Who would win this 5 on 5 game? All the players are in their prime and healthy.

[EXTRAS]

Well a couple of those older players did play during an era where players smoked and drank beer between periods.

When men were men and boys had faces like mcdavid

 

[Oneiro]

I tend to agree with the idea that the level of focus and true devotion is not the same today.

More gimmicks along the lines of technique and training and baseline skillsets, but the kind of breakthroughs that lead to higher levels of understanding...You're not seeing more Kucherovs, Crosbys or Lidstroms out there. The number stays roughly the same, though the players get ever more resources. Best innovators still seem like lone wolves.

 

[Pizza!Pizza!]

Who would win this 5 on 5 game? All the players are in their prime and healthy.

Team A

Hull - Gretzky - Howe
Orr - Harvey
Roy

Team B

Draisaitl - McDavid - Kucherov
Hedman - Makar
Vasilevskiy

Team A could have Jody Hull and they would still win.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

Really hope this is tongue-in-cheek

Partially. Overall, I think it's valid.

Modern sticks could never stand up to the physicality and abuse that ruled in the 60s and 70s. Wooden sticks are far more durable.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Harvey-Orr, the greatest possible pairing imaginable, the two greatest defensemen ever, with Gretzky upfront with the two best power wingers in history. And the greatest goalie in net.

lolz

 

[Honest M]

Ridiculous result.. Only sport on the planet where fans has such an outrageous belief in the players from an since long passed era with a totally different competition level. Especially Canadian players only seems to get better as the years go by.

Teem B would not let a single goal in and would skate circles around teem A, and score on will

 

[Honest M]

Based on how they dominated their peers then the answer is A quite easily. I'm guessing everyone is in their prime with modern day 2022 training, equipment, and nutrition. When you view players of the past you have to look at how much better they were than their peers to how much better players today are than their peers. Player A wins in a landslide.

In theire prime is ofc with the equipnet when they where at their best, not with other training nutrition research equipment etc...

 

[tarheelhockey]

“Today’s players would skate circles around these guys” is like saying your college physics professor is far smarter than Albert Einstein. It’s true on a technical level, but not on a meaningful level.

 

[Honest M]

“Today’s players would skate circles around these guys” is like saying your college physics professor is far smarter than Albert Einstein. It’s true on a technical level, but not on a meaningful level.

Absolutely not, it has nothing to do with intellectual capacity.

If you look at records for a sport that is possible to keep track on actual performance, for example power volt. It's obvious that the athletes and equipment are getting better and improving performance as the years go by. The best power volt jumper in the world in the 50ties would not qualify for the world cup 2022, and it's the same in other sports.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Absolutely not, it has nothing to do with intellectual capacity.

If you look at records for a sport that is possible to keep track on actual performance, for example power volt. It's obvious that the athletes and equipment are getting better and improving performance as the years go by. The best power volt jumper in the world in the 50ties would not qualify for the world cup 2022, and it's the same in other sports.

You’re making my point.

Yes, the equipment has changed radically. And athletes are trained to use that equipment to its maximum capacity. Therefore you get objectively better results.

Hockey example: it is indisputable that shots are harder than they used to be. Why are they harder? Because stick materials have been engineered to create the absolute maximum shot velocity physically possible, and the sticks are custom-made to the specifics of each player’s preferences, and the players are trained to take advantage of all of this.

Does that mean Connor McDavid is a harder shooter than Bobby Hull? I guess so, in the same sense that today’s college student a better physicist than Albert Einstein. The question is whether this technical-absolutist perspective is an important point of view when judging excellence in a profession.

 

[Sun God Nika]

Team B AINEC.

If someone has the fitness testing results of each player involved that will prove my point.

The athletes of then would not be able to keep up with the speed of the game of the athletes of now.

 

[authentic]

People act like old timers couldn't skate but a 35+ year old with a broken back who recovered from Hodgkin's Lymphoma Lemieux pimp slapped the early 2000s.

He was on a 67 goal 145 point pace as a 35 year old and a 111 point pace as a 37 year old. He literally played games with Crosby and Thornton etc

The great players of the 80s could very much play with today's players. Yes the players today dedicate their lives to hockey but there are so many more distractions. Kids back then would play all day out on the pond. I remember playing road hockey 12 hours a day during the summer. That would never happen today cuz kids need their screen time.

Gretzky and Lemieux sure, but Howe and Harvey? Not sure how well they would fare in the skill department.

 

[authentic]

You’re making my point.

Yes, the equipment has changed radically. And athletes are trained to use that equipment to its maximum capacity. Therefore you get objectively better results.

Hockey example: it is indisputable that shots are harder than they used to be. Why are they harder? Because stick materials have been engineered to create the absolute maximum shot velocity physically possible, and the sticks are custom-made to the specifics of each player’s preferences, and the players are trained to take advantage of all of this.

Does that mean Connor McDavid is a harder shooter than Bobby Hull? I guess so, in the same sense that today’s college student a better physicist than Albert Einstein. The question is whether this technical-absolutist perspective is an important point of view when judging excellence in a profession.

I don’t believe McDavid has a harder shot than Hull anyway.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The athletes of then would not be able to keep up with the speed of the game of the athletes of now.

But would the athletes of now be able to maintain that same speed if they were skating 2-3 minute shifts?

Would they be able to maintain that flow if they were being called for 2-line passes?

A lot of what we’re talking about here isn’t athleticism, it’s context of the task they’re being asked to accomplish. There’s no reason to believe hockey players of the past weren’t capable of blazing speed if all they had been asked to do was skate north-south for 30 seconds at a time.

 

[Honest M]

Does that mean Connor McDavid is a harder shooter than Bobby Hull? I guess so, in the same sense that today’s college student a better physicist than Albert Einstein. The question is whether this technical-absolutist perspective is an important point of view when judging excellence in a profession.

What's with the Einstein analogy, that's like saying you are a much better swimmer since you have a speedboat.

Todays athlete's are better trained with harder competition and with better equipment that's a fact. Then might the talent level on some of the old great ones be as good or better and they might with the same circumstances be better players but that we will never know.

 

[tarheelhockey]

What's with the Einstein analogy, that's like saying you are a much better swimmer since you have a speedboat.

I mean, Einstein was pretty good at physics for his time. But he was missing 80 years of discoveries. Elementary school children know e=mc2 which took him how long to figure out?

One thing is clear, Einstein could never keep pace with modern physicists. He didn’t even know how to use a computer, so clearly he would struggle to even get admitted to a university nowadays. Good thing he peaked in the 1920s, when that kind of weak-ass physicist could still be a star.

 

[spiny norman]

Lopsided result.