How hard would Bernie Geoffrion's shot be today?

[mobilus]

In Tretiak's autobiography he talks about Hull's shot during the '74 series with the WHA teams. Hull had six goals in the first four games, and essentially Tretiak said he couldn't see the puck. Tretiak saw the puck on Hull's stick, then it was in the net, and he couldn't see anything in between. He said while other players had some type of draw back or blade movement for wrist shots, Hull was truly all wrist and had no pull back on the blade at all. I don't know if Hull really hit 118 mph on his slap shot, but if Tretiak couldn't even see his wrist shot I'd imagine Bobby punished the puck pretty good with a wind up.

Bailing hay appears to be good exercise...

 

[Rhiessan71]

Nolan Ryan.

Not big. Not now. How come?

Not sure what you're asking but if you're saying Ryan is the only guy that hit over 100mph consistently, you apparently haven't been following baseball this year.
Aroldis Chapman was hitting 105.1 less than 2 weeks ago for the Reds and he's a lefty to boot.
He threw 25 pitches in that game, every single one was at least 100mph, 2 were 104 and then the 105er.
Ryan is 6'2", Chapman is a lil bigger at 6'4" but still not a monster like The Big Unit or some of these other 6'6"+ guys around the league.

 

[Big Phil]

Boom Boom's shot would be one of the best and hardest in the NHL today. Keep in mind we aren't transplanting a 1955 Geoffrion into 2010 without giving him the advantages of the modern athlete. In other words, he'd be training harder, he'd have better equipment, he would have a personal trainer in the off season. All of this is stuff that was missing for the most part in 1955.

So if you take Boom Boom's natural strength and ability and assume it gets a lot better in 2010, then yes, he has a howitzer in today's NHL

 

[Rhiessan71]

Boom Boom's shot would be one of the best and hardest in the NHL today. Keep in mind we aren't transplanting a 1955 Geoffrion into 2010 without giving him the advantages of the modern athlete. In other words, he'd be training harder, he'd have better equipment, he would have a personal trainer in the off season. All of this is stuff that was missing for the most part in 1955.

So if you take Boom Boom's natural strength and ability and assume it gets a lot better in 2010, then yes, he has a howitzer in today's NHL

Hard to say if the extra/better quality training would actually make it any better or harder.
I think a lot of the time it's just natural ability.
I played with a guy in Junior C that didn't even pick up a hockey stick or learn to skate until he was 12 and he was blasting the puck in the mid to high 90's only 4-5 years later.
He was the same in baseball and golf, he could jack a ball for miles and he was about 6'2" 175lbs at the time.
He just had that natural swing and instinct.

Come to think of it he was a lil diff in body type. He was tall with a bit of a barrel chest but he wasn't that broad in the shoulders so he had extra long arms and freakishly huge hands.

 

[Zine]

Just dug this very interesting read from Popular Mechanics, February 1968. Begins at page 110-114, continues onto page 204, and ends on page 210.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jd...&resnum=3&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Goes into great detail about Hull, as well as other players. A guy named Lloyd Percival apparently did some research on hockey players back then. Quotes the 118.3, which I gather Percival measured himself, as well as others' slap shot and wrist shot speeds. After looking at the lists on pg 114, I am dubious about the shot speed measurements.

Here's a pic of Hull pitching hay. http://www.kuklaskorner.com/images/uploads/bh.gif

The measurements on p. 114 pretty much verify that Hull's 118 mph 'record' is a myth.....or at least it is when compared to how shots are measured today.

Are we also to believe that 6 players in 1968 happen to have faster shots than the one of modern record?
For all intents and purposes, that's impossible.

 

[BlackDog13]

It sounds like they could shoot harder than everybody else. I just have a hard time with the 118 mph. But they were clocking pitchers accurately back then too. Mickey Mantle was known for hitting balls 500 feet and he was Hull's size (5-11, 200). He had incredible strength and bat speed. Not too many guys, if any, hit them that far today. Reggie Jackson also hit long homers - 1971 All star game est. at over 500 ft. He was 6 ft , 195. Maybe that is the ideal size for power?

You are my new best friend. I was about to use these as corollaries until I read your post.

As others have stated, it ain't all about size. (At least that's what I tell my wife)

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

As an aside, something else to consider with baseball is that hitters pre-1960 were using bats with much thicker handles and thinner barrels, ergo less bat speed, ergo less distance. With a modern bat, Mantle could have propelled the ball quite a bit farther.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your assessment of human kinetics and how everyone is different. With respect to the bats players were using pre-1960, I'd say that the barrels weren't thinner, but the handles are a lot thinner now than they were back then. This results in a lighter bat. If we use the logic posted by cptjeff, heavier instruments result in harder slapshots and longer home runs. So I would disagree that Mantle could hit homers further today. Nobody in today's game hits 500 ft homers. And yet these players are bigger and stronger. If they used the bats Mantle used, I think they could hit 500ft homers more often than they were hit back then. Mantle may be as strong as the players today, but the bats have changed to allow for bat speed rather than length of hit. Babe Ruth used to use a 42 ounce bat and he is known for some of the longest homers in history.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Babe Ruth used to use a 42 ounce bat and he is known for some of the longest homers in history.

...and some of the biggest whiff's, some of his strikeouts were almost as legendary as his HR's.
The old cartoons of a batter cork screwing himself into the ground....yeah

(For people that aren't familiar with what's used today....average bat used in MLB today is around 32 ounces and an average aluminum softball bat is around 27-30.
I usually use a 28 or 29 in softball but there is one guy that uses a 31, I've tried it and it's amazing how much heavier only 2 ounces feels, let alone using a 42 ounce bat, that is just crazy. Would feel like you were swinging a tree trunk imo.)

 

[Mayor Bee]

I agree with your assessment of human kinetics and how everyone is different. With respect to the bats players were using pre-1960, I'd say that the barrels weren't thinner, but the handles are a lot thinner now than they were back then. This results in a lighter bat. If we use the logic posted by cptjeff, heavier instruments result in harder slapshots and longer home runs. So I would disagree that Mantle could hit homers further today. Nobody in today's game hits 500 ft homers. And yet these players are bigger and stronger. If they used the bats Mantle used, I think they could hit 500ft homers more often than they were hit back then. Mantle may be as strong as the players today, but the bats have changed to allow for bat speed rather than length of hit. Babe Ruth used to use a 42 ounce bat and he is known for some of the longest homers in history.

Well, bat speed directly impacts distance traveled, so if Mantle were to use a modern bat, he'd probably do just as much damage if not a little more.

What's also an interesting consequence is that, over time, hitters have been able to use their lighter bats to hit the outside pitch a good distance. That's actually a fairly recent development, probably post-1985, and is a direct result of the lighter bats.

...and some of the biggest whiff's, some of his strikeouts were almost as legendary as his HR's.
The old cartoons of a batter cork screwing himself into the ground....yeah

(For people that aren't familiar with what's used today....average bat used in MLB today is around 32 ounces and an average aluminum softball bat is around 27-30.
I usually use a 28 or 29 in softball but there is one guy that uses a 31, I've tried it and it's amazing how much heavier only 2 ounces feels, let alone using a 42 ounce bat, that is just crazy. Would feel like you were swinging a tree trunk imo.)

I think it was Mantle who came up with the Yankees and made the mistake of picking up a bat that Joe DiMaggio used to fool around with that weighed 48 ounces or something. Bats in general used to have a higher number in weight (by ounces) than length (in inches), but I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a bat that was less than -2.5. I once used a bat in little league (aluminum) that had a number of -9; I think it was 31 inches and 22 ounces.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

I used to swing a 32 or a 34 ounce bat when I played baseball. I used the 34 when I was in a slump to get more plate coverage and the 32 when I was going well to really turn on a good fastball. The farthest I ever hit a ball was about 400 ft with an aluminum bat. That was against pitchers who were throwing about 80 or 84 mph. Some people believe that pitchers didn't throw like they do now in the old days, but I believe that you can't hit a baseball 450-500 ft unless the pitcher is throwing 90 plus mph. Here's a link to the baseball almanac describing long home runs and some of the myths behind them.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/art_hr.shtml