- Jan 22, 2007
- 14,637
- 7,730
What's with the disrespect of Maurice Richard?
- Thread starter The Panther
- Start date
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,720
- 17,619
See... To me, it's totally arguable that two of Raymond Bourque, Dominik Hasek, Sidney Crosby, Howie Morenz, Jacques Plante and Jaromir Jagr are better players than Maurice Richard (and that obviously a list of players I deem not as good as Richard; there's a list of players I consider better than Richard for whom I see an argument as to how Richard would be considered better... but frankly, that list starts and end with Bobby Hull as far as I'm concerned - the others I just wouldn't get it).
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,720
- 17,619
Pominville Knows
Registered User
I'm just thinking that a player that many have just inside the top-10 could potentially be ranked 11th by some?
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,720
- 17,619
You fellas are going to have the best needlepoint group around.
I don't know if that's an attempt to be funny, snarky or smart, but that's a failure anyhow.
This has been discussed to death in the other thread. There were many opportunities for the top pre-war goalscorers, i.e. Top Ten finishers, to put up clearly improved production relative to the league in 42/43 (when the biggest one year exodus took place) and in 43/44 (Bentley) to back up a claim that it was "obvious" that the missing elite goalscorers get closer than Cain.
Reasonable? Yes
Obvious? Far from it.
Does this change much all-time? Don't think so except when someone goes out of their way to question his 44/45 season i.e. makes a significant part of the narrative. I would say the same thing about someone who goes out of their way to promote his 44/45 season as being an icon of greatness.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,720
- 17,619
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
No, no, no, we're not going down this death spiral again...
SECURITY! *gesturing at the problem*
SECURITY! *gesturing at the problem*
- Jan 22, 2007
- 14,637
- 7,730
This is actually very valid. I think we all are creatures of bias and preference--be it style, sentiment, physicality, etc. Not to stray--but to use only as an example--it's why I rank defensemen like Potvin, Bourque, Fetisov and Pronger ahead of Lidstrom. Because I absolutely love my defensemen to be physical and rock solid--it's just a personal preference of mine. Obviously there is the case to be made that Lidstrom is 2nd or top-3 at his position all-time... but he takes a hit on my list because he was soft and non-physical. It's just preference. So I get your rationale here on the Rocket.
GMR
Registered User
This may be a sensitive question, but was there a reason why Richard didn't go to World War 2? Did he ever get criticized for not going while many of his other peers did?
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
If you think about it, the argument reduces to: “You simply cannot be an educated fan of the sport if you rank Richard one spot behind [whoever this guy has at #11].”
With a key supporting argument: “You simply cannot be an educated fan of the sport unless you buy 1950s mythmaking over 2020s mythmaking.”
I almost feel bad entering Richard threads lately. It feels gross seeing a top-10 player getting ripped apart because he’s being defended poorly.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Yeah, it's not really Richard that I dislike (I don't), it's just I don't really think that type of player is actually as impactful on the game as a whole.
On my original top-120...Richard was my 4th winger...but was 20th overall. While 7 of my top 13 players were d-men... (and none of my top-15 were goalies...suck on that one, qpq and Doctor No, ya hosers...)
On my original top-120...Richard was my 4th winger...but was 20th overall. While 7 of my top 13 players were d-men... (and none of my top-15 were goalies...suck on that one, qpq and Doctor No, ya hosers...)
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,720
- 17,619
Actually I don't even understand the point of this thread. It basically feels like someone argues that 4 goes between 8 and 9, while everyone else points out that it goes between 3 and 5.
I just feels like something that really shouldn't be litigated is litgated.
Last edited:
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
While sensitive, we can’t discuss any of this without recognizing that Quebec heavily opposed sending soldiers to Europe. What started as indifference ended up with riots and public anti-Semitism. Conscription was far, far lower in Quebec than elsewhere.
Not saying anything about Richard’s personal views. But the unique lack of service by the Habs reflected the larger state of things in Canada.
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,720
- 17,619
There were two bigger "political" reasons (and one socio-economical) for this reality. I'll chime in if you feel it's needed.
Also, if you take a look at the Canadiens roster, it wasn't even extremely heavy on Quebecois regular/stars (that is, not replacement players) in the first place. Richard had been exempt due to failing his medical, while Bouchard was exempt due to actually operating a farm (farmers were exempt). Other than that, O'Connor, Eddolls (did play for Army teams one season) and Chamberlain are from Quebec (but... yeah, one feels like they aren't super relevant to this discussion).
Toe Blake, Elmer Lach, Bill Durnan, Ray Getliffe, Glen Harmon and Leo Lamoureux were all regular (or better) players, and none of them were born in Quebec (and probably none grew up there either), though they had obviously moved in by then.
So that leaves us Bob Filion (played for Army teams, otherwise a bottom liner), Fern Gauthier (1 season in MTL, bottom-liner) amongst regulars. And Phil Watson, who played like one season on a disguised loan because it was apparently simpler (and Gauthier was involved in that trade to, so they weren't on the same team at the same time).
...And Richard, and Bouchard both met a very specific criteria that applied to everyone in Canada (as far as I know). They were clearly the best Québecois on that team, and clearly amongst the five best players on the team and AT WORSE amongst the six best players of the Habs Roster (it's probably debateable between Reardon and Bouchard), but, had Bouchard and Richard been on, say, the Maple Leafs, or otherwise Ontarians, they still wouldn't have been called for duty (provided Bouchard moved his beehives with him).
Richard himself wanted to go to war. But failed his physical.
Last edited:
Fire Sweeney
Registered User
He's just a wartime hockey player. You can consider him a good player, but he doesn't belong anywhere near the top of any list.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,222
- 14,522
He tried but failed the physical, as noted. Montreal, specifically Gorman, was also pretty clever and got several players jobs in industries like shipbuilding that were deemed critical to the war effort and thus such players were not eligible for war service. I know that Conn Smythe ripped Richard somewhat when he came back from WW2, but he also eventually became a big admirer of Richard. I've heard old guys rip Richard/Montreal for not being more active in WW2 so I'm guessing that it did happen to some degree.
DannyGallivan
Your world frightens and confuses me
GMR
Registered User
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,720
- 17,619
Failed for the first for a broken ankle, then failed a second for a broken leg.
Richard actually tried to enlist, so it's not like he was conscripted or anything.
