| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| andyhack |
Posted - 11/27/2007 : 14:43:39
This relates to recent comments in the "Sid on his knees" thread.
I actually find the expression "He revolutionized the game" a bit overstated for any player. I understand where it is coming from certainly. To me the player it most applies to in the history of hockey is Orr as he certainly had a HUGE influence in terms of opening the door for more rushing defencemen. BUT, even with Bobby, it is a bit of a potentially misleading expression. I mean, from what I've heard and seen (on clips anyway), it's not like Doug Harvey or Harry Howell or Red Kelly NEVER took a rush up with the puck or NEVER tried to be creative offensively. Maybe I am being picky with words here, but I find these type of expressions kind of a symptom of our need to idolize SUPERDUPER EARTH-SHATTERING GREATNESS more than anything else. I prefer to leave the comment at just something like, "So and So had a very significant influence on players and the game". Maybe that's saying basically the same thing, but I like the fact that it doesn't obliterate what Harvey, Kelly and Howell did. Sorry - I know I am being picky, but my point is in the nuance of the "revolutionize" expression I guess.
By the way, I feel the same way when the expression is used in other contexts too. I am a big Brando fan and he is often credited with "revolutionizing acting". But this is potentially misleading too (and my guess is he probably wasn't too fond of such expressions either). A HUGE influence on acting, YES, there can be no doubt about that (Pacino, De Niro, Nicholson, Hoffman - there is an endless list of guys who were profoundly influenced), BUT if what we are implying is that ABSOLUTELY NOONE EVER TOOK ANYWHERE EVEN REMOTELY NEAR a similar approach to acting as Brando did, that is a bit of an overstatement in my opinion.
And, just as guys like Howell, Kelly and Harvey may be ignored for their offensive abilities by current generations, the Brando line does a disservice to the many fine actors before Marlon who indeed did try to express their inner emotions in their roles rather than just reading off a script (which is what Brando is often credited for). They perhaps didn't do it nearly as powerfully as Brando, but some guys out there were doing things other than just reading off scripts with upper class British accents.
That whole line is an exaggeration, the same way people exaggerate when they say things like, "Gretzky created the office behind the net thing". Bobby Clarke was doing that thing in the '70s. Certainly not as effectively as Wayne, but he WAS doing it. Gretzky did not ADD that to the game of hockey anymore than Orr ADDED the idea of a defenceman rushing with the puck to hockey, or more than Brando ADDED the idea of using your inner emotions in your acting.
Sorry for going on. Ohhh maaaa - in a way I am taking on BOTH Orr and Gretzky fans here. I better take cover! |
| 16 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| andyhack |
Posted - 11/29/2007 : 10:08:49
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
When I think of a player that has revolutionized the game, I think of something a player did for the first time, or was tried, and failed, but he made it successful, and is still used in the game today.
I like that definition and agree with the good Plante, Hull, Boom Boom... examples given.
Beans, I know, it's just an expression. No big deal. What triggered me into the discussion was the comment by the Guest in the Sid on his knees thread that Sid was "revolutionizing the game" and the subsequent objection to that by IHC. I think the two points that I'm trying to make are:
1) One can be a great great great player and not "revolutionize the game" (see my recent comments in the Sid on his knees thread - Trottier didn't revolutionize the game for example). So, in that sense, why bother using the expression in terms of measuring greatness? I prefer Pucknut's way of using it.
2) If we use somewhat colorful expressions like that, maybe we should also insert some qualifications to protect the legacies of guys who may be washed away by the wave of such hyperbole
Both of the above are not huge points by any means. I lose more sleep over 7,777,777 other things. Just thrown out there for discussion - and that goal seems to have been accomplished 
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/29/2007 : 09:44:54
What I am gathering from this topic is that through the history of hockey, there have been three ways in changing the game. Equipment, player styles, and coaching styles. Some can argue if the are "revolutionary" by definition, but I think all can agree that either equipment, very special players, and unique coaching styles/systems leave a stamp on the game and shape it to what it will become in the future.
Who knows, maybe this heated skate blade thing takes off. If it is revolutionary or not is a cow's point of view in my opinion(fans of "Friends will get that joke).
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| nashvillepreds |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 14:37:51
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Now on Andyhacks side of the argument, strictly speaking, no one can really revolutionize the game otherwise it would become a new game by definition.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
I have to agree with this logic!
GO PREDATORS GO |
| hkalirah |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 13:43:12
How about François Allaire who introduced the butterfly style of goaltending?
Go Wings Go! |
| Guest4790 |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 11:35:35
How about Geoffrion, who introduced the slapshot into the NHL? |
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 11:29:52
Now on Andyhacks side of the argument, strictly speaking, no one can really revolutionize the game otherwise it would become a new game by definition.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 11:27:29
Oh sorry Beans, poor choice of wording there. I meant no one does it today at even strength, period. I didn't mean compared to Gretzky. Even if they did play that way though, it's highly unlikely they would do it as well as Gretzky. I wouldn't argue that.
No one can do it like Orr but they certainly have tried.
After Orr there were Offensive d-men, defensive d-men and all around d-men. Before Orr there were just D-men.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 10:05:53
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Willus, do you recall power play systems before 1980?? If so, did they normally have a guy behind the goal line and going from one side of the net to the other??
Behind the net is a high risk play, and that is why you don't see it happen often even strength. However, you do see it often on the PP. Did that not come from Gretzky's ability to set up easy goals from behind the net??
An honest question. Not trying to prove a point at all.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
You are correct Beans, it wasn't common before then on the PP. But I can't think of anyone today who does it at even strength like Gretzky did.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
Not unlike no one can rush from the defensive position like Bobby Orr could.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 09:29:30
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Willus, do you recall power play systems before 1980?? If so, did they normally have a guy behind the goal line and going from one side of the net to the other??
Behind the net is a high risk play, and that is why you don't see it happen often even strength. However, you do see it often on the PP. Did that not come from Gretzky's ability to set up easy goals from behind the net??
An honest question. Not trying to prove a point at all.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
You are correct Beans, it wasn't common before then on the PP. But I can't think of anyone today who does it at even strength like Gretzky did.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 08:44:00
When I think of a player that has revolutionized the game, I think of something a player did for the first time, or was tried, and failed, but he made it successful, and is still used in the game today.
Take a look a High Jump, the “Fosbury Flop”, d*** Fosbury came up with a new idea that was within the rules, and every high jumper today does the flop, and not the “Western Roll”.
So now back to hockey, how about Bomm Boom Geoffrion, the first known player to take a slap shot, and still in use by every player in today’s game.
Jacques Plante was not the first to use a mask (Clint Benedict) but was the first to use one on a regular basis, now every goalie has to wear a mask, but do you think one would want to if it was not mandatory.
How about Stan Mikita, and Bobby Hull were the first to use a curved stick on a regular basis, although there is documentation that Andy Bathgate used one before they did…
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/27/2007 : 21:43:52
Willus, do you recall power play systems before 1980?? If so, did they normally have a guy behind the goal line and going from one side of the net to the other??
Behind the net is a high risk play, and that is why you don't see it happen often even strength. However, you do see it often on the PP. Did that not come from Gretzky's ability to set up easy goals from behind the net??
An honest question. Not trying to prove a point at all.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 11/27/2007 : 20:33:47
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Revolutionize - "to change fundamentally or completely"
Yeah, I guess I can buy "fundamentally changed the game" for Orr.
But the alternatives in that definition are interesting. For me there is a subtle but important difference between the words "fundamentally" and "completely". Again, I KNOW I am being picky, but I think that my point here actually lies in that subtle difference. "Completely" sounds too much to me like implying no defenceman ever tried anything at all offensively prior to Orr. I know that not everyone woud draw that connotation and also that certain hockey fans would do their research and figure out that this is not entirely true, but I also know that a lot of people, even diehard hockey fans, who read or hear such a statement would likely just stop there and conclude that prior to Orr no defenceman ever really rushed with the puck. That's too bad for some of those other guys I mentioned I think.
"Fundamentally" sounds better to me as it seems to focus more on the point that Willus/Beans seem to be making - not that something was necessarily "added" to the game, but that something which wasn't common before was significantly improved upon and made common. That seems to protect the legacies of some of those oldtimers better for this nitpicking editor.
I do acknowledge though that if the "revolutionize" expression suits anyone, it best suits Bobby Orr.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/27/2007 : 19:19:13
Revolutionize - "to change fundamentally or completely"
There is only one guy I can think of who did this. Yes there may have been defencemen who rushed the puck before Orr but until he showed people what defencemen could do offensively it was not common practice. Kelly and Shore would rush the puck but it was certainly more of the exception than anything else. After Orr in the seventies every team was looking for their offensive d-man. It was a must have and strategies were designed around the concept. It became the accepted way and the following decade bore that out.
That didn't happen after Shore or Kelly or Harvey. It happened after and solely because of Orr.
Compare defencemen's stats from even just as far back as Harvey to d-men after Orr. That alone is very telling.
Andyhack, I think, like me, you have a problem with how you interpret the meaning of a particular word. Your word is revolutionize. Mine is dominate. I have a hard time with how people use that word in regards to hockey players. So I understand what you're saying completely. However I do believe that revolutionize does describe what Orr did.
I don't think it describes anyone else. People may say Gretzky playing behind the net. To be honest that isn't all that common. It's a very high risk play and if you don't possess superior vision (most players do not) you will likely get burned. Name a player who consistently plays behind the net. Now name an offensive d-man. Which was easier to think of.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| nashvillepreds |
Posted - 11/27/2007 : 16:45:54
Another player, well not a player but a goalie to add to this would be Patrick Roy. He wasn't the first butterfly goalie but he may be the best ever. I've heard a lot of people say that he was the cause of the "dead puck era" but he wasn't. It was the trap strategy of many teams that caused the dead puck era. Roy didn't revolutionaize the game, whoever the first butterfly goalie was didn't either, they just had a big impact on the way it was played.
Brodeur on the other hand does not play the butterfly style and is still very intimidating and effective with his new goalie strategies. Just like Orr, he wasn't the first defenceman to take a rush up into the attacking end but he arguably was the most effective and he changed the strategy of many great defencemen yet to come.
I agree with your Orr and Gretzky comments, they didn't really start their signature plays but they were very effective and did change the game in some ways whether it was in a positive or negative way.
GO PREDATORS GO |
| Guest4024 |
Posted - 11/27/2007 : 16:38:09
I agree with you there, Beans. Another example is how Patrick Roy revolutionized the butterfly technique. Of course, other goaltenders were doing it, but he did it the best. Luongo used to be standup until he realized how much better butterfly is. That being said, a player can revolutionize a game by excelling at an uncommon practice of a technique and making other players want to do it more often. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/27/2007 : 16:25:36
Andy, I hear ya, but I do disagree. In my opinion, a player who revolutionized the game is a guy that took a not so common peice of the game and did it so much better than anyone else that it became common practice. Very much like Orr. He wasn't the first rushing type defenseman, but he did it so much better than anyone else that it became more of a common practice. He paved the way for guys like Coffey and Leetch, and now most teams have a "rushing" type defenseman. Same as Gretzky behind the net. Yes, Clarke was doing that in the 70's, but Gretzky did it better than anyone. Now, there are power play systems designed off of a player behind the net. Did you really see that before Gretzky played in the 80's?? (That's a serious question, I would like to hear the answer from guys who watched hockey in the 60's and 70's.)
That being said, other guys come to mind like Lindros. Before he came along, a guy that size would have been coached into a defenseman position. With him, he shown to the world that a big guy can play really angry and be offensive. Lemiuex may have started that evolution off of what Howe did. Lindros took it the next step to not only being a big forward, but also angry.
So yes, I believe there were players and will be players in the future that have a skill that few possessed in the past that change the way the game is played. I'm sure I missed some players that other may have found to be revolutionary, and I'm sure people will disagree. But I stongly feel that there have been players who revolutionized the way the game is played today. Not many though, and no disrespect, I don't think there is a single player in the league today that I would consider a revolutionary player.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
|
|
