1958 Sport Magazine polled 70 writers for an all-time hockey team

[overpass]

In 1958, Sport Magazine polled 70 sports writers and commentators from across the United States and Canada to choose an all-time, all-star NHL hockey team, providing a snapshot of the general opinion on the all-time greats.

I haven't seen the article itself that Sport published. It was in their March 1958 issue, with baseball pitcher Lew Burdette on the cover. If anyone has access to the issue, it would be interesting to get more details.

Here's a writeup (in French) on the team from Parlons Sports, Feb 8 1958

G: Bill Durnan
D: Eddie Shore
D: Doug Harvey
LW: Gordie Howe
C: Howie Morenz
RW: Maurice Richard

The article in Parlons Sports has a few notes about the approximate vote totals.

Maurice Richard received the most votes, "almost 25% more than any of his teammates on this all-time all-star team," and "came very close to being chosen unanimously."
Howie Morenz was "easily chosen at the centre position."
Gordie Howe was chosen over Ted Lindsay at LW, who "put up a fierce fight with his former teammate".
Eddie Shore "earned the most votes among the defense players".
Doug Harvey "had no difficulty earning a position on the blueline alongside Eddie Shore."
No mention was made of Durnan's vote totals or competition.

La Patrie, Feb 2, 1958, also references Sport's team.

Phil Seguin of La Patrie explains that two right wingers were chosen because voters were not required to specify the position of the wings. So maybe some just picked the two best wingers, and others preferred to pick a LW and an RW? I have a hard time believing Lindsay would be close behind Howe if position was really not a consideration.

La Patrie also lists other stars who received votes.

Wingers Ted Lindsay, Bill Cook, Harvey Jackson, Aurele Joliat,
Goalies Frank Brimsek, Terry Sawchuk, Chuck Gardiner, Turk Broda, Roy Worters, George Hainsworth
Defenders Ching Johnson, Red Kelly, King Clancy
Centres Milt Schmidt, Bill Cowley, Syl Apps, and Jean Beliveau

It looks like the voters didn't go back to pre-consolidation hockey, except for players like Morenz, Cook, and Clancy who still played most of their careers after 1926. No mention of Nighbor, Taylor, Lalonde, or Cleghorn. Seguin wrote that this team of stars "will probably not satisfy the veterans, but even those who claim the best hockey was played 40 years ago must admit that this club would be difficult to beat in any era of hockey."

Click to read more...

 

[overpass]

Personally, I'm not surprised by any of the 6 names on their list, it's what I would expect.

Some of the voting notes are interesting. For one, that Maurice Richard was probably considered the greatest of all time at this point, and Gordie Howe hadn't yet overtaken him. Also confirmation that Eddie Shore was #1 at defence before Doug Harvey, and Harvey hadn't passed him yet.

And the fact that there were 70 voters is great - not because it means they're infallible, but because you know you're really getting the consensus at the time, without having to research and aggregate individual opinions.

Also, even without knowing individual vote totals, we know nobody other than Maurice Richard was on more than 75% of ballots, so there was some diversity of opinion.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm surprised by Durnan...but maybe goalies were always voodoo...

There's really never been unanimity or near-unanimity in goalies at virtually any relevant point in history...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Interesting that there was no mention of Nighbor (and/or that Morenz got such a large share of the vote). But, as you suggested, that could be because some/all of the voters weren't going back pre-1918.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I think this does a good job on demonstrating why I struggle so much with Richard.

The stats aren't eye-popping. Well, the playoff goals are, but other than that you're left wanting more.

The footage isn't great. Most of it he's old, but the late 50s Habs footage doesn't help him.

But the contemporary opinions are glowing. If we go by contemporary opinion only, he's pretty much in a category with Orr and Gretzky post-consolidation. Was Crosby or Lemieux or even Howe ever as beloved as Richard was circa 1960? It's so hard to square the two opposing sides.

It hurts even more when you read the Bowman quote

"A lot has to do with excitement. Before Gretzky, before expansion — and I lived through this — the argument always was, who’s the better player, Howe or Richard? This is what people always said: If you want to fill your building, you pick the Rocket. If you want to win championships, you pick Howe."

Isn't this a condemnation of Richard? That he was insanely popular and thrilling to watch, but that Howe was the clear better player?

Nothing makes sense.

 

[Michael Farkas]

One-way, specialist wingers are overrated and they always have been and, apparently, will continue to be...

 

[MadLuke]

P.S. Simple Tv, Toaster and washing machine costed a fortune back then... average wage was like $68 a week in Quebec, that like $2500-3000 for a washing machine ($4500 for the fancy model) and $250-300 toaster.

We see why over time paying a specialist 2 hours to repair stuff became more expensive than buying new one.

 

[MadLuke]

The footage isn't great. Most of it he's old, but the late 50s Habs footage doesn't help him.

Who and how the radio broadcast talked about players could have influenced contemporary opinion of players, one can imagine.

The pool made in February 1958, at that time:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Richard had more than 500 goals when no one had 400 yet, he had 122 playoff points no one above 85, 81 playoff goals no one above 46. Howe will still win 3 Hart, 2 Ross, after that but no cup and his big peak window was fully over.

So it does not mean those voters will not change opinion in 10 years regarding Howe vs Richard, but it is still informative about how much resistance and time it took.

But we tend to see a window where people give a benefit of the doubt to the older guy, even if it was clear (see McDavid vs Crosby how long it took for people to say ok that official or even Gretzky vs Lafleur that continued to be a talk way too long)

 

[overpass]

I think this does a good job on demonstrating why I struggle so much with Richard.

The stats aren't eye-popping. Well, the playoff goals are, but other than that you're left wanting more.

The footage isn't great. Most of it he's old, but the late 50s Habs footage doesn't help him.

But the contemporary opinions are glowing. If we go by contemporary opinion only, he's pretty much in a category with Orr and Gretzky post-consolidation. Was Crosby or Lemieux or even Howe ever as beloved as Richard was circa 1960? It's so hard to square the two opposing sides.

It hurts even more when you read the Bowman quote

"A lot has to do with excitement. Before Gretzky, before expansion — and I lived through this — the argument always was, who’s the better player, Howe or Richard? This is what people always said: If you want to fill your building, you pick the Rocket. If you want to win championships, you pick Howe."

Isn't this a condemnation of Richard? That he was insanely popular and thrilling to watch, but that Howe was the clear better player?

Nothing makes sense.

Parlons Sports included a writeup on Richard in their article, in which they highlight his one-dimensional nature.

The greatest scorer that hockey has ever known, Maurice Richard is the only player to have scored 500 goals or more in the National League. For Maurice Richard, there was but one thing to do when he was on the ice: score goals and score even more. There is virtually no adequate defense against his devastating backhand shot. Incidentally, Richard is the only right wing in the Campbell circuit who shoots left. Lester Patrick, the great patriarch of hockey, is one of those who claim that we cannot fairly compare the stars of eras past with those of the modern era, but he describes the Rocket's shot as the most dangerous he has ever seen since he started playing hockey. "Richard's shot is always four or five inches above the ice," underlines Patrick, "and he almost never misses the net."

The Rocket's combativeness and his desire to overcome have, moreover, made this brilliant right wing of the Canadiens the most spectacular player to watch. It's true that Maurice doesn't amass a lot of assists compared to the many goals he scores, but that's exactly why he has been all the rage of hockey over the last fifteen seasons. Amateurs come to see him at work, to witness miracles, and the Rocket does not disappoint them too often. When Maurice is in a bad situation and he seems to have no chance of scoring a goal, that's when he becomes more dangerous than ever. The majority of other players would abandon the play and pass the puck to a teammate, but Richard does battle with even more energy, and the result is that he achieves almost unbelievable feats of strength. It's not surprising that he received many more votes than all the other players on this all-star, all-time team.

 

[overpass]

And I share your opinion about these quotes about Richard. They almost make the case against him by the arguments for him.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think this does a good job on demonstrating why I struggle so much with Richard.
The stats aren't eye-popping. Well, the playoff goals are, but other than that you're left wanting more.
It hurts even more when you read the Bowman quote"A lot has to do with excitement. Before Gretzky, before expansion — and I lived through this — the argument always was, who’s the better player, Howe or Richard? This is what people always said: If you want to fill your building, you pick the Rocket. If you want to win championships, you pick Howe."Isn't this a condemnation of Richard? That he was insanely popular and thrilling to watch, but that Howe was the clear better player?

Nothing makes sense.

Because he wasn't as good as Howe? I don't think so.

Besides, didn't Richard win more championships than Howe?

 

[Michael Farkas]

He basically won more than everyone. So...I don't know where to go with that. He was also on the team that dummied everyone all the time...

Here's the thing...and this is where the level of competition thing comes into play. I think Richard was probably the most technically skilled player up until 1950. I have no reason to doubt that he turned it on and won the '44 and '46 Cups by himself...I'm not sure if we'll ever know, but I sense that those might be the two most one-man championships in hockey history.

I think as the league got better, in the early 50's, and growing since...I think he became a little less of a stand out. Because guys could skate with him and goalies stood a bit of a chance...

I look at Richard like I look at Ovechkin basically...not many I'd trust more from the attack line in to shoot and score. The rest of their games are pretty empty. There's elements of physicality, most of it is after the puck is gone, both have been downright dirty in splotches, both only have decent/okay hockey sense among the best players of all time. Ovechkin is impossible to injure, but he plays like he's been hurt for the last 5+ years. Richard was hurt in his last years, and became something of a specialist and shorter shift player. Both openly complained about working out and the like.

If you look at a highlight reel, they look incredible. But when you really break down the game, they're a little lesser. And - again - I don't mean that they don't belong near the top of all time lists...but they're both elite shooters playing on their off wing that alsooooooooooooo...*looks around nervously* not too, too much else when compared to the elites...

So, how high can these players really be? Goals are the name of the game, no question. I get that. But goals are generally engineered. They're usually the product, not the process. Easy to count, but do you know how they're created?

That's the debate right now for the 2024 draft. Cole Eiserman is the all time U.S. goal scorer and all that noise...his game is extremely incomplete, he shoots the puck to a fault, but his shot is elite, he can finish in close...low hockey sense, does nothing away from the puck, doesn't pass...there's a lot of others players with flaws at the top of this draft in particular, so it's gonna be wild, but how high do you take the one-ish trick pony? Not top 10 for me. Not top 15 either. I know some teams feel the same...but we'll see...

Likewise...neither Richard or Ovechkin are in my top 15 players of all time either...as luck would have it. I'd just rather sacrifice the 10 out of 10 shot that these two have, in exchange for better ratings across the board, but I'll still have a 6, 7, 8, 9 out of 10 shot depending on who I choose...

Before anyone bites my head off...I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just telling you how I see it. I understand how you see it already, and it's fine also haha

So back to Howe/Richard. Richard gets a 10/10 scoring. What's Howe? 9 of 10? 8 of 10? What's Richard's checking? Not much out of 10. Howe much higher. Poignant physicality? Howe. Playmaking? Howe. Hockey sense? Howe. Etc. etc.

So when you add it all up, even though Richard is 10/10 scoring, Howe probably ends up with a higher combined score. I think that's what Bowman is winking at...

 

[The Panther]

I think this does a good job on demonstrating why I struggle so much with Richard.

The stats aren't eye-popping. Well, the playoff goals are, but other than that you're left wanting more.

Really? I mean, he didn't win scoring titles (would have won 1 but for suspension, and finished 2nd and 3rd a bunch of times), but he scored way more goals than anyone who had ever played. Also, just in goals scored (RS):

1943-44 & 1944-45:
82 - Richard
68 - Cain
60 - Mosienko

1946-47 to 1950-51:
178 - Richard
133 - Lindsay
129 - Conacher

1953-54 to 1956-67
146 - Richard
144 - Howe
130 - Beliveau

Those are fairly eye-popping! (He's 32 to 35 years old in the last of those periods.)

The footage isn't great. Most of it he's old, but the late 50s Habs footage doesn't help him.

Agree. There is almost no footage of Maurice Richard in his physical prime. It bears reminding that Richard's real prime was the 1940s, not the 1950s.

It hurts even more when you read the Bowman quote

"A lot has to do with excitement. Before Gretzky, before expansion — and I lived through this — the argument always was, who’s the better player, Howe or Richard? This is what people always said: If you want to fill your building, you pick the Rocket. If you want to win championships, you pick Howe."

I'm a little suspicious of Bowman's takes on Richard. (First of all, Richard won way more championships than Howe did, so this is a bit of a sketchy premise to start with!) My impression of Bowman's years with his teenage press-pass to the Forum is that it began (the Dryden book fudges the date, so it's hard to say) around 1950 or something, which could be called Richard's late prime. But his peak physical years, Bowman basically never saw it. He heard it and experienced the hype in real time, sure, but he wasn't watching the games.

Richard himself praised Howe as the best overall player he ever faced, but he also 'backhand' complimented him at times, and at other times slightly dissed him... mainly for Howe's lack of playoff prowess. There's a Richard quote from (I think) the early sixties (he's retired), where he says something like, "Howe was the best overall player, but he should do more in big games, like scoring in the playoffs."