliffclaven]

Well said. And its clear theres alot of true hockey fans who feel the same way.
Bring back the sandpaper, rivalries and compete and it makes it a much better game. Its about perspective. I agree 70s hockey was brutal but 2020 hockey is equally brutal for opposite reasons. I really believe this era will be goofed on in the future for how lame it is.

Unfortunately it’s only gonna get worse. 3v3 women’s scrimmage at the NHL all star game?

In 10 years, the nhl will resemble women’s Olympic hockey. With women involved. In the name of “inclusiveness” they will be in the league. “Toxic masculinity” (not my quote) will likely be a jail sentence.

R.I.P.

 

[Tofveve]

STH'er to the Kings since 2001 - 02 and, before it is said, I'm not a Boomer.

The stretch from the 2016 season to now is the worst entertainment value during that entire time. That includes a stretch of seven straight non-playoff seasons prior to the Kings being very good for a short stint.

Back then, going to watch a losing team was still fun because there was more hitting, fighting and animosity. Like, we are probably losing tonight but Sean Avery might start a riot. Now, bad teams generally just eat **** all game on the scoreboard, say "thank you" and go on to the next ass kicking while the paying home fans wonder why they are wasting their time.

That being said, I don't completely blame the NHL or the younger generation of white knights campaigning for an end to fighting, although the latter are infuriating since they are generally watching on TV anyways and are helping ruin it for those of us that actually shell out for every home game. At the end of the day, these guys make way more money now across the board than back then and they aren't interested in killing someone in Game 17 of the season so they can "make an impression" and stick around longer. It used to feel like there was general hatred between certain players where now there is more respect. I mean, that's a good thing but it also lowers the intensity, thereby lowering the entertainment value.

If your team is winning, then you probably think it is a great product. Winning is fun. If your team is a contender, they will also be involved in more intense regular season games so that is a big help. If you've grown up on post-lockout hockey or, even worse, post 2013 lockout hockey, you probably think it is awesome as you have no frame of reference and you just buy in to the current narratives of how "it has never been better" because a couple of more goals are scored and 4th lines are now generally filled with guys that don't hit, fight or score but they can skate and don't get scored on.

It isn't better though. The period around 2008-2013ish was enough of a compromise between maintaining physical hockey and bad blood while also ridding the league of "staged fights" (stupid term) and strictly enforcer types. We've moved past a good balance and too far into soft territory.

Hockey will always be a niche sport in the US but, man, what an amazing niche it used to be. Trying to make it more like the other sports by minimizing the extreme violence that used to be blended with the beauty of the game has definitely lowered the level of entertainment but, alas, that is how everything goes. Society keeps getting softer and we get "progress". Its better for the players but we are definitely losing out.

Honestly, no offense, but earlier I mentioned a list of teams outside of my Flames who I follow. Now this isn't a sleight, but you mentioned prior to 2016 . . . Well I don't have any California team in the list I follow. In my opinion, even when LA was winning cups they were a boring team to watch. Again in my opinion, California teams have been boring to watch for years and years. For Anaheim basically since Kariya and Selanne and Perry and Getzlaf were all playing together. I never thought San Jose was all that exciting ever, even when they were winning. For LA, as much as Sutter helped win some cups there, his brand of hockey sucks (I know as a Flames fan suffering under Sutter brand hockey for like 15 years - one brother after another).

What I'm getting at, and again not trying to make you or any California team fans feel bad, is basically, you get star offensive talent like Tampa, Wash, Bos, Col, Chi, Flor, NYR (Panarin), Pitts, etc., and it'll be exciting to watch again (ala the Gretzky days in LA or in Ana the Kariya/Selanne days). I feel bad for a team like Arizona who have always been a pretty bad brand to watch.

Anyway, that's how I've always felt.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Well said. And its clear theres alot of true hockey fans who feel the same way.
Bring back the sandpaper, rivalries and compete and it makes it a much better game. Its about perspective. I agree 70s hockey was brutal but 2020 hockey is equally brutal for opposite reasons. I really believe this era will be goofed on in the future for how lame it is.

What defines a true hockey fan?

 

[93LEAFS]

Back-to-back games shouldn't exist. Reducing the schedule by 12 games would allow players to be fresher for every game and create a better on-ice product. This would also allow for more travel between East and West teams so they can play more often.

It would also cut players salaries by roughly 10% to 15%.

 

[ziggyjoe212]

You can have skilled players exceling and scoring at 100+ point pace, like we do now. OR you can have gritty, violent hockey. You can't have both.

I do agree that hockey games a little more boring without the violence and hatred. But the hockey product is far better. Fewer teams are trapping and there are fewer talentless goons in the league.

 

[Jack Flask]

You can have skilled players exceling and scoring at 100+ point pace, like we do now. OR you can have gritty, violent hockey. You can't have both.

I do agree that hockey games a little more boring without the violence and hatred. But the hockey product is far better. Fewer teams are trapping and there are fewer talentless goons in the league.

Actually you can have both. Thats what the game needs . Im not a boomer nor a millenial but I can tell you firsthand when I attended games when contact and rivalries were present, the atmosphere was electric, people were on their feet more and it was louder. And ya, there was animosity between teams.
Im fortunate enough to get seats to Toronto games for free and I routinely turn them down. Its a snoozefest and its not just in Toronto. You can hear a pindrop. Teams have resorted to all kinds of side entertainment and hype between whistles and its just not the same.
My local Jr A games are more exciting actually so I do get out to those where the compete level is higher. Is it better hockey? No, but its alot more entertaining. And its $10-$15 to get in.
I agree we dont need goon hockey back in the Nhl but this brand is equally as bad because its lacks the energy ive witnessed in the arenas.
We will get some of it back though , when the playoffs start and thats when its at its best.

 

[Ncit3]

well since hockey viewership continues to decline outside of canada you may have a point

This has a lot more to do with NHL marketing in general. I don't think it's the product on the ice but more that nobody knows they are even playing. The game is as marketable as ever but the NHL is full of dinosaurs.

 

[cliffclaven]

You can have skilled players exceling and scoring at 100+ point pace, like we do now. OR you can have gritty, violent hockey. You can't have both.

I do agree that hockey games a little more boring without the violence and hatred. But the hockey product is far better. Fewer teams are trapping and there are fewer talentless goons in the league.

You can’t have 100 point players and gritty ‘violent’ hockey?

List of NHL players with 100-point seasons - Wikipedia

 

[stealth1]

The only real thing I like to see changed, not sure how you would, is teams playing not to lose. They need to find away to make teams want to win in regulation and not try to make it to OT

 

[PlayersLtd]

Honestly, no offense, but earlier I mentioned a list of teams outside of my Flames who I follow. Now this isn't a sleight, but you mentioned prior to 2016 . . . Well I don't have any California team in the list I follow. In my opinion, even when LA was winning cups they were a boring team to watch. Again in my opinion, California teams have been boring to watch for years and years. For Anaheim basically since Kariya and Selanne and Perry and Getzlaf were all playing together. I never thought San Jose was all that exciting ever, even when they were winning. For LA, as much as Sutter helped win some cups there, his brand of hockey sucks (I know as a Flames fan suffering under Sutter brand hockey for like 15 years - one brother after another).

What I'm getting at, and again not trying to make you or any California team fans feel bad, is basically, you get star offensive talent like Tampa, Wash, Bos, Col, Chi, Flor, NYR (Panarin), Pitts, etc., and it'll be exciting to watch again (ala the Gretzky days in LA or in Ana the Kariya/Selanne days). I feel bad for a team like Arizona who have always been a pretty bad brand to watch.

Anyway, that's how I've always felt.

If you give him some leeway on the 2008-2013'ish' period and include '07, then California based teams won 3 out of 7 cups and routinely made the playoffs. It's fair to say that there was enough talent to more or less stack up in entertainment value to the teams you referenced.

That's too big of a brush you painted the California teams with trying to discredit the original poster's (valid) point.

 

[ziggyjoe212]

Actually you can have both. Thats what the game needs . Im not a boomer nor a millenial but I can tell you firsthand when I attended games when contact and rivalries were present, the atmosphere was electric, people were on their feet more and it was louder. And ya, there was animosity between teams.
Im fortunate enough to get seats to Toronto games for free and I routinely turn them down. Its a snoozefest and its not just in Toronto. You can hear a pindrop. Teams have resorted to all kinds of side entertainment and hype between whistles and its just not the same.
My local Jr A games are more exciting actually so I do get out to those where the compete level is higher. Is it better hockey? No, but its alot more entertaining. And its $10-$15 to get in.
I agree we dont need goon hockey back in the Nhl but this brand is equally as bad because its lacks the energy ive witnessed in the arenas.
We will get some of it back though , when the playoffs start and thats when its at its best.

I believe that violent and "sandpaper" eras breed uber defensive strategies. Players like Mackinnon and McDavid wouldn't be as successful 20 years ago because of guys like would slash and elbow them all day. The #1 coaching strategy was an uber defensive trap to slow down any talented player.
Today's era is more open partially because players are less scared of getting KO'd any time they skate up the middle with the puck.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

I like the defense and the skill.