| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 18:52:22
Alright, here it is. Now don't everyone get angry because this is a legitimate question. It's been argued by many. Lets see what the Pick Up Hockey group thinks. Was there an unwritten rule in the NHL that said guys were not to hit Gretzky for the good of the game.? Discuss. |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| stastnysforever |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 17:29:54
If there was some unwritten rule about not hitting Gretzky bcuz he was too good, then what about forsberg, Lindros, Lemieux, Sakic, Kariya,etc |
| stastnysforever |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 17:27:25
Gretzky was never hit because he was too crafty |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 09:45:08
Gretzky went around players, Lemieux went through them, there is a big difference in the type of players they were...you will be abused more when you attempt to go between two defencemen rather than around...
There are: People that make things happen, people that watch things happen, and people that wonder what happened, who are you... |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 08:10:25
quote:
I'm not sure why you single out Gretzky here. Yes, we all agree that Gretzky was given a certain amount of space. But space was also given to Lemieux, Yzerman, Sakic, and all other skilled (non-power forward) type players... So? Should we not compare the two because it's not fair? Maybe rate Neely higher than Yzerman because he was tough and got hit a heckuva lot more?
You must be kidding. Lemieux was given space? I quite literally watched guys hang off of him. He was constantly hit, slashed, hooked, crosschecked and tripped. Gretzky endured nowhere near this punishment. Do I have the stats? No. But I know what I saw. And I would have loved to have seen Gretzky put up with what Yzerman and Sakic have. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 22:08:44
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I'm not saying Gretzky didn't get hit. He did. Not very often though and they were pretty much love taps.
Alright so now that we've pretty much all agreed that there was indeed space given to Gretzky, are his accomplishments all that spectacular then? If some other stars had been given this same "space" hockey history would look much different I think.
Myself, I wish that the enforcer had never been thought of. Skilled players always had to look after themselves. You had to earn your points the hard way. For the most part it is still that way. I just don't understand why people are ok with it for Gretzky. Look at a guy like Yvan Cournoyer for instance. 5'7" 170lbs. No protection. He has my full respect. I would have to say that this is precisely why Howe doesn't pick Gretzky as the greatest all time. He understands how he did what he did.
I'm not sure why you single out Gretzky here. Yes, we all agree that Gretzky was given a certain amount of space. But space was also given to Lemieux, Yzerman, Sakic, and all other skilled (non-power forward) type players... So? Should we not compare the two because it's not fair? Maybe rate Neely higher than Yzerman because he was tough and got hit a heckuva lot more? |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 20:24:58
I'm not saying Gretzky didn't get hit. He did. Not very often though and they were pretty much love taps.
Alright so now that we've pretty much all agreed that there was indeed space given to Gretzky, are his accomplishments all that spectacular then? If some other stars had been given this same "space" hockey history would look much different I think.
Myself, I wish that the enforcer had never been thought of. Skilled players always had to look after themselves. You had to earn your points the hard way. For the most part it is still that way. I just don't understand why people are ok with it for Gretzky. Look at a guy like Yvan Cournoyer for instance. 5'7" 170lbs. No protection. He has my full respect. I would have to say that this is precisely why Howe doesn't pick Gretzky as the greatest all time. He understands how he did what he did. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 19:49:25
quote:
The first one that you were talking about, you are right, the guy could have drilled him and could have drilled him HARD!!! But for Gods sake Willus, think about it. I have played hockey practically all my life. Why would you hit someone if there is a chance of seriously injuring them?
Ask Scott Stevens why he did what he did to countless players. Kariya, Lindros etc... |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 19:47:10
quote:
Pucknuts you took the words out of my mouth. People gave him room because he earned it. It's a lame example I know, but even at my rec hockey level, if i know a guy is slippery I won't step into him, I'll back off and try my best to keep them to the outside.
Gordie Howe earned the room guys gave him. Gretzky let Semenko earn the space for him. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 11:56:36
Another point on the Semenko factor. Semenko wasn't even on the Oilers in the 86/87 (traded very early in that season) and 87/88 seasons, obviously two very good years for the Oilers and Gretzky. It would be very interesting to somehow measure if Gretzky was hit significantly more in those years (I honestly don't recall that well). I know they had some other policemen like McSorely, but I would be really curious if life changed dramatically for him without his Number 1 enforcer around. Again, if not, there must have been something else. |
| Blubberboy |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 11:14:09
quote:
Originally posted by ED11
Ok Willus I saw the 2 examples that you were talking about in that clip you posted.
Here is my take on them...
The first one that you were talking about, you are right, the guy could have drilled him and could have drilled him HARD!!! But for Gods sake Willus, think about it. I have played hockey practically all my life. Why would you hit someone if there is a chance of seriously injuring them? Do you know what I mean? I know there is a chance of injuring someone a lot of the times when hits are made. Like, don't get me wrong. Please don't get me wrong, I am a BIG supporter of hitting in hockey. It is part of the game! But in that case in the video if he hit him he would have probably killed him!!! Why would you WANT to do that to someone??? No matter who it is I mean! As a player you have a RESPONSIBILITY in that if you have someone lined up PERFECTLY and you KNOW you can lay them out BUT you notice that they don't see you coming, or that they are turning their back to you or whatever, maybe you CAN THINK and say if I hit this guy I could SERIOUSLY injure him. I coach little kids and I tell them that all the time. Don't hit to injury. Even if it is clean, but you can see that the guy might fall akwardly or into the boards or something because they have no idea that you're coming, why do it? Like I don't know how else to put it. I don't know if you saw the hit that Eager made on Stajan the last Leaf game but he almost broke his nose. It was a clean hit but why would you do that if you SAW that the guy wasn't looking? Like seriously. Even the commentators mentioned what I am saying. Hitting is perfectly fine, but as a player there is responsibility also.
The second part of that clip the guy let up because Gretzky had already scored so the guy stopped.
Ok, you know what? Here is the thing. I honestly think that people just want to see Gretzky get LAYED out ONCE and they will be happy. I think thats all it is. They go searching the net for that one hit that will satisfy them. And they can't find it so they say he wasn't hit AT ALL. Not true.
Not true at all. That is a nice idea though, (no offense)
Go Canucks |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 10:24:29
I gotta say a couple of things. Firstly, Willus, you're really starting to sound like Gretzky NEVER got touched. That's bunk and you know it. He did get hit, just not put on his ass very often. There were MANY other players that you didn't see get hammered. It was a different game in the 80’s and one with respect that you don't see today.
And EVERY team had a tough guy in their line-up in the 80's. Once Semenko and Hunter and the likes started showing up, each team knew they better have someone to chuck'em or they would be intimidated and manhandled out of the arena every night. Many of those enforcers had a short life span because teams were always looking for better fighters or players who could fight and play. Also, it's a tough job and you can only get smacked around by Semenko's meat hooks so many times before you can't remember who you are in the morning. So you don't remember the enforcers because they were not in the league long and they didn't score much. Do you think anyone would remember the name Semenko without Gretzky?? Not a chance.
And there was an elite group in the class of tough guys too. Semenko, Hunter, Probert, Brown, Grimson just to name a few. You remember the names because they were the best. No different than a guys like Mike Krushelniski, Keith Acton, Kevin McClelland, Mark Napier, or Craig Muni. All were part of the Oiler Dynasty and all were decent enough players, but you never hear their names. I bet this is the first time the majority of those people on this site have heard these names at all. My point is we only remember the best, not the rest. So because we can not name 50 enforcers off the tops of our heads, doesn't mean they were not there.
I strongly agree with Andyhacks percentages. I do feel the majority of the "unwritten rule" theory is that of Gretzky's ability to avoid situations where he would be hit. Not the hit itself, because he did get hit. He just stayed out of situations where he would get hit. He would let Messier go dig it out of a corner and he would skate by and take the puck (for example.) Also, Semenko was the most intimidating force in the league until that guy showed up in Detroit. And lastly, there was a respect for the stars in the 80's that does not hold true today. One thing that does stay true is the league WANTS to protect its stars the same today as they did in the 80's. Only now, the players are not listening so well. And I do believe that the league sent the message to not hurt the game and keep the stars playing. This wasn’t only Gretzky, he was just the biggest at the time, hence, The Gretzky Rule.
|
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 08:03:20
Unless someone grew up watching Gretzky play it should be difficult to cast an opinion. If you watch all the You Tube videos you will see Gretzky never get hit, but they are his highlights not his low points.
If you saw a Scott Stevens video you would expect to see all his hits, not the few goals he scored, or some incredible passes he made...
Have you ever tried to organize an event with 20 people, you will be lucky to get 10 to agree on anything, now imagine you are trying to get 600+ players to not hit Gretzky, I am sure there will be a few that will want to nail him, but as I said earlier he was evasive...
The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way...
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 07:04:15
You may be right. Most of the tougher guys that are coming to my mind now of that era could also play a bit - Al Secord (played quite well actually, with a 50 goal season to his credit), Dale Hunter (maybe he is another category anyway - dirty/pesky), Probert (obviously a great fighter, but could play too) and Chris Nilan (was a better hockey player than Semenko anyway). I suppose Tim Hunter of the Flames was a bit closer to a "true enforcer". You western guys would know better. I guess John Kordic in the later 80s too.
But my general point is that, if not "true enforcers", there were "tough guys" in the league and some tough defencemen like Chelios for example. They couldn't have always layed off Gretzky (I guess I'm supporting the Ed/tctitans/Beans argument that he was indeed hit sometimes). But I'm also saying that some guys maybe not quite so tough who layed off a bit on Gretzky still had those tough players on the ice who might step up for them. It's not like the "broken jaw" scenario was automatic.
So I have trouble TOTALLY writing off the reason to just Gretzky's elusiveness and the Semenko factor. I think there was a third factor and I think it is that factor, no matter how small a percentage you want to put on it, that gives rise to this whole "unwritten rule" question. And as I said, my take is that third element would probably be better labelled something like a "lay off the superstar mindset" related to things such as respect, the incredible "buzz" around Gretzky at the time, a slightly less aggressive era for some reason, worries about severely injuring the game's superstar, and so on, rather than an "unwritten rule" which implies that orders came down from the NHL brass. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 21:43:09
quote:
Originally posted by BigShow
Having your own tough guy to go after Semenko after he mauls you is a little bit "horse is out of the barn", no?
I mean if i hit Gretzky and have Semenko lay into me, then having Semnko get into a more even fight afterwards isn't gonna make my broken jaw hurt any less...
The telling difference.. i can't think of any other true enforcers that were around then, and yet Semenko, who could bearly be classed as a hockey player, is remembered still.
I was going to say this very thing. I can't really think of any other true enforcers around that time either. There was Schultz for Clarke before but other than that...?
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 21:35:57
There must have been a few other enforcers, no? Have to think about that tomorrow. But I think we mainly remember Semenko cause of who his client was.
I get what you are saying about the broken jaw scenario. Still, I just don't think that absolutely everyone in the league was always shivering in fear over the retaliation from Semenko, particularly to just an average hit or physical play on Gretzky, as opposed to really levelling him. But if I am wrong, you know what, Dave "Cementhead" Semenko was robbed of about 5 or 6 Hart trophies in the 1980s! |
| BigShow |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 21:05:10
Having your own tough guy to go after Semenko after he mauls you is a little bit "horse is out of the barn", no?
I mean if i hit Gretzky and have Semenko lay into me, then having Semnko get into a more even fight afterwards isn't gonna make my broken jaw hurt any less...
The telling difference.. i can't think of any other true enforcers that were around then, and yet Semenko, who could bearly be classed as a hockey player, is remembered still. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 20:13:43
Interesting. Just wondering though, Orr and Espo had a pretty tough cast of guys to retaliate back in the early 70s - Sanderson, Cashman, Johnny "Pieface" MacKenzie (gotta love that nickname by the way) and others, and yet as you have pointed out, Espo and Orr took a beating all the time.
I know, unlike the Bruin tough guys, Semenko was basically just a pure enforcer as opposed to a tough good hockey player like say Cashman, who Boston probably wanted on the ice more than in the box. And as a defenceman, Orr was of course gonna get hit or lot, particularly the way he played too. And as a guy who parked himself in the slot, Espo was of course gonna take a lot of blows. You think those things basically account for the difference then?
Even though those explanations of the differences make sense to me, and I think the Semenko factor played a big role, I don't know, I'm still not totally convinced that the Semenko factor explains it ALL. For one thing, its not like teams didn't have their own Semenkos to counter him. And there must have been a few crazy fearless guys in the league at the time who maybe didn't lose too much sleep about going at it with Semenko. And, as you say, its not like Gretzky was absolutely unhittable (there were occasions where he wasn't going to be able to elude a check or where he was in a position on the ice to be hit, and yet wasn't). For these reasons, I still think that at least to a smaller degree, there were some other factors involved, not a "memo" or "message" from above or anything like that, but as I think Ed11 said, a kind of "mindset" towards Gretzky. So overall, I break it down this way:
Gretzky elusiveness - 40%
Semenko factor - 40%
Lay off Superstar Mindset - 20%
Message from NHL Brass - 0%
I'd be interested to hear what others think these percentages should be? |
| BigShow |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 20:10:18
I always thought it was pretty straight forward... hit Gretzky and Semenko puts you in the hospital.
Every time i've ever heard people talking about hitting Gretzky, Cementhead comes up. There were others on that team too that would be on you in a second, Messier, Anderson, McSorely, but it was the fear of Cementhead that kept most players off Gretzky. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 19:21:37
As I've said, I agree with this - a large part was due to his enforcers. B ut I believe ALL these were true:
1) Wasnt hit as often due to retribution (Enforcers)
2) Avoided hits because he was elusive
3) Some people didnt go head-hunting out of respect - he was Gretzky
4) and .... He did get hit!
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I don't subscribe to the league theory where they instructed refs to call everything for Gretzky. Though I wouldn't rule it out entirely either.
I also don't believe that he was never hit because he was so shifty and smart. No one can evade being hit for an entire game, let alone an entire career.
I believe the real reason, for the most part, that he wasn't hit was his bodyguards. Have a read through this little excerpt.
quote:
heres an excerpt bostons sunday globe:
Edmonton policeman laid down the law to Laidlaw
Tom Laidlaw, the defenseman-turned-agent, is among the many who would like to see the NHL dial back on the rules and penalties that govern fighting and aggressive play in general. Way back when, recalled Laidlaw, the players did a pretty good job of policing the rough stuff themselves.
For example, said Laidlaw, there was the night in Edmonton when, working the blue line for the Rangers, he put a decent hit on the untouchable Wayne Gretzky.
"So the whistle blows, and the place is almost dead silent," recalled Laidlaw. "It was always that way in Canadian rinks -- no music blaring or Jumbotron blasting. Just silent. And there's [Oilers coach] Glen Sather, standing up on the bench, and he points right at me on the ice.
"And for everyone to hear -- me, the Ranger bench, the Oiler bench, and the whole crowd -- he yells out, 'Laidlaw, you are going home in a [expletive] body bag.' Kinda got my attention, you know?"
As a follow-up to the promise, Sather rolled Gretzky's policeman, Dave Semenko, over the boards. Heavy of foot and heavier of hand, Semenko made a living just being around as No. 99's space-maker.
"Here comes Semenko," said Laidlaw. "And I mean, boy, he's got that wild look in his eye, and his hair is all over the place, like he just came in from the bush, you know? I'm figuring, 'Oh boy, this is trouble.'
"He comes up to me and says, 'Tommy, are you going to be doing that to Gretz anymore?' I mean, like I say, everyone is watching this. I think for a second, and I know this sounds chicken, but I said, 'You know, Dave, I don't think so. Think I'm all set, thanks.' "
And the game played on. Without incident, said Laidlaw.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 18:15:11
I don't subscribe to the league theory where they instructed refs to call everything for Gretzky. Though I wouldn't rule it out entirely either.
I also don't believe that he was never hit because he was so shifty and smart. No one can evade being hit for an entire game, let alone an entire career.
I believe the real reason, for the most part, that he wasn't hit was his bodyguards. Have a read through this little excerpt.
quote:
heres an excerpt bostons sunday globe:
Edmonton policeman laid down the law to Laidlaw
Tom Laidlaw, the defenseman-turned-agent, is among the many who would like to see the NHL dial back on the rules and penalties that govern fighting and aggressive play in general. Way back when, recalled Laidlaw, the players did a pretty good job of policing the rough stuff themselves.
For example, said Laidlaw, there was the night in Edmonton when, working the blue line for the Rangers, he put a decent hit on the untouchable Wayne Gretzky.
"So the whistle blows, and the place is almost dead silent," recalled Laidlaw. "It was always that way in Canadian rinks -- no music blaring or Jumbotron blasting. Just silent. And there's [Oilers coach] Glen Sather, standing up on the bench, and he points right at me on the ice.
"And for everyone to hear -- me, the Ranger bench, the Oiler bench, and the whole crowd -- he yells out, 'Laidlaw, you are going home in a [expletive] body bag.' Kinda got my attention, you know?"
As a follow-up to the promise, Sather rolled Gretzky's policeman, Dave Semenko, over the boards. Heavy of foot and heavier of hand, Semenko made a living just being around as No. 99's space-maker.
"Here comes Semenko," said Laidlaw. "And I mean, boy, he's got that wild look in his eye, and his hair is all over the place, like he just came in from the bush, you know? I'm figuring, 'Oh boy, this is trouble.'
"He comes up to me and says, 'Tommy, are you going to be doing that to Gretz anymore?' I mean, like I say, everyone is watching this. I think for a second, and I know this sounds chicken, but I said, 'You know, Dave, I don't think so. Think I'm all set, thanks.' "
And the game played on. Without incident, said Laidlaw.
|
| leafsfan1 |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 05:50:53
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by leafsfan1
there was no unwritten rule that you cant hit gretzky but my brother said he has bodyguards if anybody tried to hit gretzky they would get killed
Go Leafs Go
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
How do you know? Have you not seen it?
my brother has
Go Leafs Go |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 01:33:59
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
1) Believe that there was some order from above to not touch Gretzky (I think someone, maybe Chooch, made this claim on some other thread). Anyone have any hard evidence of this? I find this pretty hard to believe myself
1) It wouldn't have been that hard for the league to do. Just instruct the refs to call penalties on anyone who interfered with Gretzky. And he did get a lot of favourable calls.
Sorry, [1] would not just be pretty hard to do, it would be impossible. If there was some word from league managment down to the players, we would most definately know about it by now. Back then perhaps not, but no doubt whatsover, we'd know by now. Even if there was some sort of illegal explicit favortism forced down on the refs, i'd say we'd still know about that too - and so would have the players.
There is no explaination for [1] at all... I think it illogical to believe that this option is considered a possibility. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 21:36:11
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Here's the thing though Willus3. If you're right that players never back off anyone, and if you're also right that they did back off Gretzky, there clearly is a major contradiction going on. Only three ways to get around that contradiction:
1) Believe that there was some order from above to not touch Gretzky (I think someone, maybe Chooch, made this claim on some other thread). Anyone have any hard evidence of this? I find this pretty hard to believe myself
OR
2) Believe that players didn't back off Gretzky at all and that Gretzky indeed did get hit sometimes but for the most part was able to avoid the players attempting to hit him (seems to be the theory of Beans, Ed and others). I think there is a lot of truth to this, BUT find it hard to agree that players didn't back off him AT ALL, simply because the evidence of old clips, and my recollection, strongly suggest otherwise. I am not saying he never got hit though Ed and company, just saying that Willus's Number 14 example is one of many, in fact there are probably much better ones. I personally recall often wondering back in the 80s, why don't they just try to hit him more? Is it that they just can't? I think his shiftiness, intelligence, etc does indeed account for a large portion of the answer. Personally I think about half. But even if it accounts for say 75%, there still is a big chunk of times where for some other reason he isn't being hit
OR
3) MY WAY Reassess your starting premise that players never back off anyone. Professionals or not, something made a number of players like your Number 14 not try to hit Gretzky when they had the chance. My ramblings in my earlier posts attempt to give some theories. Maybe these theories are wrong, BUT, even if they are, I'd still say that reassessing your starting premise about players NEVER backing off other players is the only logical route to solving this mystery.
1) It wouldn't have been that hard for the league to do. Just instruct the refs to call penalties on anyone who interfered with Gretzky. And he did get a lot of favourable calls.
2)His peripheral vision was exceptional and he was very shifty. I do believe he elude many hits this way. But like you say Andyhack, I always wondered why they weren't hitting him more.
3) The third option to me would be the enforcer theory. I believe this to be the largest factor to him not being hit very often.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 21:25:15
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Hey Willus, did you check out the posting the guy put on about the Gretzky show?? Pretty amazing stuff. I did notice on that one more times where Gretzky could have got hit pretty hard.
So what is your explanation why he didn't get hit when he could have Beans? I'm going to post something a little later that's pretty interesting. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 21:23:23
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Willus, I just watched the Orr Legends of Hockey that you posted. No question, best d-man ever. I would like to bring up a couple of points that I noticed:
1) In the first minute of the video is the most famous goal in hockey history. I watched it over and over. I say this with all the respect to Orr, but that d-man for the leafs (#4) could have put him on his back before he hit the front of the net.
2) Through the interviews, it was said that Orr put his body at an incredible risk. All off the hits I saw, with the exception of one, were knee hits or grazing blows when he was going around someone. It wasn't like they lined him up. And he only got hit on those because he was going to fast.
3) The respect the players had for each other back then was also shown in the video. There was a hit by a player from Philly (Barber I think) who hit him knee on knee. You notice who the first player to see if he was ok was?? The guy who hit him. That doesn't happen anymore.
So here is the link to Gretzky's legends of Hockey. I encourage you to watch it and tell me how many times through this video was he in a position where someone could hammer him. I only saw one clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P60v7rCUVWg
1) I don't know what else that defenseman could have done. He was almost standing still. Hard to hit when you're standing still. Also just to clarify, it was St.Louis not the Leafs.
2)Trust me, he was hit a lot. And knee hits are the worst.
3)I touched on this point in another response.
And I have the Legends of Hockey series on DVD. It's phenomenal.Every hockey fan should have a copy. And yes, I even watched the Gretzky segment. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 21:13:56
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Willus 3 - I agree that the game was very tough/dirty back in say the 60s and 70s (more so before that too). I do think, however, that even then there were certain exceptions made in the "lets level him" way of thinking depending on the type of player that was coming down against you. Again, Ratelle being the best example that comes to mind. In his case though, my memory is of course much stronger when he was in his late 30s surrounded by a very tough cast of Bruins, so maybe it was a combination of respect for his age and also fear of retaliation which seems to be what some of these guys, like tctitans, are saying was the situation for Gretzky.
By the way, I think even when he was younger, there was a bit of "respect" too in Ratelle's case (this goes to my point about naturally laying off certain types of players). Levelling him would have violated some sort of players code of honour maybe - what do you think? Maybe I am wrong as I can't clearly remember Ratelle as a Ranger very well.
Even if there was special treatment sometimes though, I would certainly agree that, back then, it was by far more the exception rather than the rule. But, part of my point about players worrying about injuring someone, particularly of Gretzky's magnitude, is that times changed in the 80s not only on the ice, but off the ice in terms of general societal attitudes towards this "winning at all costs" way of thinking that you mention. In that sense, what is going on recently is interesting as there seems to be a bit of a reversion to pre-80s times. Or is that because there aren't any of those sort of "classy" clean players around anymore?
I don't think it's a conscious thought that says let's level him. The game happens too fast. Unless a guy goes out on the ice thinking that ahead of time, it doesn't happen. You see the opportunity and a split second later you take it or you don't.
There have always been gentlemanly players, but that doesn't mean they didn't take abuse. They just didn't hand it out. Jean Beliveau is a good example. Jean Ratelle took his share too.
To be honest I don't really recall anyone having any special treatment before Bobby Clarke. Enter the enforcer. Thats when things started to change. If someone touched Clarke, the Hammer would make you pay. Sather capitalized on this concept for Gretzky.
The problem with todays players is a complete lack of respect for each other. But that's another topic altogether. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 20:21:18
Here's the thing though Willus3. If you're right that players never back off anyone, and if you're also right that they did back off Gretzky, there clearly is a major contradiction going on. Only three ways to get around that contradiction:
1) Believe that there was some order from above to not touch Gretzky (I think someone, maybe Chooch, made this claim on some other thread). Anyone have any hard evidence of this? I find this pretty hard to believe myself
OR
2) Believe that players didn't back off Gretzky at all and that Gretzky indeed did get hit sometimes but for the most part was able to avoid the players attempting to hit him (seems to be the theory of Beans, Ed and others). I think there is a lot of truth to this, BUT find it hard to agree that players didn't back off him AT ALL, simply because the evidence of old clips, and my recollection, strongly suggest otherwise. I am not saying he never got hit though Ed and company, just saying that Willus's Number 14 example is one of many, in fact there are probably much better ones. I personally recall often wondering back in the 80s, why don't they just try to hit him more? Is it that they just can't? I think his shiftiness, intelligence, etc does indeed account for a large portion of the answer. Personally I think about half. But even if it accounts for say 75%, there still is a big chunk of times where for some other reason he isn't being hit
OR
3) MY WAY Reassess your starting premise that players never back off anyone. Professionals or not, something made a number of players like your Number 14 not try to hit Gretzky when they had the chance. My ramblings in my earlier posts attempt to give some theories. Maybe these theories are wrong, BUT, even if they are, I'd still say that reassessing your starting premise about players NEVER backing off other players is the only logical route to solving this mystery. |
| leigh |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 17:39:47
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
There was no unwritten rule, he was evasive and if you made an attempt to hit him he was around you, and you looked like a fool, so the players would back off so they did not look bad, just my 2 cents...
Pucknuts you took the words out of my mouth. People gave him room because he earned it. It's a lame example I know, but even at my rec hockey level, if i know a guy is slippery I won't step into him, I'll back off and try my best to keep them to the outside. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 16:35:44
Hey Willus, did you check out the posting the guy put on about the Gretzky show?? Pretty amazing stuff. I did notice on that one more times where Gretzky could have got hit pretty hard. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 16:30:37
Ed, you're being a little sensitive about what I said. It wasn't only directed at you. I said you guys. And by no means am I inferring that you know nothing about hockey. I know you must still think I'm a Gretzky hater. But I honestly am not. Look at what I said about him in the best goal scorers poll. Ultimately I would just like people to realize that he accomplished what he did because he didn't have to deal with anywhere near the amount of abuse every other player did.
As for romanticizing, what I mean is that these guys are professionals whose job it is to win. They do not back off anyone and I gave 3 great examples of that.
Beans you mentioned Barber coming back to Orr right after he kneed him in that video clip. I'm glad you noticed that. It showed Barber was not a heartless machine. BUT he still hit Orr. Obviously he respected Orr but it didn't stop him from doing his job. (It was a very dirty knee on knee hit though) |
| ED11 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 15:55:06
Like I said earlier, this thread would get a lot of responses.
Willus. How am I romanticising the game? You act like I have no idea what the game is about...I have played A LOT of hockey. Competitive too. And I have mentioned a couple of times that I am a BIG supporter of hitting in hockey. I'll admitt, I missed Gretzky's edmonton days. But I saw him play with the Kings. He was a very shifty player. And I think that you are overplaying this notion that he NEVER got hit. He did get hit. I don't understand. Is it because you love the old hockey so much and since Gretzky has never been taken out on a stretcher, that means he hasn't got hit? Is it cause he never woke up in a hospital bed after taking an elbow? Does that mean he never got hit? You know what Willus, if I were you I would watch more videos of Gretzky and this time watch for his BRILLIANCE on the ice. Look for the eyes on the back of his head, cause thats basically what he had.
The fact remains Willus. We are not talking about Orr, or Howe, or Makita, or whoever else people have been mentioning. They were not Gretzky. Gretzky was Gretzky. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 15:12:32
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
I have watched a lot of hockey over the years, including international play, and if there was an unwritten rule in the NHL then why did he not get hammered in international play either (except the hit from behind by Suter), I don't think that the rule would have carried to international play.
There was no unwritten rule, he was evasive and if you made an attempt to hit him he was around you, and you looked like a fool, so the players would back off so they did not look bad, just my 2 cents...
The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way...
Generally speaking, international hockey has not been very physical except from the Canadian team. The Europeans and Russians have always played a skill type game. Note Gretz was hit by Suter an American. And American teams fashion themselves after Canadian hockey.
He was very shifty and evasive but that didn't make him un-hittable. The two examples I mentioned are proof that he could have been hit. I'm going to have to go back and watch an old game or two of his. See how many times he could have been but wasn't. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 14:51:06
I have watched a lot of hockey over the years, including international play, and if there was an unwritten rule in the NHL then why did he not get hammered in international play either (except the hit from behind by Suter), I don't think that the rule would have carried to international play.
There was no unwritten rule, he was evasive and if you made an attempt to hit him he was around you, and you looked like a fool, so the players would back off so they did not look bad, just my 2 cents...
The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way...
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 14:03:55
Willus, I just watched the Orr Legends of Hockey that you posted. No question, best d-man ever. I would like to bring up a couple of points that I noticed:
1) In the first minute of the video is the most famous goal in hockey history. I watched it over and over. I say this with all the respect to Orr, but that d-man for the leafs (#4) could have put him on his back before he hit the front of the net.
2) Through the interviews, it was said that Orr put his body at an incredible risk. All off the hits I saw, with the exception of one, were knee hits or grazing blows when he was going around someone. It wasn't like they lined him up. And he only got hit on those because he was going to fast.
3) The respect the players had for each other back then was also shown in the video. There was a hit by a player from Philly (Barber I think) who hit him knee on knee. You notice who the first player to see if he was ok was?? The guy who hit him. That doesn't happen anymore.
So here is the link to Gretzky's legends of Hockey. I encourage you to watch it and tell me how many times through this video was he in a position where someone could hammer him. I only saw one clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P60v7rCUVWg |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 13:53:46
I'll get back to you Andyhack. Gotta get some work done first. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 13:52:22
quote:
Originally posted by leafsfan1
there was no unwritten rule that you cant hit gretzky but my brother said he has bodyguards if anybody tried to hit gretzky they would get killed
Go Leafs Go
How do you know? Have you not seen it?
 |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 13:47:06
quote:
At 1:20 it looked like #14 was dazzled by the puck and he took a swipe at it. Maybe he chose to go for the puck instead of the body. At 1:54 Gretzky had already scored by the time the guy got there so he let up slightly. I think it is a strong topic but those are weak examples for your case willus.
What was weak is the lackluster effort the guy put forth to even do anything about Gretzky. He could easily have checked him. A nice open ice hit. But nah, let's just sidestep him instead. And the second one, yes he let up because he just scored but if it were anyone else he would have been hit by a guy finishing his check. |
| leafsfan1 |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 13:21:14
there was no unwritten rule that you cant hit gretzky but my brother said he has bodyguards if anybody tried to hit gretzky they would get killed
Go Leafs Go |
| admin |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 13:19:37
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
This video has two very clear examples of guys purposely not hitting him or letting up alot before they hit him. At 1:20 of the clip #14 has him lined up, he could easily have leveled Gretzky but instead went out of his way to not even so much as touch him. At 1:54 he's just standing in front of the net and a guy comes in and again could have flattened him but instead slows right up and bumps him.
These examples are early in his career too which is relevant because people will say he they didn't hit him later in his career because they respected him. So why didn't they hit him early in his career before he had earned that respect? Can someone please explain satisfactorily why these two guys didn't hit him when clearly they easily could have?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxnSMXx1KCQ
At 1:20 it looked like #14 was dazzled by the puck and he took a swipe at it. Maybe he chose to go for the puck instead of the body. At 1:54 Gretzky had already scored by the time the guy got there so he let up slightly. I think it is a strong topic but those are weak examples for your case willus. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 13:09:36
Willus 3 - I agree that the game was very tough/dirty back in say the 60s and 70s (more so before that too). I do think, however, that even then there were certain exceptions made in the "lets level him" way of thinking depending on the type of player that was coming down against you. Again, Ratelle being the best example that comes to mind. In his case though, my memory is of course much stronger when he was in his late 30s surrounded by a very tough cast of Bruins, so maybe it was a combination of respect for his age and also fear of retaliation which seems to be what some of these guys, like tctitans, are saying was the situation for Gretzky.
By the way, I think even when he was younger, there was a bit of "respect" too in Ratelle's case (this goes to my point about naturally laying off certain types of players). Levelling him would have violated some sort of players code of honour maybe - what do you think? Maybe I am wrong as I can't clearly remember Ratelle as a Ranger very well.
Even if there was special treatment sometimes though, I would certainly agree that, back then, it was by far more the exception rather than the rule. But, part of my point about players worrying about injuring someone, particularly of Gretzky's magnitude, is that times changed in the 80s not only on the ice, but off the ice in terms of general societal attitudes towards this "winning at all costs" way of thinking that you mention. In that sense, what is going on recently is interesting as there seems to be a bit of a reversion to pre-80s times. Or is that because there aren't any of those sort of "classy" clean players around anymore?
|
|
|
