Bobby Hull

[PrimumHockeyist]

Hull and Orr had a strong tournament in 1976. Both were excluded (health, WHA) in 1972 and were better hockey players in 1972.

Hull ended up scoring the game winner in the round robin Soviet game. Orr had two goals and an assist in the first final game against Czechoslovakia.

The addition of Potvin helped a lot too.

One wonders how different hockey history would be if Orr and Hull played in 1972. Maybe Canada does much better against the Soviets, but never learns anything. And the Soviets spend the 80s trouncing Canada.

My question has long been this : Could a totally healthy Orr of that age have carried Team Canada through Game One, to the point where at least the end is uncertain until the final end? He sees we're in trouble, starts trying to control the game in the second period....
What if?

 

[jj cale]

A lot of that was true.
some pre scouts warned Canada how good the soviets were, but that was ignored.

I’ll go by who won the actual series though.

I'd say both the Soviets and Canada won. The soviets by showing Canada wasn't the only game in town and that it could be played in more then one way ,Canada by showing they were still indeed the best and that their style was a winning style despite long odds after the first 4 games.


But hockey won really, the soviets showed us another side of hockey which certainly pushed the game to the next level the Canadians also showed that hockey isn't just about skating, systems etc either.....................heart matters when combined with skill, getting traffic in front is effective, physicality is important, board battles are important.........and those are skills in themself, every bit as important as what the Soviet game was focusing on and showcasing with their game.

Both sides LEARNED A TON..............and the game was better for it going forward right to this very day.

The Summit series was the most important hockey meeting in history hands down.

 

[Overrated]

Seems the Soviet hockey program was in turmoil in 1976. Claims they didn't bring all of their best players, brought a young team. No Petrov or Mikhailov or Kharlamov. They didn't even get to the finals.

Kharlamov got injured too. The second line with Yakushev didn't come either. Yet what were effectively third and fourth liners never had any trouble scoring. The Soviets did have the best forwards in the world back then. It was their defense that was lacking.

I give them zero credit for not bringing their best players. The Soviets had everything to lose by endorsing the bestie concept.

Nonetheless, awesome players. I guess there can never ever be another Game One. Most extraordinary. By the time Henderson got his second goal I knew we were facing a real team.

If they were so scared why would they show up in 79,81,84 & 87? Or why did they show up in 76 with a weaker squad? Would make more sense to not show up at all...

 

[Staniowski]

Fair enough.

But I still don't buy it.

In the late 90's, goal totals dropped drastically. Was that not better defense, but rather better defense and offense?

Sounds like an argument for the game gets better because players are bigger, stronger, faster, more talented, coaches are better, more creative, equipment is better, etc.

Back to Bobby Hull, would he not have been as great playing in the 80's and 90's instead of the 60's and 70's?

The number of goals scored (GF/GA) at any time is always a tug-of-war between offense and defense (there's a lot more you could say about it, but that's basically what it is).

In the 1980s, as I mentioned, offense and defense both improved a lot - so they were both a lot better in 1989 than they were in 1979. For a while, defense didn't change much and offense improved a lot, so scoring increased. But then, the talent matured, talent continued to enter the league, and, at the same time, there was a great improvement in coaching, which yielded better defense. And that's mainly why scoring decreased from mid-decade. But offensive talent was still improving, and continued to do so into the '90s, even as scoring continued to decrease. Defense was just winning the tug-of-war.
‐----------------------
What I originally said about Bobby Hull was merely that he would've had somewhat more difficulty surviving (and thriving) - during his late 30s and early 40s - in the late '80s than in the late '70s, due to the late '80s being better skating and a better league in general.
-------------------------
Re: Bobby Hull in the '80s and '90s vs the '60s and '70s....
The '80s and '90s had a lot more talent than the '60s and '70s, so he would've likely been a lesser star than he was in the '60s, but he still would've been the same player, so still an excellent player.

 

[MadLuke]

Late 90s, could be in part goaltender equipment getting better (and bigger), save percentage dropped I think going in the 2006 seasons with the rule change on it.

There was some strategy and commitment going on, but when power play percentage go downs... it is not like PK in the early 90s were not fully dedictated at stopping goals.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The number of goals scored (GF/GA) at any time is always a tug-of-war between offense and defense (there's a lot more you could say about it, but that's basically what it is).

In the 1980s, as I mentioned, offense and defense both improved a lot - so they were both a lot better in 1989 than they were in 1979. For a while, defense didn't change much and offense improved a lot, so scoring increased. But then, the talent matured, talent continued to enter the league, and, at the same time, there was a great improvement in coaching, which yielded better defense. And that's mainly why scoring decreased from mid-decade. But offensive talent was still improving, and continued to do so into the '90s, even as scoring continued to decrease. Defense was just winning the tug-of-war.
‐----------------------
What I originally said about Bobby Hull was merely that he would've had somewhat more difficulty surviving (and thriving) - during his late 30s and early 40s - in the late '80s than in the late '70s, due to the late '80s being better skating and a better league in general.
-------------------------
Re: Bobby Hull in the '80s and '90s vs the '60s and '70s....
The '80s and '90s had a lot more talent than the '60s and '70s, so he would've likely been a lesser star than he was in the '60s, but he still would've been the same player, so still an excellent player.

Bobby Hull would have thrived in any era, he was a good skater. Then give him better technology in skates and equipment he would thrive, since was the best player in the league for a decade.

With regard for better defense in the 90’s, once the back half of the 90’s hit, coaches turned it into a clutch and grab league.

Any player in his 40’s or late 30’s isn’t as good as they once were. Most are retired.

 

[Staniowski]

Bobby Hull would have thrived in any era, he was a good skater. Then give him better technology in skates and equipment he would thrive, since was the best player in the league for a decade.

With regard for better defense in the 90’s, once the back half of the 90’s hit, coaches turned it into a clutch and grab league.

Any player in his 40’s or late 30’s isn’t as good as they once were. Most are retired.

Yes, Hull would be an excellent player in the '80s and/or '90s, it's just that he would stand out less. He won 7 goal-scoring titles in his career, but he would obviously win a lot fewer if he was 20 or more years younger. There wasn't much for goal-scorers in the '60s - late 30s Gordie Howe, Frank Mahovlich stuck on the defensive Leafs, and a bunch of guys who weren't even close to being great goal-scoers: Henri Richard, Claude Provost, Norm Ullman, Stan Mikita, Alex Delvecchio, etc. There's a real possibility that he doesn't win any goal-scoring titles in the '80s and '90s, against Bossy, Gretzky, Kurri, Lemieux, Brett Hull (?!), Bure, etc.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Kharlamov got injured too. The second line with Yakushev didn't come either. Yet what were effectively third and fourth liners never had any trouble scoring. The Soviets did have the best forwards in the world back then. It was their defense that was lacking.


If they were so scared why would they show up in 79,81,84 & 87? Or why did they show up in 76 with a weaker squad? Would make more sense to not show up at all...

No, I agree with you all now that I know more about the background. However, and since you ask, we must ask about the 1976 time to see why the Soviets might not want to show up.

Prior to 72 we have the Soviets almost always winning world championships and Olympics. I can't say off the top of my head, but lets say they went 10 and 0 for a twelve year stretch, or thereabouts, at the IIHFs while they won 4 straight Olympic golds. Call it a perfect 14-0 run.

To answer your question then, if I am a Soviet statesman who knows that all of this ongoing success has been predicated on fraud, then after having lost in 72 and having almost tied in 74, to a tier two Canadian national team, I might want to avoid further besties and stay with the facade that was international ice hockey.

As things stand now, such a fear would be well founded. 52 years have passed since 1972. There have been 13 best on best competitions by my count, of which Canada has made 11 finals and won 9 times. The Russians have won once, in 1981 and maybe one other final. So yes, there is reason to suggest that such a fear would be well founded and legit around 1976. The Russians performance since 72 has done little to improve the Soviet's pre-72 legacy, unless you like theater, I suppose.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I'd say both the Soviets and Canada won. The soviets by showing Canada wasn't the only game in town and that it could be played in more then one way ,Canada by showing they were still indeed the best and that their style was a winning style despite long odds after the first 4 games.


But hockey won really, the soviets showed us another side of hockey which certainly pushed the game to the next level the Canadians also showed that hockey isn't just about skating, systems etc either.....................heart matters when combined with skill, getting traffic in front is effective, physicality is important, board battles are important.........and those are skills in themself, every bit as important as what the Soviet game was focusing on and showcasing with their game.

Both sides LEARNED A TON..............and the game was better for it going forward right to this very day.

The Summit series was the most important hockey meeting in history hands down.

I completely agree. For me, the Soviets scored two major victories. They won their place in truly elite 'real' hockey after Game One, then proved it wasn't a fluke for the rest of the series. That may have been the bigger victory for the Soviets. Their victories were victories for Europe, too. Since then elite hockey has been a two-continent game.

It is amazing to think how North American hockey evolved as a result of 72, especially after seeing what it was before.

 

[Staniowski]

It is amazing to think how North American hockey evolved as a result of 72, especially after seeing what it was before.

It evolved a lot, and over decades that followed. Even in the 1980s, the NHL was largely a Canadian (or North American) game, where Europeans were coming to play a somewhat different game....but it continued to evolve into more of a world sport, with big influences from several different places.

 

[jj cale]

I completely agree. For me, the Soviets scored two major victories. They won their place in truly elite 'real' hockey after Game One, then proved it wasn't a fluke for the rest of the series. That may have been the bigger victory for the Soviets. Their victories were victories for Europe, too. Since then elite hockey has been a two-continent game.

It is amazing to think how North American hockey evolved as a result of 72, especially after seeing what it was before.

Truly changed the game forever that series.

It is the defining moment of the game, nothing else is in it's league. as far as for the development of the sport of hockey.

 

[Mike C]

Bobby Hull would have thrived in any era, he was a good skater. Then give him better technology in skates and equipment he would thrive, since was the best player in the league for a decade.

With regard for better defense in the 90’s, once the back half of the 90’s hit, coaches turned it into a clutch and grab league.

Any player in his 40’s or late 30’s isn’t as good as they once were. Most are retired.

I've always said that greats of one era would be great in any era all things being hypothetically equal. Hull is no exception. His accomplishment have been diminished by many as time has gone on. I suspect his off ice personna has clouded the view of his on ice greatness for many

 

[Golden_Jet]

Yes, Hull would be an excellent player in the '80s and/or '90s, it's just that he would stand out less. He won 7 goal-scoring titles in his career, but he would obviously win a lot fewer if he was 20 or more years younger. There wasn't much for goal-scorers in the '60s - late 30s Gordie Howe, Frank Mahovlich stuck on the defensive Leafs, and a bunch of guys who weren't even close to being great goal-scoers: Henri Richard, Claude Provost, Norm Ullman, Stan Mikita, Alex Delvecchio, etc. There's a real possibility that he doesn't win any goal-scoring titles in the '80s and '90s, against Bossy, Gretzky, Kurri, Lemieux, Brett Hull (?!), Bure, etc.

Sure, your all over the map now. first it was when he was late 30’s and early forties, he wouldn’t thrive, now if he was younger he couldn’t.
he’d still thrive with new equipment,
He’s regarded as a top 10 player for a reason. He’s still 50+ years later ranked between 7-12 likely, depending on who you ask. The history section reviews it every so often.
Anyways we’ll disagree
Have a good day.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Truly changed the game forever that series.

It is the defining moment of the game, nothing else is in it's league. as far as for the development of the sport of hockey.

It is cool to think that all of this happened 100 winters after ice hockey was introduced to Montreal, possibly on the pond where the old Forum was built but surely near it. Amazing, to think how much the game had evolved by then, as of 1972.

 

[carjackmalone]

Would been interesting If Hull made his 81 attempt at a comeback with let’s say Edmonton ,Calgary or Chicago.

 

[Zine]

No, I agree with you all now that I know more about the background. However, and since you ask, we must ask about the 1976 time to see why the Soviets might not want to show up.

Prior to 72 we have the Soviets almost always winning world championships and Olympics. I can't say off the top of my head, but lets say they went 10 and 0 for a twelve year stretch, or thereabouts, at the IIHFs while they won 4 straight Olympic golds. Call it a perfect 14-0 run.

To answer your question then, if I am a Soviet statesman who knows that all of this ongoing success has been predicated on fraud, then after having lost in 72 and having almost tied in 74, to a tier two Canadian national team, I might want to avoid further besties and stay with the facade that was international ice hockey.

As things stand now, such a fear would be well founded. 52 years have passed since 1972. There have been 13 best on best competitions by my count, of which Canada has made 11 finals and won 9 times. The Russians have won once, in 1981 and maybe one other final. So yes, there is reason to suggest that such a fear would be well founded and legit around 1976. The Russians performance since 72 has done little to improve the Soviet's pre-72 legacy, unless you like theater, I suppose.

Holy conspiracies. )))

No ‘statesmen’ had significant influence over hockey decisions circa ‘76. Even the Sports Committee was hands-off from the beginning letting the hockey program do its own thing.
Its why coaching feuds were left to fester to the detriment of team cohesion (see 1972 Tarasov/Bobrov tug-of-war).

Again, much of it is detailed in "The Battle Of The Iron Coaches", by Fyodor Razzakov and “the Secrets of Soviet Hockey’ by Alexander Petrov. Tons of interviews.

The weakened roster was a result of Kulagin wanting to quell potential coaching rivals, especially after losing the 1976 Worlds.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

It evolved a lot, and over decades that followed. Even in the 1980s, the NHL was largely a Canadian (or North American) game, where Europeans were coming to play a somewhat different game....but it continued to evolve into more of a world sport, with big influences from several different places.

Seems like things got really rolling in the 90s to me, the surge towards global hockey.

Holy conspiracies. )))

No ‘statesmen’ had significant influence over hockey decisions circa ‘76. Even the Sports Committee was hands-off from the beginning letting the hockey program do its own thing.
Its why coaching feuds were left to fester to the detriment of team cohesion (see 1972 Tarasov/Bobrov tug-of-war).

Again, much of it is detailed in "The Battle Of The Iron Coaches", by Fyodor Razzakov and “the Secrets of Soviet Hockey’ by Alexander Petrov. Tons of interviews.

The weakened roster was a result of Kulagin wanting to quell potential coaching rivals, especially after losing the 1976 Worlds.

I was ten when the Summit Series went down, and had been raised with the understanding that the top Soviet state was interested in sports primarily being propaganda. From the outside pov, on the other side of the intractable Wall, it seemed like the state apparatus had a stranglehold on the kind of personal issues you raise. Your touching on freedom of expression here. I had thought that was a no-go back in 72 Moscow.

Adding to your point, on this same note, I remember a similar thing a few years ago, hearing that Tarasov held up a game that Stalin was attending. That paints a quite different picture.

Then again, reading Harry Sinden's book after 72 didn't help me overcome the 'state' thinking, as he reported that things started get really bad in Moscow, behind the scenes. This would complement the way we were raised to think in North America then: that the people Sinden had to deal with were very if not exclusively 'state' driven then. His intereactions seemed to strongly support the prevailing stereotype, imo.

Thanks for the input. Again, I accept your take on 76 being about personalities being the reason or more likely reason. And while I remain skeptical that the 'state' was not involved. I would not have thought that personalities could have such latitude in the Soviet Union.

 

[Overrated]

Seems like things got really rolling in the 90s to me, the surge towards global hockey.


I was ten when the Summit Series went down, and had been raised with the understanding that the top Soviet state was interested in sports primarily being propaganda. From the outside pov, on the other side of the intractable Wall, it seemed like the state apparatus had a stranglehold on the kind of personal issues you raise. Your touching on freedom of expression here. I had thought that was a no-go back in 72 Moscow.

Adding to your point, on this same note, I remember a similar thing a few years ago, hearing that Tarasov held up a game that Stalin was attending. That paints a quite different picture.

Then again, reading Harry Sinden's book after 72 didn't help me overcome the 'state' thinking, as he reported that things started get really bad in Moscow, behind the scenes. This would complement the way we were raised to think in North America then: that the people Sinden had to deal with were very if not exclusively 'state' driven then. His intereactions seemed to strongly support the prevailing stereotype, imo.

Thanks for the input. Again, I accept your take on 76 being about personalities being the reason or more likely reason. And while I remain skeptical that the 'state' was not involved. I would not have thought that personalities could have such latitude in the Soviet Union.

Soviet propaganda was very crude and primitive. They had no market to speak of, the west has always been far ahead in terms of propaganda which is really synonymous with PR or marketing. They only had 2 TV stations + a local one in the local language for the non-Russian republics. Their sports propaganda largely revolved around the Olympics and winning the most medals. The USSR also dominated in like 50 different sports, winning some obscure Canada Cup in ice hockey wasn't their top priority. If they were so scared it would make more sense to not send their team at all. The team had star players anyways (Maltsev, Tretiak, Balderis, Vasiliev) so your average Soviet citizen would not buy the excuse that it's just an experimental team.

I also think the Soviets had a shot in winning the whole thing even without Kharlamov. Spartak won the league that year and the line Yakushev-Shadrin-Shalimov dominated the Soviet league. Petrov and Mikhailov were of course big stars themselves. These five players would definitely make a difference.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

Soviet propaganda was very crude and primitive. They had no market to speak of, the west has always been far ahead in terms of propaganda which is really synonymous with PR or marketing. They only had 2 TV stations + a local one in the local language for the non-Russian republics. Their sports propaganda largely revolved around the Olympics and winning the most medals. The USSR also dominated in like 50 different sports, winning some obscure Canada Cup in ice hockey wasn't their top priority. If they were so scared it would make more sense to not send their team at all. The team had star players anyways (Maltsev, Tretiak, Balderis, Vasiliev) so your average Soviet citizen would not buy the excuse that it's just an experimental team.

I also think the Soviets had a shot in winning the whole thing even without Kharlamov. Spartak won the league that year and the line Yakushev-Shadrin-Shalimov dominated the Soviet league. Petrov and Mikhailov were of course big stars themselves. These five players would definitely make a difference.

The Soviets most certainly had a shot in winning the whole thing in 76. .

The Soviets did indeed win a huge variety of golds, so I can see how total golds becomes a main area of focus. In Canada, especially then, ice hockey was it. I can see the Olympics and the IIHF,needing a few years to sort out the amateurism thing. From 1960 onwards it was a self-induced travesty.

 

[Overrated]

The Soviets most certainly had a shot in winning the whole thing in 76. .

The Soviets did indeed win a huge variety of golds, so I can see how total golds becomes a main area of focus. In Canada, especially then, ice hockey was it. I can see the Olympics and the IIHF,needing a few years to sort out the amateurism thing. From 1960 onwards it was a self-induced travesty.

The thing is that the average layman didn't even know that there were these NHL Canadians out there much better than the ones at the Olympics. Growing up in Europe even I thought that the World Championships were the pinnacle of the sport. My grandpa watched hockey his whole life and never even saw a single NHL game. Even though winning CC76 would be more of an accomplishment than winning the gold at the 1976 Olympics for both the Soviet state and the average Soviet citizen it really wasn't the case. To them the Canada Cup was just some hockey tournament in Canada.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The thing is that the average layman didn't even know that there were these NHL Canadians out there much better than the ones at the Olympics.

North Americans didn’t think that.

To them the Canada Cup was just some hockey tournament in Canada.

kinda like the world championships are in North America.

 

[Zine]

Seems like things got really rolling in the 90s to me, the surge towards global hockey.


I was ten when the Summit Series went down, and had been raised with the understanding that the top Soviet state was interested in sports primarily being propaganda. From the outside pov, on the other side of the intractable Wall, it seemed like the state apparatus had a stranglehold on the kind of personal issues you raise. Your touching on freedom of expression here. I had thought that was a no-go back in 72 Moscow.

Adding to your point, on this same note, I remember a similar thing a few years ago, hearing that Tarasov held up a game that Stalin was attending. That paints a quite different picture.

Then again, reading Harry Sinden's book after 72 didn't help me overcome the 'state' thinking, as he reported that things started get really bad in Moscow, behind the scenes. This would complement the way we were raised to think in North America then: that the people Sinden had to deal with were very if not exclusively 'state' driven then. His intereactions seemed to strongly support the prevailing stereotype, imo.

Thanks for the input. Again, I accept your take on 76 being about personalities being the reason or more likely reason. And while I remain skeptical that the 'state' was not involved. I would not have thought that personalities could have such latitude in the Soviet Union.

I haven't read Sinden's book, but please note the Summit Series transcended hockey. The event was akin to a Soviet/Canadian international relations exchange via sport. So of course Sinden encountered government interference everywhere. I wouldn't expect anything less.

However my comments were regarding the decision making of the Soviet hockey program in terms of roster selections, hockey bureaucracy, etc. Sinden's experiences have nothing to do with that.


And like Overrated described, even though it was best-v-best, the Canada Cup was waaaay down the totem poll in terms of domestic and international exposure. Probably 99% of the globe didn't know the Canada Cup was even a thing. Not a high priority for propaganda purposes, which is why Kulagin could do what he did.
The Olympics on the other hand.....


Anyhow, good discussion.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

I haven't read Sinden's book, but please note the Summit Series transcended hockey. The event was akin to a Soviet/Canadian international relations exchange via sport. So of course Sinden encountered government interference everywhere. I wouldn't expect anything less.

However my comments were regarding the decision making of the Soviet hockey program in terms of roster selections, hockey bureaucracy, etc. Sinden's experiences have nothing to do with that.

Understood. However, it does complement the narrative in which state players are primarily concerned with state objectives, and not fair play. The Soviets legacy made this a truly plausible reason for thinking that they might want to back out of 76. But like I've said twice, I accept your more informed view that ca.76 was personality driven.

And like Overrated described, even though it was best-v-best, the Canada Cup was waaaay down the totem poll in terms of domestic and international exposure. Probably 99% of the globe didn't know the Canada Cup was even a thing. Not a high priority for propaganda purposes, which is why Kulagin could do what he did.
The Olympics on the other hand.....

I think that all of the indifference would have been fine for Canadians of my time. We wanted to involve ourselves in the hockey world and restore order there. That's exactly what we did in the world of hockey, and I wonder how many of my countrymen could also not care less if others were indifferent. The IIHF tournaments have always been easy to ignore. Olympic hockey was another thing. What a shit show that was, from the Canadian point of view.

Anyhow, good discussion.

Indeed. Thanks for sharing, and offering up a fuller and more realistic view of the 76 thing. Between that and how the Hull-Howe thing was framed earlier, I've found this thread to be particularly insightful.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Understood. However, it does complement the narrative in which state players are primarily concerned with state objectives, and not fair play. The Soviets legacy made this a truly plausible reason for thinking that they might want to back out of 76. But like I've said twice, I accept your more informed view that ca.76 was personality driven.



I think that all of the indifference would have been fine for Canadians of my time. We wanted to involve ourselves in the hockey world and restore order there. That's exactly what we did in the world of hockey, and I wonder how many of my countrymen could also not care less if others were indifferent. The IIHF tournaments have always been easy to ignore. Olympic hockey was another thing. What a shit show that was, from the Canadian point of view.


Indeed. Thanks for sharing, and offering up a fuller and more realistic view of the 76 thing. Between that and how the Hull-Howe thing was framed earlier, I've found this thread to be particularly insightful.

If you watched the games, it was clearly the Canadians that were not interested in fair play,

 

[Golden_Jet]

If you watched the games, it was clearly the Canadians that were not interested in fair play,

I watched, I remember the soviets not turning on the goal light for an important Canadian goal.