Do HC Davos players have more endurance because of the height?

SergeiMakarovStyle

Registered User
Oct 12, 2011
119
0
Davos:" At 1,560 m (5,120 ft), it is the highest city in Europe"
Does that mean that HC Davos players have better endurance vs teams that are not living and practising in that kind of lattitude? Clearly it must affect to some degree but how much?
 

stv11

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
3,187
241
Switzerland
You should ask a medical forum, we're just hockey fans over here.

Speaking from personal experience, I never felt any effect playing at 1200m, but I once played a one week tournament at 1800m and it definitely helps endurance a lot. Not sure what the effect of a 1560 elevation is, but I guess it's not much of a difference for well trained athlets. At least definitely not at the level of some South American football teams that plays at above 2500m
 

Kane One

Moderator
Feb 6, 2010
43,086
10,597
Brooklyn, New NY
I remember reading in my English class about how Nike has a training facility somewhere in high altitude for this reason. The people in this facility stay there for over a month to help train their breathing during all activities.

NHL players/teams adjust their shifts when they play in Denver (even higher than Davos) because they get tired much quicker.
 

torero

Registered User
Oct 5, 2007
4,585
326
West Sussex
www.scb.ch
logicaly it would have an impact.

So Davos is at 1500 m.

Geneva, the lowest city is at 375 m.

So you would have a 1125 m difference !

(the very good exemple of NHL team playing in Denver (1600 m) is with many teams playing at 0 (see level) ... so the difference would be bigger)

++

My personal experience of having been in high altitudes ... the oxygen/height relationship is not linear.

i went to 6000 m in Nepal, i must say that the 4500-6000 difference was deadly (the slope was deadly too !) ... while the 1400 m (Kathmandu) - 3500 m was almost a non-factor !
(it is true that it took around 10 days to get to the 3500 m.) do blood cells adjust in this period ?? i am not a doctor. It may be a bit short!
effort wise ... walking with a 10 kg back pack (mine and my girl ;-) ) was ok ! not an extreme thing neither.

++

It is also true that Davos won so far 30 titles (since 1909), the most titled team !!
Yet it doesn't have the greatest budget ! (that should be Bern : 13 titles, 500 m)
Arosa, 1700 m, small budget, won 9 titles. ... Times were different ! are we comparing apples to apples ?

++

I am convinced that you have a point ! that in the long run, it makes a difference. But it wouldn't be striking to the point that at the end of every game, Davos' players are super fit and the others are gazed ! Teams don't speak about making different shifts to compensate for it !
Or that some teams size this element and make an affair out of it.
this definitely not. But statistics (30 titles) gives you right. (i guess) ...

Therefore : Yes it is a factor, with, intuitively, a significant impact over years.

Let's see if someone out there feels a wish to plot a statistical test taking into account budget and height + whatever variable seem appropriate !

but 30 titles out of +/- 100 championships sounds above average ... for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_League_A

PS : don't talk too much about it ... let Arno del Curto (Davos' trainer since 1996) enjoy his aura of great head coach ! (which he is ;-) )
 
Last edited:

stv11

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
3,187
241
Switzerland
logicaly it would have an impact.

So Davos is at 1500 m.

Geneva, the lowest city is at 375 m.

So you would have a 1125 m difference !

(the very good exemple of NHL team playing in Denver (1600 m) is with many teams playing at 0 (see level) ... so the difference would be bigger)

Just a little correction: the lowest city with an NLA team is Lugano at 273m. The lowest point in Switzerland is Lake Maggiore at 195m.

My personal experience of having been in high altitudes ... the oxygen/height relationship is not linear.

i went to 6000 m in Nepal, i must say that the 4500-6000 difference was deadly (the slope was deadly too !) ... while the 1400 m (Kathmandu) - 3500 m was almost a non-factor !
(it is true that it took around 10 days to get to the 3500 m.) do blood cells adjust in this period ?? i am not a doctor. It may be a bit short!
effort wise ... walking with a 10 kg back pack (mine and my girl ;-) ) was ok ! not an extreme thing neither.

What you wrote is true for very high elevations (there's no debate it gives some South American football teams a huge advantage), but it's irrelevant when talking about 1500m.

It is also true that Davos won so far 30 titles (since 1909), the most titled team !!
Yet it doesn't have the greatest budget ! (that should be Bern : 13 titles, 500 m)
Arosa, 1700 m, small budget, won 9 titles. ... Times were different ! are we comparing apples to apples ?

Definitely not, hockey started in mountain towns and Davos and Arosa won many championships back when most rink were natural and cold weather gave them big advantages over city teams. If you look at the modern era (introduction of the playoffs during the 85-86 season), Davos won 5 championships while Lugano and Bern won 7 each. And I don't think they were significantly better at home in any of those wins (at least not more than other teams, I remember Lugano going undefeated at home at some point).
 

torero

Registered User
Oct 5, 2007
4,585
326
West Sussex
www.scb.ch
Just a little correction: the lowest city with an NLA team is Lugano at 273m. The lowest point in Switzerland is Lake Maggiore at 195m.

I definitely missed this one. Intuitively ... Lugano is so close to mountains ... but well ... Erare umanum est :)


Definitely not, hockey started in mountain towns and Davos and Arosa won many championships back when most rink were natural and cold weather gave them big advantages over city teams. If you look at the modern era (introduction of the playoffs during the 85-86 season), Davos won 5 championships while Lugano and Bern won 7 each. And I don't think they were significantly better at home in any of those wins (at least not more than other teams, I remember Lugano going undefeated at home at some point).

I grant you the non pear to pear comparison for the beginning of the championships. 1909-1975.

But for the end ...

For modern hockey, i wouldn't start the comparison with the playoffs. (although you have to draw a line at a point in time we agree)
I would go further back by some years. which, are strategic for our stats ! + 6yrs = 2 HCD, 2 Arosa and 2 Bienne.

Home ice or not, should be a non factor in the advantage that higher density of red cells should give you.

Worth to be noticed that playoffs may be less appropriate than regular season rankings for measuring the impact of altitude.

Pity we don't have the 2nd, 3rd 4th ... to go for a proper intuitive linear regression !
:)shakehead intuitive linear regression ... may the gods of math have mercy for my soul)

notice that 1500 m is the inferior limit to medical consideration. Therefore advantage of training at these levels should be marginal. Yet their should be something :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_high_altitude_on_humans
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->