BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,862
- 3,834
What kind of demographic & economic factors?
The baby boom and post war prosperity that resulted in a large amount of people being in the middle class.
What kind of demographic & economic factors?
Marner/Gaudreau being able to "physically" survive in 2017 NHL =/= Gretzky/Orr being the best players in the league.
The game is still tough today in terms of physical play, just not in terms of fighting.
The last sentence is one of the reasons the game today is considered to be more "skilled" than in previous generations.
Marner/Gaudreau being able to "physically" survive in 2017 NHL =/= Gretzky/Orr being the best players in the league.
The game is still tough today in terms of physical play, just not in terms of fighting.
The last sentence is one of the reasons the game today is considered to be more "skilled" than in previous generations.
What kind of demographic & economic factors?
About 60% as many babies being born per year as during the baby boom, and hockey gradually evolving from a blue collar sport that every boy played in his back yard to a white collar sport that is only for wealthy people at the competitive level.
The economics of hockey are a MASSIVE generational problem that has gone almost unaddressed. We are very close to seeing a golf-like demographic range in the NHL.
Well how about McDavid with a full head of steam, no puck, no game pressure, in the All-Star fastest skater competition being a mere fraction faster than Orr carrying the puck in a game? Explain that one.
This is a huge problem which is sad. When i was a kid and played minor hockey in the 80s and 90s hockey was affordable. Me and all my friends were enrolled. Now, even though our community has doubled in size, we have less then half of the registrants than when I was a kid! Middle class families like myself do not enroll our kids anymore. So sad. An effect of this is that the talent pool that is feeding kids up into the Juniors has been significantly reduced in comparison to previous era's. Most of us are enrolling our kids in soccer instead-our community's soccer program is bursting at the seams.
A few posts regarding this from your side, and totally valid. This is definitely a problem, but it doesn't result in a decrease of talent for the NHL to draw from.
I definitely don't agree with the claim that the talent pool that is supplying the Junior leagues in Canada is "significantly reduced" relative to previous era's. The high price to play the game is definitely concerning and I'll admit that maybe the "natural talent" pool has been reduced a small amount - due to some kids with superior talent/ability not being able to afford to play and progress.
However, it can't just be assumed that the Gretzky/Orr-like talents only come from the middle/lower class in Canada.
In 1970, ~95% of it's players were Canadian. In 2017, this number has dropped below 50% - in the 45% range I believe. Hockey is huge in some countries in Europe. I've read, for example, that Finland could be argued to be crazier about hockey than Canada. It's population is 5.5 million & look at the national team they ice each year - considering this. The point is, it's no longer just Canada that the league is drawing from & that the league is not watered down in talent (elite or depth players) - but rather, flush with more talent than ever. This is one of the differences between the NHL in 1970 & 2017.
Not so..... very few of today's players have an adequate backhand shot or pass making it easier for defencemen and goalies to defend since there are fewer options to consider. So the offence is not as wide, limited to one side. Defensively it allows clustering to the middle and goalies do not require the same lateral mobility as previously.
Defencemen today do not know how to use the angled check, rubbing out the attacker on the boards or leveraging them in open ice, stripping the puck and starting an odd man transition.
Just two of the most blatant shortcomings in today's NHL game and talent.
A few posts regarding this from your side, and totally valid. This is definitely a problem, but it doesn't result in a decrease of talent for the NHL to draw from.
I definitely don't agree with the claim that the talent pool that is supplying the Junior leagues in Canada is "significantly reduced" relative to previous era's. The high price to play the game is definitely concerning and I'll admit that maybe the "natural talent" pool has been reduced a small amount - due to some kids with superior talent/ability not being able to afford to play and progress. However, it can't just be assumed that the Gretzky/Orr-like talents only come from the middle/lower class in Canada.
LMAO you can't seriously think that Gretkzy/Orr wouldnt be AINEC best players in the league. And the reason why it's more skilled is because the lower level talent has increased. Not the elite talent. The elite talents actually gotten worse that's why we see parity in scoring and not that many dominant forwards. It's because the talent nowadays is so close together. But the elite high end talent of the league is much worse than it was. Gretzky easily hits 140+ pts in 2017. And I'd bet Orr could come close to a 100 pts, but if he doesnt he's gauranteed ppg dman plus Norris every year.
Again, there are about 30-40% fewer children in the Canadian millennial generation than in the baby boom generation. And that's not taking into account how many of those millennials are first-generation Canadians from non-hockey cultures.
Then add in the fact that a rapidly shrinking fraction of children have an economic opportunity to advance in competitive hockey. The current generation was raised on $200 composite sticks, $600 skates, $8000 team fees, private coaching, airplane travel and hotel rooms for far-flung tournaments. Patrick Kane's parents spent $250,000 to get him to the NHL. For all practical purposes, the NHL is now off-limits to anyone below the upper middle class.
This is a MASSIVE problem for the league's talent pipeline. Sure they can lean more heavily on European leagues, but that doesn't equal out the effect of cutting the Canadian talent pool in half, or worse.
Alright, there's not much I can argue here. Anyway, this doesn't justify Bobby Orr being able to dominate in 2017 if transported in a time machine from 1970. I went on a bit of a tangent by bringing this up.
The thread has gotten very long, but there was a lot of strong arguments coming from my side in the previous pages that were not being argued against well at all from your side. In my opinion, our side has already won the thread & it was over pages ago, but many of you have stuck around to continue preaching Bobby Orr and how great he was relative to his peers, or bringing up points that have already been shot down.
I'm out now.
WTF kind of response is this?
It is totally possible they could be the best players in the league today if they grew up in this era in the same environment with the same exposure that gives athletes today an advantage. But transported in a time machine as they were in 1970 = No.