Bobby Hull vs. Maurice Richard

[seventieslord]

I think his best attribute was clutch scoring. No one did it quite like him in the postseason. And all around I think it is very close between the two of them when you weigh in everything to the point where an argument on both sides is legit

When you consider that Richard was scoring in the clutch during a couple of war-weakened years and the recovery years, he had a much better team that gave him much more opportunity to be clutch, and that Hull actually had excellent playoff stats and was by far the highest playoff scorer of his career and led the playoffs in goals and points multiple times, the difference in clutch scoring between the two is rather overstated.

 

[MXD]

When you consider that Richard was scoring in the clutch during a couple of war-weakened years and the recovery years, he had a much better team that gave him much more opportunity to be clutch, and that Hull actually had excellent playoff stats and was by far the highest playoff scorer of his career and led the playoffs in goals and points multiple times, the difference in clutch scoring between the two is rather overstated.

Richard was more clutch than Hull while the Habs weren't winning Cups. See Wings dynasty.

...Unless we should completely disregard the Wings dynasty, as it was "too close" to the recovery years.

Either way, I don't exactly where you're going with this. Either you ignore that Richard was a terrific clutch goalscorer even during the Wings dynasty (which I doubt), or you completely disregard that timespan, cause Richard's goals didn't necessarily meant Cup wins for the Habs. Which would then make it a little weird not to disregard Hull clutch scoring for the exact same reasons.

 

[seventieslord]

Richard was more clutch than Hull while the Habs weren't winning Cups. See Wings dynasty.

...Unless we should completely disregard the Wings dynasty, as it was "too close" to the recovery years.

Either way, I don't exactly where you're going with this. Either you ignore that Richard was a terrific clutch goalscorer even during the Wings dynasty (which I doubt), or you completely disregard that timespan, cause Richard's goals didn't necessarily meant Cup wins for the Habs. Which would then make it a little weird not to disregard Hull clutch scoring for the exact same reasons.

I'm not trying to take too much away from Richard. Hull has an excellent playoff record too, individually, despite the cups. Richard is a hugely clutch player compared to most mortals, but not compared to Hull.

 

[MXD]

I'm not trying to take too much away from Richard. Hull has an excellent playoff record too, individually, despite the cups. Richard is a hugely clutch player compared to most mortals, but not compared to Hull.

Okay. I don't know... From your last post, I smelled something I'll name "reverse cup-counting", yet not mentionned that Rocket at his clutchiest when the Habs were not winning Cups.

 

[dre2112]

Richard had the benefit of playing during WW2 when many NHL players were overseas. During that time he had his 50 in 50 season. Take away those war years and from 1945-60, and the Rocket had the 2nd highest GPG avg at .53 and was 4th in PPG at .95.

Hull, during his era 1958-1972, was 1st in GPG at .61 and 3rd in PPG at 1.14.

Mind you, Richard's playoff stats are more impressive than Hull's but he was also on the Canadiens and not the Black Hawks who didn't have the benefit of signing every good player in Quebec.

My vote: Hull

That's a crock of ****.

That rule didn't simply allow the Canadiens to sign every player in Quebec, or Montreal for that matter. It allowed for the Canadiens to sign any UNSIGNED player in the region. All teams had territorial rights to unsigned players, not just Montreal. And FYI, the only players the Canadiens ever elected to sign using that rule were about a dozen guys that never played a single game in the NHL, Michel Plasse, Marc Tardif and Rejean Houle

 

[seventieslord]

lol, I had to laugh, Pens in 6. Here's why. I am assuming by the way he was talking that this interview happened after Game #4 of the Cup final last year. The series was tied 2-2. The way the Pens played in Game #4 would make anyone think of that possibility. But...........then came Game #5 and the Pens got walloped 5-0. That prediction seemed weak at that time. Then of course the Pens win in 7 games and the prediction looks alright.

Look, I've said before that I bought the book on Amazon myself. Actually it was Chapters in Canada. It's a great read reminiscent of the pissing matches we have on here

I don't know much about Phil Schlenker either, new author I guess, all I know is that Andy Frost (Leafs Talk, Leafs public announcer at the games) apparently talked about it once and claims he gave it to his son for his birthday. But that Hull vs. Richard debate, that's going to hit a nerve or two .....................

Good insight, I think you really got inside the author's head there.

Anyway, wow, 13 years. Reading this thread I'd say that there were a lot more people back then willing to put Richard ahead of Hull back then, and the Zeitgeist shifted a lot in Hull's favor. Richard still has some notable supporters in here, but their arguments are usually based on star power and cultural significance, which is fair. I think looking with our heads and not hearts, Hull was the better hockey player.

 

[Boxscore]

Good insight, I think you really got inside the author's head there.

Anyway, wow, 13 years. Reading this thread I'd say that there were a lot more people back then willing to put Richard ahead of Hull back then, and the Zeitgeist shifted a lot in Hull's favor. Richard still has some notable supporters in here, but their arguments are usually based on star power and cultural significance, which is fair. I think looking with our heads and not hearts, Hull was the better hockey player.

I agree completely.

 

[The Panther]

I agree completely.

You bumped a 13-year-old thread to post three words...?


Respect.

 

[MXD]

You bumped a 13-year-old thread to post three words...?


Respect.

That's definitely not the only 10+ year old bump we've seen in the last decade.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Am I missing the joke or is Panther missing the post that bumped this...?

 

[The Panther]

Am I missing the joke or is Panther missing the post that bumped this...?

Ah, okay, there was a post in between...

Apologies to @Boxscore .

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I can't agree with the above statement. Richards competitive drive is what seperates him from others, its what made him a special player. And winning 8 cups, it couldn't have hurt his team that often.

I had always considered Richard 5th and Hull 6th all-time. The History section here convinced me to flip-flop them. But i just can't agree with dropping Richard down to 9th on our latest list.

Cups are only important when denigrating contemporary players like McDavid, but suddenly, when comparing the franco, they fly out the window.

How many smythes would Richard have won?

This is the same kind of crap we get when comparing Roy to other greats. Reigns supreme in Smythes, never in the top 10 of greats. Bigoted double standard. Clutchness should be right there at the top. It would be rational and logical, but it gets in the way of narratives.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

5 of those cups came after he had calmed down & the last two or three he wasn't much of a factor. Him going bezerk & getting suspended for the 55 playoffs absolutely hurt his team.

He had 15 pts in 10 games when he won his 6th cup in 1958. 14 in 10 in his 4th, all in the mid-50's.

More narrative building.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

@Ozymandias, please do your work without accusing other posters of being racists.

 

[Theokritos]

Cups are only important when denigrating contemporary players like McDavid, but suddenly, when comparing the franco, they fly out the window.

How many smythes would Richard have won?

This is the same kind of crap we get when comparing Roy to other greats. Reigns supreme in Smythes, never in the top 10 of greats.

Huh? Check out where Roy is ranked here on this board (plus Jacques Plante not far behind):

Rank	Player	Height	Weight	Born	Died	Career	Nationality
1	Patrick Roy	6'1"	210	1965		1985-2003	Canada
2	Dominik Hašek	6'1"	165	1965		1980-2011	Czech
3	Jacques Plante	6'0"	175	1929	1986	1952-1975	Canada

​

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Huh? Check out where Roy is ranked here on this board (plus Jacques Plante not far behind):

Top 10 all-time, not goalies.

I've never once seen Roy top 10, except on Quebecer lists

 

[VMBM]

Anyway, wow, 13 years. Reading this thread I'd say that there were a lot more people back then willing to put Richard ahead of Hull back then, and the Zeitgeist shifted a lot in Hull's favor. Richard still has some notable supporters in here, but their arguments are usually based on star power and cultural significance, which is fair. I think looking with our heads and not hearts, Hull was the better hockey player.

Well, here's another example; back then, I don't think many had Sergei Makarov over Valeri Kharlamov, myself probably included, and nowadays it's totally the opposite (and rightfully so). IIRC, Makarov was often considered to be roughly on the same level as Boris Mikhailov here (although I don't think I ever went quite that far!), which feels almost like a joke today. When more videos and all kinds of stats and information became more available, that begun to change quickly. Positive type of mythbusting? Something like that. I don't quite know what was the deal with Richard vis-à-vis Hull, though.

In any case, I think the general level of knowledge on THoH has risen considerably since the 2000s, certainly in the case of international hockey and probably concerning the NHL too.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Top 10 all-time, not goalies.

I've never once seen Roy top 10, except on Quebecer lists

He finished 7th all time all positions on this forum's list.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Top 10 all-time, not goalies.

I've never once seen Roy top 10, except on Quebecer lists

Here's one:

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time The following is the final list of the top hockey players of all-time as determined by 32 voting members of the History of Hockey community. Report any errors to @quoipourquoi RankPlayerPositionBornNationBirth City 1Wayne GretzkyC1961CanadaBrantford...

forums.hfboards.com

To the extent that you have a point, you're aiming your weapon at the wrong group.

 

[Staniowski]

Well, here's another example; back then, I don't think many had Sergei Makarov over Valeri Kharlamov, myself probably included, and nowadays it's totally the opposite (and rightfully so). IIRC, Makarov was often considered to be roughly on the same level as Boris Mikhailov here (although I don't think I ever went quite that far!), which feels almost like a joke today. When more videos and all kinds of stats and information became more available, that begun to change quickly. Positive type of mythbusting? Something like that. I don't quite know what was the deal with Richard vis-à-vis Hull, though.

In any case, I think the general level of knowledge on THoH has risen considerably since the 2000s, certainly in the case of international hockey and probably concerning the NHL too.

For anybody paying attention, it was obvious by the early 1980s that Makarov was the best Russian (or Soviet) forward ever, certainly better than any of the 1970s guys. I'm not sure what new information you're referring to....Makarov's scoring - both international and Soviet - was very well-known in the 1980s, and everybody saw them play many times.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Bobby Hull was a better player. Maybe not by much. But he was imo.

Is Richard even a top five winger of all time?

In no order:

Howe
Hull
Lafleur
Ovechkin
Jagr

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Bobby Hull was a better player. Maybe not by much. But he was imo.

Is Richard even a top five winger of all time?

In no order:

Howe
Hull
Lafleur
Ovechkin
Jagr

Among your picks, Lafleur over Richard is the most unusual.

 

[MadLuke]

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

Richard despite playing old in his career scored in the playoff at an higher rate than Hull and that stay true even if you remove his crazy numbers WW2 playoff years.

From 44 to 60, Montreal won 18 playoffs game in overtime, 6 of those were on a Maurice Richard goal. What being the best playoff goalscorer in the history of the league worth ? Specially in an era that good teams made the playoff pretty much all the time (66% of the teams going in), making what you do during the regular season soso, in the first round you will still face the same opponent regardless of how well you do.

I have an hardtime overruling the general consensus of the contempories that saw young pre injury Maurice to the old one and Hull that would say Richard > Hull, even if I fully understand why they would make that mistake if it was one.

It is not like baseball were some flaw to evaluate players was found and that it would be possible to look back and check, we do not even have videos of Richard peak.

 

[Hockeyholic]

Among your picks, Lafleur over Richard is the most unusual.

Lafleur won more Hart trophies, more Art Rosses, and more 100 point seasons.

Maybe one is ahead of the other. But it's close either way.

 

[VMBM]

For anybody paying attention, it was obvious by the early 1980s that Makarov was the best Russian (or Soviet) forward ever, certainly better than any of the 1970s guys. I'm not sure what new information you're referring to....Makarov's scoring - both international and Soviet - was very well-known in the 1980s, and everybody saw them play many times.

"Obvious by the early 1980s...", you've got to be kidding! I'm willing to bet that there were very few people (fans/reporters etc) who considered Makarov to be better than Kharlamov already in the early 1980s; Makarov's first big season was in 1978—79, and Kharlamov died tragically in 1981, which only elevated his already huge legend. But if you were among those hip people who thought that the young Makarov was already better than Kharlamov or any other Soviet forward ever, good for you... but you were certainly in the minority.

And actually, taken at face value, Kharlamov's international stats are more impressive than Makarov's (clearly better PPG), although a closer analysis gives a different perspective. The Soviet stats hugely favour Makarov, but how easy were they to find before the Internet and some sites that were dedicated to such information (plus how complete the late 1960s/early 1970s assist numbers are)? I don't think I knew much about the Soviet Player of the Year voting either (also favouring Makarov) before the late 2000s/early 2010s.

As far as "everybody saw them play many times" goes, I think you're again talking about yourself! I was born in 1974, so while I definitely watched Kharlamov in the late 1970s and 1980 and Makarov throughout the 1980s, it really didn't make me truly capable of comparing them based on the eye test. Only when I started to acquire old games on VHS/DVD in the mid-2000s, I began to think, "hey, Makarov looks at least as good or even better than Kharlamov"... But that was generally rare at least on THoH, as can be seen from the 2008 Top 100 Players of All Time list (Kharlamov 30th, Makarov 77th, behind e.g. Mikhailov and Peter Stastny, lol):
HOH Top 100 Players of All Time (compiled in 2008)

So, what's your explanation for this clear change, if not the more easily/widely available information and footage (YouTube)?