While the Board of Directors of the Maple Leaf Hockey Club were deciding whether to build their new arena southeast of Union Station, between the train tracks and the lakefront, at Yonge Street [The Globe, January 17, 1931, p.1, c.8; which would have been just a couple of blocks east of the location used for the current Air Canada Centre, which opened in 1998], or at Carleton and Church [the eventual site of Maple Leaf Gardens], there had been talk about 25,000 applications to purchase the 9,000 tickets theoretically “available” to get into the Gardens to see Morenz [The Toronto Daily Star, January 17, 1931, p.10, c.7; La presse, 17 janvier 1931, p.30, c.1 – 2; The Montreal Daily Star, January 17, 1931, p.50, c.1]
There was enough interest in the game that Foster Hewitt’s English radio broadcast was going to be made available through Montreal radio station CFCF from “9.15 to 10.30 P.M.” courtesy of the Bronfman brothers’ Distillers Corporation, Limited [The Montreal Daily Star, January 17, 1931, p.49, c.7 – 8].
Howie Morenz Jr, had traveled with the team – to visit with his Toronto aunt, and to watch his dad play a little hockey: The Montreal Daily Star, January 17, 1931, p.50, c.1. Not surprisingly for the three year old, his immediate impression of the Saturday night game was that he just wanted to go to bed: The Gazette, January 19, 1931, p.18, c.3 – 4; The Montreal Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.23, c.2.
His father probably agreed by the end of the game. The game proved to be a brutally challenging physical contest, and not only for Morenz. It was Toronto resident Marty Burke who would make the first physical statement of the game for the Canadiens after the Leafs had opened the scoring. Burke “walked into Chuck Conacher with a teeth-chattering charge”: The Toronto Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.1.
Conacher was, in addition to being one of the Leafs’ leading goal scorers, one of their penalty minute leaders as well. By the end of the season Conacher had scored the most goals in regular season play, but had also accumulated 78 minutes in penalties in only 37 games. His total penalty minutes on the Leafs was only exceeded by Harvey Jackson’s 81 minutes in 43 games.
Burke’s defiant check earned him a penalty, and shortly after his penalty expired, the Leafs answered with another goal.
It was the manner and style of the Canadiens that while the family of players would look after each other on the ice, every one – even the famous Howie Morenz – expected to look after themselves. There were no “protectors” for the stars or the scorers. Howie Morenz understood that as he attempted to ignite the Canadiens’ first real resistance of the night:
Then Howie Morenz, the Canadiens mid-ice fireball, galvanized into action and for a while he went around like his shorts were full of rocket tubes. He went around the Leaf defence so fast that Day got tired trying to follow him so the next time the Montrealer came down he met him with a check that lifted Leo Dandurand’s star ten feet into the air and deposited him twenty feet away on his back with a jar that must have loosened his fillings.: The Toronto Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.1
That elaborate open air flight, due in part to Morenz’s speed, in part to the glancing blow from Day as Morenz attempted to stride by, and according to the referees due in part to some lift provided by Day himself, hurt Howie’s whole core. What the fans watched as a spectacular cartwheel of uncontrollable flight, ended abruptly with a landing that reverberated through every muscle and bone and joint in his body. The pain arrived in an instant, and remained for hours afterwards.
Others had to take over for the Canadiens’ powerplay that followed. When Morenz returned to play, toughness continued to grind against toughness. The remainder of the game would become a test of wills expressed almost entirely by physical means:
Clancy, Day and Horner gave their usual good performance in front of Chabot. . . . and it was noticeable that they slowed down Canadiens by some bruising body checks early in the game. The Globe, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.1
Morenz and Joliat were harried by encircling sticks every time they went swinging through the defence. Many a sly jab was handed out and Morenz in particular was tripped several times, . . . . The Montreal Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.23, c.1
He was a marked man whenever the puck came his way, and there were times when he expressed extreme annoyance at the deference accorded him. The Globe, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.1: The Globe, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.1
When Morenz returned to the ice, Red Horner stepped into the role of being Morenz’s primary harasser. Horner was the Leafs’ most annoying and most penalized defenceman – a delight to Conn Smythe:
When Red did come up, he led the league in penalties for something like eight years in a row, but I approved of that. He was the first policeman we had and he won many a game for us by other teams ganging up on him and taking more penalties in total than Red would get.: Smythe, Conn, with Young, Scott; If you can’t beat ‘em in the Alley: The Memoirs of the Late Conn Smythe, McClelland & Stewart Paperjacks edition (Toronto: 1982), at p.126; Dowbiggin, Bruce, The Defence Never Rests, HarperCollins Publishers Ltd (Toronto:1993), at p.36; McParland, Kelly; The Lives of Conn Smythe, Fenn/McClelland & Stewart Ltd. (Toronto:2011), at p.148. See also: Hewitt, Foster; Hockey Night in Canada, The Ryerson Press (Toronto:1956), at pp.171 – 173; Scanlan, Lawrence; Grace Under Fire: The State of our Sweet and Savage Game, Penguin Books (Toronto:2002), at pp.201 – 202
Horner’s obstinacy soon provoked Morenz:
Morenz dragged down the official invitation to spectate for a while for slapping Red Horner – when Red wasn’t doing a thing to him except jamming him into the boards with a lot of naïve enthusiasm. The Toronto Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.1
Morenz had been caught retaliating – giving some of his own back as was his habit. When Morenz returned, there was a fight between “Busher” Jackson and Johnny Gagnon, with interventions from Conacher and Clancy. Fights between Leaf and Canadien supporters in the crowd followed. Le petit journal, 18 janvier 1931, p.21, c. 5.
After play resumed, it was immediately Morenz against Horner again. Morenz drove into the Leaf zone, and launched himself into the air to avoid the defenceman. Horner still made contact:
. . . before the bell had sounded Morenz had been given another terrific flip. This time Horner supplied the check that did the trick, but he was not penalized because Morenz had leaped into the air when he got the check: The Montreal Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.23, c.2
Morenz crash-landed for a second time in the period, and for enough of a moment to notice, was immobile. There was an anxious initial thought that he had hurt his leg [The Montreal Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.23, c.1, 2: “a slight charley horse”], and it was at least certain that he had to retire from the game for awhile.
When the muscle-wearying first period finally came to a close, the two team owners, Smythe on one side and Dandurand with Cattarinich on the other, faced off within a whirlpool of interested fans. The argument that transpired requires little imagination. The Leafs were trashing the league’s premiere star and ticket seller with goon-like violence. Smythe’s retort would have been that the Leafs were simply playing tough so that they could win hockey games – and it was working because they were leading 2 – 0.
Morenz returned to more “constant surveillance” in the second period, and this time:
Charlie Conacher kept an eagle eye on him at all times, . . . . The Globe, January 19, 1931, p.9, c.3 – 4
Conacher also assumed responsibility for wearying Morenz with the risk of further physical harm. Broken, disrupted, and blocked plays accumulated, as did the mounting burden of each of the previous physical collisions:
A feature of the game was Charlie Conacher’s close-checking of Howie Morenz. The Famous One was held well in check by the Toronto right wing and did not shine with his accustomed brilliancy.: The Toronto Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.5 – 6
Once when Morenz managed to put the puck into the Toronto net, the goal was called back as being off-side:
Morenz, who figured in the play, went into a sulk because the counter was not allowed. He did nothing but dawdle around for quite a while. The Toronto Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.2
When he finally did come out of his peeve his temper was not a bit improved when Conacher came from nowhere to nip the puck off his stick just as he was going to burn the fuzz off Chabot’s pads. The Toronto Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.2
After Wasnie’s goal brought the Canadiens back within one, Morenz’s game appeared to revive, but Conacher remained a challenge. One time the Leaf:
. . . batted the puck away from Morenz when the latter had beaten the defense and appeared to have a wide-open chance on the Toronto net.: The Globe, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.1
Then, just when the fans were anticipating the second intermission, there was an outbreak of stick swinging involving Conacher and Morenz:
Conacher subjected Morenz to some nasty jabs, and when Howie responded both were sent to the cooler. The Toronto Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.2
Conacher rasped Howie with a high stick and the latter nudged him back in the next exchange. They went to the bench, where Connie remarked on his prowess as a battler. The Montreal Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.23, c.4 – 5
Howie Morenz was livid, and not about to shrug the stickwork off with a grin as just part of the game. He understood the dynamics of aggressive play as well as anyone.
Morenz had reached the end of his tolerance with Conacher, and reacted differently going into the penalty bench than he did with either Horner, or Clancy. This time, as he and Conacher and Jackson jostled for space, Morenz chose to be disdainful:
I didn’t see you do much battling or playing in that last game in Montreal. When you show that stuff away from home I’ll listen to your fight stories.: The Montreal Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.23, c.5
By the third period, Morenz was physically all in and done:
Meme le fameux Howie Morenz ne put trouver assez de vitesse ni assez de ruses pour se debarrasser ses adversaires charger de le surveille.: La presse, 19 janvier 1931, p.18, c.7
Coach Hart tried a four, and then a five-forward attack to equalize, but the Leaf defence did not tear. With 5 minutes left, Hart pulled both Morenz and Joliat off the ice: The Montreal Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.23, c.1. In fact, Morenz had been playing for most of the game – and at least since the Horner hit at the end of the first period, or the earlier toss by Day – with a “chipped rib which will take several days to knit.”: The Montreal Daily Star, January 20, 1931, p.26, c.5, and p.27, c.4 – 5
Despite that, The Toronto Daily Star, January 19, 1931, p.8, c.2, concluded:
Morenz must be given the four star rating. He was wonderful on the attack even though he failed to find the bullseye. How he stood up under the fierce tossing he got is even a bit mysterious. He must be case-hardened.
Conn Smythe believed that control of any game would go to the team whose players could impose their physical will, and neutralize any physical challenges thrown up by their opponents. It led Smythe to take credit for the credo:
I don’t remember the first time I said it, . . . ‘If you can’t beat ‘em in the alley, you can’t beat ‘em on the ice.’: Smythe, Conn, with Young, Scott; If you can’t beat ‘em in the Alley: The Memoirs of the Late Conn Smythe, McClelland & Stewart Paperjacks edition (Toronto: 1982), at p.135.
It was a phrase that resonated among sportswriters and novelists: e.g., Childerhose, J.R.; Winter Racehorse, Peter Martin Associates (Toronto:1968), at p.143.
Hockey scientist Lloyd Percival endorsed the wisdom of that attitude, recalling that Smythe:
. . . has been quoted as saying, “When we are getting penalties we win, when we are staying out of the penalty box we lose.” In making this statement the Leaf leader is not implying that he condones or believes in illegal play, but merely that he feels penalties will be the natural result of the rugged, body contact type of hockey he instructs his team to play, and that if they’re not getting penalties, then they are not playing the type of game at which they excel.: Percival, Lloyd; The Hockey Handbook, The Copp Clark Co. Ltd. (Toronto:1951), p.204.
A contrary view is expressed in Klein, Jeff Z., and Reif, Karl-Eric, The Death of Hockey, MacMillan Canada (Toronto:1998), at p.47.
And yet the thought often attributed to Smythe was not original to Smythe at all. The very same analogy about hockey players in alleys had been used by Leo Dandurand himself, years earlier:
The way I see hockey, no team can hope to achieve world championship status in this high-speed, physical contact game unless it can not only out-play opposing teams but physically overwhelm them as well. Down in their hearts they should feel that they can beat the opposition in the alley as well as on the ice. I don’t want hockey hoodlums but I do want he-man hockey talent that can meet any and all situations.: O’Brien, Andy; Les Canadiens: The Story of the Montreal Canadiens, McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd. (Toronto:1970), at p.26; O’Brien, Andy; Fire-Wagon Hockey: The Story of Montreal Canadiens, The Ryerson Press (Toronto:1970), p.26
Howie Morenz himself appears to have subscribed to that style of play. As quoted in Reznek, Dave, “Recalling Morenz: Babe Ruth on Ice”, The San Francisco Examiner, April 24, 1977, p.41, c.3
. . . . he never flinched from a fight, and to refute charges that the brawls were choreographed, he by-lined the following:
“The left wing is scorching the ice as he carts the puck goalward. A big, heavily-armored defense man steps in with a vicious body check. His solid, unlovely hip smashes into the wing’s stomach. The forward’s breath leaves his body as he crashes into the boards. What is the wing’s reaction – one of brotherly love, good will towards men? Is the right hook he aims at the chin of Mr. Defense delivered with an eye on the box office?
The physical damage that Morenz suffered that night made his failure to travel at the speed the fans were expecting understandable. It justified Hart’s decision to hold him back late in the third period. Morenz’s refusal to be physically intimidated, and the persistence of his defiance, remained the same as it had been on a night when the New York Americans had treated him similarly. On that occasion he had skated by the Americans’ bench at the end of the game with the comment:
“If there’s any son of a bitch who hasn’t had a shot at me, you’ve missed your chance,” Morenz said. “I’m going home.”
Attributed to New York Sun columnist Frank Graham by Frayne, Trent; The Mad Men of Hockey, McClelland and Stewart, Limited (Toronto:1974), p.66
