Hockey of the past vs today

SealsFan

Registered User
May 3, 2009
1,713
500
On Youtube videos of games from the 50's thru 70's, I often see comments like "they're moving so slowly", "today's players are so much faster" etc. I wonder how many of those people watch games IN PERSON versus on TV or just highlights on the news. Because I think the way the game is televised today can emphasize the speed, like when you have a fisheye camera at ice level and you see the players hurtling toward you. The old games were mostly televised from a center ice camera up high. It's the same as watching auto racing from down in the first row versus up in the stands. My brother raced enduro cars for a few years and I videotaped the races and down at field level the cars look to be moving so much faster than from the top of the bleachers. Plus, I can't prove it but it seems like these highlight news clips are slightly sped up - does it seem like they are all moving too fast?

But I will allow that skate technology and ice surfacing methods are better today, which can allow for faster skating versus the skates and ice surfacing from 60 years ago...
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,353
7,834
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Re: strength

NFL players today compared to NFL players of 1970 look a lot to different to me. Today's game is full of just these ox men...but that's a sport that doesn't play for nine months out of the year and then when it does play, it plays almost once a week...so there's a lot more time for hitting the gym, and being gym strong can be a reasonable advantage in the NFL...where as in hockey, there advantage is less so...
 

Admiral Awesome

Registered User
Jun 8, 2015
384
162
Re: strength

NFL players today compared to NFL players of 1970 look a lot to different to me. Today's game is full of just these ox men...but that's a sport that doesn't play for nine months out of the year and then when it does play, it plays almost once a week...so there's a lot more time for hitting the gym, and being gym strong can be a reasonable advantage in the NFL...where as in hockey, there advantage is less so...
If you go back a little further, a lot of NFL players actually had regular jobs in the offseason, so it’s not like those guys had months and months between each season to train. Not sure if it was the same for NHL players.
 

unknown33

Registered User
Dec 8, 2009
3,942
150

https://deadspin.com/alex-ovechkin-talks-about-his-diet-hockey-how-he-woul-1746281004

I can totally see people in 30 years referencing this:
'Oh yeah our nutrition knowledge in the 00s/10s was really primitive and we made great strides in that regard. You had guys like Ovi dominating goalscoring for a decade drinking Dr Pepper during the game and eating McD. Nowadays everybody has an optimized diet and stuff like that.'
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Yeah, that really is a bizarre choice when you consider prime Hull looked to be in much better shape than Ovechkin was a couple of years ago.. and how frightening it is to think of Hull with lightweight equipment, better skates (can you imagine him fly!?) and his shot with a composite stick..

This idea that today's players are bionic superheroes really has to stop. It is embarrassing. People haven't changed much at all over the timespan of hockey. Items outside player influence are the biggest changes: equipment, ice surfaces, skates, sport specific training (although the jury is kind of out on how much this hurts/helps vs. multi sports) nutrition, and medical advances.

It has also been shown 1000 times on the board here that the idea of this ever expanding ever better talent pool worldwide is on pretty shaky ground. The reasons for that are ignored each and every time which is why most of the proponents of it are now being ignored by me.

Two straw man arguments in one post.

Who is saying modern players are bionic superheroes or anything like that? No one here so why go there?

Also, it’s not the “ever expanding talent pool” argument that’s the problem, it’s the “never expanding talent pool” argument that is. There should be far more discussions concerning the talent pool feeding the sport and league, especially when people find it necessary to compare players across vastly different eras. The O6 and prior had essentially all elite talent coming from pre-baby boom central Canada. Then we saw the Canadian baby boom’s impact (hello Orr, Wayne, and Mario) with the US and Europe gaining traction. Post 1990 the NHL has had elite talent come come from Canada (coast to coast), the US, and Europe (including Russia). Look at how diverse it is today.

Misrepresenting the points and arguments being made seems to be the only form of rebuttal for this. Or pretending it’s being discussed all the time or silently discussed.

Merry Christmas Everyone!
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,353
7,834
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
"Only"

So, that is to say, that your point(s) on this topic have never been represented correctly by anyone? And further, it's never been discussed (we just pretend to discuss it?) or we use sign language...?

I do try to meet this halfway, or at least some of the way, because I am sensitive to eras...but you seem a lot more worried about the pity party of it and the "you're all against me" argument than the actual discussion when it's brought about...now, that's not to say the people who are against you are 100% focused on the argument at hand either...really, both sides are talking past each other for the most part as each side has quickly exhausted their evidence lockers for this and it has boiled down to a philosophical difference. A difference that few even have the depth of intellectual resources and experience with the game to tackle...

I'm down for another three or four pages of innuendo and hearsay though, if you'd like...tis the season, after all.. ;)
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Two straw man arguments in one post.

Who is saying modern players are bionic superheroes or anything like that? No one here so why go there?

Also, it’s not the “ever expanding talent pool” argument that’s the problem, it’s the “never expanding talent pool” argument that is. There should be far more discussions concerning the talent pool feeding the sport and league, especially when people find it necessary to compare players across vastly different eras. The O6 and prior had essentially all elite talent coming from pre-baby boom central Canada. Then we saw the Canadian baby boom’s impact (hello Orr, Wayne, and Mario) with the US and Europe gaining traction. Post 1990 the NHL has had elite talent come come from Canada (coast to coast), the US, and Europe (including Russia). Look at how diverse it is today.

Misrepresenting the points and arguments being made seems to be the only form of rebuttal for this. Or pretending it’s being discussed all the time or silently discussed.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Essentially from the early 20th urban century industrial centers.

Winnipeg,parts of what is now Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Mining regions in Ontario and Quebec.

North central USA.

At the core your bolded reduces to no other viable alternatives for hockey growth.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,522
3,360
Two straw man arguments in one post.

Who is saying modern players are bionic superheroes or anything like that? No one here so why go there?

Also, it’s not the “ever expanding talent pool” argument that’s the problem, it’s the “never expanding talent pool” argument that is. There should be far more discussions concerning the talent pool feeding the sport and league, especially when people find it necessary to compare players across vastly different eras. The O6 and prior had essentially all elite talent coming from pre-baby boom central Canada. Then we saw the Canadian baby boom’s impact (hello Orr, Wayne, and Mario) with the US and Europe gaining traction. Post 1990 the NHL has had elite talent come come from Canada (coast to coast), the US, and Europe (including Russia). Look at how diverse it is today.

Misrepresenting the points and arguments being made seems to be the only form of rebuttal for this. Or pretending it’s being discussed all the time or silently discussed.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

It’s been done 1000 times, I simply won’t engage in this any longer. It is all thinly veiled attempts to discredit older generation players.

The demographics, registrations, number of pro teams, etc. all indicate to me that the NHL peaked in the early to mid 90s and has been relatively stagnant since..
 
Last edited:

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
"Only"

So, that is to say, that your point(s) on this topic have never been represented correctly by anyone? And further, it's never been discussed (we just pretend to discuss it?) or we use sign language...?

I do try to meet this halfway, or at least some of the way, because I am sensitive to eras...but you seem a lot more worried about the pity party of it and the "you're all against me" argument than the actual discussion when it's brought about...now, that's not to say the people who are against you are 100% focused on the argument at hand either...really, both sides are talking past each other for the most part as each side has quickly exhausted their evidence lockers for this and it has boiled down to a philosophical difference. A difference that few even have the depth of intellectual resources and experience with the game to tackle...

I'm down for another three or four pages of innuendo and hearsay though, if you'd like...tis the season, after all.. ;)

It’s not just me so I’m not trying to take credit for knowing something others don’t. Posters have come and gone in this section who bring it up, debate it a little, then leave. They see the resistance for such an obvious point and probably wonder what’s generally wrong with this section. I mean, hockey never grew, isn’t growing, will never grow? All eras are treated as equal by some, but actually some treat past eras as superior, too. None of that makes sense and never will and you seem to agree, which is the meeting at half way part to me.

I’m not worried about anyone being against me, I’ve always been annoyed that people can be so stubborn and pretend against a reality. The addition of non-Canadian elite talent to the NHL absolutely makes a difference, and yeah, Canada probably produced far more talent and elite talent during and after the baby boom than before. Am I the crazy one for believing these two main points or is someone trying to deny them on the wrong path? Let’s just say I’m quite comfortable with my stance and will continue to be. A poster like C1958 gets all scrambled trying to argue it because his stance is not coming from a solid place.

I’ve been repetitive but I don’t post here a lot really, I just read the same mistakes over and over again and can’t help myself sometimes. I like to read about the history of hockey and have so since I was a kid, I just don’t need some of the BS that comes with it here, especially when it comes to comparing players across eras.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Essentially from the early 20th urban century industrial centers.

Winnipeg,parts of what is now Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Mining regions in Ontario and Quebec.

North central USA.

At the core your bolded reduces to no other viable alternatives for hockey growth.

It both spread and grew from there. We’ve watched it happen with more regions and nations proving elite NHL players. That’s my trump card here.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
It’s been done 1000 times, I simply won’t engage in this any longer. It is all thinly veiled attempts to discredit older generation players.

The demographics, registrations, number of pro teams, etc. all indicate to me that the NHL peaked in the early to mid 90s and has been relatively stagnant since..

Then why comment at all? I’m trying to be realistic about attempting to rank players over the course of the history of the sport, not discredit past players altogether. If the sport wasn’t as deep or as strong early on then so be it. I’m not going to pretend it’s apples to apples when it clearly wasn’t. The NHL being completely dominated by pre-baby boom Canada with almost non-existent elite players from the two coasts displays to me that the depth of talent wasn’t very deep then. That talent base wasn’t displaced, more was added by Canada and the other hockey playing nations.

You and I are in some sort of agreement here if you think it came to a peak at some point and the 90s doesn’t sound so bad to me, even though I don’t see a real drop in depth of elite talent after that. You just don’t seem to want to stick your neck out and take it any further than that.
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,290
I just don’t need some of the BS that comes with it here, especially when it comes to comparing players across eras.

If you don't need it then don't read it, and don't engage with people regarding it. I don't think anyone's forcing you to read their posts, or reply to them. Also, not everyone in a project like the Top 100 Players of All-Time thinks alike. I certainly wouldn't think it would be that interesting thing to participate in if everyone just nodded along to the tune of the same preacher. Haven't you noticed the general grumpiness? It means posters not getting along on a lot of things.

You'll also have to show you know your history, in a broader perspective, if you want to throw around the big rocks in this thread or that thread or any thread, and expect other posters to take you seriously. What are your thoughts on The Art of Skating by Irving Brokaw, for instance?

And if it turns out you haven't even read, or taken in, or even just skimmed through similar stuff/things from the past, then how can you be so sure you're the one grasping history more correctly than the other guy?

Show your work in a more non-boring repetitive style, and with fresher angles, and some people might even want to raise their tired eyes from the lower row of the keyboard regarding your posts.
 

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,119
2,649
On Youtube videos of games from the 50's thru 70's, I often see comments like "they're moving so slowly", "today's players are so much faster" etc. I wonder how many of those people watch games IN PERSON versus on TV or just highlights on the news. Because I think the way the game is televised today can emphasize the speed, like when you have a fisheye camera at ice level and you see the players hurtling toward you. The old games were mostly televised from a center ice camera up high. It's the same as watching auto racing from down in the first row versus up in the stands. My brother raced enduro cars for a few years and I videotaped the races and down at field level the cars look to be moving so much faster than from the top of the bleachers. Plus, I can't prove it but it seems like these highlight news clips are slightly sped up - does it seem like they are all moving too fast?

But I will allow that skate technology and ice surfacing methods are better today, which can allow for faster skating versus the skates and ice surfacing from 60 years ago...

Funny, cause I think the game looks decently fast even back in the 50's. Now, compare that to soccer...oh man, that game has changed so much it is insane. They were literally walking around with the ball back in the 80's even.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tarantula

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
Funny, cause I think the game looks decently fast even back in the 50's. Now, compare that to soccer...oh man, that game has changed so much it is insane. They were literally walking around with the ball back in the 80's even.

Yes, in soccer the difference is like night and day. In hockey? Not so much. If you account for shift lenght and skates, what difference is there at all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tarantula

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,552
2,174
I haven’t read the entire thread, so this may have been mentioned, but for what it’s worth the Canadian Heritage Survey had 27% of kids playing hockey in 2010.

Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web

It’s been a while since I read it so I don’t remember the specifics of the question about hockey and how it was posed but it’s in the document linked if this is of any interest.

This is a good comprehensive study from 2014: Massive Competition in Pursuit of the $5.7 Billion Canadian Youth Sports Market | SRG
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,353
7,834
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
The equation of speed and better is also not a good look...the game can be too fast for its own good.

The game goes through ebbs and flows, like any group of prospects, there's ebbs and flows to the development curve...there are dips (WWI, WWII, the early 1980's, the early 2010's maybe you could say, but that might be a little too fine of a point) and ups (the mid 1950's to mid 1960's, the mid to late 1990's, maybe these last couple seasons, etc.)...

The game doesn't just grow and improve unilaterally because time passes by or because population grows or because there are more cloudy days in Alberta, or because of the KHL, or because sticks are lighter, or any singular reason...it's just a lazy way of looking at it, in my opinion...there are a lot of factors, and like prospects, the game doesn't just improve linearly...
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,290
The equation of speed and better is also not a good look...the game can be too fast for its own good.

The game goes through ebbs and flows, like any group of prospects, there's ebbs and flows to the development curve...there are dips (WWI, WWII, the early 1980's, the early 2010's maybe you could say, but that might be a little too fine of a point) and ups (the mid 1950's to mid 1960's, the mid to late 1990's, maybe these last couple seasons, etc.)...

The game doesn't just grow and improve unilaterally because time passes by or because population grows or because there are more cloudy days in Alberta, or because of the KHL, or because sticks are lighter, or any singular reason...it's just a lazy way of looking at it, in my opinion...there are a lot of factors, and like prospects, the game doesn't just improve linearly...

Some people apply this way of thinking (the linear theory) to everything/society in general, also beyond sports. Things apparently can't regress or stagnate at all under any reasonable circumstances/context. Welfare diseases and things, etc., different angles, nuances, apparently is all just a mirage or a conspiracy theory. We're (literally) shooting for the stars according to this line of thinking. I miss my flying car though that they promised me 50 years ago (when I wasn't even born). Instead we just got Segways and shit.
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,758
4,588
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
Yes, in soccer the difference is like night and day. In hockey? Not so much. If you account for shift lenght and skates, what difference is there at all?
If there is no difference between having year round training, diet, early coaching, etc. and not having them, then why do players do it? Why go through all that trouble? Wouldn't Crosby prefer NOT training for 11 months if the end results were the same (or worse) than doing it?
 
Last edited:

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Yes, in soccer the difference is like night and day. In hockey? Not so much. If you account for shift lenght and skates, what difference is there at all?

Huge difference Theo. What are you talking about? From Laneway to Full Cycle, the Short Shift, equipment & training advancements, off ice the $$$ & business aspects... just on & on. Like night & day. Age of Specialists. Passing Game. Total System Hockey.

Science superseding artistry, creativity & free flow. Sprinters rather than Marathoners. Game of control, micro-management to the nth degree. Todays game borrows from the past in some respects but its grown, advanced and yes, for the better overall. Its still in flux, changing. Thats what makes life & history so fascinating....

For example.... had Donovan Leitch not befriended the Beatles, John Lennon in particular, no White Album. No Dear Prudence, doubtful McCartney is inspired to write Blackbird & so on. They'd have never learned the chord progressions & structures that Leitch had learned by ear from past masters and just automatically employed....

www.westword.com/music/donovan-on-teaching-the-beatles-the-fingerstyle-that-became-the-white-album-8326737

Now, does Donovan get credits on the album, royalties? Of course not. Its enough that he knows, all kinds of other people know, I know.... and now you know if you didnt know it already and absolutely. R.E.S.P.E.C.T. Thank you Mr. Leitch. Thank you Mr. Richard, all the Bobby's, Billy's, Eddies & everyone else. For the memories, for the edumication. Ha?... Theo? :)
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,247
10,127
It’s been done 1000 times, I simply won’t engage in this any longer. It is all thinly veiled attempts to discredit older generation players.

The demographics, registrations, number of pro teams, etc. all indicate to me that the NHL peaked in the early to mid 90s and has been relatively stagnant since..


Yup I sure recall those great players from Arizona from the 90's too.

90's had Al MacInnis, who up to that pint was by far the best player ever from Nova Scotia, over maybe Flash Hollet.

Today we have Sidney Crosby, Nathan Mackinnon and Brad Marchand.

Germany and Denmark are now on the scene, look over there the Swiss as well.

That being said no one is comparing the difference from the 90's to today all that much the shift started in the late 70's.

There is no threat to discredit anyone except but those refusing to acknowledge the differences.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,850
51,521
When I watch Original Six footage, I always find the quick flow of the game and the amount of open space to be the most noticeable things to jump out at me. It was a real North South track meet flow kind of game, very fluid with a lack of real systems thinking in all aspects of the game. Looks like there was a lot more parity in the skill level, no weak players compared to footage from later decades.

In terms of the quality of talent in circulation in the NHL, I'd say it looks like things took a massive dip in the 1970s with expansion and the WHA tapping the talent pool, and a massive disparity between the best and the rest in the 1980s and gradually you saw the talent level increasing in the NHL until the mid 90s, when the Eric Lindros arms race and neutral zone trap really de-emphasized skills development. The economics of the game also seemed to skew the league towards the older end of the spectrum by the 2005 lockout. After 2005-06, it looks like the game got a massive influx in young talent culminating around 2010 when the Blackhawks and Kings established the new NHL order. Then we saw another changing of the guards beginning around the McDavid draft which has seen an even bigger uptick in skills development.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,522
3,360
The game doesn't just grow and improve unilaterally because time passes by or because population grows or because there are more cloudy days in Alberta, or because of the KHL, or because sticks are lighter, or any singular reason...it's just a lazy way of looking at it, in my opinion...there are a lot of factors, and like prospects, the game doesn't just improve linearly...

This is the important point. I think most of us agree that during WWII there was a lull in talent per team. I think in the 70s with the WHA and expansion there was a lull in talent per team. I'd also take issue with someone who thinks that today is the best the NHL has ever been.. I don't see that as being the case for a variety of reasons.. and they are expanding again.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,522
3,360
Yup I sure recall those great players from Arizona from the 90's too.

90's had Al MacInnis, who up to that pint was by far the best player ever from Nova Scotia, over maybe Flash Hollet.

Today we have Sidney Crosby, Nathan Mackinnon and Brad Marchand.

Germany and Denmark are now on the scene, look over there the Swiss as well.

That being said no one is comparing the difference from the 90's to today all that much the shift started in the late 70's.

There is no threat to discredit anyone except but those refusing to acknowledge the differences.

This is a very weak argument.

How many total players to NS, Germany, Denmark, and Switzerland contribute, praytell?

It's like saying Slovenia has players in the NHL now.. yeah.. Kopitar.

USA is way up.. Finland is up for goalies.. but have a look at how many countries have dropped their contribution since the late 90s early 2000s and get back to me.

It is way more nuanced than you think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ehhedler

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
When I watch Original Six footage, I always find the quick flow of the game and the amount of open space to be the most noticeable things to jump out at me. It was a real North South track meet flow kind of game, very fluid with a lack of real systems thinking in all aspects of the game. Looks like there was a lot more parity in the skill level, no weak players compared to footage from later decades.

In terms of the quality of talent in circulation in the NHL, I'd say it looks like things took a massive dip in the 1970s with expansion and the WHA tapping the talent pool, and a massive disparity between the best and the rest in the 1980s and gradually you saw the talent level increasing in the NHL until the mid 90s, when the Eric Lindros arms race and neutral zone trap really de-emphasized skills development. The economics of the game also seemed to skew the league towards the older end of the spectrum by the 2005 lockout. After 2005-06, it looks like the game got a massive influx in young talent culminating around 2010 when the Blackhawks and Kings established the new NHL order. Then we saw another changing of the guards beginning around the McDavid draft which has seen an even bigger uptick in skills development.

Astute post. Overemphasis on McDavid but ok. Thats cool. Understand where your coming from. :thumbu:
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->