Who would win in a death match between Optimus Prime and Darth Vader? I might as well ask because there's as much point to my question as there is to this thread.
ahh but it has EVERYTHING to do with the year. as someone mentioned time marches on. no global scouting in one generation as opposed to the next. the other thing i really want to mention is goaltending. the butterfly has revolutionized the way the position is played and its fairly new to the game. do you know what players of this era would do to goaltenders of the 70's? theyd be lucky if the pucks hit them accidentally. none of them faced guys shooting as hard as they do now none of them dealt with the kind of traffic in front that the goalies today deal with. that alone would put any team with a goaltender of today's nhl ahead of any team from the 70's and 80's. im sorry this may hurt some feelings but danny cloutier traveling back in time with his equipment, skill, and technique of today would be a revolutionary annual vezina winner if he went back to 1972.
pappyline
Registered User
Sportacus
:)
- Nov 28, 2006
- 8,683
- 1
pappyline
Registered User
It's not good form to use the teach smilie if you don't have a clue about the subject..if Bobby Hull used a stick that was legal today
I think the 77 montreal canadians would woop almost all the teams from today.The flyers where very agressvive at this point in time to werent they?
Bobby Hull's 118mph slapshot is just legend. There's no documented proof of it.........nor does any known article written in his playing day even mention such a thing.
ninetyeight
Registered User
i seriously don't think a 70s skill team would have any changes against a real physical team like the ducks. but you never know..
Depends on a lot of factors:
Do you let the 70s players have a week or two to practice in new equipment they've never seen? Or do you make the 00s players toss on old ass equipment, like no helmets, and shotty skates by todays standards?
Do you go by hockey rules of today where the Anaheim Ducks are "Intimidating" - or do you go by 1974 rules, and put the Ducks and their "intimidation" against the Philadelphia Flyers who would probably beat Chris Pronger to a coma in game 1? And get a 10 minute misconduct in the process?
Do you give 70's goalies inflated pads that take up half the net, or do you give the today goalie real goalie pads that weighed 10 times more, and took up 50% less of the net?
Do you let the 70s players have a week or two to practice in new equipment they've never seen? Or do you make the 00s players toss on old ass equipment, like no helmets, and shotty skates by todays standards?
Do you go by hockey rules of today where the Anaheim Ducks are "Intimidating" - or do you go by 1974 rules, and put the Ducks and their "intimidation" against the Philadelphia Flyers who would probably beat Chris Pronger to a coma in game 1? And get a 10 minute misconduct in the process?
Do you give 70's goalies inflated pads that take up half the net, or do you give the today goalie real goalie pads that weighed 10 times more, and took up 50% less of the net?
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
Bon Esprit
Registered User
- Jan 24, 2004
- 4,859
- 438
pappyline
Registered User
You are wrong. It was in older versions of the Guiness book of records which requires documentation. Measurements were done by a very reputable hockey guru named Lloyd Percival.(writer of the hockey handbook).
Yeah, but Hull's record is no longer in the newer versions.......probably because they realized there was no documentation of it. I'm guessing Guiness previously went by the 'legend' b/c it is taken as fact nowadays. Guiness just won't omit an old record for no reason.
BTW, what measurements did Percival do?
A 118mph shot just seems unrealistic (and, frankly, scientificaly impossible) considering in 20+ years of accurately measuring slapshot speed the fastest we have is 106.6.
pappyline
Registered User
Guiness would not have put it in without documention & they are constantly changing the book.
Your problem is that it conflicts with your view of the world. If it didn't happen yesterday than it didn't happen. You can't conceive that 40 years ago somebody could shoot a puck harder than today's much superior athletes.
Stonefly
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2007
- 1,032
- 3
Well put. He probably never saw Bobby Hull and doesn't realize how big he was.
He was built like the Hulk. Combine that with the right technique and you get 118 mph. MacInnis had an incredibly hard shot yet was nowhere near Hull strength wise. Technique you see.
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
I am certain that the measurement used for this record was simply wrong. While stick technology has improved in the last 35 years - the technology to measure pitches or slap shots has improved far more. I seriously doubt Hull had an 118 MPH shot. But I don't doubt it was the fastest in the NHL at the time and probably as fast as anyone's today. Whether it was 102 or 105 or 108 or 110 MPH it was surely one of the hardest ever.
Of course they're constantly changing the book.....because records are being broken and new info is constantly coming into light.
Bottom line, Hull's record is no longer in the most recent and up-to-date edition. If it was a true documented record - it would be.
When did I insinuate this? I think Hull (on a good day) could have outshot anybody today..............but 118mph? That's a tall order.
There needs to be PROOF to back up sensational claims. Here, there doesn't seem to be any.
A while ago some poster dug up this article from 1965 (one not influenced by the ‘legend’ of Bobby Hull) that states his slapshot was 95mph --------big difference from 118.
In fact, 95mph was the fastest in the league back then. This actually proves the point that nobody back then (apart from Hull) was on par with todays elite hard shooters.
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/3815/si012565.htm
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
A note on the Guiness book of records. They do not include every record in each year's edition. They include some records in each category but they can't put them all in as each edition would be 1000's of pages.
I don't know if Guiness still considers Hull's slap shot (and his skating speed for that matter) to be records. But it was in previous editions of the book as I've seen it in them.
No one has broken these records - however the records are very questionable IMO because the machine used to record the records could not possibly have been accurate. The records are too far ahead of what would be realistic or possible. Whether Guiness has taken the likelhood of the machine recording these records being inaccurate and no longer recognizes the records I don't know but they did at one point recognize these records.
I don't know if Guiness still considers Hull's slap shot (and his skating speed for that matter) to be records. But it was in previous editions of the book as I've seen it in them.
No one has broken these records - however the records are very questionable IMO because the machine used to record the records could not possibly have been accurate. The records are too far ahead of what would be realistic or possible. Whether Guiness has taken the likelhood of the machine recording these records being inaccurate and no longer recognizes the records I don't know but they did at one point recognize these records.
pappyline
Registered User
I am not sure what the machines were like that they used to measure shots back then but if anyone saw Hull shoot, 118mph sure seems feasable. As far as skating speed, I see no reason to doubt that record as stop watches back then were as accurate as they are now. I never heard anybody doubt Bannister's sub 4 minute mile due to inaccurate recording equipment.
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
I could be wrong but I think Hull's skating speed was not done with a stop watch but with the same equipment used to record his shot. On the same day at the same time.
I am not saying Hull didn't have the hardest shot ever - he might well have had it - it just wasn't 118 MPH. That is riduculous. Like the fastest baseball pitcher would be around 103 or 104 - if ANYONE ever recorded a pitch at 118 it would have to be seriously questioned as an unreliable recording of the speed.
Even if you saw Hull play, how can you ascertain how hard he shot it? It's practically impossible from a spectator's point of view to measure shot speed.
In the article I posted (if the measurements are correct) nobody else in the league had a slapshot over 94.99 mph.......Hull was only measured at 95.
Considering this, a shot of a 100+mph back then would seem like an absolute rocket. I'm sure Hull got around 100 a few times which would put him waaaaay ahead of his contemporaries............but 118mph is close to physically impossible.
pappyline
Registered User
Qurpiz
Carry me home!
- Nov 5, 2006
- 4,302
- 841
Call me an ignorant kid (age 19), but I think that the '07 Ducks would destroy the '77 Habs, given that the both teams have the same equipment.
I do not care that the '77 Habs had a hundred future Hall of Famers. The fact is that an average NHL player in those days was a lightyears behind the today's players, hence today's superstars would have been inhuman players in the 70's. That is a fact in my opinion.
I don't want to dishonor the 77 Habs in any way. I'm sure they were a magnificent team. I just hate it when people are trying to compare sports teams from different era, which IMO is stupid, impossible and waste of time. It's like asking who would've won in a war, the Roman legions or U.S Marine Corps. "Yeah but the Roman legions had THREE THOUSAND Hall of Famers". It just doesn't matter in the end.
I do not care that the '77 Habs had a hundred future Hall of Famers. The fact is that an average NHL player in those days was a lightyears behind the today's players, hence today's superstars would have been inhuman players in the 70's. That is a fact in my opinion.
I don't want to dishonor the 77 Habs in any way. I'm sure they were a magnificent team. I just hate it when people are trying to compare sports teams from different era, which IMO is stupid, impossible and waste of time. It's like asking who would've won in a war, the Roman legions or U.S Marine Corps. "Yeah but the Roman legions had THREE THOUSAND Hall of Famers". It just doesn't matter in the end.
