View Single Post
11-16-2012, 03:58 PM
Registered User
lazerbullet's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
1) This seems to be true, but we've had a hell of a time trying to put our finger on HOW many more are playing. Canada alone is difficult to judge, because the population hasn't simply multiplied at a natural-replacement pace. A big chunk of the growth, especially in the cities, has come from immigration. Some immigrant kids might grow up to play, but the majority won't. And it's not like we can take the raw population of European countries as being 100% hockey oriented. Some consider it a secondary sport, others like Austria and Latvia simply don't have enough resources invested to make a difference. Then there's Russia, which went from effectively no national program to an elite military-style machine and then eroded in recent years, and the vast majority of this activity took place in a small area around Moscow and St. Petersburg... how the heck do we evaluate their "hockey population"? Every time we have this conversation, someone throws out the idea that the hockey population has mirrored the raw population and grown by about 5x, and every time we examine the numbers country-by-country we find that it's not nearly that much.
So there is no data how many players play the game? I haven't looked myself. Everyone are just saying that more people play hockey. I just assumed that there is some good hard data available for most countries.

2) Increasing the absolute number of players doesn't necessarily lead to a more productive playing environment. Population growth patterns in North America for the past 50 years have been characterized by suburbanization and westward migration. That has led to the formation of new communities, new rinks, new leagues. But those rinks aren't necessarily a better place to learn the sport than the urban rinks of the pre-War era, or the frozen ponds that were more commonly used outside the city. Moving the hockey-playing population away from the traditional centers has expanded the sport, but not necessarily to the point of generating new centers of equal productivity. Each country has its own story, but in general it's not a simple as "more players = more elite players". In fact it's very easy to ruin a talent pipeline by clogging it with mediocre, over-coached robots which are common in today's junior programs.
Well... you might be right. But you are also only assuming, so it's not better than "more players = more elite players", which is also an assumption.

But we can say for sure that Europe produces more elite talent than in the 50s. Same with USA. So it's more probable that there are more elite talent overall.

It makes sense when you consider what happens to these "potential Harveys" between the time they learn to skate and the time they reach their athletic prime.
Well... yes, kids are tempted by a lot of things nowadays. But only kids that train hard and dedicate themselves become pros. There is no big difference between the eras.

Are they being optimized for genius-level performance, encouraged to rewrite the rules and show everyone else a new horizon in the sport? Highly, highly doubtful under today's developmental conditions.
Well... show everyone else a new horizon. I'm not really talking about this. If you are talking about players who could change the game big time, then it's a bit different discussion. You can't really teach such people. They just come and do the things their own and unique way.

I'm talking about elite performers in general. Even those geniuses from other fields of life that I discussed here. Not all of them found something totally new. But they reached a very high level and are rightfully called geniuses. It's not like John Lennon did something totally extraordinary. Just wrote new music that is still loved by many. In essence nothing new. Or Shakespeare... it was all said and done in Ancient Greek and Rome. In essence nothing new. Just people who reached extremely high level at their field. Level that is matched, but matched by only a chosen few.

I'm talking about the same thing in hockey. Very, very high level, but not necessary something unseen.

I find it hard to believe that there is less elite hockey players than 60 years ago. Simply math and common sense says otherwise.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote