| Author |
 Topic  |
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
 Posted - 04/04/2007 : 18:52:22
|
Poll Question:
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.
|
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 19:01:02
|
AWESOME thread Willus!
Let me start it off if I may...
I have had this discussion with SOOOOO many people and I personally think it is a load of crap. (parond my french). In a recent interview Wendel Clark was asked this SAME question in which he responded. "hahaha. I tried hitting Wayne. It was not easy to do. He never put himself into that situation to get drilled." This was an interview on "off the record". I HATE when people argue that there was this "unwritten rule". Gretzky was a VERY shiffty player. HE WAS NOT EASY TO HIT.
Ofcourse being as great as he was other players on other teams knew that if they hit him they would have to deal with the other teams tough guy. But that is NOT because the league would have suspened someone if they did hit him. It was because what team wants their top player injured, right?
So anyway, to me this "rule" is crap. There was no rule. That is my opinion. But this should be an interesting thread. I know that what I just said will fire some people up, haha. |
Edited by - ED11 on 04/04/2007 19:23:31 |
 |
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 20:20:01
|
I think, in a certain sense, yes, there was an "unwritten rule". I also think at the same time that what Ed11 says about Gretzky being hard to hit, backed up by Wendel Clark's statement, was very true. It was a combination I think. Wendel was not the type to give into such a "rule" but I think others of a less aggressive nature than Wendel might have backed off Gretzky for a number of reasons ranging from respect (they used to say people backed off Jean Ratelle out of respect), to fear of damaging hockey's marketing superstar. I don't think it was an unwritten rule in anything more than that sort of psychological way (no orders from NHL brass or anything like that). And, unlike the Gretzky haters out there, I don't think it necessarily takes much, if anything, away from Gretzky's greatness, cause as I see it, if there was an "unwritten rule" it was a rule which his opponents created in their own heads and he shouldn't be thought less of because of that in and of itself. And the ones that didn't create such a rule in their heads, like Wendel, had problems making contact with him, cause he was indeed smart and shifty, etc.
But I qualified that he shouldn't be thought less of "because of that in and of itself" because , unlike diehard Gretzky supporters, I do think there is some legitimacy in asking what would have happened if Gretzky would have played in a different era, one where players may not have let such things creep into their head as much. I also think there is legitimacy in the "greatest ever" debate to talking about how Orr had to deal with aggressive players/hits all the time, partially as a result of his own aggressiveness and partially purely as a result of his position (and, again, maybe also partially cause of the different era thing, though as I say, even back then some players of a certain nature, like Ratelle, were maybe laid off of a little).
Overall, therefore, I would probably answer "yes and no" if that were one of the choices. But, as it isn't, my answer will be "yes".
Either way though, I say both diehard Gretzky supporters and diehard Gretzky haters, let's get together at Camp AndyHack and iron out a peace deal! |
Edited by - andyhack on 04/05/2007 05:25:55 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 20:49:14
|
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
|
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 21:26:26
|
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. |
Edited by - ED11 on 04/05/2007 01:08:42 |
|
|
|
Saku Steen
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1102 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 03:41:59
|
| If I were someone playing aganist Gretzky I would hit him. You play for your team and you want your team to win. If you dont he could just go around you and score. This is just a thought. |
|
|
|
Novie
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
452 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 05:00:20
|
After skimming the enormous posts above, I have these points which may be repeats, but:
1) Hockey 20 years ago...a lot of players would be 'lined up' by todays standards, but there was a bit more respect and scoring outranked the huge hit on the importance scale
2) if anyone ever DID level Gretz, it would have started World War III on ice.
Go Sens
Crosby is God
Tucker is a douche |
|
|
|
semin-rules
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1915 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 05:16:16
|
It might have been an "Unwritten Rule" but I think that is terrible. if you have the guts to hit Gretz, thats a lot, because if you do, the whole team will come after you. Like Skau said, if I played against him, I would hit a guy that gets the frontpage and is talked about by everyone. Even if I was on his team, I would be a little upset with him. He gets all the credit for the team. (I'm guessing) And if you know you do a lot and you don't get noticed, that would make me pissed.
~~~~~COME ON STARS, LETS BRING IT HOME~~~~~ |
Edited by - semin-rules on 04/05/2007 05:16:43 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 05:50:46
|
I think a lot of times the decision not to hit is a subconcious one and it comes partly from a general fear of injuring someone (see Ed11's point above) but also I think a specific attitude about the particular opponent (if it's a skill player who never hits you, you may lay off him, at least a little).
I am not saying it is right or wrong (maybe that's for another thread), and I'll agree with others who will respond that SOME hockey players generally don't let such things creep into their head, but I do think a lot of them do let such things into their heads, cause ultimately a hockey player is just a human being. Think of when you are playing sports. Are you not more aggressive with your more aggressive opponents?
What I am saying above is what I believe is just a natural way of thinking. Now factor in the fact that, particularly in the early 80s, the Gretzky marketing machine was in full throttle, and I think that 7 or 8 of 10 players are even that much further likely to lay off a little. So for me it's not so much an "unwritten rule" as just the natural result of human nature. |
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 07:16:59
|
I would like to further clearify my second post above...
What I was saying is this. I am sure that everyone here would agree that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of a player skating with the puck to keep his head up. Am I right on that one? Everyone agrees I am sure. BUT! There is also, or at least SHOULD be to a certain extent, a RESPONSIBILITY for the person making a hit to judge weather or not he should crush the guy or maybe lay off a little. I hope I am making myself clear here. Again I say, I am a BIG supporter of hitting in hockey. But lets be a little "human" about this. NO ONE likes to be injured, and if you have played hockey I'm 100% sure that at some point in your career you have been injured by a bone headed hit or something that was NOT necessary. As soon as Gretzky entered the league people knew he was something special. And I am glad that in certain times when a player had Gretzky lined up and could have nailed him, they didn't. With that said, I don't think there was a "rule". If ANYTHING, this rule, or "mindset" to not hit Gretzky would have been created by the players THEMSELVES out of respect for Gretzky. NOT because the league said not to hit him but just never wrote it down.
As andy mentioned above. We are all human.
By the way, for ALL OF YOU who want to see Gretzky get hit...here he is skating with his head down. He gets SMASHED. Clean hit. Lucky he wasn't seriously injured or hockey might not be what it is now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72oxwUo1T9E |
Edited by - ED11 on 04/05/2007 08:20:12 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 08:29:13
|
| Willus3 - watched the first example in your clips a couple of times now. Is it just me, or was that just awful defence! Forgetting the idea of "drilling" Gretzky for a second, Number 14 could of at least tried to put his body between Gretzky and the natural progression of that play and, yes, probably he should have followed through with at least some body contact. That was just really bad defence. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 08:40:06
|
That hit on Gretzky from Bill McCreary was the story(the video above) that started the unwritten Gretzky rule. After that game, as the story goes, McCreary never played in the NHL again. However, looking at McCreary, he was a marginal player at best so it is hard to say if the hit or his weak play was the reason he never played in the NHL again.
And to the question, I think it is a not as easy to say if it is true or not. I agree with AndyHack's point that there was more respect in the game 20 years ago, especially for the stars. It wasn't only Gretzky who rarely got leveled, but most of the stars didn't.
I do think there was a certain message sent to the players that if Gretzky was taken out for a long period of time or permanently it would hurt the game. And let's clear something up right now. It's not like he never got hit. He got hit often. They just weren't huge hits. That is the respect that was in the league. No one was out to injure anyone. The hit was delivered the way it was needed to be delivered. There were a lot of situations where a player could have hammered the other guy, but instead road him off the put. Not like it is today where there are people out there trying to hurt other people with the hit.
And I also agree with ED11 that Gretzky was a very hard player to line up. That hit that McCreary laid on him was in 1981, Gretzky's 2nd year. I think he learned from that. Just like Ovechkin learned in the World Juniors after Phaneuf spent 2 periods beating the crap out of him. Ovechkin got bigger and stronger to handle it. Gretzky got even smarter to not put himself in that position if he could avoid it.
In the end, I think the biggest thing is the respect that was in the game before the 90's. Although I can not prove it, I don't recall seeing Orr, Esposito, Howe, or the other greats from before the 80's get absolutely plastered. It wasn't part of the game. Willus/Andyhack/PuckNuts, I would love to hear your perspective on this as you had a chance to watch hockey back then.
Funny thing is that the same can hold true today. There was a period earlier in the season when Crosby was getting worked by most of teams he played. The spear by Blake followed by the Pitt/Mont game where Crosby got dumped after the first face off I clearly recall. Did the Pitt coach not go on record as saying the league needed to do something to protect star players like Crosby?? Was that not the first topic of conversation at the GM meeting that happened a few weeks after that?? Did they not discuss changing the instigator rule for next year in that meeting?? The league will always protect their stars. So to other leagues. Remember the Jordan rules?? Don’t you think there is a reason behind the penalties in the NFL regarding hits to the QB??
|
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 08:50:29
|
| Very nicley put beans. The respect thing that we are talking about, from what I am reading from the guys that watched hockey in the 80's, seems to be holding some water. At least I think it does. But also, I am happy that someone finally acknowleged that Gretzky did get hit quite often. Just not hammered. That is the point that I was trying to make at the end on my second post in this thread. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 12:21:44
|
I don't know, but I think you guys are romanticizing hockey a bit here. Hockey is a tough game. Not a touch game. In the past they played to win at all costs. I think most people don't realize how brutal and violent the game actually was back in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Checking was always a part of the game and if you think that guys let up back then, you are mistaken. I didn't see hockey then, but my father and grandfather have had many long conversations about it. The 70's was not much different.
quote:
In the end, I think the biggest thing is the respect that was in the game before the 90's. Although I can not prove it, I don't recall seeing Orr, Esposito, Howe, or the other greats from before the 80's get absolutely plastered. It wasn't part of the game. Willus/Andyhack/PuckNuts, I would love to hear your perspective on this as you had a chance to watch hockey back then.
Beans to answer your question, yes they were hit. Orr was probably hit more than most in fact. He was keyed on by the entire opposing team. In fact Pat Quinn had Orr lined up one game, Bobby was trying to squeak through along the boards like he so often would, but he had his head down (rare for Orr) and Quinn laid a crushing hit on him. Still one of the hardest hits I've seen. Orr fell back and hit his head on the ice and was knocked out. Concussion for sure but you didn't hear about that back then. I remember seeing an Esposito interview where he said (after Orr had been traded to the Hawks) he said that when they played against Orr it was said to key on his bad knee, make him use it, turn on it. To Espo's credit he said it bothered him.
Esposito took abuse like you wouldn't believe too. He parked himself in front of the net and wouldn't move. But guys sure tried. He was cross checked, slashed, tripped etc... Howe, well he is a special case. Other players gave him alot of room to work. But that was because Howe was famous for retaliation. Not right away, but it would happen. When he did pay back the favour it was invariably far worse than what was given to him. Stan Makita woke up in the hospital after a Howe elbow. Makita gives up about 30 pounds and a couple inches to Howe. No one eased up on anyone. You were tough or you didn't play. Didn't you ever wonder why all the hockey pundits at the time said Gretzky wouldn't last in the NHL? It's because they didn't know he wasn't going to be hit. |
Edited by - willus3 on 04/05/2007 12:26:04 |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 12:28:17
|
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.
Now the question is... Did he intentially not hit him because of some unwritten rule? or because they were afraid to get their face pummeled if they did?
I believe that the latter was a huge factor in why Wayne wasnt hit that much. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 12:45:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
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.
Now the question is... Did he intentially not hit him because of some unwritten rule? or because they were afraid to get their face pummeled if they did?
I believe that the latter was a huge factor in why Wayne wasnt hit that much.
I believe you are correct. But I still can't rule out the other either.
Hey Beans check out my latest I Miss post if you'd like to see how much Orr was hit. |
Edited by - willus3 on 04/05/2007 12:46:27 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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?
|
Edited by - andyhack on 04/05/2007 13:14:24 |
|
|
|
admin
Forum Admin
Canada
2338 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
leafsfan1
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
338 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 13:53:46
|
| I'll get back to you Andyhack. Gotta get some work done first. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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 |
Edited by - Beans15 on 04/05/2007 14:06:00 |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
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...
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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) |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
leafsfan1
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
338 Posts |
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 |
Edited by - leafsfan1 on 04/06/2007 06:19:59 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
BigShow
Rookie
177 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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? |
Edited by - andyhack on 04/06/2007 21:19:22 |
|
|
|
BigShow
Rookie
177 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Unwritten Rule 
