EHM The Blue Line

I remember when helmets became manditory, but they grandfathered in those players already playing without helmets, but who was the last player to not wear one?

For some reason I am curious about this. I donno why.

I believe that it was Craig MacTavish, who played for the Bruins, Oilers, Rangers, Flyers and Blues.

Laker2415 wrote:I believe that it was Craig MacTavish, who played for the Bruins, Oilers, Rangers, Flyers and Blues.

I agree...Craig MacTavish was the last player not to wear a helmet in the NHL.

Yes it was him. But Guy Lafleur is certainly just behind him.

I think Randy Carlyle is in there somewhere too... ???

Thanks for the answer though. It had been bugging me. lol

Definitely Craig MacTavish. I remember the commentators always talking about it. When he played for the Bruins it wasn't a big deal. It was later in his career that a big deal was made of it.

I remember the commentators always talking about it.

Even now, I seem to hear this topic brought up once in a while during broadcasts.

I'm guessing a tougher question would be "Who was the last goalie to play without a mask?"

Must have been strange seeing MacTavish skate around without a helmet in like 94 or 95

MacTavish for sure.
But anyone knows who was the FIRST to wear a helmet? And when was it?

First NHL player to play with a helmet:
George Owen, Boston 1929
wore his leather football helmet

Last NHL goalie to play without a helmet:
Andy Brown, Pittsburgh, 7 April 1974

Source : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 6051322598

Craig MacTavish was last player without helmet

I remember doing a radio talk show in college in St. Louis about this. MacTavish was the ONLY player left under the grandfathered rules, and he was with the Blues at the time.

It was really weird seeing on CBC game 7 of the 94 finals a few weeks ago and every few minutes or so you would see just one guy (MacTavish) without a helmet on the ice.

Do any of the refs still go helmetless? The last one I remember going without is Kerry Fraser. Is he still around and helmetless? I know he hated the idea of messing up his hair!

bruins72 wrote:Do any of the refs still go helmetless? The last one I remember going without is Kerry Fraser. Is he still around and helmetless? I know he hated the idea of messing up his hair!

Hehe how vain! It's not like the crowd would notice his hair if he wore a helmet


I don't know how the heck goalies played without helmets. That must have resulted in some serious injuries I don't really know much about pre-90's hockey so, other than the odd TV clip I've seen, don't know much about how things worked back then.

Back when goalies were barefaced, things were pretty different for shooters too. They basically used tree branches with straight blades and no loft. Made getting the puck up off the ice considerably harder than with the sci-fi sticks they use now.

Stan Makita & Bobby Hull changed all that with infamous "banana blades" in the 60's. This was probably the most dangerous period for goalies. Hull was known to rifle shots in excess of 110 mph at crossbar height just to get the goalies ducking. Not positive on the ballistics, but it wouldn't be a stretch to say taking a frozen puck to the forehead at 100+ could be lethal.

Years ago for giggles we bought a couple dozen straight bladed sticks and played a friendly pick-up game with them. It was awful and watching the home video later, it was hilarious. We looked like a bunch Mites who couldn't take a stride with the puck on our sticks and passes and shots were all over the place. I played Div. III college, some of the guys on those teams played Major Junior and a couple played minor pro (ECHL). If you play, I recommend trying it just for fun, just don't have any scouts in the stands

Hehe nice story about the tree branch sticks

A shot at 100+ to the head would surely cause serious damage if not death. I'd imagine it'd be worse than the likes of Mike Tyson giving you a punch to the head. Hats off (pardon the pun) to goalies from back then - they must have been extremely brave to accept that sort of danger.

I agree. It's strange that there wasn't very much serious injuries at goalies. Sticks weren't very good, yes, but still the games could been more bloody.

Sticks might not have been good for shooting the puck, but for some players they were good for beating the snot out of their opponents, usually with no penalty or suspension given by the referee.

If I may be so bold as to ask a 2nd trivia question (I found this out last night):

Who was the last Stanley Cup Champion that was comprised completely of Canadian-born players?

Laker2415 wrote:Sticks might not have been good for shooting the puck, but for some players they were good for beating the snot out of their opponents, usually with no penalty or suspension given by the referee.

If I may be so bold as to ask a 2nd trivia question (I found this out last night):

Who was the last Stanley Cup Champion that was comprised completely of Canadian-born players?

74-75 Philadelphia Flyers

You sir, are correct.

archibalduk wrote: A shot at 100+ to the head would surely cause serious damage if not death. I'd imagine it'd be worse than the likes of Mike Tyson giving you a punch to the head. Hats off (pardon the pun) to goalies from back then - they must have been extremely brave to accept that sort of danger.

I think it took quite a bit of bravery to accept that sort of danger with the early goalie masks as well.



(That's the 1960s and 1970s Czechoslovakian super goalie, Jiri Holecek.)

That looks like a Hannibal Lecter mask!

I bet it gives every bit as much protection. It looks like it's just fiberglass right on top of the skin (although in real life, there was some very, very minor padding -- not much more shock-absorbent than thick cloth -- in between, at least in the models I remember seeing way back when).