Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,541
- 4,934
I was only referring to speed. The notion that players of yesterday wouldn't be able to keep up with the players of today.
Hockey of the past vs today
- Thread starter Sentinel
- Start date
I was only referring to speed. The notion that players of yesterday wouldn't be able to keep up with the players of today.
Crosbyfan
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2003
- 12,666
- 2,489
If shifts had to be a minimum of 2 minutes, the game today would look more like it was in 1960 than it does today.
Gordie Howe used to talk about how he paced himself through a shift, so he would have something in the tank when it mattered most.
If you want to reverse the comparison, Jesse Owens at full sprint was certainly faster than todays 400 metre runners.
Gordie Howe used to talk about how he paced himself through a shift, so he would have something in the tank when it mattered most.
If you want to reverse the comparison, Jesse Owens at full sprint was certainly faster than todays 400 metre runners.
Michael Farkas
Grace Personified
The Panther
Registered User
That's what I think, too. When I watch clips from the 80s, I see players going all out at exactly the same speed (in some cases faster) than today's players. But the difference is that players of that era had longer shifts and needed to pace themselves, so they weren't going all out all the time.
BobbyAwe
Registered User
I don't think players today are faster or more skilled than the old timers (going back as far as say, the 1950's), once you give the old timers the benefit of modern training/conditioning/equipment, and development of new tactics like the one-timer, and going back far enough, the slap shot itself. I think it would be pretty even except that the modern players are so much bigger it would be a problem for the oldies. Size is not as important as skill, but all other things being fairly equal the guys that are 2 inches shorter and 20 pounds lighter are going to take a physical beating.
With the much larger talent pool today but more teams, you could argue for the equivalency between teams, but what is not in dispute is the GREATER AMOUNT of overall talent in the NHL today, no matter how many teams it is dispersed over. This would indicate that an all-star team of today should beat an all-star team of any year in the past (in a 7 game series). NOTE: it is NOT impossible that a particular year a few decades ago might have just had an unusual amount of talent, but in general, comparing the much smaller talent pool of say, 40 or 50 years ago, with today, the ODDS are definitely in favor of the modern team having more great players and also have a size advantage.
The reason it might SEEM that an all-star team of a certain year in the distant past may have more great players than today, is simply because great players tend to become more legendary over time. The truth is McDavid, Ovechkin, Crosby, Bergeron, etc. are usually underrated by students of the game, in comparison to the old immortals.
With the much larger talent pool today but more teams, you could argue for the equivalency between teams, but what is not in dispute is the GREATER AMOUNT of overall talent in the NHL today, no matter how many teams it is dispersed over. This would indicate that an all-star team of today should beat an all-star team of any year in the past (in a 7 game series). NOTE: it is NOT impossible that a particular year a few decades ago might have just had an unusual amount of talent, but in general, comparing the much smaller talent pool of say, 40 or 50 years ago, with today, the ODDS are definitely in favor of the modern team having more great players and also have a size advantage.
The reason it might SEEM that an all-star team of a certain year in the distant past may have more great players than today, is simply because great players tend to become more legendary over time. The truth is McDavid, Ovechkin, Crosby, Bergeron, etc. are usually underrated by students of the game, in comparison to the old immortals.
Certain countries may ebb and flow, but the overall trend is undeniable; particularly in light of Canada’s gradual declining numbers.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,672
- 3,528
If you ignore participation levels, demographics, economics and the number of pro teams in play during that span of time, you may be right.
I don't.
From the 90's perhaps not a ton but I'm talking about very good to elite players from new areas not just depth guys.
For me the issue is elite very good to elite talent and places like Nova scotia, the 4 Euro countries listed above, nevermind the big 4 of Europe and the US have really changed the landscape from the 1970's (which had Salming basically) and before dramatically.
It takes a simple 15 minute search on hockey reference places of birth section to sort through this, yet the denial is so intense?
Why is that?.
Last edited:
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,511
- 5,152
There is way more nhl players than in previous era, while the hockey age Canadian born population - Canadian youth population playing organized hockey did not necessarily catched up, making the larger presence of outside talent in proportion in the league not that obvious show that the average talent got higher.
Look how much Canada dominated the world cup, last 2 olympics versus the 80s-90s-00s for example. USA didn't offer a bigger competition to Canada in the last world cup than in 1996 Canada cup, US top end talent was quite high early 90s arguably higher than now despite not having today deep level.
NHL Talent now is better than a diluted era like the 70s with 2 pro leagues probably, but the average talent in the nhl this season is not necessarily higher than during the 88-94 NHL, a time when Sakic had a hard time making the all-star team vs when an older Sakic was arguably the best player in 2001.
15-35 year's after the peak of the baby boom could have been the peak of hockey talent, not just because of the volume of youngs people, but because of the hockey popularity in Canada at the time versus now.
Sure all of this can be true, but none of it addresses the huge difference before 88-94 though does it?
I also think there would probably be quite a difference between 88 and 94 but I haven't looked at it in depth.
Using 2001 Joe Sakic as an example doesn't really help as it was a spike season, the seasons before and after aren't like it and different centers were winding down and peaking at different points along with a huge list of injuries that skyrocketed in the 90's.
Either way the 90's sure look alot different than the 70's and everything before and the difference in the number of teams doesn't account for it.
Even if the NHL stayed at the original number of 6 teams there are plenty of non traditional talent areas that roughly the top 120 players today come from than say any time pre late 70's.
I had a quick look at that 2016 Canadian world cup roster you referenced.
There are 4 guys from BC (Manaigo and Ferguson being the best players before Danny Gare and Jimmy Watson), and 2 guys from Nova Scotia (Flash Hollet and Lowell MacDonald the best before 1980), both places with minimal elite contributions to the NHL pre 1980.
That being said, Canada is probably deep enough that they could have inserted 6 other guys and still won.
Last edited:
Drytoast
Registered User
- Sep 27, 2017
- 6,343
- 4,515
I'd say they are smarter, since they are operating in a faster over all environment, making smarter decisions during any given moment based off of video analysis, metrics, analytics. There training is more precise and efficient, as is their diet.
Do an analysis of the goaltender position where the difference in today's athlete is most easily observed as to have been improved over time.
Goalies are bigger, and play a more positional game based off of percentages. You could basically apply this to every single position. But it's most evident in goal.
Michael Farkas
Grace Personified
Like it or not coaches are an ever increasing part of the game.
Even if what you say is true, that players are being programmed, it still diminishes the time and space compared to when players weren't being programmed or coached as much to defending plays or stopping innate ability, whatever that means.
With that said we see plenty of organic talent in the NHL, not sure what this comment really says or means.
Last edited:
Michael Farkas
Grace Personified
Like it? I love it, keeps the lights on haha
You are not wrong. But rarely does a binary situation exist. There's a give and take to it...
The game is faster but there's organic fast brought about by innate ability and skill...and there's artificial fast, brought about by destruction...
We're deep in the Ricky Bobby stuff right now because it's the only way to put Ovechkin on an unholy pedestal while stepping on more complete players, but the "I wanna go fast" mindset doesn't always mean what you want it to...I do believe we are coming out of that, I believe there is more skill utilized in the game now than there was maybe eight years ago let's say...but it has taken adaptation to get there, the 2006 artificial speed is markedly different than this speed. It's necessary, in my opinion, to notate that...
On a personal matter, I was a destroy coach for a while...I would tell my players we're gonna try to win 1-0 because this league won't let us win 0 to negative one...that changed about five-ish years ago or so...now I have a lot of Tarasov principles implemented in our game and we play on our toes instead of our heels...I think we're riding a wave of that right now...if you ask me to put a time when I think it hit majority, I think it was Tampa's run to the 2015 Stanley Cup Final. I think if you got it any later than that, you were late to the party...
You are not wrong. But rarely does a binary situation exist. There's a give and take to it...
The game is faster but there's organic fast brought about by innate ability and skill...and there's artificial fast, brought about by destruction...
We're deep in the Ricky Bobby stuff right now because it's the only way to put Ovechkin on an unholy pedestal while stepping on more complete players, but the "I wanna go fast" mindset doesn't always mean what you want it to...I do believe we are coming out of that, I believe there is more skill utilized in the game now than there was maybe eight years ago let's say...but it has taken adaptation to get there, the 2006 artificial speed is markedly different than this speed. It's necessary, in my opinion, to notate that...
On a personal matter, I was a destroy coach for a while...I would tell my players we're gonna try to win 1-0 because this league won't let us win 0 to negative one...that changed about five-ish years ago or so...now I have a lot of Tarasov principles implemented in our game and we play on our toes instead of our heels...I think we're riding a wave of that right now...if you ask me to put a time when I think it hit majority, I think it was Tampa's run to the 2015 Stanley Cup Final. I think if you got it any later than that, you were late to the party...
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Add rule changes and standardized - faceoffs venues procedures,faceoffs.
Last edited:
I'll respond here to your comment in the locked thread.
No one is projecting anything for current players, heck we aren't even taking into account this season but only up till the end of the last one.
And yes the evaluation can be done for current players the same as retired ones.
Why would this not be so?
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Reread the posts about active players.
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3
overt reference to Crosby losing almost two seasons.
Again:
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3
Crosby vs Morenz comparison.
Taint is always there.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Fast. Speed. The quickness component gets forgotten all the time.
Ovechkin does not execute his shot quickly before the goalie makes his reads. Lost skill.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
I guess that would explain his poor goal scoring finishes then huh?
No, just explains why Ovi and others do not score more relative to opportunities.
This interpretation is baffling to me. I guess one can go down a subjective "rabbit hole" on what constitutes a quick release but do you honestly think a single NHL coach, player or analyst would agree with this viewpoint? Ovechkin's amazing release is a significant reason why he's such an incredible goal scorer. Even without considering the player, modern sticks load easier and release faster than wooden sticks of the past. That said, I personally find that one timers are significantly easier with modern sticks (in relation to wood) and I honestly don't believe Ovechkin would be nearly as effective in his signature spot, attempting his signature shot with a wooden stick from the past.
The skill is certainly not lost. As a matter of fact, it's easier than ever to execute with modern equipment. With more limited time and space in the modern game, combined with the enhanced equipment technology, it incentivizes one to practice this skill more than ever.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Signature spot. Recent phenomena, 20+ years.
Players from the past did not need a signature spot. Just an opening anywhere in front of the goal defined by the the two faceoff dots.
Gretzky, Sakic, Bossy, Jagr, Lafleur, Makarov, Hull, Howe, Beliveau, Esposito, Maurice Richard,others did not have signature spots.
This year Ovi is flirting with a 20% S%
Alex Ovechkin Stats | Hockey-Reference.com
Still hope.
Players from the past did not need a signature spot. Just an opening anywhere in front of the goal defined by the the two faceoff dots.
Gretzky, Sakic, Bossy, Jagr, Lafleur, Makarov, Hull, Howe, Beliveau, Esposito, Maurice Richard,others did not have signature spots.
This year Ovi is flirting with a 20% S%
Alex Ovechkin Stats | Hockey-Reference.com
Still hope.
OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 15,752
- 5,022
Does everyone forget Mario Lemieux tearing up the league between 2001-2003 with all his health problems (and not exactly being a spring chicken.)? I really thought that would have settled this debate.
Another way of thinking about it is the chain of players. Lidstrom is Erik Karlsson's contemporary, and Lidstrom was superior to Karlsson. Bourque is Lidstrom's contemporary, and Bourque is at worst equal to Lidstrom. Bourque is Denis Potvin's contemporary and at worst Potvin is considered slightly below Bourque. Potvin is Orr's contemporary and Orr blew Potvin out of the water. Now, you are going to tell me that Orr couldn't touch Karlsson?
Same thing with forwards. At the end of the day, I'm not sure Sidney Crosby or Alexander Ovechkin deserves to be ahead of Jaromir Jagr or Steve Yzerman on all-time lists, and both those players were soundly trounced by Mario Lemieux, who himself was a bit behind Wayne Gretzky.
Another way of thinking about it is the chain of players. Lidstrom is Erik Karlsson's contemporary, and Lidstrom was superior to Karlsson. Bourque is Lidstrom's contemporary, and Bourque is at worst equal to Lidstrom. Bourque is Denis Potvin's contemporary and at worst Potvin is considered slightly below Bourque. Potvin is Orr's contemporary and Orr blew Potvin out of the water. Now, you are going to tell me that Orr couldn't touch Karlsson?
Same thing with forwards. At the end of the day, I'm not sure Sidney Crosby or Alexander Ovechkin deserves to be ahead of Jaromir Jagr or Steve Yzerman on all-time lists, and both those players were soundly trounced by Mario Lemieux, who himself was a bit behind Wayne Gretzky.
Last edited:
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Destroy coaching. Not sure what MF is referring to. Terms tend to different meanings in Canada and the USA
Involved with youth hockey in Quebec from player to administration for app 60 years. Coached.
Two definite no-nos that will make a coach an ex-coach mid-game.
Intro level.Teach the non-skaters to fall, lay down in/around the crease to eliminate scoring.Intro players rarely lift.
Non-checking levels teach youngsters to fall in front of others spinning them awkwardly possibly into the boards.
Lazy hockey.
Teaching youngsters that they have to get the puck to play with the puck is fine.
Involved with youth hockey in Quebec from player to administration for app 60 years. Coached.
Two definite no-nos that will make a coach an ex-coach mid-game.
Intro level.Teach the non-skaters to fall, lay down in/around the crease to eliminate scoring.Intro players rarely lift.
Non-checking levels teach youngsters to fall in front of others spinning them awkwardly possibly into the boards.
Lazy hockey.
Teaching youngsters that they have to get the puck to play with the puck is fine.
