Birdhouse London: "they all need chimneys"

It just seems logical. What, with our cold weather here in Canada it makes sense to add indoor plumbing, a little heater and chimney combo to my birdhouses. Two chimneys per duplex is the order of the day.

The birds feel it's worth my time.

Photos by GH

***

What trim do you like to see on a birdhouse?

Please click here to view more Birdhouse London

Next stop - Montreal

I enjoy filling custom orders for a birdhouse. I'm usually told who it is for and where it will be used, and I'm reminded I should hang a map of the world in my workshop, because many orders go far afield.

["Doesn't look like much yet, I know"]

["Birdhouse order: Like a semi-detached from Montreal"]

["Distinctive front looks AOK during assembly time"]

["A door and brass hinges are around here, somewhere..."]

Today I construct the side porch, add primer and look for a box suitable for shipping. Then comes the hard part. Mixing paint to look like the house in the photo.

Rug brick? Comes in a can? Any ideas?

Photos by GH

***

Please click here to read birdhouses taste good? why?

cabin in the moon light

I admit, my cabin isn't bathed in moon light. But I was up early and thinking about how a cabin near a lake might look in subdued lighting.

["My future home in or near Port Bruce?"]

["And why am I wandering the streets in my PJs?"]

Coffee tastes great all day long, but especially fine on a morning I'm still lost in a dream.

Photos by GH

***

Please click here to read just checkin' the laundry

avian antics 2

Yesterday was a busy day in the workshop, with several birdhouses on their final leg, and 'avian-antics-wise' too. The sound of nervous cheeping lured me toward a shared fence in my backyard. I thought, chickens? Who's keeping chickens?

["I've never seen this before in Old South," I say]

I soon noticed several ducklings on the loose in my neighbour's yard. They looked like they were planning a break-out as they scurried through the grass toward the back fence. After they disappeared behind a few bushes I walked out the gate of my own backyard and looked down the lane. Mrs. Duck greeted me with a very worried look.

"I hear them, but where the h-e-double-hockey-sticks are they?" she seemed to say.

Within a few seconds, however, her brood formed a line behind her, and together again (for the most part) they headed south, leaving me with more questions than answers.

Photos by GH

***

Please click here to read 'avian antics 1'

And please click on the labels below for more adventures.

second coat of lime green?

I think it's lime green, or some kind of green at least. Something I mixed up myself using leftover bits and some of this and that. Carefully stirred.

A few easy, enjoyable steps are usually what I follow:

cut, sand, assemble a couple of birdhouses

apply a coat of primer to each

apply first coat of lime green (don't eat the paint)

next day, look around for 30 minutes for the brush, to apply the last coat

Where did I put the doggone brush!

Photos by GH

***

Please click to read 'next 3 jobs'

don't throw that out!

I call them 'bits and bites'. They rest in a small plastic container on my workbench. And when a birdhouse is almost done I'll reach for the bits. Maybe a bite.

["What to do with bits and bites?"]

Nuts, bolts, washers, odd bits of dowel. Not much goes to waste in the shop.

If Rule 1 in most shops is 'measure twice, cut once', Rule 2 is likely 'don't throw anything out'.

Photos by GH

***

Please click here for more from the shop

i'll get questions

I'm sure I'll get a few questions about my latest batch of birdhouses.

["The gray barn board is from the Kawarthas"]

For example:

Why didn't you add a barn board roof to this one?

What birds will use this house?

What does ubiquitous mean?

Why does the body have two layers of wood, not one?

Why are there three pegs in the perch and not just one, or five?

How much ya want?

I'm sure I'll answer as follows:

I thought about using barn board but I had some old pine all ready to go. Small songbirds native to our area including the ubiquitous English sparrow. They're everywhere, or frequently encountered. I built a pine birdhouse first and then covered it with thin slats (i.e., half the thickness) of gray barn board because I thought by doing so I'd get twice the mileage out of the rarer, more expensive barn board... and I will, though it will likely cost me more money this way (I'm still figuring it out). I used three pegs to catch your eye, and it worked. I didn't use five because I wanted to save 40% of my pegs for the next birdhouse and save money at the same time. See... I like saving money in a big way. And little ways too, 'cause I'm like that.

Finally, how much ya got?

Photos by GH 

***

Please click here to read a 'shop project'

maybe I made two mistakes

I began an earlier post - concerning dancing alone in my workshop - by saying, 'okay, it doesn't happen often, but it does happen.' I successfully completed the 'hippy hippy shake' while listening to Royal Wood yesterday so I guess I should say it happens more regularly than I let on.

Same can be said now for making the odd mistake. It seems I err regularly.

For example, I may have been hoaxed by a Facebook thingy this week, and if that's the case, it's the second time this month I've been duped. All I can say is, I'll try to be more careful, and at least my new rooster ($18 on kijiji) is laying eggs.

["As well, the chicken doesn't look exactly like the picture"]

I also said - while assembling a new birdhouse recently - that I would 'add a slat roof of barn board or cedar'. But after applying a roof of old pine I felt I should have been in less of a hurry to get done and taken the time to use matching gray barn board. Someone I talked too the same day also said the same thing.

[I said, "I will add a slat roof of barn board or cedar"] 

Now, it's not like I won't make another dozen or so now that I've got the hang of it, but I have to resist the urge to use up bits and pieces that I have on hand 'right away' all the time. I mean, I could have used up the bits and pieces later this week or next, because I'm pretty sure I'll be in the shop happily playing with power tools just about every week for the next 30 years.

And that's no mistake.

Photos by GH

***

Please click here to read 'time to dance'

Series Of Significance: “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

The following series of five posts were recently posted separately. They now appear together for your convenience.

PT 1 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[“The average Canadian family spent close to half its income on taxes last year - more than it paid for food, shelter and clothing combined, says a new study...” April 27, London Free Press]

My word. How shall I respond to the latest study from the Fraser Institute, a conservative think-tank?

Shall I clutch my chest over my heart? Shall I fall over and lie face down atop my shag carpet? Shall I curse the government for the terrible predicament (It is a terrible predicament, isn’t it?] that the average Canadian family faces day in and day out for the rest of my life?

No. I’ll do none of those things. Neither should you. Most average Canadians will be just fine, thanks.

Studies that share so little information don’t pass the Harrison Sniff Test.

Though the Fraser Inst. reports that “in 2010, a family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3% of its income on taxes,” which may all be well and true, I want to have more information for context, perspective and balance.

For example:

What does the average family receive in return by paying taxes to different levels of government? Is there a concrete benefit to educational, health care, social programs, etc.? Can we put a dollar figure on the value of a good education or health care over the course of an average lifetime? If Canada invested in a dental care program would it the average family actually save money over the long term?

By discussing the benefits to taxation fully, the average Canadian family might see they generally live like kings and queens in a free country.

I’d also like to know the percentage of tax that families pay who earn less than $40,000. And who earn between $40 - $50,000, between $50 - 60,000, and so on, right up to millionaires (the number of Canadian millionaires is growing) and billionaires.

By looking at those figures we might see that the 41% tax rate is about average in Canada. Or we might see that people with higher earnings pay fewer taxes and therefore have a higher percentage of disposable income, and that a fairer taxation system is in order.

With even more information, we might learn that the average Canadian is almost getting the best deal in the world.

And who is the Fraser Institute? How conservative are they anyway?

***

PT 2 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[In 2010, a family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3% of its income on taxes. Spending on food, clothing and shelter added up to 34% of the family income, the study found (i.e., a new study from conservative think-tank the Fraser Institute). April 27, London Free Press]

When I see a headline like ‘Taxes take 41% of pay’ I don’t gasp, clutch my chest or fall over due to weak knees. I don’t curse our government.

When I read that an average Canadian family pays 41.3% of its income on taxes I feel I need more information. What benefits do I receive for my tax dollars? What does the average family receive? What do the growing number of Canadian millionaires receive? 41.3% might be the bargain of a lifetime.

I’d also like more information about the corporate tax rate. I know it has gone down over the last few years and will go down another 1 - 2 per cent this year or next, thanks to the federal Conservative government.

So, I’d like to know how much revenue will be lost to the government because of the lower corporate tax rate. Will the 41% average family tax rate or beneficial government programs be under pressure because of the decline in corporate tax rate?

How much has the corporate tax rate declined since 2000? Since 1990? Since 1980? Since 1970? And what’s happened to our national debt from 1970 to the present time? Maybe time spent focusing on the average family would be better spent focusing on big business and a fairer, more-productive tax system.

And now that the conservative Fraser Institute has got me thinking about the average family and corporate tax rates, I want to know more about tax rates in other countries.

Do average families in the US or Europe, making $72,393 per year, pay more or less tax than Canadians? What benefits do they receive compared to Canadians? Perhaps we’d see, again, that 41.3% is an absolute bargain. Perhaps we’d see, in order to receive benefits common in other countries, that a slight increase in taxes would provide some very important improvements in our lifestyle.

Oh. Something else. I have some questions about the 34% that the average Canadian family - in the $70 - 75,000 income range - spends on food, clothing and shelter.

***

PT 3 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[“Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family,” Fraser Institute senior economist Niels Veldhuis said. April 27, London Free Press]

Should we fall down? No.

In spite of the conservative think-tanks findings, offered without the benefit of helpful context, when the average Canadian family (income $72,393) learns it pays 41.3% of that amount in taxes, it may breathe a sigh of relief.

“It’s the best deal on the planet,” some people will say.

“It sounds like a lot, but we’re doing well,” others will say, and say it honestly.

Now, admittedly, 41.3% is more than the average family spends on food, clothing and shelter (those costs come in at 34% of income), but people are getting a lot for their 34%.

For example, in the Food Dept.:

The average Canadian is overweight and wears XL Levis with a stretchy waistband

Canadians make 17 million visits to restaurants per day

Canadians pay one of the lowest amounts for weekly groceries (under 15%), compared to income, in the entire world. The percentage is higher in the US; it stands at 45% in Indonesia

Canadians annually write grocery lists that include millions upon millions of dollars worth of cookies, cola, sugar-covered cereals and snack foods

The average Canadian family would do much for its health - and health care costs - if it spent less on food, cooked more meals at home and walked around the neighbourhood more often after supper.

I’m sure the Fraser think tank would agree.

About the Clothing Dept.:

The average Canadian family has seen the size of closets grow substantially over the years

For example, in my 1930s three-bedroom house, the three closets (one is a hall closet for coats and two vacuum cleaners; one bedroom does not have a closet) are no more than 3 ft. by 4 ft. Modern homes and apartments now often come with one or more walk-in closets, room enough for more clothes and shoes than one person can shake a stick at. Sorry, I digress.

‘Clothes Hog’ and ‘Shoe Hog’ are modern terms and many families hire professional organizers or declutterers to help bring material possessions under some kind of control

The vintage and used-clothing markets have grown substantially in the modern era

The aforementioned 34% likely includes the cost of Nike running shoes for weekend runners at $169 per pair and the expensive NHL jerseys that adorn many fans watching the current hockey playoffs

I would therefore say the average Canadian family is getting by pretty nicely at the moment.

The conservative-minded Fraser Institute may want the average Canadian to feel that government has to be smaller, programs have to be cut, taxes have to be reduced - but I don’t buy their small government, market-first, large lifestyle philosophy.

And about the Shelter Dept.:

The average Canadian is not finding costs related to their homes unbearable because of government spending

For example, in the early 1900s, 800 - 1,000 sq. ft. homes, and smaller, were common. My parents and my four siblings lived in a one and a half storey, seven room house in Norwich for many years. We managed to get along without pitching anyone into the streets.

My wife and I and two sons lived comfortably together in our current home, eight rooms, 1,050 sq. ft., before the boys moved into their own digs. Half of the house, including the basement, is now under-used.

I would estimate that the modern day standard for a house is greater than 2,100 sq. ft., or twice my home’s size.

I would guess furnishings cost in excess of $20,000 per home. And if that includes the latest big-screen TV and finished rec room, I would suspect the high average debt per family ($148 debt for every $100 income) is the result of over-borrowing for items on “the want list” and not the size of the government. Again, I digress.

Now, what about that other 25% that the average Canadian family has left to spend after taxes and life’s essentials?

How are Canadians doing in the transportation, communication, recreation, RRSP and backyard pool departments? Any ideas? Is the government standing in the way of our success, progress, or excess?

***

PT 4 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[It has become fashionable these days to view government spending as a tremendous burden on society. In fact, spending our money collectively through governments, with their strong emphasis on health care, education and welfare, is the smartest investment we, as a society, can make. Shooting The Hippo, 1995, by Linda McQuaig]

Sixteen years have passed since L. McQuaig’s Shooting the Hippo said the above words. They may still be true.

The average Canadian family may be getting a very good deal for the 41% it pays in taxes, 34% it pays for food, clothing and shelter and the 25% it has left over to spend on whatever it wants.

And what does the average Canadian family want? I’m not sure.

And though Fraser Institute spokesperson, senior economist Niels Veldhuis, says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), he doesn’t say what the average Canadian would actually gain by reducing taxes or the size of government or its programs.

The average Canadian could buy more food I suppose, though we are growing more obese by the day.

We could buy more clothes and more furniture for our home, I suppose. We could upgrade our transportation, communication and recreational choices, I suppose.

But perhaps there’s more benefit to putting money aside for collective choices as opposed to individual choices. More on all of us, others. Less on the individual, me.

I don’t know if Canadians will ever find out.

The more elitist organizations, such as the conservative Fraser Institute, propose fewer taxes and smaller government (without context, and usually for the elite’s overall benefit - what might that be? - and not the average Canadian’s), the more likely the average Canadian will, unknowingly, lean toward the goals of the elite.

And what are the goals of the elite?

“In many ways, what the elite wants now is to lower citizen’s expectations of what they can count on from society, to roll back the frontiers of government - to return to an earlier focus on enforcing more narrowly defined legal and political rights. It wants to wean us away from the notion of government as provider and equalizer, and re-establish the discipline of the marketplace in meting out those sorts of rewards where they are “earned.” Under the harsher discipline of the marketplace, we would have no automatic “rights” or “entitlements:” all we would have is whatever we could get by selling our services to those with the money to pay us.

“Presented this way, the new ideology might not sound appealing to most members of society; so it is rarely presented this way. Rather, proponents of rolling back government have focused on finding fault with the system of extended rights that we’ve come to enjoy, or presenting ordinary citizens as victims of an excessive tax burden apparently caused by government largesse.” pg. 7, Shooting the Hippo

Are ordinary citizens in Canada, e.g., the average Canadian family, victims of excessive taxes?

I don’t think so. The average family is growing big and strong on 34% of its income (maybe too big and strong) and has 25% leftover to buy additional stuff that will one day clutter up a big house and garage in the burbs.

Instead of worrying or questioning the size of government, we should ask for a lot more information from the Fraser Institute. They paint wild pictures and make claims that are completely unsubstantiated.

Perhaps we should even read Shooting the Hippo by Linda McQuaig so we’re better equipped to recognize a pile of guff when it appears in the news.

***

PT 5 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[The notion that a consensus existed on cutting social spending was misleading. If anything, a consensus appeared to exist not to cut social spending. An Angus Reid poll, taken in late April 1993... found that almost 80 per cent of Canadians opposed any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent opposed any funding cuts to education. pg 34, L. McQuaig, Shooting the Hippo]

Yesterday I said, “And what does the average Canadian family want? If you’re an average Canadian let me know.”

I said that because senior economist Niels Veldhuis (Fraser Institute) says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), perhaps hoping the average Canadian would fall for his line of guff, clutch his chest and demand smaller government and fewer taxes and reduced social programs.

I’m pretty sure that’s what the elite want, but I believe their goals in 2011 differ greatly from those of the average working stiff (even though I referred to a 1993 poll).

Kevin O’Leary, seen nightly on the Lang and O’Leary Exchange (CBC TV), is on record for saying he supports a corporate tax rate of 0 per cent.

0 per cent. Of course, he’s a millionaire, he can afford private education for any children he might have now or in the future, he can afford private health care wherever he can find it, he can afford to let corporations (he’s the head of a business empire) get away with zero taxes. Why, he’d absolutely frickin’ love it!

What he doesn’t say is that the tax rate (all taxes) of the average Canadian family (41% on income of $72, 393) will likely rise substantially three seconds after he gets his wish.

O’Leary would love small government, lower taxes, fewer social benefits. O’Canadians want something else.

As mentioned earlier, 80 per cent of Canadians are opposed to any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent are opposed to any funding cuts to education.

From Shooting the Hippo:

This fits with the results of polls done by Environics. Dasko (pollster) said that support for social programs remains strong... the public supported the idea of reforming - rather than cutting - social programs. “People think there are inefficiencies and abuses in social programs and strongly feel that those should be ferreted out,” said Dasko.

Dasko also notes that while the public supports the idea of reforming programs, it is not primarily motivated by a desire to save money... the goal of ending inefficiencies ranked above the goal of saving money. Interestingly, however, the polling showed that people suspect that the government’s main motivation in overhauling the programs is to save money. (pg. 34)

Canadian readers are welcome to say the following:

Times have changed

McQuaig was referring to old news, e.g., polls from the 1990s

This is 2011. Liberals are out. Conservatives are in. Canadians want real change.

I have to ask. What kind of change does the average Canadian want?

Does the average Canadian family want a 39% tax rate, instead of 41%, and reduced government services (e.g., related to medicare and education) as a result?

Does the average Canadian feel that, in spite of what the Fraser Institute says, he is surviving in a satisfactory or excellent manner and doesn’t need to live by the same goals as the elite?

If you’re an average Canadian, let me know.

(Mr. O’Leary. No need to write).

***

Please click here to read another Series of Significance

.

Bits and Pieces: PT 5 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[The notion that a consensus existed on cutting social spending was misleading. If anything, a consensus appeared to exist not to cut social spending. An Angus Reid poll, taken in late April 1993... found that almost 80 per cent of Canadians opposed any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent opposed any funding cuts to education. pg 34, L. McQuaig, Shooting the Hippo]

Yesterday I said, “And what does the average Canadian family want? If you’re an average Canadian let me know.”

I said that because senior economist Niels Veldhuis (Fraser Institute) says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), perhaps hoping the average Canadian would fall for his line of guff, clutch his chest and demand smaller government and fewer taxes and reduced social programs.

I’m pretty sure that’s what the elite want, but I believe their goals in 2011 differ greatly from those of the average working stiff (even though I referred to a 1993 poll).

Kevin O’Leary, seen nightly on the Lang and O’Leary Exchange (CBC TV), is on record for saying he supports a corporate tax rate of 0 per cent.

0 per cent. Of course, he’s a millionaire, he can afford private education for any children he might have now or in the future, he can afford private health care wherever he can find it, he can afford to let corporations (he’s the head of a business empire) get away with zero taxes. Why, he’d absolutely frickin’ love it!

What he doesn’t say is that the tax rate (all taxes) of the average Canadian family (41% on income of $72, 393) will likely rise substantially three seconds after he gets his wish.

O’Leary would love small government, lower taxes, fewer social benefits. O’Canadians want something else.

As mentioned earlier, 80 per cent of Canadians are opposed to any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent are opposed to any funding cuts to education.

From Shooting the Hippo:

This fits with the results of polls done by Environics. Dasko (pollster) said that support for social programs remains strong... the public supported the idea of reforming - rather than cutting - social programs. “People think there are inefficiencies and abuses in social programs and strongly feel that those should be ferreted out,” said Dasko.

Dasko also notes that while the public supports the idea of reforming programs, it is not primarily motivated by a desire to save money... the goal of ending inefficiencies ranked above the goal of saving money. Interestingly, however, the polling showed that people suspect that the government’s main motivation in overhauling the programs is to save money. (pg. 34)

Canadian readers are welcome to say the following:

Times have changed

McQuaig was referring to old news, e.g., polls from the 1990s

This is 2011. Liberals are out. Conservatives are in. Canadians want real change.

I have to ask. What kind of change does the average Canadian want?

Does the average Canadian family want a 39% tax rate, instead of 41%, and reduced government services (e.g., related to medicare and education) as a result?

Does the average Canadian feel that, in spite of what the Fraser Institute says, he is surviving in a satisfactory or excellent manner and doesn’t need to live by the same goals as the elite?

If you’re an average Canadian, let me know.

(Mr. O’Leary. No need to write).

***

Please click here to read PT 4 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

.

Bits and Pieces: PT 4 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[It has become fashionable these days to view government spending as a tremendous burden on society. In fact, spending our money collectively through governments, with their strong emphasis on health care, education and welfare, is the smartest investment we, as a society, can make. Shooting The Hippo, 1995, by Linda McQuaig]

Sixteen years have passed since L. McQuaig wrote the above words. They are still true.

The average Canadian family may be getting a very good deal for the 41% it pays in taxes, 34% it pays for food, clothing and shelter and the 25% it has left over to spend on whatever it wants.

And what does the average Canadian family want? Well, if you're average, let me know!


Because, though Fraser Institute spokesperson, senior economist Niels Veldhuis, says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), he doesn’t say what the average Canadian would actually gain by reducing taxes or the size of government or its programs.

The average Canadian could buy more food I suppose, though we are growing more obese by the day.

We could buy more clothes and more furniture for our home, I suppose. We could upgrade our transportation, communication and recreational choices, I suppose.

But perhaps there’s more benefit to putting money aside for collective choices as opposed to individual choices. More on all of us, others. Less on the individual, me.

I don’t know if Canadians will ever find out.

The more elitist organizations, such as the conservative Fraser Institute, propose fewer taxes and smaller government (without context, and usually for the elite’s overall benefit - what might that be? - and not the average Canadian’s), the more likely the average Canadian will, unknowingly, lean toward the goals of the elite.

And what are the goals of the elite?

“In many ways, what the elite wants now is to lower citizen’s expectations of what they can count on from society, to roll back the frontiers of government - to return to an earlier focus on enforcing more narrowly defined legal and political rights. It wants to wean us away from the notion of government as provider and equalizer, and re-establish the discipline of the marketplace in meting out those sorts of rewards where they are “earned.” Under the harsher discipline of the marketplace, we would have no automatic “rights” or “entitlements:” all we would have is whatever we could get by selling our services to those with the money to pay us.

“Presented this way, the new ideology might not sound appealing to most members of society; so it is rarely presented this way. Rather, proponents of rolling back government have focused on finding fault with the system of extended rights that we’ve come to enjoy, or presenting ordinary citizens as victims of an excessive tax burden apparently caused by government largesse.” pg. 7, Shooting the Hippo

Are ordinary citizens in Canada, e.g., the average Canadian family, victims of excessive taxes?

I don’t think so. The average family is growing big and strong on 34% of its income (maybe too big and strong) and has 25% leftover to buy additional stuff that will one day clutter up a big house and garage in the burbs.

Instead of worrying or questioning the size of government, we should ask for a lot more information from the Fraser Institute. They paint wild pictures and make claims that are completely unsubstantiated.

Perhaps we should even read Shooting the Hippo by Linda McQuaig so we’re better equipped to recognize a pile of guff when it appears in the news.

***

Please click here to read PT 3 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

.

The Workshop: ‘Easy schmeasy’ is fine by me

Simple birdhouses come together so quickly compared to complex models.


Didn’t I start eight houses with common or off-center peaked roofs just a few days ago? And didn’t the St. John’s streetscape series take me about 10 years?


The only thing that slowed me down with the basic models was the addition of two-colour trim.


The rest was easy schmeasy.


["More lumber just arrived. Hemlock. What's next?": photos GH]

I’ll display a couple of matched sets at the Red Roaster this morning. That should brighten up the joint.

***

Please click here for another visit to The Workshop.

PS - the painted signage is finished for the Jelly Bean houses, except for tacking it into place. News at 11.

.

Bits and Pieces: I’m Your Handy Man. Call me.

Baby James Taylor wrote ‘Handy Man’ in 1990. Not my favourite Taylor tune but it came to mind during a recent phone call.

“Gord, can you fix two sticky gates for me?” said a friend. “I’d do it myself but I’m up north, and busy with work.”


["Kiln-dried cedar swells when it gets wet. Gates get sticky": photos GH]

I listened to the details, knew the family and home I would have to visit, knew I had the tools required.

“I’ll call you when I’m done,” I said. “Just be prepared for a hefty bill.”


["Swollen lumber can cause a variety of damages"]

Handy Man / James Taylor / Rejigged to suit me.

Hey folks gather round, listen to what I'm putting down
Hey folks, I'm your Handy Man.
I am the kind that uses pencil and rule,
I'm handy with hammers and I'm no fool,
I fix broken gates, I know that I truly can.

Once I examined both gates I knew I was in for a big chore. The first gate, four feet wide, was heavier than the man who built it and I knew I couldn’t lift it off its hinges without breaking my back. A sharp saw and my belt sander, both very handy tools, did most of the work.


["The hinge sits on the surface of the lumber. I'll bury one side."]

The second gate was lighter so I removed it and sunk the hinges 1/8th of an inch (with my handy hammer and chisels) to provide the clearance needed. I sunk better and more screws into the hinges as well. I don’t want another phone call.


["The gate will soon swing freely and provide more privacy too."]

Oh, I’m a handy man all right (“Gather round!” Ha!), but I’m busy with birdhouses on the brain right now.

So, really, don’t call me.

***

Please click here for more Bits and Pieces.

.

Series of Significance: The NHL has a ‘small’ problem

[The following collection of posts were originally published separately. For your convenience they are now together in one piece. No extra charge. GH]

The NHL has a ‘small’ problem PT 1

Headline: NHL tackles issue (i.e., concussions) head-on

“After a week that saw the NHL pounded on the public relations front, the league came out swinging Monday with a five-point plan to improve player safety.” (March 15, The London Free Press)

Concussions are a big problem (PR-wise; and otherwise as well, i.e., if one gives half a thought to players’ brainpans). And, in my humble opinion, the NHL’s five-point plan falls short of solving the problem.

The number of concussions related to legal hits (the cause of 44% of 80 concussions in the current season), fights (8%), and illegal hits (17%) will gradually continue to rise, even after the glass and boards are covered with sponge and repeat offenders are hung by their thumbs from the back of the team bus.

And why do I say concussions will rise?

Easy. Psych 20 easy. B.F. Skinner easy. There are too many rats in the box. Big rats. And they’re getting bigger all the time.

Let’s go back in time for a minute to the 1970 - 71 season. Normie Ullman played center for the Toronto Maple Leafs and tallied 34 goals and 51 assists. He stood 5’ 10” tall and weighed 185 pounds. The guy appeared huge among his fellow players.


[“Would Norm Ullman be a big guy today?”: photo GH]

Why, when he entered the Leaf dressing room for the first time during the 1967 - 68 season, Davie Keon welcomed him with a big hug (well, kind of a hug; more like a slap on the backside, completely illegal in the day) and said, “It’s nice to have you here, big guy.”

“Big guy.” At 5’ 10” and 185 pounds. Imagine that. He’d be considered kinda puny by today’s standards, wouldn’t he? You could actually lose Normie Ullman in a modern hockey dressing room. He’d be smaller than some kid’s triceps.

Go back farther in time and players were even smaller by today’s standards. I’ve heard it said that during the game’s infancy (e.g., in the 1860s, when the game was called “Smackafrozenhorseturd” - always expressed in one word), the average size of the players was 3’ 9” tall. The first player to surpass 4 feet was Moons Malone, aka Moons the Goon, or simply The Goon. He earned 3 cents per game, whittled his own sticks and signed his first contract with an X.


[“Paul Haynes, 5’ 10”, 161 lb., Montreal Maroons, 1924 - 1938”]


[“Babe Siebert - actual size!!”]

Well, times have changed. And having a five-point plan in the NHL isn’t going to cut it if concussions are to be reduced.

More hard hits to follow.

.

PT 2 - The NHL has a ‘small’ problem

Headline: (NHL) Rulebook re-emphasized

Boca Raton, FLA. - “... There was no appetite among NHL general managers for a sweeping ban on contact to players’ heads... they do, however, plan to put more teeth into charging and boarding penalties in an effort to cut down on injuries."

Ottawa Sens GM Bryan Murray said, “We want to apply the rules that are in the book more adamantly... the rule in the book is fine. We’ve just been more reluctant maybe to call it to the letter of the law the way we want to re-emphasize.” (Mar. 16, The London Free Press)

And in my humble opinion (how could it be otherwise), the number of concussions related to legal hits, fights, and illegal hits will gradually continue to rise, even after the glass and boards around rinks are covered in something very forgiving (bales of hay?), repeat offenders are forced to play in old rubber boots and the current NHL rule book re-emphasized.

Why? Too many rats in the box. Too many big players on the ice. And they’re getting bigger all the time.

In an earlier post I mentioned that the average size of a power forward in the 1860s (during hockey’s very early stages) was 3 ft. 9 in. tall, 94 pounds. In 1970 - 71, Normie “Big Guy” Ullman, a centerman for the Toronto Maple Leafs, stood 5 ft. 10 in. and weighed 185 pounds.

Many of today’s players are bigger than Eric Lindros (listed at 6 ft. 5 in. tall and 228 pounds in the early 1990s), are twice as fast and eat handfuls of raw meat between shifts. Inside an infantry division’s protective gear, a power forward at a typical NHL game would remind fans of a tank on the loose.


["Eric Lindross - lookin' tough": photo GH]

Coincidentally, the increase in size of goaltenders and their equipment is almost no different.

I read somewhere that Tubby Mullard, all 4 ft. 5 in. and 98 pounds of him, the 1890 winner of the first Venison Trophy (a frozen hind-quarter, and the precursor of today’s Vezina Trophy), wore nothing more in net than his father’s plaid shirt, his older sister’s ball glove and Eaton’s Christmas catalogues strapped around each shin.

By the mid-1960s, goaltenders were a bit bigger.

Lorne “Gump” Worsley (1929 - 2007), a goalie of some renown (he shared the Vezina Trophy with Charlie Hodge in 1966, with Rogatien Vachon in 1968, and played in the NHL All-Star Game in 1965 and 1968), stood 5 ft. 7 in. tall (amazingly!), weighed 180 pounds soaking wet, and wore padded leather protective gear on all but two parts of his body, one being his head - the size of a ripe honeydew.


Today, the average goalkeeper is over 7 feet tall and weighs 400 pounds when fully dressed in protective gear.

This trend toward taller, heavier, faster, more-heavily protected players will likely continue for the rest of this century and culminate in more concussions per season than can be counted as players bounce off boards and one another with willful abandon. All H-E-Double hockey sticks will break loose after the introduction of jet-packs in 2030.

So, what can be done concerning all this inevitable damage to the brainpans of NHL players?

I’m glad you asked.

.

First Intermission: Equipment is not the NHL’s ‘small’ problem

While writing a couple of posts re a ‘small’ problem in the NHL (related to concussions), I came across an old photo that shows players getting ready for a game.


Look at their helmets. Two or three thin pieces of padded leather. Yikes.

I remember those days. I wore a similar helmet, and it now hangs in my workshop beside vintage hockey gloves and an old catcher’s mask.



Helmets and mask have improved greatly in 40 - 50 years, have they not?

.

PT 3 - The NHL has a ‘small’ problem

Today, in the new and improved NHL (the league is promoting a new five-point plan to improve player safety, don’t ya know) many players are bigger than Eric Lindros (6 ft. 5 in. tall and 228 pounds in the early 1990s), are twice as fast as Normie Ullman used to be in the 1970s and can devour a full hot meal in 60 seconds between shifts.

Inside his protective gear approved by the United States Marines, a power forward at a typical NHL game looks a lot like a military weapon. 

As well, the average goalkeeper has grown from 4 ft. in height (e.g., Tubby Mullard, 4 ft. 5 in., the 1890 winner of the first Venison Trophy) to well over 7 feet tall, with a weight of 400 pounds when fully dressed in protective gear.

This trend toward taller, heavier, and faster players will likely continue for the rest of this century and produce more concussions per game than can be counted on two hands.

So, what can be done to accommodate modern-day NHL players and reduce injuries without slowing down the game?

I’m so glad you asked.

The NHL should continue to evolve their game in much the same way it evolved in the past and adopt the five-player game. One goalie, two forwards, two defenseman, or, a goalie, two forwards, one rover, one defenseman.

Students of the game will know the term ‘rover’ is not a new one. They will also know that reducing the number of players on the ice at one time has worked successfully in the past.

An interesting online article entitled The Evolution of the Game tells us how the number of players on the ice has changed over the years:

“The first recorded occurrence of organized indoor ice hockey took place in Montreal on March 3, 1875. It was played in Victoria Skating Rink, with nine-man sides on a surface that measured 80 by 204 feet.”

You might be thinking, how could so many players find space to maneuver or work their magic?

Remember, as I wrote earlier, the average player was under four feet tall.

The article continues:

“The popularity of the game began to spread, and in 1883 the annual Montreal Winter Carnival featured "the novel game of hockey". The rules for the series said the teams would carry seven men per side and play two 30-minute periods with ten minutes between periods.”

“By 1898 the rules had further standardized. Ice hockey by this time was a seven man game: the goalie, three forwards, a rover (who switched from defense to offense, as the play required), and the point and cover point (the defense included the cover point in front of the point, rather than side by side as they are today).”

Readers may well ask, did anyone wear a helmet?

As far as I know, three players wore small metal pails over their heads (with holes cut out for their eyes) but soon discovered the pails did more harm than good when they got to spinning around. Pails were retired until someone invented leather.

Sorry, I digress.

“In 1911-12 the position of rover was finally eliminated, making hockey a six-man game per side, and it was decided that players would wear numbers on their sweaters.”

As you can see, the NHL has kept the number of players on the ice unchanged for 100 years, even though during that time the players have almost doubled in size, weight and speed.

Maybe it’s time for the five-player game as I suggested earlier.

Don’t like that idea?

I’ve got another one. Stay tuned.

.

Second Intermission: Five-man hockey one way to go

Per team - One goalie, two forwards, a rover, a defenseman.

Five-man hockey makes sense. In the last 100 years, NHL players have doubled their size, weight and speed. And concussions, on the rise, are an ugly part of the game.

Each player would have more room on the ice in which to maneuver. More reaction time to a charging rover. Fewer head injuries. Fewer penalties. A faster game.

Nazem Kadri, former London Knight, said the following about his biggest adjustment to the NHL game after returning to the Toronto Maple Leafs from 30 games with the Marlies:

“Just being able to recognize danger.” (Mar. 16, London Free Press)


[“Nazem Kadri of the Toronto Maple Leafs”]

“When you’re playing against such good hockey players they can close gaps real fast.”

What do you think about four on four hockey in the NHL?

.

First Overtime: Concerning ‘The NHL has a small problem’ Series

As you already know, Tubby Mullard, 4 ft. 5 in. tall, and winner of the first Venison Trophy (circa 1890), typified the average goaltender in the early years of the game.

Over 75 years past before goalies were the size of Lorne “Gump” Worsley (5 ft. 7 in. tall, 180 pounds soaking wet), though, as I seem to recall, when he accepted the Vezina Trophy with Charlie Hodge in 1966, he stood on an old Coke crate in order to be seen.

Today the average goaltender stands well over 7 feet tall and weighs about 400 pounds when fully dressed in protective gear.

But, I ask you, has the size of the NHL ice surface grown to accommodate the larger, heavier and faster breed of player?

To find out, tune in for PT 4 in the exciting series “The NHL has a ‘small’ problem.”

Or, do all the research yourself. Really, I won’t mind.

.

Bits and Pieces: PT 4 - The NHL has a ‘small’ problem

“Most North American rinks follow the National Hockey League (NHL) specifications of 200 feet (61 m) × 85 feet (26 m).” [Wikipedia]

Word is, Tubby Mullard, a 4 ft. 5 in. tall goaltender, and winner of the first Venison Trophy (circa 1890), was near-sighted.

That little-known fact affected his answer when asked what his favourite rink was, by Din O’Danny O’Doyle, a seasoned reporter for Le Gazette du Montreal in 1895.

“I loved playing indoors at the Victoria Skating Rink in Montreal. It was so well-lit I could see the puck past center ice, even though the pad was over 200 feet long.”


[“The Victoria Skating Rink”: Link to photo]

“Why, some of the barns I played in were just that. Barns. Lit with gas lanterns. And though many of the rinks were shorter than The Grand Victoria - I always call it The Grand - I couldn’t see the d--- puck until it was almost in my face.”

“And it did get in my face. Look here. I lost this tooth just last week. Look at this big gap now up here inside my mouth. Look it. Makes me cry, it does.”

Tubby was always one for pointing out his battle wounds and went on to show O’Danny O’Doyle fresh stitches behind his left ear and a scar on his buttock from a high stick he caught late into the 1894 season.

Readers have probably heard stories like Tubby’s many times over, but it is worth repeating here a few details related to the size of hockey rinks in the National Hockey Rinks, because I feel the size of the ice pad is connected to the rise of head injuries, heat-shots, high elbows and concussions that we hear so much about today.

From Wikipedia, as stated earlier:

“Most North American rinks follow the National Hockey League (NHL) specifications of 200 feet (61 m) × 85 feet (26 m).”

Nowhere could I find the area of the ice surface, and after several complicated mathematical calculations I discovered it to be 17,000 sq. ft. That works out to 1,700 sq. ft. per player (not including goalies), which seems like a fair amount of space per player to skate around upon - perfectly safe, unhindered - but a lot of them seem to bunch up in the corners with elbows flying at ear level, and as we all know, ears live just outside the brainpan.

Wikipedia supplies an answer to the obvious question, why are NHL rinks 200 by 85 feet?

“Origins - The rink specifications originate from the ice surface of the Victoria Skating Rink in Montreal, constructed in 1862, where the first indoor game was played in 1875. Its ice surface measured 204 feet (62 m) × 80 feet (24 m).”

For those who must know (and I think you must), the area of the The Grand Victoria was 16,320 sq.ft.

Admittedly, the regulation NHL ice surface is larger than that at the Victoria, but... is it large enough for today’s giants?

Stay tuned for more of my brilliant ideas.

.

Second Overtime: More concerning ‘The NHL has a small problem’ Series

Modern day NHL players have increased in height, weight and speed by huge amounts compared to players from the 1880s.

Remember Moons Malone, aka Moons the Goon, or simply The Goon?

Moons played during the game’s infancy (e.g., in the 1860s, when the game was called “Smackafrozenhorseturd” - always expressed in one word), and when the average size of the players was 3’ 9” tall.

Moons earned 3 cents per game, whittled his own sticks, signed his first contract with an X and stood out because he was, or so I’ve heard, the first player to surpass 4 feet in height.

He’d still stand out today if he was alive. And why?

Because most NHL players are 60 - 70% taller than Moons, three times as heavy and could eat Moons’ weight in burgers between shifts.

However, in spite of the huge increase in size and weight and speed of today’s players, they blast around on an ice surface only 4.2% larger than their predecessors.

Is that enough ice for today’s game?

.

PT 5 - The NHL has a ‘small’ problem

I ended PT 4 with a brilliant question, prompted by the regulation size of modern-day NHL rinks and their predecessor, the Victoria Skating Rink in Montreal (also called ‘The Grand’ by Tubby Mullard, a 4 ft. 5 in. tall goaltender, and winner of the first Venison Trophy).

The regulation size of NHL rinks is 200 feet (61 m) × 85 feet (26 m) and an area of 17,000 sq. ft.

The Victoria Skating Rink in Montreal, constructed in 1862, measured 204 feet (62 m) × 80 feet (24 m), with an area of 16,320 sq.ft.

My brilliant question was, and still is, the following:

Is the regulation NHL ice surface large enough for today’s giant-sized players?


[Photo link - Ray Bourque]

Some will answer, “Of course it is. It’s a fantastic game. The hits, the speed, the shots and incredible goals.”

I also say, it is a fantastic game. But because of the rising number of head injuries, let’s look at a few more numbers.

Since the game began in 1862 on the Victoria Skating Rink, the ice surface has increased in size by 4.2%

The increase, however, in players’ heights and weights far exceeds 4.2%.

For illustrative purposes only, note the following:

Trevor Linden, at 6 ft. 4 in. and 205 pounds in 1990 - 91, was 8.6% taller and 11% heavier than Normie Ullman when he played in 1970 - 71.

Eric Lindros, at 6 ft. 5 in. and 228 pounds in 1990 - 91, was 8.5% taller and 30% heavier than Pierre Larouche when he played in 1976 - 77.


[P. Larouche, 5’ 11”, 175 lb., 1976 - 77”: photo GH]

For an exact measure, of course, one would have to examine all stats for all players from the beginning of the NHL to today, and for that job I do not have the records, time or energy. But I bet the overall increase from 1862 to today is far greater than 4.2% in the height, weight, speed and aggressive tendencies departments.

One has to look no farther than current day team rosters to be left with the impression that the players have grown too big for the old sandbox.

For example, here are current stats related to defensemen playing for the Boston Bruins:

Boychuk, Johnny - 6'2" 225 lbs
Chara, Zdeno - 6'9" 255 lbs
Ference, Andrew - 5'11" 189 lbs
Hnidy, Shane - 6'2" 204 lbs
Kaberle, Tomas - 6'1" 214 lbs
Kampfer, Steven - 5'11" 197 lbs
McQuaid, Adam - 6'4" 197 lbs
Seidenberg, Dennis - 6'1" 210 lbs

[Link and learn here.]

Average height is a touch over 6 ft. 2 in. and ave. weight is 211 lb.

Go back 20 years to 1990 - 91 (Ray Bourque guarded the blue line) and you’ll discover the players weren’t much smaller. The average height of a Boston Bruin defenseman was slightly under 6 ft. 2 in. and average weight was 203 lb. Over 20 years, they grew by only 0.54% in height and 3.94% in overall beefiness.

However, go back to the 1960 - 61 season (Doug Mohns and Leo Boivin were stalwarts) and you’ll see a remarkable difference. The average height of a Bruin defenseman was just under 5 ft. 11 in. and average weight was 182 lb.


[Photo link - Dougie Mohns]

Today, a defenseman is 4.6% taller and 16% heavier than those in the 1960s. The increase, I’m certain, would be far greater if we went even farther back in time, to the very days when the modern size of the rink surface was born.

So, where’s the beef related to concussions? On the bones of NHL hockey players, and they are using their additional size (and speed and aggressiveness) to rattle more brainpans than ever before.

Though I still think the NHL should consider five-man hockey (one goalie, two forwards, one rover and one defenseman per team) in order to give players more space and more reaction time, perhaps it’s time to grow the ice surface to accommodate the growth of the players.

Larger ice surfaces are commonly played on all over the world. Why not in the NHL?

More excitement to follow.

.

PT 6 - The NHL has a ‘small’ problem

“Hockey rinks in most of the world follow the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) specifications, which is 61 metres (200 ft) × 30 metres (98 ft) with a corner radius of 4.2 metres (14 ft).” (Ice hockey rink - Wikipedia)

I’m going to come to my main point quickly today. The NHL has a ‘small’ problem related to concussions and other injuries. And the problem is... its ice surface is too small for the size and speed of the modern player.


[Pat LaFontaine: “Early in the ’93 - ’94 season he suffered a serious knee injury that kept him off the ice for a year and a half.” Celebrating the Game, A. Podnieks]

The game of organized hockey was born on the Victoria Skating Rink in Montreal in 1875. The ice rink was 204 ft. x 80 ft. It had an area of 16,320 sq. ft. for nine-man teams, each player being no more than 3 ft. 9 in. tall (so I’ve heard).

The game of modern-day NHL hockey is played on an ice surface 200 ft. x 85 ft. (regulation size) with an area of 17,000 sq. ft. (a small 4.2% increase in size from 1875) for six-man teams. However, the players have grown so big and fast over the years that more concussions and injuries will be the order of the day until the puck is dropped on larger ice surfaces.

I suggested earlier that playing with five-man teams would also reduce the risk of injury. Larger rinks, however, would be my primary solution.

[Pat LaFontaine: “A worse injury befell him though, on October 17,1996, another date he won’t soon forget.”]

Yesterday I wrote the following:

“Today, a defenseman is 4.6% taller and 16% heavier than those in the 1960s. The increase, I’m certain, would be far greater if we went even farther back in time, to the very days when the modern size of the rink surface was born.”

Surprisingly, I proved myself wrong when I compared the height and weight of the 1930 - 31 Boston Bruins to that of today’s team. The early Bruins were a tall bunch of boys and today’s defense is only 3.3% taller. However, they are 17.8% heavier. More beef between the buns of the modern burger has something to do with that, I suppose.

Because I had the complete roster in hand for both teams, I decided to look at the overall change in height and weight over the course of 80 years, bearing in mind that the Bruins played at The Boston Gardens in the ‘30s (191 x 83 ft., or 15, 853 sq. ft., one of the smaller NHL ice surfaces) and now play at the Fleet Center on NHL regulation size ice (7.24% bigger in area).

[Pat LaFontaine: “He took an elbow to the head and suffered a serious concussion, so serious that not only did he miss almost another year but the Sabres didn’t want him back for fear of contributing to a more serious injury.” Celebrating the Game, A. Podnieks]

The average height and weight of the entire Bruin team (excluding goalies) in 1930 - 31 was 5 ft. 10.6 in. and 172.6 lb. Today’s team stands at (on average, excl. goalies) 6 ft. 1 in. and weighs in at 202.5 lb.

The Fleet Center can certainly accommodate the 3.33% increase in height of players (sure, Zdeno Chara, at 6 ft. 9 in. and 255 lb. has been known to bump into the odd door frame), but, in my opinion, the current ice size cannot easily accommodate the 17.3% increase in their overall weight. (I’m certain other NHL teams have also seen the same increases in growth. What are they eating for supper these days?)

In addition, couple the obvious increase in player size with a clear increase in the speed of the game (shifts have decreased from 2 - 3 minutes to 30 - 45 seconds in length since the 1960s) and a perfect environment has been created to see an increase in aggression, violent contact, concussions and several other injuries.

[Pat Lafontaine: “He started fresh with the New York Rangers, in ’97 - ’98, but just when things looked like everything would be fine, they weren’t.”]

The international rink has an area of 19,600 sq. ft. (15.3% bigger than an NHL regulation pad) and I propose that the NHL adopt the international rink size, as soon as possible, or go one better and build rinks of 220 ft. x 100 ft., producing a playing surface of 22,000 sq. ft., because the way players are growing and shifts are shrinking, the NHL will require the added space by 2020 or 2030.

Players with brainpans take notice. Modern NHL rinks are too small. You’ll live longer on bigger ice!


[Pat LaFontaine: “LaFontaine played 67 games (w the Rangers) and scored 23 goals, but in the 67th game he suffered another concussion. This time he called it quits...]

In my opinion, if player safety is in fact a priority with players, coaches, general managers and the league commissioner, simple tinkering with the rule book or adding a five-point plan will not be enough.

.

Third Overtime: ‘The NHL has a ‘small’ problem’ is quite the series, eh!

I learned quite a bit about the heights and weights of NHL hockey players over the years while putting together this series of posts.

Not enough to say my brain is encyclopedic, mind. More like it feels as heavy as a pail of pucks.

For example, I learned the following:

Harold Darragh
Team: Boston Bruins
Position: Right Wing
Birthdate: Sep 13, 1902
Height: 5.09
Weight: 145 (in 1930 - 31)

Zdeno Chara
Team: Boston Bruins
Position: Defense
Birthdate: Mar. 18, 1977
Height: 6.09
Weight: 255 (in 2010 - 11)

I calculated the following:

Chara is 17.4% taller, 69% heavier than Darragh but plays on a rink only 7.24% bigger than the one Darragh played on in 1930.

I thought about the following:

Junior age players in the Ontario Hockey League (OHL), e.g., The London Knights, are all smaller (on average) than their NHL counterparts but play on the same size ice, i.e., 200 x 85 ft. When an OHL player makes it to the bigs he steps onto the same size pad to oppose players who, in the main, are taller, much heavier and faster.


[“The Knights have Rob Drummond out with a concussion, Kevin Montgomery out with a leg injury and a variety of bumps and bruises.” Mar. 27, 2007, The London Free Press]

I concluded the following:

No wonder brainpans are getting rung every other day.

NHL ice is too small.

.

The NHL has a ‘small’ problem: What a series!

I learned quite a bit about the heights and weights of NHL hockey players over the years while putting together my last series of posts.


["Whatever happened to Pat LaFontaine?"]

Not enough to say my brain is encyclopedic, mind. More like it feels as heavy as a pail of pucks.

For example, I learned the following:

Harold Darragh
Team: Boston Bruins
Position: Right Wing
Birthdate: Sep 13, 1902
Height: 5.09
Weight: 145 (in 1930 - 31)

Zdeno Chara
Team: Boston Bruins
Position: Defense
Birthdate: Mar. 18, 1977
Height: 6.09
Weight: 255 (in 2010 - 11)

I calculated the following:

Chara is 17.4% taller, 69% heavier than Darragh but plays on a rink only 7.24% bigger than the one Darragh played on.

I thought about the following:

Junior age players in the Ontario Hockey League (OHL), e.g., The London Knights, are all smaller (on average) than their NHL counterparts but play on the same size ice, i.e., 200 x 85 ft. When an OHL player makes it to the bigs he steps onto the same size pad to oppose players who, in the main, are taller, heavier and faster.


[“The Knights have Rob Drummond out with a concussion, Kevin Montgomery out with a leg injury and a variety of bumps and bruises.” Mar. 27, 2007, The London Free Press]

I concluded the following:

No wonder brainpans are getting rung in the NHL every other day.

NHL ice is too small.

***

Please click here to read PT 6 The NHL has a ‘small’ problem

Whatever happened to Robbie Drummond?

.