What are examples of historical revisionism that you hate the most?

[bambamcam4ever]

Did it occur to you that the user you were talking to might have also watched him play?

People can get different assessments over watching the same player.. just because you watched him doesn't make you automatically correct in your assessment.

No. From his explanations I'm even more sure that he didn't watch him. Like saying Crosby lacked defensive awareness isn't worth taking seriously.

 

[Teemu]

The Sedin sisters

Come on people. These brothers were insanely talented, and took whatever beating came their way.
The Sedins were insanely hard to knock of the puck. Had work ethic and endurance second to none, and were extremely skilled and talented.

But yes, a lot of misinformed fans still call them the sisters.

They were already being called the Sedin Sisters before they even donned a Canucks jersey. It's pretty obvious, low-hanging fruit for *anyone* in sports called The X Brothers, plus it was alliterative.

 

[Video Nasty]

You're quoting a post giving the most likely possibility as "won or been within a point or two" as saying only "he'd have won". That's a big difference.

No wonder you see extreme assumptions when you don't read what people write.

Yes, I’m focusing on the point that was led with because it’s clear that adding “within a point or two” is an afterthought. Before you crawl inside my skull and say that I can’t possibly know that, the same can be said about your assumption.

It’s the what if Crosby game. I know how it’s typically played.

 

[nowhereman]

It’s most likely that he would have scored the 11 points needed to win the Art Ross with the goals tiebreaker or 12 to win outright in the opening 6 games he missed and then had everything unfold in the exact same way that it did in reality?

A season after Kane tore him apart in the scoring race and he finished behind Benn again? A season before he never sniffed a win in the scoring race again?

No, it’s not most likely at all.

This is why people on this forum have a problem with the myth of Crosby. It’s not about him. It’s about the extremes and assumptions some make.

Crosby was pacing for 97 points that year, while McDavid landed on 100 – so saying that he "most likely would have won or been within a point or two" isn't exactly offbase. But Crosby let his foot off the gas toward the end of that year, in advance of yet another Cup run, while McDavid went trophy-hunting (to his own admission) in the last month of the season. You don't think a Crosby who was pacing at nearly the same clip might have gunned for a few more points, if the race were tighter (and with the goal tie-breaker)?

The point is, Crosby was an Art Ross contender beyond 2015. The notion that the monolithic Canadian media collectively joined forces to prop up Crosby's defensive play, because he couldn't compete offensively, is just a wild projection. Besides, no one thought that Kane was better than Crosby, outside of a few people who don't know the difference between the better season and the better player (or that Kane is one of the league's most irresponsible defensive players). No one needed to pump Sid's tires.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

That the Sedins were soft and their stats padded because of offensive zone starts. For a good while there was a narrative they couldn't kill penalties.

 

[Video Nasty]

Crosby was pacing for 97 points that year, while McDavid landed on 100 – so saying that he "most likely would have won or been within a point or two" isn't exactly offbase. But Crosby let his foot off the gas toward the end of that year, in advance of yet another Cup run, while McDavid went trophy-hunting (to his own admission) in the last month of the season. You don't think a Crosby who was pacing at nearly the same clip might have gunned for a few more points, if the race were tighter (and with the goal tie-breaker)?

Yes, the myth of Crosby. Every excuse in the book for why he doesn’t have more than a pair of Art Rosses. I’ve heard them all. Missed games. Pace. Let his foot off the gas. What a crock.

 

[tarheelhockey]

What the heck is “historical revisionism”? Isn’t looking at history through today’s lens always going to skew our view, and that view will change even more as time passes?

The idea behind the term “historical revision” is that someone actively re-writes accounts of history with an agenda in mind.

People get accused of it all the time for a variety of reasons. It’s not necessarily a negative thing, but it certainly can be a negative if done for purely political reasons (e.g. Soviets declaring that enemies of the state never existed and literally deleting all record of them).

 

[Toby91ca]

Also while the Thomas thing is an exaggeration, he set the playoff record for save percentage while to that point in time, his team had one of the worst ever post lockout shots against per game (which no doubt helped hi save percentage). He played a big, big role.

Unless I'm missing something and were are talking about save percentage up to a certain point during the playoffs and not looking at that whole playoff season, Thomas didn't set a record, haven't checked on record, but Giguere had a 0.945 sv % in 2003....better than Thomas' 0.940.

 

[Malkinstheman]

Feels like every time I hear about Forsberg he's gone up in the all time rankings. In a decade he's gonna be talked about as a top-3 player lol

 

[dirtydanglez]

the leafs couldn't make the 2nd round without kadri.

clearly kadri wasnt the problem.

 

[norrisnick]

Feels like every time I hear about Forsberg he's gone up in the all time rankings. In a decade he's gonna be talked about as a top-3 player lol

Over time some players whose careers were cut short or interrupted the "what could have been?" commentary gets conflated into a memory of "what was".

 

[Golden_Jet]

Unless I'm missing something and were are talking about save percentage up to a certain point during the playoffs and not looking at that whole playoff season, Thomas didn't set a record, haven't checked on record, but Giguere had a 0.945 sv % in 2003....better than Thomas' 0.940.

Lalime had a 946 in 2002 over 2 series before elimination.
Against the Flyers let in 2 goals in 5 games for a 985.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Crosby was pacing for 97 points that year, while McDavid landed on 100 – so saying that he "most likely would have won or been within a point or two" isn't exactly offbase. But Crosby let his foot off the gas toward the end of that year, in advance of yet another Cup run, while McDavid went trophy-hunting (to his own admission) in the last month of the season. You don't think a Crosby who was pacing at nearly the same clip might have gunned for a few more points, if the race were tighter (and with the goal tie-breaker)?

The point is, Crosby was an Art Ross contender beyond 2015. The notion that the monolithic Canadian media collectively joined forces to prop up Crosby's defensive play, because he couldn't compete offensively, is just a wild projection. Besides, no one thought that Kane was better than Crosby, outside of a few people who don't know the difference between the better season and the better player (or that Kane is one of the league's most irresponsible defensive players). No one needed to pump Sid's tires.

The exact same Crosby detractors show up every single time Crosby's mentioned. It's like they've got the Bat signal. As soon as the key words "Crosby" or "Sidney" pop up in a post, they get notifications to run and post volumes of negative stuff about him. Without fail.

 

[Video Nasty]

The exact same Crosby detractors show up every single time Crosby's mentioned. It's like they've got the Bat signal. As soon as the key words "Crosby" or "Sidney" pop up in a post, they get notifications to run and post volumes of negative stuff about him. Without fail.

Someone has to balance out the lovefest fueled by fantasies and dark desires.

 

[Tawnos]

Not sure what you mean by "for the reasons you didn't intend". Pretty sure my intent was clear.

I posted a better article later in this thread though. You are correct but missing details. Territorial rights were never really territorial as NHL teams could sponsor junior teams anywhere. Montreal had junior teams in the states, and other NHL teams had teams in Quebec. Montreal did not get de facto access to everyone born in Quebec, but because they were the richest and most successful team at the time, they were able to sponsor the most teams and hoard the most players.

Pronovost for example was a Quebec guy during that era who was never property of the Habs and chose to sign with the Penguins. Ratelle is another backwoods Frenchman who didn't speak a word of English and signed with the Rangers youth system.

When the draft was instituted in 1961, the league gave Montreal a special clause where they could either choose 2 French Canadian players, or pick normally with the rest of the league. For the first 5 years they picked normally, the next year they picked 2 bums, and the next year they got Rejean Houle. After they got Houle the league decided they were done with the rule because Gilbert Perreault was due to be drafted in 1970 and they didn't want the Habs to get him.

So in their entire history there were only 2 years where they did not follow the same set of rules as every other team, and it only netted them 1 player. Who knows who they would've picked if they didn't invoke the rule

When you say de facto, I think you mean de jure. De facto is something that's reality without being officially sanctioned to be that way. De jure is something that's reality because it's officially sanctioned that way. The rules didn't say "hey, Canadiens get all the best French players" but they did allow for a system whose true result was the Habs getting *nearly* all of them. Pretty much all of 50s and 60s Cup teams had a core made up of players acquired because of the way the Habs invested in the area.

Just because other teams "could" have invested more in the area doesn't mean they weren't muscled out of it by a competitor with more local resources. Teams could occasionally get good players from the area, but fairly often they were players accurately reading the landscape as being too challenging because of who the Habs already had. Gump Worsley, Rod Gilbert, and (through Gilbert) Jean Ratelle were all examples of that. Good on the Canadiens... it worked well for them, but we shouldn't pretend it was a level playing field just because everyone was following the same rulebook.

The truth is that claiming the Habs didn't have a regional advantage is more revisionist and incorrect than the claims that they did. Even though the details get mixed up on how the exact mechanisms of the advantage worked, the point is still the same... and still accurate.

 

[Figgy44]

If Gretzky had access to modern diet, video review and training...

Yo. 99 and Walter trail blazed the creation of modern nhl training well past what your feeble mind can understand. Give him modern training and he'd probably work on going next level plus injury rehab style training.

Few people understand that 99 and Walter took hockey nerdism to a level that would put us HF nerds to shame.

 

[blundluntman]

Worst historical revisionism?

Has to be Greedo shot first.

Lucas really decided to break Han Solo’s neck just to make him look like the good guy lmao

 

[Fatass]

The idea behind the term “historical revision” is that someone actively re-writes accounts of history with an agenda in mind.

People get accused of it all the time for a variety of reasons. It’s not necessarily a negative thing, but it certainly can be a negative if done for purely political reasons (e.g. Soviets declaring that enemies of the state never existed and literally deleting all record of them).

Sounds like right out of 1984.

 

[UnSandvich]

The idea behind the term “historical revision” is that someone actively re-writes accounts of history with an agenda in mind.

People get accused of it all the time for a variety of reasons. It’s not necessarily a negative thing, but it certainly can be a negative if done for purely political reasons (e.g. Soviets declaring that enemies of the state never existed and literally deleting all record of them).

(Slightly Off-Topic)
W/R/T your example, I recently read a book called "The Great Terror", by Robert Conquest. It was genuinely mind-boggling what Stalin & his cronies did to that society. Cannot recommend the book enough if you're into history.

Sounds like right out of 1984.

It does, because it was. Orwell actually modeled elements of the State in 1984 off of Stalin's regime

 

[ricky0034]

people just sweep the fact that Gritty used to have a son under the rug and nobody ever questions what happened to him

#justiceforgrittyjr

 

[WTFMAN99]

People pretending Huberdeau wasn't gonna pull 10.5M on the UFA market after the last few seasons he had when he landed in Calgary.

The player didn't forget how to player hockey, just had a bad fit in Calgary with Sutter as the coach.

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

When you say de facto, I think you mean de jure. De facto is something that's reality without being officially sanctioned to be that way. De jure is something that's reality because it's officially sanctioned that way. The rules didn't say "hey, Canadiens get all the best French players" but they did allow for a system whose true result was the Habs getting *nearly* all of them. Pretty much all of 50s and 60s Cup teams had a core made up of players acquired because of the way the Habs invested in the area.

Just because other teams "could" have invested more in the area doesn't mean they weren't muscled out of it by a competitor with more local resources. Teams could occasionally get good players from the area, but fairly often they were players accurately reading the landscape as being too challenging because of who the Habs already had. Gump Worsley, Rod Gilbert, and (through Gilbert) Jean Ratelle were all examples of that. Good on the Canadiens... it worked well for them, but we shouldn't pretend it was a level playing field just because everyone was following the same rulebook.

The truth is that claiming the Habs didn't have a regional advantage is more revisionist and incorrect than the claims that they did. Even though the details get mixed up on how the exact mechanisms of the advantage worked, the point is still the same... and still accurate.

Nope, you sound like you can't handle the truth.

Tons of people believe the same story they heard from their Grandad about how the Habs had rights to every French player in the league. This was obviously never true. There was a rule that lasted for 7 years that granted Montreal the right to draft 2 French players or pick regularly in the draft, but most of the Habs haters have no clue what the stipulations were and just parrot nonsense about how the Habs cheated.

They also have the most cups in the league since 1970, when any special priveledges were officially erased.

The Habs were just smart and had more money than other teams as a result of their success. Other teams could have done the same thing, but they weren't as smart. Of course Montreal was a desirable place to play.

You are correct and there were exceptions, of course, but it is a reality that the vast vast majority of NHL players coming out of Quebec played for Montreal during the sponsorship era. It was just how things functioned. The Maple Leafs got the Golden Horseshoe players and Detroit the Southwestern Ontario players, the Rangers, Bruins and Blackhawks were generally fighting for scraps with some exceptions. It's not about some rule-mandated advantage or not being subject to the same set of rules as everyone else, just a result of how things unfolded.

This is precisely the "historical revisionism" that I am addressing, THANK YOU

 

[jigglysquishy]

When you say de facto, I think you mean de jure. De facto is something that's reality without being officially sanctioned to be that way. De jure is something that's reality because it's officially sanctioned that way. The rules didn't say "hey, Canadiens get all the best French players" but they did allow for a system whose true result was the Habs getting *nearly* all of them. Pretty much all of 50s and 60s Cup teams had a core made up of players acquired because of the way the Habs invested in the area.

Just because other teams "could" have invested more in the area doesn't mean they weren't muscled out of it by a competitor with more local resources. Teams could occasionally get good players from the area, but fairly often they were players accurately reading the landscape as being too challenging because of who the Habs already had. Gump Worsley, Rod Gilbert, and (through Gilbert) Jean Ratelle were all examples of that. Good on the Canadiens... it worked well for them, but we shouldn't pretend it was a level playing field just because everyone was following the same rulebook.

The truth is that claiming the Habs didn't have a regional advantage is more revisionist and incorrect than the claims that they did. Even though the details get mixed up on how the exact mechanisms of the advantage worked, the point is still the same... and still accurate.

A thing that is getting missed from this is the language/bigot factor.

Beliveau talks about it in his book. He was a unilingual French speaker. The Habs let him live in a French speaking city, speak French to fans/teammates/coaches/managament. It was incredibly attractive.

Couple that with a heavy English only culture in other teams. They would interview 15 year olds that didn't speak English in English. They would venture into small town Quebec in the 50s without a French speaking scout. Yes, Montreal was at an advantage here, but the other 5 teams made very little effort to welcome in anyone besides Anglos.

French Canadian players exploded in the quality in the 40s and 50s. Lots of the old management cultures in other teams was still used to 20s and 30s era culture where you basically only looked for players in Southern Ontario and Ottawa.

The Habs investing in the Regina Pats. That's just good development. Conn Smythe looking down on French Canadian players isn't the fault of the Habs.

 

[wetcoast]

Yes, he obviously wasn’t plain awful at his peak but he didn’t bring that much outside of offence as some people (in justifying him being above Jagr, McDavid, Ovechkin etc) claim he did.

Crosby's defense is noticeably better than the 3 guys you mention here enough to make a distinction pretty much at every age.

Mats Sundin being lionized as elite and generational.

Usually it's non Leaf fans who set up this strawman.

I'm probably one of the guys who ranks him higher than most be I NEVER think of him as elite or generational.

 

[RandV]

The idea behind the term “historical revision” is that someone actively re-writes accounts of history with an agenda in mind.

People get accused of it all the time for a variety of reasons. It’s not necessarily a negative thing, but it certainly can be a negative if done for purely political reasons (e.g. Soviets declaring that enemies of the state never existed and literally deleting all record of them).

You could apply a more casual definition to hockey here as in something people simply remember incorrectly that creates an ongoing narrative.

To create a bad/good example lets start with the "Sedin Sisters". That's a label people incorrectly threw at the time in ignorance, it's not a revision. If anything the attitude changed as they neared the end of the career and started getting a lot more broad respect.

For an actual hockey 'historical revision'... best one I can think of off the top of my head could be around the idea that the NHL setup the expansion rules so Vegas could be a good team right away. I call this revisionism because post-expansion draft no one thought Vegas was going to be a good team right away. They really had no business making it to the finals in their first year, it was a combination of luck, competence, and player buy in that got them there. Vegas' first season should have looked a lot more like Seattle's did, and was what everyone was expecting. The league certainly made expansion rules more favourable than the last time it went through that phase, but not to that extent.

So if you want to talk 'historic revisionism' accurately maybe something to consider. Trash talking players like the Sedins or Crosby is typically just your everyday status quo.