Bobby Hull vs. Maurice Richard

[Big Phil]

Here's an interview with the author that may shed some light on these questions.

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 .....................

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

This is the quote I was in disagreement with:

"Richard's competitive drive hurt the team seemingly almost as often as it helped."

His competitive drive is what made him great, he brought it every night. The quote above suggests it hurt his team as much as it helped. I didn't say he never hurt his team because of his "edge", but without it there is no "Rocket".

 

[pappyline]

This is the quote I was in disagreement with:

"Richard's competitive drive hurt the team seemingly almost as often as it helped."

His competitive drive is what made him great, he brought it every night. The quote above suggests it hurt his team as much as it helped. I didn't say he never hurt his team because of his "edge", but without it there is no "Rocket".

Agree, that is part of the reason Richard is a legend. I don't condone all his stick fighting but that is part of the Richard package. Others did it too. lindsay & moore are other prime examples but Richard out did them all in that aspect.

 

[Big Phil]

This is the quote I was in disagreement with:

"Richard's competitive drive hurt the team seemingly almost as often as it helped."

His competitive drive is what made him great, he brought it every night. The quote above suggests it hurt his team as much as it helped. I didn't say he never hurt his team because of his "edge", but without it there is no "Rocket".

It's like the old saying "It's easier to put a fire out than to light one". This exemplifies Richard. No one ever had to worry about him getting up for a game. This is why if it's a Game 7 I arguably take him on my side over anyone else in history and the only one that I might need to think long over would be Gretzky. That's telling. The man just flat out scored goals and his GPG actually went up in the playoffs if you can believe it. Whether or not the Habs won the Cup he scored goals regardless and if they lost it was not any fault of his own.

Obviously with the exception of 1955. We'll never know if he puts the Habs over the top against Detroit but we do know that without him it was still a 7 game series. I'll admit that was a time he hurt his team badly when he got suspended for the remainder of the season and playoffs. But ask yourself this, despite Ovechkin's knee on knee the other day would you bother telling him to cool it down? No, you wouldn't because that's what makes Ovy, Ovy. Ditto for Richard you let him play his game because you knew that somehow he'd help find a way to win

 

[seventieslord]

This is just an educated guess based on my reading, but I think Richard's intensity and goal-scoring ability were not intrinsically linked. They sometimes were, but were often independent of eachother as well. All the incidents I showed you in his "rap sheet", they did hurt his team and they had nothing to do with scoring goals.

If he wanted me to rank him ahead of Hull when all was said and done, a big part of that would have been to tone down the psycho stuff while remaining an elite goalscorer.

Keep in mind that if we're comparing him to Marcel Dionne, this becomes moot. But we're comparing two guys who are almost universally regarded as top-10 all-time. When you do that, some flaws really get keyed on. His lack of backchecking and psychotic behaviour get amplified when the comparison is to someone like Hull.

 

[Big Phil]

This is just an educated guess based on my reading, but I think Richard's intensity and goal-scoring ability were not intrinsically linked. They sometimes were, but were often independent of eachother as well. All the incidents I showed you in his "rap sheet", they did hurt his team and they had nothing to do with scoring goals.

If he wanted me to rank him ahead of Hull when all was said and done, a big part of that would have been to tone down the psycho stuff while remaining an elite goalscorer.

Keep in mind that if we're comparing him to Marcel Dionne, this becomes moot. But we're comparing two guys who are almost universally regarded as top-10 all-time. When you do that, some flaws really get keyed on. His lack of backchecking and psychotic behaviour get amplified when the comparison is to someone like Hull.

I understand. I think 1952 is a good example of his intensity combining with his goal scoring. We've all heard of the goal he scored end to end against Boston's Jim Henry in the 1952 Semis in Game 7. Richard barely remembered it since he was dazed. That's an example of when his desire collided with his goal scoring. Now to be fair the Habs did get swept by Detroit in the finals, but they did win that series against Boston

 

[finchster]

Since I didn't want to start a new thread I guess this is as good a place to ask this question.

I recall seeing on here some time ago a poster had done some research and found statistics that indicated that Richard did not face a bias when it came to point getting. It had something to do with team assists and what not. If anyone knows what I am talking about could you please send me the link to that argument?

 

[Axxellien]

Bobby Hull:

Bobby Hull took over from Rocket Richard & Gordie Howe as the game's reigning Superstar..The 1960s...The New Wave...

 

[greatgazoo]

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

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Such a difficult call. Richard was one of the games great winners. But, his biggest success came in an ideal situation with a friend as his coach and his kid brother as his playmaker.

Where as Hull had crappy coaches and never had ideal linemates. Partly because there are only a handful of players that would fit the mold. (But seriously, imagine what would have happened if he had a guy like Sergei Fedorov as his centre...)

 

[begbeee]

Where as Hull had crappy coaches and never had ideal linemates. Partly because there are only a handful of players that would fit the mold. (But seriously, imagine what would have happened if he had a guy like Sergei Fedorov as his centre...)

Yeah, Stan Mikita was a crappy linemate Ulf Nilsson was the same ***** center

Smbdy need

 

[Canadiens1958]

Linemates

Yeah, Stan Mikita was a crappy linemate Ulf Nilsson was the same ***** center

Smbdy need

Stan Mikita was never Bobby Hull's linemate. They did share power play time. Nilsson and Hedberg in the NHL never reached the numbers they did playing with Hull in the WHA even thoug the WHA version of Bobby Hull was post prime while the NHL version of Nilsson and Hedberg were prime.

 

[begbeee]

Stan Mikita was never Bobby Hull's linemate. They did share power play time. Nilsson and Hedberg in the NHL never reached the numbers they did playing with Hull in the WHA even thoug the WHA version of Bobby Hull was post prime while the NHL version of Nilsson and Hedberg were prime.

Nilsson and Hedberg was star players anywhere they played.
Pit Martin (Chicago) was good center, too. He was 740 243-384-627 with Chicago, what is star category in sixties hockey.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Nilsson and Hedberg was star players anywhere they played.
Pit Martin (Chicago) was good center, too. He was 740 243-384-627 with Chicago, what is star category in sixties hockey.

Correction. They were superstars in the WHA with Hull leading the charge, and average in the NHL. Ulf Nilsson never cracked 70 points in the NHL, and Hedberg never cracked 80. They had decent PPG, but were never tearing it up like they were with Hull in the WHA.

In his early Chicago days, Hull was usually with Bill Hay and Chiko Maki. Mikita played on the scooter line with Ab MacDonald(Later, Doug Mohns) and Ken Wharram.

Towards the end of his Chicago days, Pit Martin was a good player, but not a superstar, which is what I think the original poster was getting at. Pit Martin played primarily in the 70's, not the 60's.

 

[begbeee]

Nilsson also never played in NHL more than 59 games per season.
You cant say Hedberg, Nilsson, Pit or Hay (calder trophy winner) are bad or average players. Nilsson and Hedberg came from Sweden, Euro, where was completly different system of play, somebody from NA had to pick ´em from Sweden and he had to think about they are not only good players but better players than what he had in team. (Do you bring a player from other side of the world if he is same level as hometown guys?)
Pit or Hay (also Chico Maki) played in sixties. You know. Before Orr. In sixties defensman didnt rush in the games... The system of defensive play was completly stay-at-home.
When you made in sixties 50 points you were in TOP10 scoring, if you made 65 there was a chance to won.. Both Pit and Hay were around 50 all seasons.
Everyone from players mentioned above was star of his team and was a hell good player.
Howgh.

 

[seventieslord]

Nilsson and Hedberg was star players anywhere they played.
Pit Martin (Chicago) was good center, too. He was 740 243-384-627 with Chicago, what is star category in sixties hockey.

You know, after your first reply to this thread, that was soundly and correctly dismissed, the correct thing to do would be to slink back into the darkness, not post something wrong again.

Martin played in the 60s but didn't really begin to peak until the 68-69 season. His career high as of that year was 61 points... then 42... then 35. He was not a "star" in the 60s as you imply.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Nilsson also never played in NHL more than 59 games per season.
You cant say Hedberg, Nilsson, Pit or Hay (calder trophy winner) are bad or average players. Nilsson and Hedberg came from Sweden, Euro, where was completly different system of play, somebody from NA had to pick ´em from Sweden and he had to think about they are not only good players but better players than what he had in team. (Do you bring a player from other side of the world if he is same level as hometown guys?)
Pit or Hay (also Chico Maki) played in sixties. You know. Before Orr. In sixties defensman didnt rush in the games... The system of defensive play was completly stay-at-home.
When you made in sixties 50 points you were in TOP10 scoring, if you made 65 there was a chance to won.. Both Pit and Hay were around 50 all seasons.
Everyone from players mentioned above was star of his team and was a hell good player.
Howgh.

If you cannot tell the difference between players like Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Dickie Moore and boom Boom Geoffrion against those such as Pit Martin, Bill Hay, Chiko Maki, and Nilsson/Hedberg then I don't know what else to tell you. You are dead wrong.

 

[Big Phil]

To be honest it really is close with a handful of superstars after the "big 4". It is so close that the Hull/Richard debate will almost never be truly solved. I think it comes down to what you prefer, this is how close I think both players are.

For a season, you might have to lean on the side of Hull. Even though Richard is pretty much neck and neck with him in scoring finishes.

For a game, an important game, you take Richard. For a series, Richard. For the playoffs in general you take Richard.

No one with the exception of Gretzky has scored bigger goals in the history of the game. Personally I value that and despite being on the Habs teams from 56-'60 you have to remember that Richard lit it up in the playoffs win or lose on much less star studded teams. He showed up constantly.

So do you value that or do you value someone who was more talented and a bit better of a playmaker? Tough call either way

 

[seventieslord]

Richard's best attribute is his goalscoring. Hull is even better than he is at it. It should not be a matter of personal preference.

 

[MXD]

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

The Habs signed Dave Keon? I wasn't aware of that. Nor I was aware that they signed Pierre Pilote either.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Murray Balfour

Correction. They were superstars in the WHA with Hull leading the charge, and average in the NHL. Ulf Nilsson never cracked 70 points in the NHL, and Hedberg never cracked 80. They had decent PPG, but were never tearing it up like they were with Hull in the WHA.

In his early Chicago days, Hull was usually with Bill Hay and Chiko Maki. Mikita played on the scooter line with Ab MacDonald(Later, Doug Mohns) and Ken Wharram.

Towards the end of his Chicago days, Pit Martin was a good player, but not a superstar, which is what I think the original poster was getting at. Pit Martin played primarily in the 70's, not the 60's.

Murray Balfour was the original right winger on the Bobby Hull, Bill Hay Line - The Million Dollar line. Balfour was a converted defenseman out of the Montreal system who was vastly underrated.
Very strong defensively with enough offense to take some of the pressure of Bobby Hull. Chico Maki who replaced Murray Balfour was never able to provide the offense that Balfour contributed.

He died from cancer in the prime of his career, May 30,1965.

 

[seventieslord]

Murray Balfour was the original right winger on the Bobby Hull, Bill Hay Line - The Million Dollar line. Balfour was a converted defenseman out of the Montreal system who was vastly underrated.
Very strong defensively with enough offense to take some of the pressure of Bobby Hull. Chico Maki who replaced Murray Balfour was never able to provide the offense that Balfour contributed.

He died from cancer in the prime of his career, May 30,1965.

An arena in Regina bears his name.

 

[greatgazoo]

The Habs signed Dave Keon? I wasn't aware of that. Nor I was aware that they signed Pierre Pilote either.

Sorry, I meant every good player within the Canadiens territory which was 60 miles from Montreal. Keon and Pilote were of course from outside that area.

My bad for saying Quebec.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Really.....

Sorry, I meant every good player within the Canadiens territory which was 60 miles from Montreal. Keon and Pilote were of course from outside that area.

My bad for saying Quebec.

Rod Gilbert, Bernie Parent were born and raised on the Island of Montreal. Signed and played for the Rangers and Bruins respectively. Then there was Gump Worsley from Verdun who signed with the Rangers initially,Fleming Mackell with Toronto, Ken Mosdell with the NY Americans. Just a short list.

 

[Big Phil]

Richard's best attribute is his goalscoring. Hull is even better than he is at it. It should not be a matter of personal preference.

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