Bobby Clarke and Paul Henderson's different views on the Kharlamov slash

[The Panther]

A Hart trophy is a most valuable player trophy, not the best player in the league trophy.

I didn't say Clarke was the best player in the League. My point was: If voters of the Hart trophy---who actually watched all the good players and teams many, many times---thought Clarke was the most valuable player to his team, he quite probably was.

Using his +/- in an argument is silly

I didn't mention his plus/minus at all.

 

[Overrated]

Wayne Gretzky scored only 3 goals in the '87 Canada Cup; he must have been crap in that tournament, right?

I mean, it's a bit lame to ignore Clarke's assist numbers to prove a point (yes I know your table has those). (Like it is equally lame e.g. in Kharlamov's case in 1972; him being "shut down" after game 1 in the series is not true either statistically or otherwise.)

It's not like he was leading (or being close to) in assists in any of those tournaments.

Clarke was not a great or even good goal-scorer; he was a playmaker and an excellent defensive forward... (And a total douchebag, but that's another story).

I would agree with this. Of course he was a star player. There is just nothing which would suggest that I should put him above Kharlamov Mikhailov Petrov Maltsev Yakushev or Firsov.

 

[VMBM]

It's not like he was leading (or being close to) in assists in any of those tournaments.

Yeah, but if you compare his stats to those of e.g. Petrov in the 1972 and 1979 series (the only times the two players faced each other), there's not much difference at all, and Clarke was the superior defensive player.

The main point was, however, that goal-scoring is not a very good basis for an argument especially in Clarke's case (nor often generally either), as he never even reached 40 goals in an NHL season.

 

[Overrated]

Yeah, but if you compare his stats to those of e.g. Petrov in the 1972 and 1979 series (the only times the two players faced each other), there's not much difference at all, and Clarke was the superior defensive player.

The main point was, however, that goal-scoring is not a very good basis for an argument especially in Clarke's case (nor often generally either), as he never even reached 40 goals in an NHL season.

That is because of the sample size. If you use Mikhailov instead of Petrov he's much better. Also it was easier for Clarke to score than for the Soviet forwards since the Soviet defense was weaker than the Canadian defense, especially in the early 70s series. The goaltending was likely equal.

 

[wetcoast]

Bobby Clarke was such a dirty player with his stick who hid behind his teammates who fought for him. I do not have any respect for Clarke. I don't mind fighting but I hate cheap shot artists.

Clarke was my idol as a kid, I loved his story and work ethic but he is an example of why sports stars shouldn't be people's hero's as he just isn't a classy guy by any means and the way he handled Lindros later adds to his lack of class.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Clarke was my idol as a kid, I loved his story and work ethic but he is an example of why sports stars shouldn't be people's hero's as he just isn't a classy guy by any means and the way he handled Lindros later adds to his lack of class.

I totally understand. I have had a situation like that as well.

 

[Big Phil]

Clarke was good in the 1972 Summit Series. He was one of many great players on Team Canada that did alright. All of the forwards on that team were outscored by two defensemen. This is just how the tournament went. There was plenty of wealth up front, and there were shared responsibilities. It was set up in a way where no one up front completely dominated.

 

[buffalowing88]

A Hart trophy is a most valuable player trophy, not the best player in the league trophy. That makes it prone to emotions, especially when he personified the dirty gritty style of the 70s. He was never on the level of Orr who outscored him despite being a defenseman. Using his +/- in an argument is silly and always repeated ad nauseam but since the whole playstyle of Flyers was about committing a thousand fouls no wonder most of the goals they conceded were while shorthanded. That doesn't make them better than if they conceded them at even strength. His point production dropped severely during the play-offs and his international performance was outright pathetic scoring 4 goals in 28 matches.

People also tend to focus on forwards because they are the ones who score. That is why you will rarely see Czechs put Hasek above Jagr but not Canadians who have seen at least some forwards better than Jagr but no goaltender better than Hasek. Likewise the Soviets could hang with the Canadians despite their very weak defense. Why? Their top forwards were just that much better. The 70s Canadian forwards were never that great (with the exception of Esposito). Washed up Hull/Howe could easily hang with them and when Gretzky showed up he would outright score a 100 points more than them. I don't even think Lafleur was ever the best Canadian player. Potvin was.

I don't know about that opinion on Clarke as I hear tales of the Flyers decimating the Sabres in the 70s from my father to this day but I thought the bolded was an interesting point.

I play stick 'n puck with some Czech guys here and there who are about 10 years old (early-mid forties). They are so obsessed with Jagr that they all wear some iteration of his jersey when we play. Like literally, 7-8 guys all wearing a retro Jagr jersey. I'm from Buffalo and grew up with Hasek and try to ask them about him and they are so dismissive. It's weird.

 

[CMitchelli]

I read on Twitter that Clarke was into foreign policy Big-Time back in the day.

Maybe he foresaw the Soviet Union's collapse, rise of Putin, Ukraine's independence, Russia's 2022 invasion.

The slash was merely Clarke supporting Ukraine 50 years ahead of time.

 

[JackSlater]

Clarke was good in the 1972 Summit Series. He was one of many great players on Team Canada that did alright. All of the forwards on that team were outscored by two defensemen. This is just how the tournament went. There was plenty of wealth up front, and there were shared responsibilities. It was set up in a way where no one up front completely dominated.

Clarke's actual play is overshadowed by the slash. I'd comfortably put him in the top three Canadian forwards and top four players on the team in terms of performance along with Park, Esposito, and Henderson.

 

[justashadowof]

The Bobby Clarke slash was a shameful blemish on a mostly great event in Canadian sports history. It also notable that Vic Hadfield's behaviour in an exhibition match with Sweden was also shameful even if the Swedish player was also a very dirty player (look that game up, it's available on Youtube).

Paul Henderson was a polar opposite type of player to Clarke. Clarke was a win at all costs type of competitor who doesn't quite exist in pro sports any longer. That win at all costs attitude included intimidation, instigating, verbal slurs, cheating, maiming, etc.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Clarke was good in the 1972 Summit Series. He was one of many great players on Team Canada that did alright. All of the forwards on that team were outscored by two defensemen. This is just how the tournament went. There was plenty of wealth up front, and there were shared responsibilities. It was set up in a way where no one up front completely dominated.

In my opinion, Ron Ellis's defensive play on Kharlomov has been greatly overshadowed by The Slash.

Clarke's actual play is overshadowed by the slash. I'd comfortably put him in the top three Canadian forwards and top four players on the team in terms of performance along with Park, Esposito, and Henderson.

Agreed. and as far as Ron Ellis goes another category is in order, imo.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

So we all know about the slash in 1972. But how many people remember in 2002 when there was a 30th anniversary reunion planned and Henderson was asked about the slash and said something that I think was sort of the first time he had ever said it, and that he felt the slash was basically a dark moment. He felt there could have been more sportsmanship during this series. Well, if you remember, that set off Clarke. He shot back at Henderson basically calling him out for talking about a teammate that way. Henderson I can remember, who always handles things with class, mentioned he had spoken with Clarke and that the media can often turn things into a bigger issue than they were. It made you think things were okay between him and Clarke.

Well, in the "Summit 72" documentary that came out for the 50th anniversary the same sort of thing was brought up. Clarke talked about the slash, wasn't apologetic about it, owned it, and still had a problem with Henderson calling him out on it 20 years earlier. Clarke says in the interview that Henderson approached him basically saying that they both have grandsons the same age (I am paraphrasing) and it would be difficult to explain that slash. Clarke responded by saying he wouldn't want his grandson to turn his back on a teammate like Henderson did.

Henderson isn't the only one on the team with an issue about the slash. Dennis Hull was interviewed in this documentary and said that he wouldn't have wanted to win that way. So it isn't just Henderson.

I mean the way I look at it, it has been 50 years, things happen. You can look back on things and say that everyone's emotions got the best of them. Hey, it happened both ways, lots of things to look back on. I have to wonder, how long will Clarke hold this sort of grudge against Henderson for this?

Sometimes I think that, as a society, we overlook the kind of play that North Americans often endorsed at the time of Clarke's slash and in many following years. Here out west I can still remember the image of our beloved Gino repeatedly punching a NYRanger in the back of the head as the two drifted up ice, as at least two refs or watched the whole time.

I don't condone the slash. Nor do I know much about other nefarious things that people attribute to Clarke here. That said, the simple fact is that a culture of excessive violence was literally imposed on Bobby Clarke growing up. From the time he began playing contact ice hockey, he was declared a piece of meat by the powers that be, in a hierarchical chain of conformity that lead all the way to the boardroom of the National Hockey League. The NHL legitimized what Clarke did in a trickle down effect that affected and degraded all levels of North American play - "degraded" except for people who liked that violence, of course. The North American media played a contributing role, by not commenting too much on more egregious examples. Can anybody provide documented evidence from the Toronto media that condemns this clip of Tiger? Or is that okay, whereas what Parise did is not. Somebody please explain the unwritten line item in The code which shows that one action is acceptable, while the other is not...

When one considers the wider picture of society, it must come as no surprise that some people are more innately compatible with the violence that the NHL imposed on its players and society for decades. Clarke was one of them, apparently. Part of the reason why I believe this is because he seems to have zero regret for what he did, just as Eagleson seems to have no regret for the things he did. I get why people are so offended by the Slash. I just find it sad that people condemn Clarke for doing what was so widely accepted at the time on the NHL stage - by owners, the media in general, and many fans.

So, why do we seem to conveniently forget the collusion that sustained 70s style hockey when it comes to the Slash?

My guess is that we do so for a paradoxical reason: because the international theatre reminds people of their shared identities as members of a given culture-nation.

 

[Big Phil]

In my opinion, Ron Ellis's defensive play on Kharlomov has been greatly overshadowed by The Slash.

Agreed. and as far as Ron Ellis goes another category is in order, imo.

I know there is a poster on here who gets driven nuts when I bring it up, but yes, Ellis did do a good job after Game 1 of containing Kharlamov. I once used the word "shut down" not really thinking it would trigger anything. So I won't say "shut down" as that is different than "contained". But yes, Ellis' play against Kharlamov - and that line overall of Henderson and Clarke with him - don't get enough credit for things.

Sometimes I think that, as a society, we overlook the kind of play that North Americans often endorsed at the time of Clarke's slash and in many following years. Here out west I can still remember the image of our beloved Gino repeatedly punching a NYRanger in the back of the head as the two drifted up ice, as at least two refs or watched the whole time.

I don't condone the slash. Nor do I know much about other nefarious things that people attribute to Clarke here. That said, the simple fact is that a culture of excessive violence was literally imposed on Bobby Clarke growing up. From the time he began playing contact ice hockey, he was declared a piece of meat by the powers that be, in a hierarchical chain of conformity that lead all the way to the boardroom of the National Hockey League. The NHL legitimized what Clarke did in a trickle down effect that affected and degraded all levels of North American play - "degraded" except for people who liked that violence, of course. The North American media played a contributing role, by not commenting too much on more egregious examples. Can anybody provide documented evidence from the Toronto media that condemns this clip of Tiger? Or is that okay, whereas what Parise did is not. Somebody please explain the unwritten line item in The code which shows that one action is acceptable, while the other is not...

When one considers the wider picture of society, it must come as no surprise that some people are more innately compatible with the violence that the NHL imposed on its players and society for decades. Clarke was one of them, apparently. Part of the reason why I believe this is because he seems to have zero regret for what he did, just as Eagleson seems to have no regret for the things he did. I get why people are so offended by the Slash. I just find it sad that people condemn Clarke for doing what was so widely accepted at the time on the NHL stage - by owners, the media in general, and many fans.

So, why do we seem to conveniently forget the collusion that sustained 70s style hockey when it comes to the Slash?

My guess is that we do so for a paradoxical reason: because the international theatre reminds people of their shared identities as members of a given culture-nation.

I think a couple of things here. Number one, we have gone too far the other way where we as a society are pampered and extremely soft. Soft in the body, soft in the brain, etc. Too easily offended. Not a stiff spine out there sometimes.

So I will say that and then say at the same time that the slash wasn't a good thing. Clarke even at that time is suspended in the NHL if it happens. But...............it happened. A lot of things that were meant to tilt the ice happened in that series and I think sometimes Clarke does take more flack for it when everyone else forgets just how much the deck was stacked against us - on and off the ice in Moscow. And yet we still won the series. People also forget that the penalty minutes in Game 6 were Canada: 31 Russia: 4. You shouldn't lose a game in that situation but the Soviets still did.

I think like many have said it was war-like out there. Phil Esposito saying he would have literally killed one of them just to win. Well, that's not Phil. He barely fought in his career. Rod Gilbert fighting in Game 8, bloodying the Soviet player. That's not Rod either. There were things that happened in that series that led players to do things they never did before or after. JP Parise is a good example. I think at the end of the day we just sort of have to leave it at that, and in a way it sort of keeps the mystique about that series.

 

[Staniowski]

Sometimes I think that, as a society, we overlook the kind of play that North Americans often endorsed at the time of Clarke's slash and in many following years. Here out west I can still remember the image of our beloved Gino repeatedly punching a NYRanger in the back of the head as the two drifted up ice, as at least two refs or watched the whole time.

I don't condone the slash. Nor do I know much about other nefarious things that people attribute to Clarke here. That said, the simple fact is that a culture of excessive violence was literally imposed on Bobby Clarke growing up. From the time he began playing contact ice hockey, he was declared a piece of meat by the powers that be, in a hierarchical chain of conformity that lead all the way to the boardroom of the National Hockey League. The NHL legitimized what Clarke did in a trickle down effect that affected and degraded all levels of North American play - "degraded" except for people who liked that violence, of course. The North American media played a contributing role, by not commenting too much on more egregious examples. Can anybody provide documented evidence from the Toronto media that condemns this clip of Tiger? Or is that okay, whereas what Parise did is not. Somebody please explain the unwritten line item in The code which shows that one action is acceptable, while the other is not...

When one considers the wider picture of society, it must come as no surprise that some people are more innately compatible with the violence that the NHL imposed on its players and society for decades. Clarke was one of them, apparently. Part of the reason why I believe this is because he seems to have zero regret for what he did, just as Eagleson seems to have no regret for the things he did. I get why people are so offended by the Slash. I just find it sad that people condemn Clarke for doing what was so widely accepted at the time on the NHL stage - by owners, the media in general, and many fans.

So, why do we seem to conveniently forget the collusion that sustained 70s style hockey when it comes to the Slash?

My guess is that we do so for a paradoxical reason: because the international theatre reminds people of their shared identities as members of a given culture-nation.

Yeah, the Clarke slash gets talked about a lot now, but there's nothing that special about it....there have been lots of dirty plays in hockey. It doesn't bother me any.

Clarke was dirty, though. And you mention Tiger Williams....I think he is the player who - when he was at his best in Toronto - committed more offenses than any other player I've ever seen. He basically did "something" to most of the opposing players he came in the vicinity of.

But even Tiger Williams wasn't as vicious or dirty as Bobby Clarke.

 

[67 others]

Yeah, the Clarke slash gets talked about a lot now, but there's nothing that special about it....there have been lots of dirty plays in hockey. It doesn't bother me any.

Clarke was dirty, though. And you mention Tiger Williams....I think he is the player who - when he was at his best in Toronto - committed more offenses than any other player I've ever seen. He basically did "something" to most of the opposing players he came in the vicinity of.

But even Tiger Williams wasn't as vicious or dirty as Bobby Clarke.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

But even Tiger Williams wasn't as vicious or dirty as Bobby Clarke.

I question I would ask of others, is if others think that Clarke would dare slash-to-injure in today's game, where the punitive cost of doing so is much higher.

Personally, I think he would not, because the punitive cost of doing so is much higher.

I'm guessing that Clarke's behaviour - especially during the Flyers' Cup years - was calculated to be in sync with the unwritten rules of NHL hockey that were imposed on players by the league's owners.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I know there is a poster on here who gets driven nuts when I bring it up, but yes, Ellis did do a good job after Game 1 of containing Kharlamov. I once used the word "shut down" not really thinking it would trigger anything. So I won't say "shut down" as that is different than "contained". But yes, Ellis' play against Kharlamov - and that line overall of Henderson and Clarke with him - don't get enough credit for things.

Ron Ellis was excellent in the Summit Series, because of how well he "contained" him after Game 1. Game 8 is moot, of course. Had VK continually showed up on the radar like Yak did, I would not hold this opinion.

I think a couple of things here. Number one, we have gone too far the other way where we as a society are pampered and extremely soft. Soft in the body, soft in the brain, etc. Too easily offended.

People are now going out of their way to be offended. What many who do fail to realize, is that in due course they will be condemned by people of similar minds, and often for doing what such people now think is politically correct. People who do this seem to fail to recognize that cultural values are a work in progress, although sometimes we do seem to be devolving.

That said, while I hope that contact always remains in ice hockey, and that fighting should be allowed, I would say that today's ice hockey is much, much better than in the 1970s. It is better because it places a premium on skill.

was war-like out there. Phil Esposito saying he would have literally killed one of them just to win. Well, that's not Phil. He barely fought in his career. Rod Gilbert fighting in Game 8, bloodying the Soviet player. That's not Rod either. There were things that happened in that series that led players to do things they never did before or after. JP Parise is a good example. I think at the end of the day we just sort of have to leave it at that, and in a way it sort of keeps the mystique about that series.

When we talked about the Sweden games I brought the same thing up. The reactions of our players between whistles was very much out of character. Anyone who knows this should be inclined to think that they didn't just decide to go Gangster without some due cause. Their reactions suggest that they were indeed most likely being subject to stick violations behind the play.

And that leads to a whole nuther conversation that rarely gets brought up, doesn't it?

 

[FerrisRox]

So we all know about the slash in 1972. But how many people remember in 2002 when there was a 30th anniversary reunion planned and Henderson was asked about the slash and said something that I think was sort of the first time he had ever said it, and that he felt the slash was basically a dark moment. He felt there could have been more sportsmanship during this series. Well, if you remember, that set off Clarke. He shot back at Henderson basically calling him out for talking about a teammate that way. Henderson I can remember, who always handles things with class, mentioned he had spoken with Clarke and that the media can often turn things into a bigger issue than they were. It made you think things were okay between him and Clarke.

Well, in the "Summit 72" documentary that came out for the 50th anniversary the same sort of thing was brought up. Clarke talked about the slash, wasn't apologetic about it, owned it, and still had a problem with Henderson calling him out on it 20 years earlier. Clarke says in the interview that Henderson approached him basically saying that they both have grandsons the same age (I am paraphrasing) and it would be difficult to explain that slash. Clarke responded by saying he wouldn't want his grandson to turn his back on a teammate like Henderson did.

Henderson isn't the only one on the team with an issue about the slash. Dennis Hull was interviewed in this documentary and said that he wouldn't have wanted to win that way. So it isn't just Henderson.

I mean the way I look at it, it has been 50 years, things happen. You can look back on things and say that everyone's emotions got the best of them. Hey, it happened both ways, lots of things to look back on. I have to wonder, how long will Clarke hold this sort of grudge against Henderson for this?

In 1997, for the 25th Anniversary, there was a large reunion of the Summit Team at the Hockey Hall of Fame with various players making up mini-panels for Q and A's with fans and several players, not just Henderson, spoke about the Clarke slash in a very negative manner. Off the top of my head, Dryden, Hull, White, Cournoyer and Gilbert were all very critical of it and it was referred to as a "black eye" on the series.

Dryden, Henderson and White also confirmed that it was very much intentional and that John Ferguson had asked several players to go and do it but that only Clarke would actually go out and intentionally hurt a player. This all set the tone for the 2002 reunion festivities where Clarke went into it with a huge chip on his shoulder.

 

[FerrisRox]

I never saw Clarke play and I'm not his fan, but I cannot agree that he is "super overrated".

Clarke played in a League where voters actually saw all the (good) teams play regularly (unlike now), and he won two Hart trophies over peak Bobby Orr and Guy Lafleur. You might say this is "overrating" him, but I don't think so.

Those two seasons Clarke scored at a pace of 121 points per 80 games (and was consistent both seasons). Orr and Esposito (in '75) were still on a different level offensively (though Clarke matched 91% of Espo's point production that year!), but he was matching players like Lafleur and Dionne in offensive production.

That's amazing in itself, but then consider this: In 1974-75, Clarke -- who, I would assume, got the most ice-time of Flyer forwards -- was on the ice for 19 non-PP goals against all season. I repeat, not counting PP goals against, he was on for 19 goals against ALL SEASON. In 1975-76, this number jumped up to whopping 23 goals against.

Like, how is that even possible? Clarke was 1st in assists / 6th in scoring in 1975, and he was 1st in assists / 2nd in scoring in 1976... and the opposition managed to score one goal every four games he was on the ice.

Let's put this stat to comparison with other stars of the same period (the stat is non-PP goals against, regardless of team strength / ice-time, etc.):
19 - Clarke 1975
23 - Clarke 1976
31 - Barber 1976
48 - Lafleur 1976
55 - Lafleur 1975
60 - P. Mahovlich 1975
68 - Perreault 1976
77 - Esposito 1975
77 - Dionne 1976
85 - Orr 1975
89 - Larouche 1976
100 - Esposito 1976
110 - Dionne 1975

I mean, if being an Art Ross candidate (while leading in assists), winning Cups as captain, and simultaneously being maybe the most effective defensive forward in NHL history is "overrated", then okay...

It's okay to admit a guy you dislike personally was a good player.

Quite simply, if Clarke played on *any other team in the league* he would not have posted the numbers he did.

He was a very talented player, without question, but the fact that he was heavily insulated by the toughest team in hockey allowed him the room he never would have had and allowed him to get away with all kinds of cheap, dirty play.

He is, in my opinion, grossly overrated.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

In 1997, for the 25th Anniversary, there was a large reunion of the Summit Team at the Hockey Hall of Fame with various players making up mini-panels for Q and A's with fans and several players, not just Henderson, spoke about the Clarke slash in a very negative manner. Off the top of my head, Dryden, Hull, White, Cournoyer and Gilbert were all very critical of it and it was referred to as a "black eye" on the series.

Dryden, Henderson and White also confirmed that it was very much intentional and that John Ferguson had asked several players to go and do it but that only Clarke would actually go out and intentionally hurt a player. This all set the tone for the 2002 reunion festivities where Clarke went into it with a huge chip on his shoulder.

Not saying you're wrong, but I read a recent interview where Clarke said that Fergusson had lied, in order to provide cover for Clarke - ie that Clarke did the whole thing on his own. I linked to it somewhere else, possibly in our earlier discussion on Game 6.

In the same interview I THINK that Clarke said that everybody he talks to approves of the slash, maybe even including Johnny Esaw (which does change other perceptions). I had mentioned that it seems unlikely that others would approach BC and tell him to his face that the slash was bad.

I'm surprised that Clarke would be surprised that others would speak out as you say they did.

In my opinion the slash was a black eye on the series, although delivered by a player who otherwise made a lot of positive contributions. However, when *I* go that route I seriously wonder if the same can be said about what at least the Swedes and Soviets were accused of - spearing from behind and all that. IF that's also true, then there were black eyes to hand out on both sides...

 

[Jets4Life]

As I kid growing up in Manitoba, Clarke and the Flyers were always popular. I stopped thinking of Clarke in any positive way, after what he said about Roger Neilson coming down with cancer. What a clown.

 

[Moose Head]

Not saying you're wrong, but I read a recent interview where Clarke said that Fergusson had lied, in order to provide cover for Clarke - ie that Clarke did the whole thing on his own. I linked to it somewhere else, possibly in our earlier discussion on Game 6.

In the same interview I THINK that Clarke said that everybody he talks to approves of the slash, maybe even including Johnny Esaw (which does change other perceptions). I had mentioned that it seems unlikely that others would approach BC and tell him to his face that the slash was bad.

I'm surprised that Clarke would be surprised that others would speak out as you say they did.

In my opinion the slash was a black eye on the series, although delivered by a player who otherwise made a lot of positive contributions. However, when *I* go that route I seriously wonder if the same can be said about what at least the Swedes and Soviets were accused of - spearing from behind and all that. IF that's also true, then there were black eyes to hand out on both sides...

Both teams were guilty of stick work. Clarke just went a lot further than anyone else.

 

[04hockey]

Quite simply, if Clarke played on *any other team in the league* he would not have posted the numbers he did.

He was a very talented player, without question, but the fact that he was heavily insulated by the toughest team in hockey allowed him the room he never would have had and allowed him to get away with all kinds of cheap, dirty play.

He is, in my opinion, grossly overrated.

1144 games played - *1210 pts.*

3 MVP's

2 Stanley Cups

5th All Time plus minus career

grossly over rated ???????.....ONLY in your mind .....

hockey was played like that back in the 70's, if you wanted to play dirty Clarke would oblige you.....

[MOD]