Replies

Tom -- I was being a bit facetious -- I'm just nostalgic for the days of Yvan Cournoyer flying down the ice, and being able to recognize the players without trying to read the jerseys. But more seriously, I do think there is a lot of evidence that there are more injuries -- certainly more concussions -- since helmet use was mandated. When was it, late 70s, early 80s? I think it has actually encouraged more nasty stick work because of a false sense of safety. I guess my argument is equal parts nostalgia, style and safety. What are your thoughts on it?

speedy wrote: Tom -- I was being a bit facetious -- I'm just nostalgic for the days of Yvan Cournoyer flying down the ice, and being able to recognize the players without trying to read the jerseys. But more seriously, I do think there is a lot of evidence that there are more injuries -- certainly more concussions -- since helmet use was mandated. When was it, late 70s, early 80s? I think it has actually encouraged more nasty stick work because of a false sense of safety. I guess my argument is equal parts nostalgia, style and safety. What are your thoughts on it?

What killed hockey was the introduction of goons whose only talent is to start fights to break the other team's momentum.

This tactic was introduced by Punch Imlach when he coached the Buffalo Sabres after expansion.

The Sabres were terrible, so he used Tracy Pratt as a goon.

There were always fights in hockey, but it was only after expansion that fighting be came part of the game strategy.

Another thing that hurt hockey as a spectator sport was the switch from advancing the puck along the boards to taking it up the middle.

But more seriously, I do think there is a lot of evidence that there are more injuries -- certainly more concussions -- since helmet use was mandated. When was it, late 70s, early 80s? I think it has actually encouraged more nasty stick work because of a false sense of safety.

This point has been made for a long time by Don Cherry, especially regarding face shields. We're stuck with helmets, however, because of the nature of the sport and the number of really hard things that a player's head can collide with - a flying puck, the rink boards or glass, other players' skate blades and the rock-hard ice playing surface.

What are your thoughts on it?

Speedy,

Amateur athelete still, I've always held the view, more equipment= more injuries. We all played sandlot whatever, e.g. tackle football- w/o equipment. I don't remember ANY injuries. Sort of "self policing" as to not injure a rival, and perhaps, more selfishly, yourself. The more pads, the more one becomes a more hostile projectile- thinking both you and your rival are insulated from injury.

So, as to hockey, less equipment would mean more "measured" checks; less careless sticks, etc.- The "goons" could still bang away, but the finesse players could more concentrate on skill and speed that once made hockey fun to watch,

As to helmets and face masks, (IMPORTANT PREFACE, I'M NOT GAY, actually or subliminally- :-)) but these are young athletes. The trademark of Guy Lafleur was his speed, which was partly evinced by how his hair (instead of now, his toupee :)) streamed back -he looked like a jet on ice. One could see the determination, concentration and competitive fire in the players' expressions.

Equipped with helmets and shields, they look like skating robots- no personality. I just think that the game would have more appeal and vibrancy, especially to females, if the fans could more readily identify and "personalize" the players.

Just my thought on marketing the game, once the NHL finally gets back on the ice and jettisons Mr. Basketball Bettman, and his "vision" that destroyed the game during his tenure.