So I’m watching Bobby Orr highlights

[Sentinel]

For an odd analogy, take realist painting. Those Vermeer masterpieces- some kid in India can do that now and sell it to ya for $20. The techniques have been mastered, the skills learned and made more numerous, and so nowadays you have thousands of highly skilled modern painters for every 1 master of the olden times. It's not taking anything away from what the guy actually did, but it is saying that it'd be tougher to stand out in the modern world.

Is this why the last great painters were Dali and Picasso?

Also, I'm not so sure Vermeer is easily replicable. The soul and magic in his works can hardly be reproduced by a kid in India.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Upper body has never been a focal point for ice hockey.

Yes, all that training and super fitness matters every time we compare the supposedly superior modern players to players of the past.. right up until we show that there are superstar modern players that are decidedly not paragons of fitness and then it immediately doesn't matter for them.

Which is it?

 

[Merya]

I watch both sports a lot and I agree with myself, so there.
--
The fact that the soccer or football talent pool is larger does not guarantee a faster or more profound evolution of the game, as the distribution and concentration of the talent is completely different compared with hockey.

--

I read your well thought arguments and there is merit to them. I however think they show your preference for hockey and some serious lack of understanding of what football is off the field nowadays. I don't think any hockey coach is going to approach Pep Guardiola in tactical way in this or the next decade. Even Cruyff as a coach was ahead of at least NHL coaches and that was 30 years ago. (caveat - NHL coaches are themselves really uninnovative and behind the curve, the future does look better tho)

As for the second argument, yes it does. It's pure math. Hockey has at best a talentpool of under 100 million. Football has a talentpool of billions. If you can't see the obvious effect on even EFL Championship compared to NHL, I can't help you. I love hockey too, but it is a mickey mouse sport, with only 2-3 countries seriously pushing for it. Yes the NHL has almost all the best, 99% and fractions. If you do the math, there is hundreds of thousands of football players at the same or better level, mostly better, bcs they have played with garbage cans and improvised equipment with ten times the passion than most any hockey junior.

Hockey is a choice, a big part of life for some.
Football is life, or life is part of football to be more accurate.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not going to read the whole thread but has it been mentioned that the significantly longer shifts taken by players back then is the main reason the game looks "primitive" as seen through modern eyes?

 

[Troubadour]

--

I read your well thought arguments and there is merit to them. I however think they show your preference for hockey and some serious lack of understanding of what football is off the field nowadays. I don't think any hockey coach is going to approach Pep Guardiola in tactical way in this or the next decade. Even Cruyff as a coach was ahead of at least NHL coaches and that was 30 years ago. (caveat - NHL coaches are themselves really uninnovative and behind the curve, the future does look better tho)

As for the second argument, yes it does. It's pure math. Hockey has at best a talentpool of under 100 million. Football has a talentpool of billions. If you can't see the obvious effect on even EFL Championship compared to NHL, I can't help you. I love hockey too, but it is a mickey mouse sport, with only 2-3 countries seriously pushing for it. Yes the NHL has almost all the best, 99% and fractions. If you do the math, there is hundreds of thousands of football players at the same or better level, mostly better, bcs they have played with garbage cans and improvised equipment with ten times the passion than most any hockey junior.

Hockey is a choice, a big part of life for some.
Football is life, or life is part of football to be more accurate.

As a matter of fact, I have been preferring football ever since my middle teens, simply because of its greater variability. When you have seen enough hockey, you realize you're running in circles as the possible scenarios wear out and start repeating themselves.

Which still does not hold me back from realizing all those things I've mentioned, some of which you think you've replied to.

Not going to read the whole thread but has it been mentioned that the significantly longer shifts taken by players back then is the main reason the game looks "primitive" as seen through modern eyes?

Longer shifts have been discussed, but nobody has come to your conclusion that it is the main reason for the old time hockey looking primitive from today's perspective. I think that most honest people here realize that longer shifts were simply a part of the "primitive" era; not the (main) cause.

Even the early nineties NHL looks awfully outdated now; slow and medieval-like.

 

[Howie Hodge]

Who is this Bobby Orr you speak of???

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As a matter of fact, I have been preferring football ever since my middle teens, simply because of its greater variability. When you have seen enough hockey, you realize you're running in circles as the possible scenarios wear out and start repeating themselves.

Which still does not hold me back from realizing all those things I've mentioned, some of which you think you've replied to.



Longer shifts have been discussed, but nobody has come to your conclusion that it is the main reason for the old time hockey looking primitive from today's perspective. I think that most honest people here realize that longer shifts were simply a part of the "primitive" era; not the (main) cause.

Even the early nineties NHL looks awfully outdated now; slow and medieval-like.

Appreciate being called dishonest for not sharing your same narrowninded view.

 

[Troubadour]

Appreciate being called dishonest for not sharing your same narrowninded view.

Well, saying that I think most honest people here realize something does not really mean calling you dishonest for having a different opinion. But I get that if one appreciates being called dishonest, they're inclined to read it into everything rather passionately.

That's why I'm not gonna spoil it for you. Not that narrow-minded.

 

[Canadiens1958]

As a matter of fact, I have been preferring football ever since my middle teens, simply because of its greater variability. When you have seen enough hockey, you realize you're running in circles as the possible scenarios wear out and start repeating themselves.

Which still does not hold me back from realizing all those things I've mentioned, some of which you think you've replied to.



Longer shifts have been discussed, but nobody has come to your conclusion that it is the main reason for the old time hockey looking primitive from today's perspective. I think that most honest people here realize that longer shifts were simply a part of the "primitive" era; not the (main) cause.

Even the early nineties NHL looks awfully outdated now; slow and medieval-like.

Longer shifts were a function of shorter team rosters.
Formative years of the NHL relied on roster size to control costs.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Even the early nineties NHL looks awfully outdated now; slow and medieval-like.

That's just silly.

Apart from shifts being longer and equipment being bulkier.. broadcast quality has improved a lot.

Human beings have not changed in the past 25 years. Sorry.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Who is this Bobby Orr you speak of???

Mythical beast.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That's just silly.

Apart from shifts being longer and equipment being bulkier.. broadcast quality has improved a lot.

Human beings have not changed in the past 25 years. Sorry.

Yeah, sometimes I'll be watching a current NHL game, third period, long shift. Looks like 1950's hockey. When a team ices the puck and has to stay on, sometimes it looks like 5 Charlie Simmer's out there. Really depends on the circumstances of what you are watching.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah, sometimes I'll be watching a current NHL game, third period, long shift. Looks like 1950's hockey. When a team ices the puck and has to stay on, sometimes it looks like 5 Charlie Simmer's out there. Really depends on the circumstances of what you are watching.

The removal of deliberate icing sure was a big pace changer

 

[Troubadour]

That's just silly.

Apart from shifts being longer and equipment being bulkier.. broadcast quality has improved a lot.

Human beings have not changed in the past 25 years. Sorry.

The game is visibly faster today than 30 years ago. I don't care what you wanna attribute that to, it's how I see it.

And of course human beings in the league have been changing all along. Little by little.

Full Disclosure: There is no Brett Hull, no Mario Lemieux, no Wayne Gretzky, no Brent Gretzky, no Kevin Stevens, no Ed Belfour, no Mark Messier in the league now. They gone. New guys here. Different guys. Human beings in the league changed. The whole game changed. New game, faster game. For all of us to enjoy.

 

[Pantokrator]

I just love seeing the goaltenders' gear. It looks like they just put a jersey on over a t-shirt. Maybe they have some cardboard for pads. There is so much net to see!

 

[The Panther]

The game is visibly faster today than 30 years ago. I don't care what you wanna attribute that to, it's how I see it.

And of course human beings in the league have been changing all along. Little by little.

Full Disclosure: There is no Brett Hull, no Mario Lemieux, no Wayne Gretzky, no Brent Gretzky, no Kevin Stevens, no Ed Belfour, no Mark Messier in the league now. They gone. New guys here. Different guys. Human beings in the league changed. The whole game changed. New game, faster game. For all of us to enjoy.

The bolded, however, is false. Human beings haven't changed at all.

I don't see the game as visibly faster than 25-30 years ago (c.1989 to 1994). I do see the game as visibly faster than 40 years ago (c.1979).

If, today, we put the red-line back in and forced players to play 25% longer shifts, then -- voila! -- suddenly the pace of the game would be identical to 1990.

 

[Troubadour]

The bolded, however, is false. Human beings haven't changed at all.

I don't see the game as visibly faster than 25-30 years ago (c.1989 to 1994). I do see the game as visibly faster than 40 years ago (c.1979).

If, today, we got put the red-line back in and forced players to play 25% longer shifts, then -- voila! -- suddenly the pace of the game would be identical to 1990.

At all?!

Human beings change all the time. Even you yourself change throughout your life. Or maybe you don't?

Even if we restrict those changes to height, players have grown since the early nineties:

There goes your "at all".

The simple fact that today's players are on average better skaters than players thirty years ago which is further enhanced by newer equipment underscores that... arguing people who have assumed the stance of lasting denial/blindness by choice borders on insane.

The today's game is visibly faster than NHL ten years ago, let alone three decades ago.

 

[Canadiens1958]

At all?!

Human beings change all the time. Even you yourself change throughout your life. Or maybe you don't?

Even if we restrict those changes to height, players have grown since the early nineties:

There goes your "at all".

The simple fact that today's players are on average better skaters than players thirty years ago which is further enhanced by newer equipment underscores that... arguing people who have assumed the stance of lasting denial/blindness by choice borders on insane.

The today's game is visibly faster than NHL ten years ago, let alone three decades ago.

Visible is very iffy looking at ASG skills results since 1992:

NHL All-Star Skills Competition - Wikipedia

 

[Dueling Banjos]

I can't recommend ORR: My Story book enough.

Great read.

 

[Dingo]

At all?!

Human beings change all the time. Even you yourself change throughout your life. Or maybe you don't?

Even if we restrict those changes to height, players have grown since the early nineties:

There goes your "at all".

The simple fact that today's players are on average better skaters than players thirty years ago which is further enhanced by newer equipment underscores that... arguing people who have assumed the stance of lasting denial/blindness by choice borders on insane.

The today's game is visibly faster than NHL ten years ago, let alone three decades ago.

To my eye, kind of similar to your chart there, the game has leveled out around 1995.
Maybe it’s my eye, but
I see a distinct change throughout the 80s. By the late 80s it is looking fairly close to the speed of today, but it’s sloppier (much of this I attribute to goalie pads... the fear of a shot from anywhere forces man on man coverage instead of defensive boxes) and more free.
I just watched Canadian Cup 81 Final. Looks bad to me. Gretzky is trying to play east-west, Dionne and Lafleur having none of it.
The seventies is terrible.
50s and 60s looks better than the 70s - same style but less rubes.

The game style since 1972 has been an ongoing amalgamated marriage of Canadian and Russian hockey.

When money comes into a sport it draws more and fiercer competition. The 90s paid far more than the 80s. I attribute this to Gretzky going to LA, and the Americanization of what was a hick sport in many ways previously.

The wall came down and allowed all players to play

Sundin went first overall

This all happened in a very short period of time, and the message was,
“Hey. If you are good at hockey, and born anywhere in the world, you can be rich! Forget soccer or school, pour yourselves into hockey.”

Pretending that this doesn’t alter the talent pool would be like saying the West Coast would have developed as quickly if Gold wasn’t considered valuable.

But people themselves haven’t changed as much as you think. It’s as silly as thinking that there weren’t tough, big, mean people born in Sweden or Russia simply because their hockey players didn’t play that way. That’s not what their hockey was. Our mean had hockey as an avenue, their mean go into crime, or boxing if Russian. Sweden had no combative sports at all until fairly recently.

The reason players are bigger is due to to more training, and more of a worldwide talent pool. It doesn’t reflect on humans. You just get to pick from a bigger litter.

Olympic lifting is not important to many Americans. Hence, they suck at lifting in comparison to Iranians and Bulgarians and Chinese, who DO care. But, when the Soviets cared in the 70s and 80s, and a man could go from another number in the commie computer to a well-off national hero..... well, still today nobody has put more over their head than Taranenko did in 87, and he was not head and shoulders above, in fact he was arguably not even better than Piserenko and another who’s name eludes me... Kurlevich, perhaps.

Money is all, and whenever one gets to the peak of human perfection the gaps between the best and the next best will be minimal. There won’t be Orr or Gretzky unless this sport collapses and goes back to a smaller pool and guys working side jobs. McDavid is ridiculous and could potentially never win another Ross. I think he will, if I had to bet, of course, but he won’t run the next best group over ever, imo.

Add to that that the style of play truly developed and ya, it was bush league.

You can even see it in how long stars remained relevant. Th 06 guys were just fine into their late thirties. The game never developed past them. The 70s guys were outmatched by the 80s youngsters, the game passed them by, but that crop of fellas from the 80s and early 90s played until they didn’t feel like it, or until injury.

So, why do I pick 1995ish when it is clear that many 80s players were still stars into the 90s and even early 2000s? It’s the gaps. Those top 80s guys WERE playing today’s level of hockey, but they look like Gods because much of the league was not.

Money, size, scoring levels and eye test play level has all been more or less great since the mid 90s, with some alterations in rules and style of play resulting from those rules.

 

[Dingo]

The bolded, however, is false. Human beings haven't changed at all.

I don't see the game as visibly faster than 25-30 years ago (c.1989 to 1994). I do see the game as visibly faster than 40 years ago (c.1979).

If, today, we put the red-line back in and forced players to play 25% longer shifts, then -- voila! -- suddenly the pace of the game would be identical to 1990.

Damn, I’m glad I traced back to what made me go off. Nice post. I agree completely.
I probably didn’t need to write my novel.... but I’m on graveyard schedule, trying to stay quiet so my fam can sleep, and drinking some exceptional beer.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Damn, I’m glad I traced back to what made me go off. Nice post. I agree completely.
I probably didn’t need to write my novel.... but I’m on graveyard schedule, trying to stay quiet so my fam can sleep, and drinking some exceptional beer.

Please share.

 

[Troubadour]

Visible is very iffy looking at ASG skills results since 1992:

NHL All-Star Skills Competition - Wikipedia

Without clicking the link I suppose it points towards Mike Gartner?

I realize his ASG record really was long-standing, and without immersing too deeply into the fact those events were held and tracked at different rinks in a rather spartan fashion (didn't Fedorov beat Mike in 1996 while losing because Gartner touched the timer with his stick?), let's just say that All-Star Game skill competition results would still be a strange counter to the iffiness of the eye test.

Skating and stickhandling are the two departments that have advanced to a crazy extent in the last couple of decades. It's not just that today's athletes are better. It's that they are often good beyond comprehension.

Do you watch what Kucherov does? What Connor does? They began where last generation stopped and moved forward with it.

I don't understand why people even dispute this. Someone like Bure would still be an awesome watch today. It's just that he wouldn't look as otherworldly as 20 years ago because the world has caught on and even advanced.

The reason players are bigger is due to to more training, and more of a worldwide talent pool. It doesn’t reflect on humans. You just get to pick from a bigger litter.

Between the 50s and early 90s, the average height of an NHL player increased by two inches.

As fort the rest of the world:

The average height between the 50s and early 80s increased by around...

2 inches!

Basically, yes, people evolve and change all the time. And NHL players are people you know.

I'm like the last person on earth claiming the 80s goalies sucked and today's players are genetically re-engineered supermutants, but please, don't deny the obvious.

Every time I watch a game from the nineties, be it the early part, middle nineties or even Nagano Olympics, I'm shocked how slow the play was.

It was always gonna happen because without us noticing, it's been always happening. Twenty years from now, today's NHL will look dated. In thirty years, it will look outdated. In 50 years, ancient.

 

[Eisen]

Hockey has evolved much faster and way further than soccer. But this could also hurt its current stars worse in a two-way comparison. No doubt, Bobby Orr put into today's gear and thrown right into a game as it's played today would be lost. But how about gearing up Malkin, Sid and Ovi á la 70s and throwing them right in to play in the Orr era?

Ha, where's me helmet ma?

They would not look too good either.

I'd wager the difference between today's and yesterday's soccer players is faaar from as pronounced as the gap between today's hockey players and their forefathers.

Still, shoe Leo and C in Pelé's boots, let them play with Pelé era balls (I narrowly escaped writing "Pelé's balls") and on Pelé era pitches (those were terrible).

They would not look light years better than Pelé or Best, not at all.

As someone who remembers 70s soccer, I'm not entirely sure. Equipment yeah, that goes without saying as soccer players use a lot less. But systems in soccer have, at least in my opinion, a much bigger impact since there is a lot more space to cover.

 

[Troubadour]

As someone who remembers 70s soccer, I'm not entirely sure. Equipment yeah, that goes without saying as soccer players use a lot less. But systems in soccer have, at least in my opinion, a much bigger impact since there is a lot more space to cover.

I don't dispute that. I've actually pointed this out myself. Strategically, football will always have more ways to go. Pitch size requirements are much less strict, I think the legal length of the soccer field is anywhere from 90 to 120 meters, and the legal width can run from 45 up to 90 meters. That itself makes football much more variable and "polymorphic". Not to mention the number of players.

This is also why England always struggles adapting at WC and Euro tournaments, as the EPL is generally played on narrow and short fields which encourage physical contact and fast end-to-end action rather than shifting gears and mastermind CMs controlling the pace for entire minutes.

Anyway, since equipment is such a crucial part of hockey, I believe hockey has been evolving in bounds and leaps, whereas football is relatively slow and conservative. I mean, they have just given in and implemented the VAR. Some twenty or twenty-five years after hockey.