#5 All-Time??

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Richard. I wonder where Bobby Hull could have ended up if he'd stayed in the NHL. Still a 50 goal man at the time, in a time when 50 goals was a ton...
Imo Bobby hull is in the top 5. People who know me on this board will not be surprised by this as I was a huge Hull fan and obviously am biased. The man played 15 years in the NHL and was easily the best & most dominant player of the 60's. So his team only won one cup==Orr only won two & he was the dominant player of the 70's.

The first 3 players to score over 50 goals in the NHl were Hull. Hull, & Hull. If you include his WHA career, it only confirms that he is a top 5 of all time. Bobby Hull carried the WHA on his back. And for those idiots on another thread that think Bobby needs to weight lift to make it today check out the famous picture of him forking hay from the 60's. The guy was an adonis.
 

Bluesfan1981

Registered User
Mar 21, 2006
591
2
USA
And for those idiots on another thread that think Bobby needs to weight lift to make it today check out the famous picture of him forking hay from the 60's. The guy was an adonis.

And the hardest shot of all time, plus blazing speed which unfortunately his son didn't have.
 

Whatever Man*

Guest
Imo Bobby hull is in the top 5. People who know me on this board will not be surprised by this as I was a huge Hull fan and obviously am biased. The man played 15 years in the NHL and was easily the best & most dominant player of the 60's. So his team only won one cup==Orr only won two & he was the dominant player of the 70's.

The first 3 players to score over 50 goals in the NHl were Hull. Hull, & Hull. If you include his WHA career, it only confirms that he is a top 5 of all time. Bobby Hull carried the WHA on his back. And for those idiots on another thread that think Bobby needs to weight lift to make it today check out the famous picture of him forking hay from the 60's. The guy was an adonis.

As one of the "idiots" mentioned above, I'll have at it.

Did you not see Jordan Staal at the Draft?
18yrs old and a monster. 6'-4" and 215 lbs of solid muscle.

Bobby Hull was 5'-10" and 191 lbs.
Brian Little the 12th overall pick in 2006, is 5'-10" and already 190 lbs at 18 yrs old.
Erik Johnson is 6'-4" and 222 lbs, again at only 18 yrs old.

It's not that without current strength and weight training he couldn't play. It is that without current strength and weight training he wouldn't do half the things he did in his era. He was fast and skilled enough to make the league, but he would not be able to dominate the players of today, like he did in the 60's when he was so far ahead of most of the other players.

Give him the modern training and he would likely come close to doing what he did in the 60's.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
As one of the "idiots" mentioned above, I'll have at it.

Did you not see Jordan Staal at the Draft?
18yrs old and a monster. 6'-4" and 215 lbs of solid muscle.

Bobby Hull was 5'-10" and 191 lbs.
Brian Little the 12th overall pick in 2006, is 5'-10" and already 190 lbs at 18 yrs old.
Erik Johnson is 6'-4" and 222 lbs, again at only 18 yrs old.

It's not that without current strength and weight training he couldn't play. It is that without current strength and weight training he wouldn't do half the things he did in his era. He was fast and skilled enough to make the league, but he would not be able to dominate the players of today, like he did in the 60's when he was so far ahead of most of the other players.

Give him the modern training and he would likely come close to doing what he did in the 60's.
Make sense now. Look at the man. Why the hell would he need current strength & weight training. How do you improve on perfection. LLyod Percival (you probably haven't heard of him) did tests in the 50-60's. Bobby Hull was built for hockey as was gordie Howe.

Big deal that Bryan little is 5'10" & 191 LBs at 18. SO WAS HULL in 1957.

Staal is 6'4' & 21`5 lbs/ Very similar to Moose Vasko in 1957.

A young Hull would absolutely dominate today.
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
Make sense now. Look at the man. Why the hell would he need current strength & weight training. How do you improve on perfection. LLyod Percival (you probably haven't heard of him) did tests in the 50-60's. Bobby Hull was built for hockey as was gordie Howe.

Big deal that Bryan little is 5'10" & 191 LBs at 18. SO WAS HULL in 1957.

Staal is 6'4' & 21`5 lbs/ Very similar to Moose Vasko in 1957.

A young Hull would absolutely dominate today.
Idiots isn't the word I'd use. Ignorance is a much more applicable term. And unfortunately, ignorance is a far worse condition than stupidity.

As always, a fine post, murray. We don't always agree. But at least I know I can have a knowledgeable discussion with you, and Lord knows, we've had at it many times.

And BTW, as someone who has both a farming background and a strength training background (I own part of my gym) farming gives you a far better workout than any gym ever could.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Idiots isn't the word I'd use. Ignorance is a much more applicable term. And unfortunately, ignorance is a far worse condition than stupidity.

As always, a fine post, murray. We don't always agree. But at least I know I can have a knowledgeable discussion with you, and Lord knows, we've had at it many times.

And BTW, as someone who has both a farming background and a strength training background (I own part of my gym) farming gives you a far better workout than any gym ever could.
GBC

Both my parents were born on farms. I grew up in a small ontario town & the farm boys that came into town for minor hockey were strong tough kids. I think most of the NHL was made up of Canadian farm boys up to the 70's.
 

Whatever Man*

Guest
Bobby Hull had hardest shot EVER, nobody playing today can come close. Hull would be great today too.
"Great" if he had todays training. Above average without it.


Make sense now. Look at the man. Why the hell would he need current strength & weight training. How do you improve on perfection. LLyod Percival (you probably haven't heard of him) did tests in the 50-60's. Bobby Hull was built for hockey as was gordie Howe.

Big deal that Bryan little is 5'10" & 191 LBs at 18. SO WAS HULL in 1957.

Staal is 6'4' & 21`5 lbs/ Very similar to Moose Vasko in 1957.

A young Hull would absolutely dominate today.

Improve on perfection??? LMAO

:biglaugh:

First you make it bigger, faster, and stronger. Teach it better strategies, positioning and health. Finally give it better equipment and training.

At 6'3" Vasko was a huge man for his time

At 6'-3" he is nothing special in today's NHL.
 

Whatever Man*

Guest
Idiots isn't the word I'd use. Ignorance is a much more applicable term. And unfortunately, ignorance is a far worse condition than stupidity.

As always, a fine post, murray. We don't always agree. But at least I know I can have a knowledgeable discussion with you, and Lord knows, we've had at it many times.

And BTW, as someone who has both a farming background and a strength training background (I own part of my gym) farming gives you a far better workout than any gym ever could.

How about your ignorance of the better shape todays players are in?
You completely ignore the fact there has been major improvements in training and nutrition as part of a players pereformance.
You ignore the fact that a bigger faster opponent is going to be harder to beat than a smaller weaker slower opponent.
You ignore the idea that strength has anything to do with aplayers performance.


farming gives you a far better workout than any gym ever could
That is garbage. Do you just make things up?

I have never seen a farmer that looks like Arnold Schwartznegger. I do know a few that resemble Fred Flintstone.(One is even named Fred) For the most part, most of the farmers I know, (I usually refer to them as relatives), are in good shape and are a fair bit stronger than the average person. Back in the 50's and 60's and 70's and even a good chunk of the 80's when nobody weight trained, that would be a distinct advantage over other players. But today everybody lifts weights. There is no strength advantage from merely coming from the farm. Hull in the 50's and 60's was likely in the top 5% of players as far as strength was concerned. I doubt he would make it into the top 30% of todays NHL. That's to say, I think there is easily 200 players in todays NHL that are atleast as strong as Hull was in the 60's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
"Great" if he had todays training. Above average without it.




Improve on perfection??? LMAO

:biglaugh:

First you make it bigger, faster, and stronger. Teach it better strategies, positioning and health. Finally give it better equipment and training.



At 6'-3" he is nothing special in today's NHL.
you really don't get it. Go back to the other boards.

1. He had the best shot ever! With todays "training" does that mean 200mph instead of 118. What the hell does teaching better strategies, positioning & health mean. Sounds like something even a moron likew me can pick up.

2. regarding perfection, I don't understand your acronym. look at the man & you want to send him to the GYM!!!!

3. Agree that Elmer Vasko's size is nothing special today but players of that size did exist in 1957.

What the hell is your problem? I do not know who you are or how old you are but I have been watching since the 50's. Hull was great in the 50-s & he would be dominant today. you have provided no evidence to prove otherwise.
 

Whatever Man*

Guest
you really don't get it. Go back to the other boards.

1. He had the best shot ever! With todays "training" does that mean 200mph instead of 118. What the hell does teaching better strategies, positioning & health mean. Sounds like something even a moron likew me can pick up.

2. regarding perfection, I don't understand your acronym. look at the man & you want to send him to the GYM!!!!

3. Agree that Elmer Vasko's size is nothing special today but players of that size did exist in 1957.

What the hell is your problem? I do not know who you are or how old you are but I have been watching since the 50's. Hull was great in the 50-s & he would be dominant today. you have provided no evidence to prove otherwise.


No Murray You don't get it. Maybe you should give it up?
He was great in the 50's and what you can't seem to grasp is that if he was given the same training the rest of the league has a 22 yr old Hull would light it up in todays league. You fail to understand that in his 1959 body he would not be able to dominate the league like he did. The % of players in the 60's that he was bigger and stronger than is far bigger than it is in 2007. He is not going to win as many races for the puck. He is not going to win as many battles for the puck. He will be knocked down more. Caught on the fly more often. He simply won't have the same physical dominance as he did in the 60's.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
No Murray You don't get it. Maybe you should give it up?
He was great in the 50's and what you can't seem to grasp is that if he was given the same training the rest of the league has a 22 yr old Hull would light it up in todays league. You fail to understand that in his 1959 body he would not be able to dominate the league like he did. The % of players in the 60's that he was bigger and stronger than is far bigger than it is in 2007. He is not going to win as many races for the puck. He is not going to win as many battles for the puck. He will be knocked down more. Caught on the fly more often. He simply won't have the same physical dominance as he did in the 60's.
I think you are the one that doesn't get it. You obviously have not been watching as long as I have. St. louis with his small sature can dominant in this era yet Hull with is strenghth, speed & shot couldn't?

I can not imagine how you could improve on Hull's 1959 body. I have not seen anybody today that matches it.

Do some research & then maybe we can talk.
 

Whatever Man*

Guest
I think you are the one that doesn't get it. You obviously have not been watching as long as I have. St. louis with his small sature can dominant in this era yet Hull with is strenghth, speed & shot couldn't?

I can not imagine how you could improve on Hull's 1959 body. I have not seen anybody today that matches it.

Do some research & then maybe we can talk.

Right there!^ Up there in bold.
That is where you and everyone else is making the mistake. St.Louis can do it because he does do the weight training. Why do you think he was invisible until he was 26-27 yrs old? He wasn't strong enough. It took him time to become strong enough to do what he does.

As cut as Hull may have been, a 245 lb Bertuzzi is still going to knock him down, and out muscle Hull for the puck alot more often than 185 lb Norm Ullman ever did. Can you see? It is not as much Hull as it is what he has to face.
 

Know Your Enemy

Registered
Jul 18, 2004
6,817
391
North Vancouver
Right there!^ Up there in bold.
That is where you and everyone else is making the mistake. St.Louis can do it because he does do the weight training. Why do you think he was invisible until he was 26-27 yrs old? He wasn't strong enough. It took him time to become strong enough to do what he does.

Since when was it strength that scored St. Louis his goals? the reason why he became so good was because he was able to develope his talent and find his niche in the league with his new team. No matter how strong St. Louis became he's not stronger than most of the players he faces, especailly the defencemen he gets matched up against, so therefore he must use his skating abaility and talent to be succesfull. so I dont see how stregth broke the barrier between the "invisible man" and the hart trophy winner.

The reason why Sidney Crosby is allready one of the best players in the league because he's talented and has quickly matured as an offensive player, not because he the strongest 18 year old hockey player out there (which he certainly isn't). By your logic if Crosby stoped going to the gym he wouldn't be able to tally points, and therefore talent and intellignce matters less that stregth. That doesn't sound right to me.
 

revolverjgw

Registered User
Oct 6, 2003
8,483
19
Nova Scotia
The reason why Sidney Crosby is allready one of the best players in the league because he's talented and has quickly matured as an offensive player, not because he the strongest 18 year old hockey player out there (which he certainly isn't).

Maybe not THE strongest, but he's pretty much at or near the max. Crosby being a fire hydrant on skates is a HUGE part of his success. He's an elite athlete. His game would take a big hit if he ''trained'' like Mario and Wayne did. His smarts alone would not get him his 100 points.

Hull would do fine though. I think he's one of the select few old-timers you could drop right into the NHL today and he'd be a superstar pretty much right away. He was a freak from the future, almost.
 

Whatever Man*

Guest
Since when was it strength that scored St. Louis his goals? the reason why he became so good was because he was able to develope his talent and find his niche in the league with his new team. No matter how strong St. Louis became he's not stronger than most of the players he faces, especailly the defencemen he gets matched up against, so therefore he must use his skating abaility and talent to be succesfull. so I dont see how stregth broke the barrier between the "invisible man" and the hart trophy winner.

The reason why Sidney Crosby is allready one of the best players in the league because he's talented and has quickly matured as an offensive player, not because he the strongest 18 year old hockey player out there (which he certainly isn't). By your logic if Crosby stoped going to the gym he wouldn't be able to tally points, and therefore talent and intellignce matters less that stregth. That doesn't sound right to me.

Another one who just can't grasp the concept. :banghead:

Sigh.

Without his strength he doesn't win as many battles for the puck.
Without his strength he gets pushed out of position more.
Without his strength he can't protect the puck as much.
Without his strength he is knocked down more.

Now if you are going to tell me that winning battles for the puck, being able to maintain your positon, stay on your skates, and being able to protect the puck has nothing to do with scoring, I am going to cry.


Without the weight training the numbers go down.



To Anybody, but murray in particular:

Check out the 199pts .... thread, for a link I posted there, and tell us how many pre-exercise revolution players looked like that guy in the photo. Weight training is meaniless you say...
 

nmbr_24

Registered User
Jun 8, 2003
12,864
2
Visit site
I have been reading this thread, and reading the arguments, and I believe Hull would be great if he was in his prime today, heck, he might even be better, because the better training, and improved equipment.
Hull had the best shot ever, so I figure it would be even better today. The guy would probably be scoring 80 goals a year with the new style of the NHL.
 

Know Your Enemy

Registered
Jul 18, 2004
6,817
391
North Vancouver
Another one who just can't grasp the concept. :banghead:

Sigh.

Without his strength he doesn't win as many battles for the puck.
Without his strength he gets pushed out of position more.
Without his strength he can't protect the puck as much.
Without his strength he is knocked down more.

Now if you are going to tell me that winning battles for the puck, being able to maintain your positon, stay on your skates, and being able to protect the puck has nothing to do with scoring, I am going to cry.


Without the weight training the numbers go down.

The reason why St. Louis isn't pushed out of position all the time is because of his skating ability, not because of his stregth.
The only way St. Louis could ever win a battle for a puck against a big defensemen is because of his quickness, luck or sheer determination, it's not because he can overpower other players.
If St. Louis isnt knocked down by another player it's again because of his combination speed and shiftyness and his low center of gravity. No matter how much weight training he does if another bigger player finds a way to get good body position he's going to get knocked down. So he "does what he does" because of his talent.

All players in the league do plenty of weight training but not all of them score. Take Shean Donovan for example, i'm sure this guy goes to the gym all the time ( is probably stronger than st.louis) and he's a fast skater, but he struggles in the offensive department ; the reason being is that he lacks talent and hockey sense. Weight training may make a player stronger, but it isnt what allows a player to score goals, that's all i'm arguing.
Stregth may be important for players that are in the NHL for other purposes. Take a guy like georges laraque, he can get a shift in the NHL because he's a big strong enforcer with that uses stregth to punch people in the face and prevent himself from getting overpowered when people try to take a run at him (which anyone can because he's slow) So stregth can be a factor for some player to keep them in the NHL, but it is not much of a factor for players like st. louis to "do what they do".
I wont argue that he have to keep your body in shape to have it fuction at the highest level, but you have to realize that the body is controlled by the mind and your mind I where your talent and abilities come from. And those talents are what make good hockey players, not their muscles.
 

arrbez

bad chi
Jun 2, 2004
13,352
261
Toronto
how did this thread start off so well, and end up so Pejorative Slured?

whateverman - can you just shut up about modern strength training? seriously, who cares?
 

Whatever Man*

Guest
You don't get it.

Wasn't St. Louis always fast?
Wasn't he always good with the puck?

So enlighten me as to what it was that took him from not being able to make a non playoff Calgary team, to being the Art Ross trophy winner?

I'll give you a hint.

St.Louis is only 5'-9" tall and weighs 185lbs.





He worked out, put on muscle and got stronger.
 

Whatever Man*

Guest
how did this thread start off so well, and end up so Pejorative Slured?

whateverman - can you just shut up about modern strength training? seriously, who cares?


I care. And just who are you to tell me to shut up???
 

arrbez

bad chi
Jun 2, 2004
13,352
261
Toronto
I care. And just who are you to tell me to shut up???

I'm Mike Foligno, *****.

Seriously, just make your own thread discussing the ins and outs of evolution and nutritional fitness, and quit ruining perfectly good threads with these stupid arguments.
 

Whatever Man*

Guest
I'm Mike Foligno, *****.

Seriously, just make your own thread discussing the ins and outs of evolution and nutritional fitness, and quit ruining perfectly good threads with these stupid arguments.

I did make this thread. :D
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->