This one gave me a laugh

[lextune]

Once more so that everyone can join in the laughing:

Your argument:

A 35 year old professional athlete can be better suited physically to his sport than that same professional athlete at 25.

I'm surprised you can even figure out how to get online, lol.

 

[lextune]

Best to just leave it alone Lex.
Arguing with "LOL" posts are not worth your time and I'm quite sure Doc will be around later to clean it up.

Good call. I'll just leave it alone, lol.

My last post pretty much says it all anyway.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Once more so that everyone can join in the laughing:

Your argument:

A 35 year old professional athlete can be better suited physically to his sport than that same professional athlete at 25.

I'm surprised you can even figure out how to get online, lol.

Once again, laughworthy.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

And note that I am saying "athlete". We don't need to hear about your fat uncle who couldn't touch his toes at 25 and is now running marathons.

Mario at 25 was a physical wonder. 6'4" 230 pounds of forward impetus, with a center of balance in about his ankles....
....Add to that the ability to stickhandle in a phone booth, and you have a one-on-one force that has never been equaled.

Please note that if you point out him smoking, and eating fast food at 25 as evidence of him being "in better shape" as a 35 year old, I will not be able to stop laughing at you long enough to point out how wrongheaded that is, lol.

Leave my fat Uncle out of this. Anyway this is one point you're wrong on yet you're basing your whole argument on it.

Best to just leave it alone Lex.
Arguing with "LOL" posts are not worth your time and I'm quite sure Doc will be around later to clean it up.

Arguing with people who think it's possible, let alone automatic that Lemieux or Gretzky would get 200+ today (even when you say 170-180 that's still too crazy) is probably not worth my time either.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Mario himself proves it, Jagr proves it, Yzerman proves it, Sakic proves it, Bourque proves it!
How many more names do you need to make the era comparisons easier for you?



This is the whole point isn't it.
You have absolutely no proof of anything past the drop in league scoring and no one is even arguing that.

It is funny you like mentioning this so often yet forget that in 95/96 when scoring was only slightly higher than Crosby's first season in 05/06, 6.29 to 6.05 and a hell of a long way from the almost 8.00 goals a game during Gretzky's 200+ point seasons.
That Mario managed 161 points in just 70 games, an almost 190 point pace.
That is almost 40 points ahead of the pace set by second place Jagr and almost 70 ahead of the third place pace of Sakic.
Should also note some of the other top 10 finishers included Lindros, Forsberg, Fedorov, Selanne and Kariya so you can keep your "weak competition" crap at the door if you don't mind

As far as your "math" goes....Gretzky's Oilers were out scoring every other team in the league by at least 15% and blowing away the league average by 35-40% and more.
Once again you come up with a flawed solution due to inaccurate or lacking imput.



It was a goal actually and came with less than 4 minutes left.
Amazing to keep it going for sure.

Glad you brought up 95-96 which was truly a great season for Mario but fail to look at the following season where he once again led the league and played in 76 games but scored 39 less points.

Did Mario lose all of that in one year or was the league harder to score in overall?

92-93 and 95-96 were the last big scoring years and we will see how this year and beyond shakes out.

i will let you in on a little scret though if you look at adjsuted stats tehy try to take into account the differences in elague scoring from year to year.

Other factors are involved as well but lets try to do some more research instead of just naming names and looking at one season that fits your argument then ignoring the same player in the following season.

Yes I understand the fact that Edmonton was outscoring the 2nd team by around 15-20% and the league average by 35-40% (due in part to Wayne's greatness, the way Edmonton played by wanting to beat teams 7-5, and the fact that they truly beat up on weak teams like Vancouver, Winnipeg and LA and played stronger teams from the east less often).

That Edmonton team could not exist today with the cap and the overall style of play, Washington tries it but can't get to the next level as far as winning goes and they have tons of talent.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Good call. I'll just leave it alone, lol.

My last post pretty much says it all anyway.

No it really doesn't though. You're ignorance is stunning.

 

[Big Phil]

Same.

Era is a factor, but people really don't appreciate the gap between Gretzky and the rest. It's like all they remember is Gretzky's 200 - 215 totals so they assume the other stars of the league were scoring ~180. They weren't. They were scoring ~120.

Crosby would have to score 165 - 180 points today to dominate the competition the way Gretzky did.

This people, read this. I'm talking to all of you people not alive in the mid 1980s (there seems to be a lot of you on here). Ask yourself if Bossy, Trottier, Dionne, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Savard and Kurri were just chumps. If you believe they weren't (and they weren't) then try to fathom how great they were yet they constantly got outscored by the next best player by around 70 points. Try to imagine that dominance. Right now Crosby is at the very least a level of Jagr from 1999 or 2000 in comparison to the gap to the next player. It may get larger by the end of the year, or it may not. We'll see, but he has to really step up his game to have the dominance of Gretzky. And then do it 7 seasons straight.

Think about this, Gretzky only got caught when another generational player (Lemieux) started to hit his prime. That and the combination of the fact he was in his 30s did he finally STOP dominating the NHL. That being said a 30 year old Gretzky in 1991 had a 25 game point streak and 163 points. He had 122 assists that year, the next best player in points was Hull at 131. 1991 was a close enough year to the 1980s that Gretzky had experienced and even then it still wasn't the same dominance. Think about that.

 

[lextune]

No it really doesn't though.

Really? I have numerous posters on my side. (The side of common sense, no less).

I defy you to find one person that agrees that Mario was in "better shape" at 35 than 25.

You're ignorance is stunning.

Your ignorance is showing.

Keep showing it though. You're only making my job of tearing down your "arguments" much easier.

 

[lextune]

Once again, laughworthy.

Also; "laughworthy" is not a word....since we are discussing ignorance.

And you keep saying it's funny, as if that is some sort of defense of your nonsensical statement.

 

[Big Phil]

Really? I have numerous posters on my side. (The side of common sense, no less).

I defy you to find one person that agrees that Mario was in "better shape" at 35 than 25.

My question is this: Is there a single person in the history of the world who was in better shape at 35 than 25? Possibly Barry Bonds with the roids, but even he was in wicked shape at 25 being able to run much faster than at any time in his career.

I agree with you Lextune, Mario really did impress us by coming back to the NHL at 35, but at 25 when his back wasn't acting up he was otherworldly. In 10 years ALL of us will have slowed down a little physically

 

[Hardyvan123]

Really? I have numerous posters on my side. (The side of common sense, no less).

I defy you to find one person that agrees that Mario was in "better shape" at 35 than 25.

Some players are much smarter at 35 than 25 and take better care of their bodies but I can't really say if this applies to Mario.

training in the NHL during the 70's was rather non existent for many players in the offseason, even with the stars, and Lafleur used to smoke in the dressing room between periods, not sure when the tide turned and almost everyone had to become fitness freaks year round.

It might have happened during Mario's time but once again I don't have any exact information on him just the general stuff that was going on it the league.

 

[lextune]

My question is this: Is there a single person in the history of the world who was in better shape at 35 than 25? Possibly Barry Bonds with the roids, but even he was in wicked shape at 25 being able to run much faster than at any time in his career.

I agree with you Lextune, Mario really did impress us by coming back to the NHL at 35, but at 25 when his back wasn't acting up he was otherworldly. In 10 years ALL of us will have slowed down a little physically

Exactly.

Again, just common sense.

Certainly, one can do all sorts of things with training, (cardiovascular, and otherwise), to stay in shape, or even improve one's self in certain ways/areas....

....but when we are talking about elite level athletes time cannot be beaten. Physically: 25>35. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

And this obvious fact is only magnified in Mario's case with the seemingly endless string of injuries and illness he went through during that period.

I'm honestly starting to wonder if this kid is just purposely being a contrarian, because no one can honestly believe such foolishness.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Actually if you talk to people who study fitness and strength, the difference between 25 and 35 isn't that big really, depending on the sport and exact test of fitness.

 

[lextune]

Actually if you talk to people who study fitness and strength, the difference between 25 and 35 isn't that big really, depending on the sport and exact test of fitness.

It is.

http://www.fitness-facts.com/article/10/?topic=Aging-Activity-And-Disease

Not to mention that all you have to do is reach 35 as a moderately fit person to realize the difference, lol.
You certainly don't need to know facts like "decreased number of fibers per motor unit", or "loss of elasticity of connective tissue." Blah, blah, blah. It is just a simple fact of aging. Jeez.....

 

[Rhiessan71]

Actually if you talk to people who study fitness and strength, the difference between 25 and 35 isn't that big really, depending on the sport and exact test of fitness.

Proven of course by the absolutely overwhelming number of professional athletes that are still dominating their respective sports post 35

First it was newer is always better and now older newer is better as well.
This thread grows tiring heh

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

The one thing that I believe nobody has mentioned is that expansion in the 90's severely drained the talent pool. More defensive specialists (or guys with stone hands) were given jobs because of expansion. The result is more defensive hockey because teams have less skilled players to score. Today, it is rare for a team to have two 30 goal scorers, sometimes one. The other issue is that defensemen are bigger and more mobile today than at any time in history.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It is.

http://www.fitness-facts.com/article/10/?topic=Aging-Activity-And-Disease

Not to mention that all you have to do is reach 35 as a moderately fit person to realize the difference, lol.
You certainly don't need to know facts like "decreased number of fibers per motor unit", or "loss of elasticity of connective tissue." Blah, blah, blah. It is just a simple fact of aging. Jeez.....

Hey I'm in my mid 40's and most of my decline (as with others around me are changes in lifestyle more than anythign esle) but sure a gradual declining does happen, strength goes a bit slower and not sure if the max VO2 which drops 8-10% decade (as stated in the article) is what happens on average or to everyone despite their fitness level. I suspect that the process isn't as fast for all and not linear either but I'm going going off stuff I heard about George Forman and it was a radio interview and it pertained more to strength than aerobic capacity.

But it still is possible say take Phil Esposito who drank cases of beer in the sauna in training camp to actually have been in better shape at 35 than 25 but I honestly don't know enough about Mario's lifestyle at the 2 ages in question here.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Proven of course by the absolutely overwhelming number of professional athletes that are still dominating their respective sports post 35

First it was newer is always better and now older newer is better as well.
This thread grows tiring heh

I wonder if I posted that the Sun was really hot, would u be able to resist and not say otherwise.

Maybe you could read the actual arguments and statements and stop getting hung up on the messenger.

It will make you look more mature and reasoned.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Exactly.

Again, just common sense.

Certainly, one can do all sorts of things with training, (cardiovascular, and otherwise), to stay in shape, or even improve one's self in certain ways/areas....

....but when we are talking about elite level athletes time cannot be beaten. Physically: 25>35. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

And this obvious fact is only magnified in Mario's case with the seemingly endless string of injuries and illness he went through during that period.

I'm honestly starting to wonder if this kid is just purposely being a contrarian, because no one can honestly believe such foolishness.

The only foolish thing taking place here is you not only arguing, but acting as if I'm Pejorative Slured for stating something I happen to know for a fact. Once again you guys have not responded to any of the points made and you somehow think Mario would be scoring more in today's league. I know laugh worthy isn't a word you fool I forgot to space it, but when people start getting really defensive in fear of knowing they're wrong they'll point out minor things that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I know this. You know this.

 

[Wet Sprocket]

It is.

http://www.fitness-facts.com/article/10/?topic=Aging-Activity-And-Disease

Not to mention that all you have to do is reach 35 as a moderately fit person to realize the difference, lol.
You certainly don't need to know facts like "decreased number of fibers per motor unit", or "loss of elasticity of connective tissue." Blah, blah, blah. It is just a simple fact of aging. Jeez.....

Not to mention the accumulated wear and tear on your body that a decade plus of playing a sport like hockey will negate any gains in cardiovasular strength. If Mario (or any other hockey player) was running marathons, sure you could say that there is very little difference between ages 25 and 35, but the fact is that hockey players slow down in a big way once they hit their 30s as the physical toll of the sport catches up. This is on top of the loss of explosive speed that begins to generally occur around the late 20s and only accelerates by the mid 30s.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Utter nonsense.

As Rhiessan71 just pointed out, you are basically saying that an old, broken, slow Mario, (basically scoring on brains alone as opposed to brains and physical dominance), is only slightly below Mario at his prime.

Total drivel.

I've said it before in other threads, but I'll say it again. It is not only how many goals are being scored in any given era. But also the "types of goals".

With the way clutching/grabbing/obstruction penalties are being called nowadays a prime Mario, (whose entire career I saw), would absolutely rip this league to pieces.

His numbers would be even better than they were in his day. Hyperbole aside, I have no doubt he would break 200 points.

The general talent level overall in the league has increased, but not nearly to the point were the 199 point Mario could be slowed down. Not even close. And he put up those 199 points getting absolutely brutalized. Today it would be let him score or penalize him, (...and he was a powerplay monster).

 

[Rhiessan71]

I wonder if I posted that the Sun was really hot, would u be able to resist and not say otherwise.

Maybe you could read the actual arguments and statements and stop getting hung up on the messenger.

It will make you look more mature and reasoned.

C'mon dude, I've never stated that all your points are completely flawed or wrong.

Most of the time it's more about the weight you attribute to some things and not others.
You have a very real tendency to start out well enough but then you go to extremes with them, assigning far too much weight to some even in the face of other points that deserve just as much and sometimes more weight.

I actually do take the heart of your points to mind, if I didn't I wouldn't respond to them.
Not placing as much emphasis on certain points as you do is different than dismissing them completely...something I might add, you do far more often than I do.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Not to mention the accumulated wear and tear on your body that a decade plus of playing a sport like hockey will negate any gains in cardiovasular strength. If Mario (or any other hockey player) was running marathons, sure you could say that there is very little difference between ages 25 and 35, but the fact is that hockey players slow down in a big way once they hit their 30s as the physical toll of the sport catches up. This is on top of the loss of explosive speed that begins to generally occur around the late 20s and only accelerates by the mid 30s.

Then explain people between 35-40 keeping pace or being better than a lot of younger guys, does that mean they'd all dominate those guys if they were younger? No it doesn't. There's more and more people being able to keep pace at an older age today, but the undeniable fact is the league improves every year, and it gets harder to stand out statistically.

 

[Hardyvan123]

C'mon dude, I've never stated that all your points are completely flawed or wrong.

Most of the time it's more about the weight you attribute to some things and not others.
You have a very real tendency to start out well enough but then you go to extremes with them, assigning far too much weight to some even in the face of other points that deserve just as much and sometimes more weight.

I actually do take the heart of your points to mind, if I didn't I wouldn't respond to them.
Not placing as much emphasis on certain points as you do is different than dismissing them completely...something I might add, you do far more often than I do.

what did you say something?

Just kidding point taken

 

[Clown Baby*]

The one thing that I believe nobody has mentioned is that expansion in the 90's severely drained the talent pool. More defensive specialists (or guys with stone hands) were given jobs because of expansion. The result is more defensive hockey because teams have less skilled players to score. Today, it is rare for a team to have two 30 goal scorers, sometimes one. The other issue is that defensemen are bigger and more mobile today than at any time in history.

Last season, there were 18 teams with a minimum of one 30+ goal scorer. There were 5 teams with a minimum of two 30+ goal scorers. In a 30 team league, that's hardly a rarity.