View Single Post
04-15-2007, 05:33 PM
fan mao rong
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: port royal , pa
Posts: 968
vCash: 500
Kane...Who is the real shrimp?

It has been seeen that some on here view Patrick Kane as vastly undersized, I think not.

Now we know the disclaimer, many times listed weights for young players are not recorded by those with the dedication of medeival monks, who will studiously transcribe height and weight with utmost attention to accuracy and currentness. In fact information may be old as from a preseason camp or whatnot.. Nevertheless I think listed weight can be useful as a ballpark figure.

Listed weights of 3 prospects most widely regarded as 1st overall material.

Patrick Kane---5'10---170

Kyle Turris --6'1---165

Jacob Voracek...6'2---185

I have heard those on here describe alternately some of these guys as noticably thin in pictures, up close, etc. So I believe they carry very little fat. If so , the body weight would be mostly muscle and bone. A measurement which may prove useful would the old simple formula of pound per inch.

Pounds per inch for these players; Voracek came out in front in my calcuations, but not by much. Voracek- an even 2.5 LBS per inch. Kane came in slightly behind at Kane 2.42 + LBSper inch. So that is the big difference- Voracek over Kane by eight hundreths of a pound per inch. Turris was somewhat less than these Turris 2.26 Pounds per inch. So Turris may need to build up a bit.
So I don't think the difference between Kane and Voracek is all that great on a size scale, alone . The effect of height? I think that is somewhat debateable . You be the judge.

fan mao rong is offline   Reply With Quote