I just read RIchard Gabriel’s Worse is Better article. In this piece he makes an argument, he flips his allegiances to it and then invites a sense for debate.
First, he hypothesized that an inferior program was more successful because of its inferiority.
Next, he opens the door to a never-ending debate oscillating between arguing for and against this original proposition.
Lastly, he finishes by saying the debate space is an aesthetic preference versus a technical certainty.
How does this relate to two way hockey?
I once sat in conference room with Bryce Salvador. After my proposition of playing hockey with a straight blade entered the conversation, paraphrasing he said that if you give an NHL player any sort of stick, no matter if it was curved or straight, they would make it sing (meaning they would play well with it). He simply missed how players’ spacial orientation as it related to the game would be vastly enriched by a two way hockey approach. But his point was well taken. It’s possible. His thought process was limited by the game lens we all inherited. As was my own until I reread Smushkin’s books and considered their implications.
Hockey’s current stakeholders have technical vocabularies that conceal a sense for the game. Two way hockey unshackles players by reorganizing this vocabulary.