1983 Harvard game question

[marty]

[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:


2. Providence brought f-ing cheerleaders :-O  to the game. They were very annoying.
     They wept too. :-O  :-O [/q]

Resisting the open shot on an empty net here. ::woot::

[ursusminor]

A question that has been bothering me for years. What is really meant by statements like "Harvard scored four very quick and unanswered goals"? Unless the game is a shutout, the last of a sequence of consecutive goals by one team is always "answered". Certainly it was in this case because Cornell scored only 12 seconds later.

[JDIV]

I stand corrected.  "Harvard scored four quick goals in a row." ;-)

Thanks to everyone for your answers.  Poking around here brings back some great memories that were dredged up by going to the Yale game.  I should try to make a point of seeing at least one game each year from now on!

[Hillel Hoffmann]

[Q]msphi81 Wrote:However, didn't Olds do something to get the crowd going?[/q]
Oops, it took me a while to realize that you were connecting Olds to Schafer via lumber. Sorry about that. No, I don't remember Olds doing anything like that, but I've heard other folks mention this. Don't know if it's apocryphal.

Olds was the best. He and Schafer are part of a lineage of enforcers in the post-Ned period. It goes something like this: Stokes > Olds > Schafer ... and then a spiritual gap.

[Trotsky]

[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:
Olds was the best. He and Schafer are part of a lineage of enforcers in the post-Ned period. It goes something like this: Stokes > Olds > Schafer ... and then a spiritual gap.[/q]
I would include Ratushny and the next in that sequence.  It's often forgetten that he was a punishing hitter and great ice captain because his offensive skills were so strong.

The geneology of the "spiritual heart of the team," IMHO, goes:

John Olds 79-82
Mike Schafer 83-86
Dan Ratushny 89-91
Shaun Hannah 91-94
Steve Wilson 94-97
Stephen Bâby 00-03

[Will]

I'd kinda like to include Greg Hornby on that list somehow.  I suppose one could say that this team just has a lot of heart. :-D

[Scersk '97]

[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:
Olds was the best. He and Schafer are part of a lineage of enforcers in the post-Ned period. It goes something like this: Stokes > Olds > Schafer ... and then a spiritual gap.
[/q]
Oh, I don't know--Norton and Levasseur, though certainly not one-dimensional "enforcers," certainly picked up the slack after Schafer's graduation.  I'd give the edge to Norton, since Levasseur, to me, always seemed just undisciplined.  Norton's penalties sure brought the ire of some guy who sat in front of my parents and me.  "Oh, Norton!  Norton!" he would lament.

After that there does seem to be a gap until the arrival of Dan Dufresne in 1993.  As the penalty box seat had etched into it at one time:  "Reserved, Dan Dufresne."  When Cooney, Steve Wilson, and Jason Kendall arrived (my class, heh!), the goon factor certainly increased.  I think Wilson was actually most in Schafer's mold.  Nobody seemed to be able to get under the skin of opposing players like Wilson.  Cooney and he would both throw their bodies around checking people, but Wilson would taunt them for his and Cooney's hits.  And then the penalty would be called and his face would change to that boyish, "Oh, geez, ref, it couldn't have been me!" look.  Rich(H) and I used to call him:  "Steve Wilson, a--hole of the ECAC."  Boy were we glad he was ours.

Kendall, however, still holds my heart (and perhaps Schafer's) for most obvious gooning.  There was a dustup at the end of a Brown game in Providence, back when Gaudet's travelling goon show always caused problems.  (That is, besides their reprehensible practice of falling on the puck at the end of possible ties with us.  Boy, I wanted to kill someone when they did that.)  Anyway, the usual suspects were involved, including Cooney.  Well, Kendall was skating around, uninvolved, out at center ice when things seemed to be calming down.  I saw Schafer point at him, point at the fight, and say something like, "You!  Go!"  Kendall went charging in from center ice and absolutely clobbered someone.  The fight started up again and he and Cooney found their way to DQs.  It was precious.

I'm not really a fan of fighting, in hockey or otherwise, but there was something about Gaudet's teams that brought out the worst in everyone.  If it's Gaudet--Brown or Green--flush it down.

[Trotsky]

And Bob himself is such a soft-spoken guy... ;-)

[Hillel Hoffmann]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:I would include Ratushny and the next in that sequence.  It's often forgetten that he was a punishing hitter and great ice captain because his offensive skills were so strong. The geneology of the "spiritual heart of the team," IMHO, goes:

John Olds 79-82
Mike Schafer 83-86
Dan Ratushny 89-91
Shaun Hannah 91-94
Steve Wilson 94-97
Stephen Bâby 00-03
[/q]

I think that's a good lineage for "spiritual heart of team," but the lineage I was describing was (ruthless) "enforcer," an important role that no one really took up for a while. Sometimes the two have been the same, as in Olds and Schafer, but not always. Stokes wasn't the spiritual heart of nuthin', except maybe darkness.

It's interesting to note that even in your lineage, there's still a telling spiritual gap after Schafer.

[Hillel Hoffmann]

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:

 [Q2]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:
Olds was the best. He and Schafer are part of a lineage of enforcers in the post-Ned period. It goes something like this: Stokes > Olds > Schafer ... and then a spiritual gap.
[/Q]
Oh, I don't know--Norton and Levasseur, though certainly not one-dimensional "enforcers," certainly picked up the slack after Schafer's graduation.[/q]
Norton and Levasseur were physical and picked up loads of PIMs, so there was a superficial resemblance to the Olds-Schafer enforcer role. But I just can't put them in the same lineage as John and Mike. There are some guys (and you're right, Steve Wilson was one of 'em) who have this freaky understanding of when to use intimidation -- physical, mental, legal, illegal, instigating, retaliatory, whatever -- to change the momentum or pace of a game. That's what a true enforcer does. Olds knew it, without being told. Schafer knew it. Now Stokes, he didn't always understand -- I think Bertrand had to tell him to kick booty.

[Scersk '97]

[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:
Norton and Levasseur were physical and picked up loads of PIMs, so there was a superficial resemblance to the Olds-Schafer enforcer role. But I just can't put them in the same lineage as John and Mike.
[/q]
Yeah, I guess you're right.  I was only 12, it was my first season, and any hitting was bound to make an impression.  What you say about enforcers is right on:  we're looking for Scott Stevens and (no matter how much I hate him) Claude Lemieux-types rather than simply hard-playing bruisers.

[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:
Stokes wasn't the spiritual heart of nuthin', except maybe darkness.
[/q]
Then I insist on adding Dufresne for 93 and 94.  Cooney flattened people not to be mean, but because they were wearing the wrong color.  (Hornby also seemed to be more in this line.)  Dufresne and Wilson, however, cross-checked their way into my heart.

The question becomes:  who on this year's team is the enforcer, or could be?  (I think Hynes, if not so valuable on the ice, has potential.)  Has there been one since Wilson graduated?

[Hillel Hoffmann]

[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:The question becomes:  who on this year's team is the enforcer, or could be?[/q]
I think it's fair to say that one of the defining things about (coach) Schafer's teams is that he has somehow been able to transmit the sense of how/when to use intimidation and physical play to most of his players, even the ones that no one would ever dream of calling enforcers. Because of that, his teams don't really need one person to assume that role -- as opposed to, say, Bertrand-era teams that truly needed enforcers, partly for their old-school protect-yer-fragile-star role.

[Jerseygirl]

Speaking of enforcement, rumor has it that one of Doug Murray's favorite tricks was to pin an opponent up against the boards and laugh in his ear as he held him there. It's probably not one of the most unique tricks in the book, but I think it's a hilarious mental picture. His poor victims just couldn't handle him.
Not that this has anything to do with the thread, but I'd like to point out that if I were a male hockey player good enough for D1, I would absolutely be my team's enforcer. The main reason I probably never went anywhere with any of the sports I played was because I was too busy trash talking the other team and trying to spike them as I slid into a stolen base. Girls' sports in my area were all about singing on the bus and putting ribbons on each others' ponytails. Ugh. Guys don't pull that kind of crap, do they?
On that note, anyone on this board in the NYC area need a gritty catcher for their spring co-ed softball team? I promise I'll behave. :-D
-Jers

[Trotsky]

[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:
the lineage I was describing was (ruthless) "enforcer," an important role that no one really took up for a while. Sometimes the two have been the same, as in Olds and Schafer, but not always.[/q]

No enforcer lineage can be complete without Dave Crombeen. ;-)

[125EddyStreet]

I was at the game and I remember that moment very clearly ... It was one of the best at Lynah.  It happened.