Cup wins before the 70's & 80's shouldnt count! Anyone agree?

Question

i think it was cheap to win a cup back when there were only

like 6 teams in the league!

Montreals shouldnt count! Except their 1993 victory

Answer 1

They should remain champions of those years they won and counted for.  All sports change.  Rule changes, salary caps and instant replay are huge changes in sports.  But each team played by the same rules the year they won.  Change will never stop.  It is something we all must get used to in life.

Answer 2

They should totally count! It's hockey history!

The teams who won still worked as hard as they could. Just like they do today.

Answer 3

No. Your an idiot

Answer 4

i agree you are an idiot.

let's erase history...just stupid

Answer 5

anyone wanna give up their oh - so - valuable "Top Contributor" tag to a more - deserving Morgan? (I'd quickly give you mine, if I had one.)

Morgan, your contributions to this section are priceless. (for a good time ... see Q&A history)

So is your tact.

Morgan, seriously, think about what you're saying. Do you want to visit the homes of every single living hockey legend (who is on the cup) and tell them, that their work (regardless of how competitive it SEEMED at the time) doesn't warrant their name on the cup? Are you suggesting to remove the names? You say that you were born in 85... Listen, at the time those guys were playing, i'm sure it felt competitive to them. it's not THEIR fault that the league hadn't flourished into 20+ teams. besides, how were they to even envision that? to them, 12 teams would seem like a large league. you seem to display SUCH a lack of persective (not to mention respect) on many hockey issues. but it's a free continent, you're entitled to your opinion.

good luck on that cross - continental trip telling all those guys that it doesn't count. it'll mean a lot to them coming from a 22 or 23 year old.

add - hockey is a lot older than pretty much everyone on here. you don't get to pick and choose which parts are convenient for you, cuz it makes your favorite team look better. they wouldn't have got where they are today, if there were no trailblazers. respect the history. and the evolution. it's all part of the game and makes today's game even better. you can't really have one w/o the other.

add 2 - as most of you are learning, most of Morgan's questions are baited. don't take them too seriously. he just likes to S.T.P.   He gets humor out of watching people work themselves into a tizzy over controversial issues by starting things off by saying something racy.

that's why Hannibal supports him. same type. (see Q&A). Hannibal, we don't expect everyone to "play nice" and use kind words. but the unfortunate truth for Morgan (and seemingly you), is that you want a double standard. you can't handle what you dish out. Morgan asks for opinions, but when they differ from his, he can't handle it, and shows his frustration, resorting to namecalling. yet, he cannot tolerate if the situation is reversed. so bring on the namecalling. unfortunately, you two bored losers just sit at your computers and try to annoy people. like you said, it's a freedom you have. you also have the freedom to be an idiot, and believe that no matter what anyone says, that you're always right. you guys are like little kids who close their eyes really tight and plug their ears and say, "i'm not listening". when in reality, you just come off as ... well ... little brats. you don't annoy me. you humor me.

Answer 6

Of course they all count.. you cannot change history because of expansion. I do agree with however.. fans that weren't even born when their team won cups , or at least won most of their cups have no reason to brag about anything. Society and sports especially is all about what have you done lately.  Recent sucess trumps glorious history any day of the week.

Answer 7

I believe they should count, but I see your point and I argue this all the time. I argue it whenever someone says the Rangers suck because they only won, what? 2 or 3 cups in the original six era. I argue that because the Canadian teams had a distinct advantage, because (as I'm sure you all know) back then you pretty much got the players from your area, and the best were mostly Canadian. Though, I still believe the cups should count, and fans should just recognize that fact.

Answer 8

i dont agree.

Answer 9

I totally disagree. Back then the talent wasn't diluted as it is today which made for great games.

(I'd lay off Red Bull for a while.....)

Answer 10

I'm reminded of a quote from a semi-famous chiuawa in a semi-famous cartoon show: You're an idiot.

Answer 11

Well first, in the very early days, it would be many teams, such as the Montreal AAA, Hamilton Bulldogs, and it was more of a North American Championship, as teams from different leagues would compete, and the original six are just the tams that made it out of the depression really, or made it out of WWII as well, they didnt have many years as just 6 teams, and if you look at the rangers, they won 2 of their cups back in the days of more than six teams, and 1994 was won with 20 some teams, so this is a pretty idiotic point

Answer 12

Yeah...it was so easy to win in the Original Six era.  Go talk to the guys who played back then (the ones that are alive).   I mean, the goalies who played without a mask...they're *******, right?  And the guys who didn't use helmets...oh geez, they had it so freakin' easy.  And the players were still millionaires living on easy street for sure, eh?

Go look at the equipment they used, the conditions they played in, and the way the game was played, and ask that question again.

Answer 13

Yeah I guess Henri's 11 cups were tainted and Montreal's 4 in a row in the late seventies were flukes. Especially 1976-77 when they were beaten 8 times that year. Definitely not as good a team as this last years Red Wings.

Maybe the cup is much easier to win when the league is watered down with 750 players instead of the 100 best in the world in pre expansion days.

Answer 14

I dont think you will find anyone worthy to agree with you on this point.

Answer 15

No. How stupid. Dumb. Pointless. The Wings, Rangers, Montreal, Chicago, Boston Bruins, and Toronto Maple Leafs are the original 6. Its how hockey started. These expansion teams suck anyway. Who plays hockey in Florida where its 80 degrees every day, or California. You have to go to ice rinks to even skate enless you play table hockey, or field hockey. Lame. Detroit, its cold in late fall and winter which = hockey, and its the same in the rest of the original 6 citys. So in other words no its a stupid idea to take away the cups before the 70's and 80's.

Oh and by the way the Redwings were one of the original 6 teams idiot. I know I live there, and went to a quarterfinal Stanley Cup game this year when Franzen won it in Overtime vs Nashville.

Answer 16

I am sick of Montreal bragging about all of their Cup wins.  Detroit has the 3rd most, but I only brag about the last 4 Cups...the ones that matter.  The game has changed so much.  You can only brag about teams when comparing within the same era, in my opinion.  I would say there are more different playing eras than modern and old.  Hockey has changed drastically since the 70s and 80s.  Maybe if Detroit wasn't so good, I wouldn't be so eager to call older teams irrelevent at this point.  Still, I agree that Montreal needs to stop bragging about all the Cups they had back when the entire league was Canadian and there were 6 teams...4 of them American.  Of course the Leafs and Habs are going to have the most...but it's 2008!  I guess they could make excuses about Canadian taxes to make up for most Canadian teams' lack of Cup wins in the modern era.

People could have some good reasons to disagree, but I'm on the same page as you.  I'm proud of Hockeytown's impressive history from the old days, but I like to focus on the era at hand when comparing teams.  2008-2009 is all that matters right now.

EDIT - I do think the question is a little too blunt and poorly worded.  I think they should definitely count, because they were won, it happened, and guys worked hard to accomplish that.  I don't think anybody should brag about all the Cups they've won, because you need to consider the context in which they were won.  You definitely should not expect to erase history though.  The league had to start somewhere, and you have to pay homage to the old greats.  I just don't need another Habs fan telling me WHY I need to pay homage, and who to.  I'm proud of Detroit's first dynasty (before sucking for 30 years), but I'm not going to brag about how great Mr. Hockey was.  If I were a Habs fan, I would let my franchise's track record speak for itself.

Did anybody who gave me thumbs down read everything I said, or did all Habs fans who saw this question immediately click on it and get pissy?  This is coming from the team with the 3rd most Cups in the league...I am just saying to KEEP IN MIND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH EACH CUP WAS WON!

I AM NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM OLD TIME HOCKEY!

im sorry for yelling.

Homes - gave you a thumbs up, even though you don't agree with 45% of my answer.

Answer 17

Congrats you just took the lead for stupidest person in the hockey section.

Go get your medal.

When the Islanders & Oilers won their Cups there were only 21 teams.

Answer 18

Um yeah they should count....winning is winning no matter how many teams in the league....so i guess then 30-40yrs from now people should look back and say hey "Cup wins in the 80s,90s shouldnt count!"  What happens happens, its called history.

Answer 19

First off, expansion happened in 1967.  Secondly, I hope you are joking.

Edit:  So does that mean that we can take away Detroits first 7 Stanley Cup wins?  Crazy talk.

RWD:  I gave you a thumbs up....even though I don't agree with 45% of your answer......

Thanks, dear, lol.

Answer 20

I understand your point.  Montreal would not have 23 cups without a 6 team league.  Some people argue that hockey was harder to get into the NHL back then, but now they are also taking players from worldwide so I don't know about that.

Answer 21

Don't forget Montreal's win in 1986.  I agree with you in the fact that if we are talking about team success over the years.  I think it is misleading to see "23 Cups" for the Canadiens.  "11 Cups" for the Wings.  I foget how many the Leafs have, 13 I think.  When ever I talk about the greatness of the teams nowadays, I omit records before 1965.  The first real dynasty was Montreal in the late sixties.  It was the first streak of Cups during the expansion era.  Sure all the expansion teams were in the same Conference, but it still was expansion era.  Next you have the Isles, then the Oilers in the '80's when the league had 21 teams.  The Flyers were good in there with two in a row.  Then the Pens had two in a row with 21 teams.  Then the Wings have been good for years with 4 Cups in a 26-30 team league.  Also the Avs and Devils had a good run in there too.

No Doubt what the Islanders and Oilers were able to do was amazing, but so is what the Wings and Devils had done in the last decade and a half.  Wouldn't say the same for the franchises before expansion.  Those Montreal, Detroit, and Toronto teams were all great, but it was easier to do back then.  Especially for Montreal because that is where most of the great players were coming from.  What I don't understand, I've never looked it up, is how they determined who played where.

Answer 22

I used to think you were cool Morgan, but asking such a question leads me to refer to you by the title of a popular Green Day album.