Eleven Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804506.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804506.html That truly does belong in the "something new every day" category. I did not know before today that November 1, 1959 was the 1st time a goalie wore a mask in an NHL game. It's a very nice article. Too bad it is WRONG. February 20, 2010 is the 80th anniversary of the goalie mask in the NHL. Now, had the author stated that 11/1/59 was the 1st time a goalie wore a FIBERGLASS mask in an NHL game, he might have had a point. With all the resources available on-line, how do reporters make such mindless screwups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 That truly does belong in the "something new every day" category. I did not know before today that November 1, 1959 was the 1st time a goalie wore a mask in an NHL game. It's a very nice article. Too bad it is WRONG. February 20, 2010 is the 80th anniversary of the goalie mask in the NHL. Now, had the author stated that 11/1/59 was the 1st time a goalie wore a FIBERGLASS mask in an NHL game, he might have had a point. With all the resources available on-line, how do reporters make such mindless screwups? And to think that we trusted the same newspaper to break Watergate. Seriously, though, from what I'm now reading (I'm not finding a lot, and you didn't give me a link to follow, so I'm only reading what I get from Google), if you're referring to whatever it was that Clint Benedict wore with the Montreal Maroons in 1930, it may not have been a mask; it may have been just a nose-guard. Even if it was just a nose-guard, the fact at least could have been mentioned in the Post article. ESPN is reporting the 50th anniversary, too: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/thelife/news/story?id=4603073 (click the gallery link). So is TSN: http://www.tsn.ca/story/?id=296284 TSN is having a celebration! And The Hockey News, in which I put a lot of trust: http://thehockeynews.com/articles/28908-THNcom-Top-10-Things-that-changed-the-game.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 And to think that we trusted the same newspaper to break Watergate. Seriously, though, from what I'm now reading (I'm not finding a lot, and you didn't give me a link to follow, so I'm only reading what I get from Google), if you're referring to whatever it was that Clint Benedict wore with the Montreal Maroons in 1930, it may not have been a mask; it may have been just a nose-guard. Even if it was just a nose-guard, the fact at least could have been mentioned in the Post article. ESPN is reporting the 50th anniversary, too: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/thelife/news/story?id=4603073 (click the gallery link). So is TSN: http://www.tsn.ca/story/?id=296284 TSN is having a celebration! And The Hockey News, in which I put a lot of trust: http://thehockeynews.com/articles/28908-THNcom-Top-10-Things-that-changed-the-game.html Nice detective work (you'd think a reporter would be able to be at least remotely as capable, I guess not). It is in fact the mask that Clint Benedict wore back in 1930. It was made of leather and, while it's primary purpose was to protect his nose, it did in fact cover his nose, cheeks, chin, and forehead above the eyebrows. It covered probably 80% of his face. The mask got knocked off in a goal-mouth scramble later that season and he ended up breaking his nose AGAIN on the play, and that was the end of his HoF career. I don't really have a problem with them claiming that Benedict's mask didn't lead to masks becoming ubiquitous; it certainly didn't as the mask wasn't brought back into the game for nearly 30 more years. Nor do I take exception to a claim of Plante's mask being the progenitor of what we see today. But to claim (o)n November 1, 1959, a goalie wore a face mask in a National Hockey League game for the first time is no more accurate than to say that Mike Marson was the first black NHLer. Mr O'Ree might rightly take some exception to such a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I don't like it when mis-history is widely reported, and I often question the motive behind it. Here, I've cited four distinct sources (although TSN and ESPN are related by common ownership) which are commonly thought of as respectable (especially the Post and Hockey News), and I'm wondering whether the NHL publicity machine is behind it, because frankly, I've no reason to doubt that what you're saying is true. (I would like to read more about it, though; all I've seen is wikipedia, some guy's personal aol page, and a snippet of a book that somehow made it onto the net--but it's not the book itself. None are reliable, to me.) Completely believable, though, is the idea that the NHL needed to give media outlets a reason to report on the NHL, and also completely believable is the notion that the business wonks at NHLHQ don't know everything about the history of the game. Given what you wrote, the whole thing smacks of being taught that Henry Ford invented the automobile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardSauve Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/thelife/news/story?id=4603058 Jason's mask also has a link to the Sabres. (Sorry if this was posted already). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I don't like it when mis-history is widely reported, and I often question the motive behind it. Here, I've cited four distinct sources (although TSN and ESPN are related by common ownership) which are commonly thought of as respectable (especially the Post and Hockey News), and I'm wondering whether the NHL publicity machine is behind it, because frankly, I've no reason to doubt that what you're saying is true. (I would like to read more about it, though; all I've seen is wikipedia, some guy's personal aol page, and a snippet of a book that somehow made it onto the net--but it's not the book itself. None are reliable, to me.) Completely believable, though, is the idea that the NHL needed to give media outlets a reason to report on the NHL, and also completely believable is the notion that the business wonks at NHLHQ don't know everything about the history of the game. Given what you wrote, the whole thing smacks of being taught that Henry Ford invented the automobile. Here is a link to a brief bio on Benedict from the HHoF. Linky It has a slightly different explanation as to the injury that led to his retirement than the one I gave above. Mine was taken from pg 34 of "The Official National Hockey League 75th Anniversary Commemorative Book^." It appears that the HHoF's take on when and why he gave up on the mask is more accurate. Per "Hockey Hall of Fame Legends The Official Book"^^, the reason he retired was the original Morentz shot had impaired his vision (even more than the mask did on low shots). Apparently he stopped wearing the mask after a loss to the Black Hawks. Though the details of his giving up the mask appear muddled, the fact that he was the 1st to wear one in an NHL game is not. ^Diamond, Dan ed. 1991. The Official National Hockey League 75th Anniversary Commemorative Book. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Inc. ^^McKinley, Michael. 1993. Hockey Hall of Fame Legends the Official Book. Toronto: Penguin Books Canada Ltd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Here is a link to a brief bio on Benedict from the HHoF. Linky It has a slightly different explanation as to the injury that led to his retirement than the one I gave above. Mine was taken from pg 34 of "The Official National Hockey League 75th Anniversary Commemorative Book^." It appears that the HHoF's take on when and why he gave up on the mask is more accurate. Per "Hockey Hall of Fame Legends The Official Book"^^, the reason he retired was the original Morentz shot had impaired his vision (even more than the mask did on low shots). Apparently he stopped wearing the mask after a loss to the Black Hawks. Though the details of his giving up the mask appear muddled, the fact that he was the 1st to wear one in an NHL game is not. ^Diamond, Dan ed. 1991. The Official National Hockey League 75th Anniversary Commemorative Book. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Inc. ^^McKinley, Michael. 1993. Hockey Hall of Fame Legends the Official Book. Toronto: Penguin Books Canada Ltd. The HHoF bio says this though: "Nearly 30 years before Jacques Plante's innovative goalie mask, Benedict returned to action a few weeks later with a protective cover over his nose." But per the books, Benedict probably wore something close to Plante's mask, and now that I'm seeing sites that claim Plante invented the mask ("invented" is quite a distance from "first player to wear it in an NHL game," and we're not even sure about the latter), I'm starting to think that all of the information, on both guys, is either unreliable or inconsistent. Maybe next time I'm in Toronto, I'll see if HHoF has photos of what Benedict wore. Probably, I just won't bother. Viva Henry Ford! Inventor of the automobile! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 The HHoF bio says this though: "Nearly 30 years before Jacques Plante's innovative goalie mask, Benedict returned to action a few weeks later with a protective cover over his nose." But per the books, Benedict probably wore something close to Plante's mask, and now that I'm seeing sites that claim Plante invented the mask ("invented" is quite a distance from "first player to wear it in an NHL game," and we're not even sure about the latter), I'm starting to think that all of the information, on both guys, is either unreliable or inconsistent. Maybe next time I'm in Toronto, I'll see if HHoF has photos of what Benedict wore. Probably, I just won't bother. Viva Henry Ford! Inventor of the automobile! The links you provided are technically correct. None of the links to ESPN, TSN, nor THN claim Plante was 1st to wear a mask. The TSN link and THN links claim (correctly) that he was the 1st to return to a game donning a mask. Benedict broke his nose on February 9 (IIRC) and wore the mask for the 1st time on February 20. The ESPN link states that 11/1/09 is the 50th anniversary of Plante wearing a mask in a game, which is also correct. It is only the schmuck from the Post that claims Plante was the 1st to wear a mask in an NHL game. And Benedict's mask truly was a mask. It doesn't cover as much of the face as Plante's mask did, but it is more than a Lone Ranger sort of deal. I have a photo of the mask Benedict wore (but unfortunately it is FAR too late for me to be messing around w/ trying to scan the photo in; maybe I'll try to scan it at a later time). The mask is all leather, has a LARGE nose piece which is essentially a folded over triange, has a large piece that fits flatly over the chin and cheeks with a small rectangle cut out over the mouth, and large rectangle (w/ rounded corners) that covers the forehead and eyebrows. It is not clearly obvious to me how the mask was kept in place. I am assuming there were straps, but they aren't clearly visible in the photo. As for Plante "inventing" the mask, I probably would give him that one. Benedict's was leather and created other vision issues. Plante's was fiberglass and he had created several iterations of the mask before the one he actually wore in a game against the Strangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/thelife/news/story?id=4603058 Jason's mask also has a link to the Sabres. (Sorry if this was posted already). That's the mask that Gump Worsley should have worn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Speaking of reporting errors, how about this doozy by Jim Kelley, on Tyler Myers: "In keeping him the Sabres set the clock in motion for the time when he will become restricted free agent, and that's when he'll be just 22." The error is still uncorrected this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Speaking of reporting errors, how about this doozy by Jim Kelley, on Tyler Myers: "In keeping him the Sabres set the clock in motion for the time when he will become restricted free agent, and that's when he'll be just 22." The error is still uncorrected this morning. This is true. He's a RFA after his three year entry deal. The 10 games started the 3 years counting. They can keep him an RFA until he goes to UFA status. At 40 games his UFA goes from age 27 to age 26. Even if he gets hurt and doesn't play, if he's on the active roster those games count too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 This is true. He's a RFA after his three year entry deal. The 10 games started the 3 years counting. They can keep him an RFA until he goes to UFA status. At 40 games his UFA goes from age 27 to age 26. Even if he gets hurt and doesn't play, if he's on the active roster those games count too. OK, thanks. I was getting ready to jump your ass, as I was certain Darcy had explained it differently. Alas, in listening again, it was clear. What threw me off was Kelley's comment that, "In keeping him the Sabres set the clock in motion for the time when he will become restricted free agent, and that's when he'll be just 22. If the Sabres survive that, Myers will be eligible for unrestricted free agency shortly thereafter." I wouldn't say 22 to 26 is "shortly thereafter." Anyway, I think I'll jump your ass anyway. What are you doing after the game tonight? Uhhh, you are a guy, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 OK, thanks. I was getting ready to jump your ass, as I was certain Darcy had explained it differently. Alas, in listening again, it was clear. What threw me off was Kelley's comment that, "In keeping him the Sabres set the clock in motion for the time when he will become restricted free agent, and that's when he'll be just 22. If the Sabres survive that, Myers will be eligible for unrestricted free agency shortly thereafter." I wouldn't say 22 to 26 is "shortly thereafter." Anyway, I think I'll jump your ass anyway. What are you doing after the game tonight? Uhhh, you are a guy, right? If the operation goes as planned, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Anyway, I think I'll jump your ass anyway. Be carefulof whose ass you jump! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWT6I5ewPtc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Be carefulof whose ass you jump! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWT6I5ewPtc WTF? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Be carefulof whose ass you jump! Ohmygod. Why was this being filmed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbossy Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Be afraid. Be very very afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.