HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-19-2013, 09:58 AM
  #476
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
This ceratinly wasn't the case for the 1967 expansion, the others seems quite unlikely.
Also this doesn't change that finishing in the Top20/30 in scoring is harder.
Expansion and the increased talent pool was different at times and the early 70's with the WHA is probably the most diluted through time.

We also have around 10 Dmen from the top 60 project "padding to their resume" during this time, both in the NHL and other places.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 01:12 PM
  #477
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
This ceratinly wasn't the case for the 1967 expansion, the others seems quite unlikely.
Also this doesn't change that finishing in the Top20/30 in scoring is harder.
The problem with that line of thinking is that the talent pool at the time was being significantly UNDER served by having only six teams.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:11 PM
  #478
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The problem with that line of thinking is that the talent pool at the time was being significantly UNDER served by having only six teams.
Uh oh, looks like you & I are going to have a disagreement here Saint 'P', the "talent pool" in 1967 was pretty much already running at full capacity, the players populating the 6 incoming basically a rabble of over the hill & never were's, a few stars coaxed out of retirement, serious money thrown at them, career minor leaguers & untested, unproven rookies.

Furthermore, the NHL tilted the ice, allowing the 06 teams to protect pretty much all of their core players, slim pickin's for the Blues, Seals & all of the rest of em' in the Expansion Draft. Even leading up to the 67 Expansion, you had bottom feeders like Boston & New York, the SC pretty much being traded between Toronto & Montreal with but one blurb when Chicago won for the decade preceding it. Detroit's glory days a distant memory. Though "game", the quality of play suffered enormously as a result, exacerbated in 1970 when Vancouver & Buffalo entered the league, Atlanta & the Islanders 2 years later, the WHA raiders & so on & so forth.

Orr's arrival in Boston and the ascendancy of the Bruins; Montreal having astutely retained the farm, protecting itself, building its dynasty into the 70's. In Philly, you had Head Scout Bob Davidson formerly of the Leafs & oddball Head Coach Freddie the Fog Shero putting together a squad that basically punched their way to the top, augmented & supported by stellar goaltending, some talent up-front and on the blue-line. The actual "talent pool" was shallow, remaining so to this very day. With the introduction of the Universal Draft in 63, the business model changed, and not really for the betterment of the game itself. The NHL no longer obligated to support Junior & in some cases amateur teams & or entire leagues. Farms were sold off. Actual development of players suffering as a result.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:20 PM
  #479
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Uh oh, looks like you & I are going to have a disagreement here Saint 'P', the "talent pool" in 1967 was pretty much already running at full capacity, the players populating the 6 incoming basically a rabble of over the hill & never were's, a few stars coaxed out of retirement, serious money thrown at them, career minor leaguers & untested, unproven rookies.

Furthermore, the NHL tilted the ice, allowing the 06 teams to protect pretty much all of their core players, slim pickin's for the Blues, Seals & all of the rest of em' in the Expansion Draft. Even leading up to the 67 Expansion, you had bottom feeders like Boston & New York, the SC pretty much being traded between Toronto & Montreal with but one blurb when Chicago won for the decade preceding it. Detroit's glory days a distant memory. Though "game", the quality of play suffered enormously as a result, exacerbated in 1970 when Vancouver & Buffalo entered the league, Atlanta & the Islanders 2 years later, the WHA raiders & so on & so forth.

Orr's arrival in Boston and the ascendancy of the Bruins; Montreal having astutely retained the farm, protecting itself, building its dynasty into the 70's. In Philly, you had Head Scout Bob Davidson formerly of the Leafs & oddball Head Coach Freddie the Fog Shero putting together a squad that basically punched their way to the top, augmented & supported by stellar goaltending, some talent up-front and on the blue-line. The actual "talent pool" was shallow, remaining so to this very day. With the introduction of the Universal Draft in 63, the business model changed, and not really for the betterment of the game itself. The NHL no longer obligated to support Junior & in some cases amateur teams & or entire leagues. Farms were sold off. Actual development of players suffering as a result.
That wasn't not really a problem of an insufficient talent pool though, rather it was a problem of how that talent pool was divvied up. The O6 teams kept on with their stacked rosters while the expansion teams had to make do with the next tier.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:41 PM
  #480
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
That wasn't not really a problem of an insufficient talent pool though, rather it was a problem of how that talent pool was divvied up. The O6 teams kept on with their stacked rosters while the expansion teams had to make do with the next tier.
Okay, well just for fun then, imagine if lets say in 67 a sort of "Hockey Panel" was put together, objective outsiders who had free rein to divvy up all of the players under contract at any level, trying to create competitive balance & parity amongst the 12 teams. Homogenisation. Sure, the incoming 6 wouldve been a lot more competitive, but overall, the quality at the high end would suffer being spread so thinly. The elite players, in not having team mates who could keep up playing down several notches. The game would have slowed down to a crawl even more so than it did, with no bright lights & champagne evenings in Boston, Montreal, on Long Island, in Edmonton in the 80's. One demands excellence in their choices of entertainment. I just dont see how after Toronto, Montreal, Chicago & Detroit going back to the late 40's through 67 that people would have been accepting of it, because as it was, it was bad enough that entire generations of fans were in fact turned off & tuned out.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:46 PM
  #481
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Talent Pool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Uh oh, looks like you & I are going to have a disagreement here Saint 'P', the "talent pool" in 1967 was pretty much already running at full capacity, the players populating the 6 incoming basically a rabble of over the hill & never were's, a few stars coaxed out of retirement, serious money thrown at them, career minor leaguers & untested, unproven rookies.

Furthermore, the NHL tilted the ice, allowing the 06 teams to protect pretty much all of their core players, slim pickin's for the Blues, Seals & all of the rest of em' in the Expansion Draft. Even leading up to the 67 Expansion, you had bottom feeders like Boston & New York, the SC pretty much being traded between Toronto & Montreal with but one blurb when Chicago won for the decade preceding it. Detroit's glory days a distant memory. Though "game", the quality of play suffered enormously as a result, exacerbated in 1970 when Vancouver & Buffalo entered the league, Atlanta & the Islanders 2 years later, the WHA raiders & so on & so forth.

Orr's arrival in Boston and the ascendancy of the Bruins; Montreal having astutely retained the farm, protecting itself, building its dynasty into the 70's. In Philly, you had Head Scout Bob Davidson formerly of the Leafs & oddball Head Coach Freddie the Fog Shero putting together a squad that basically punched their way to the top, augmented & supported by stellar goaltending, some talent up-front and on the blue-line. The actual "talent pool" was shallow, remaining so to this very day. With the introduction of the Universal Draft in 63, the business model changed, and not really for the betterment of the game itself. The NHL no longer obligated to support Junior & in some cases amateur teams & or entire leagues. Farms were sold off. Actual development of players suffering as a result.
The NHL talked about expansion in the late forties/early fifties. As you stated upthread, in 1953 Cleveland was mentioned and at the same time Chicago played a handful of home games in St. Louis. Suitability of arenas was an issue. To an extent the arena issue was resolved by the late 1950s / early 1960s construction of arenas in the USA.

An orderly expansion of 2 teams in each 1953-54, 1960-61, 1967-68 would have produced the same 12 team NHL with support from the hockey boom in Canada. As it was the NHL went against the trend, sacrificing pro leagues and franchises in Canada - QHL and EPHL, some WHL for the USA(AHL/CPHL/WHL/ etc). This alternative would have produced a younger,balanced AHL by 1970..

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:55 PM
  #482
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Okay, well just for fun then, imagine if lets say in 67 a sort of "Hockey Panel" was put together, objective outsiders who had free rein to divvy up all of the players under contract at any level, trying to create competitive balance & parity amongst the 12 teams. Homogenisation. Sure, the incoming 6 wouldve been a lot more competitive, but overall, the quality at the high end would suffer being spread so thinly. The elite players, in not having team mates who could keep up playing down several notches. The game would have slowed down to a crawl even more so than it did, with no bright lights & champagne evenings in Boston, Montreal, on Long Island, in Edmonton in the 80's. One demands excellence in their choices of entertainment. I just dont see how after Toronto, Montreal, Chicago & Detroit going back to the late 40's through 67 that people would have been accepting of it, because as it was, it was bad enough that entire generations of fans were in fact turned off & tuned out.
The problem is in using O6 rosters as the standard to measure other eras by. The O6 was a pretty unique situation not just in hockey but in all of team sports in that the you had six all-star teams making up the league: Even the "poor" teams of that era were absolutely stacked by any normal standard. No era in any sport can come close to matching that kind of talent concentration that you saw in the O6. For that reason I don't use O6 talent concentration as the measuring rod: It simply was NOT a normal situation.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 02:58 PM
  #483
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
An orderly expansion of 2 teams in each 1953-54, 1960-61, 1967-68 would have produced the same 12 team NHL with support from the hockey boom in Canada. As it was the NHL went against the trend, sacrificing pro leagues and franchises in Canada - QHL and EPHL, some WHL for the USA(AHL/CPHL/WHL/ etc). This alternative would have produced a younger,balanced AHL by 1970..
Yes, absolutely. Graduated Expansion rather than the headstrong gluttonous approach taken in 67, followed by yet more gorging throughout the 70's, 80's & 90's, 00's. Furthermore, and though necessitated for very good legal reasons, much was lost with the introduction of the Universal Draft in 63, as the 06'r's now had an excuse to divest themselves entirely (not that what they had been doing was anything to be terribly proud of but still, it was at least something, a start) of any and all responsibility to actually develop & support amateur, Junior & to a lesser extent Senior hockey in Canada & the US.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 06:30 PM
  #484
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanji View Post
But just like today's immigrants, the European immigrants of the 40 and 50s had no 'hockey blood' either.
But there has been a shift in options today. This isn't to say Hockey isn't the sport Canadians can and will play the most because it is and probably always will be. Immigrants, even from non-hockey playing countries, can and do fall in love with the game once they get here and get a taste of the Canadian culture. But maybe in the 1950s there wasn't an option like soccer or football or baseball as much. Canadians have slowly started to get better at that. I know I would say for sure in my lifetime football and soccer are more popular in this country than ever before. It doesn't mean hockey isn't #1, it just means other sports are getting played more.

So yeah, I think per capita Canada produces less talent than they used to, which is still amazing since no country is within a country mile of us still

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 07:40 PM
  #485
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The problem is in using O6 rosters as the standard to measure other eras by. The O6 was a pretty unique situation not just in hockey but in all of team sports in that the you had six all-star teams making up the league: Even the "poor" teams of that era were absolutely stacked by any normal standard. No era in any sport can come close to matching that kind of talent concentration that you saw in the O6. For that reason I don't use O6 talent concentration as the measuring rod: It simply was NOT a normal situation.
No, all 6 teams were not "All Star" calibre, not even close to it. Just take a look at the standings & rosters for Boston or New York between 1960 & 1966. For example in 60/61, Montreal at the top goes 41/19/10, the Bruins 15/42/13. Chicago, who won the SC that year was in the middle of the pack in 3rd place, 29/24/17. You basically had 3 All Star Teams with the Habs, Leafs & Hawks, Detroit running on fumes & flirting with success, the Rangers & Bruins dysfunctional, AHL/IHL calibre, and not likely to win the Silverware in those leagues either as depth in the minor leagues was actually decent enough however, most of the serious talent was "owned" by the top 3 NHL clubs. A lot of players in the minors as well making as much or more than they would in the NHL.

Post WW2 you had the Baby Boom combined with a substantial increase of immigration from Eastern Europe, Italy, Greece & elsewhere to Canada, those kids coming of age from the mid 50's through late 60's & mid-70's. Canada in the late teens through 30's simply didnt have the kinds of numbers in terms of overall population & birthrates, boys playing competitive hockey & brilliant at it to stock 6 "All Star Teams" in the NHL. WW2 as well decimating, shortening the careers of many who previously had been regulars in the NHL. Age, illness etc catching up, along with financial considerations, as the money paid by the Wings, Leafs etc was parsimonious, requiring 2nd jobs during the off-season, many working other jobs during the season as well.

Montreal had a job of it prying Beliveau out of Quebec City, as he was making extremely good money playing for the Aces in the old 'Q', enjoyed the lifestyle, city, the brand of hockey actually quite good. On the Westcoast, similar situation from San Diego to Vancouver. Playing pro Mercenary, you go wherever the money & lifestyles the best or accept subjugation & penury, having in a lot of cases signed A, B or C forms tying your future to one of the 6 NHL teams for life. Independent teams like Cleveland of the AHL had there own farm systems as well, and in fact challenged the NHL to a winner take all for the Stanley Cup at one point in the 50's, they were that good, the NHL refusing the invite. So you had a different business model, not as much talent available, the supply never really meeting demand to this very day, all relative & equal in making the comparisons between the 06 era & todays 30 team league, including the climbing production rates in the US, Europe & the former Soviet States.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 09:18 PM
  #486
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The problem is in using O6 rosters as the standard to measure other eras by. The O6 was a pretty unique situation not just in hockey but in all of team sports in that the you had six all-star teams making up the league: Even the "poor" teams of that era were absolutely stacked by any normal standard. No era in any sport can come close to matching that kind of talent concentration that you saw in the O6. For that reason I don't use O6 talent concentration as the measuring rod: It simply was NOT a normal situation.
how exactly can you even determine or quantify all 6 teams being 'stacked' or 120 players at all star level?

extremely subjective and even if one buys the premise it would be more applicable in the later stages than in the early 06 era when the NHL contracted right?

lot's of complications with that assertion.

Boston for example didn't have a team of all stars in the 60's by any metric.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 09:24 PM
  #487
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
how exactly can you even determine or quantify all 6 teams being 'stacked' or 120 players at all star level?

extremely subjective and even if one buys the premise it would be more applicable in the later stages than in the early 06 era when the NHL contracted right?

lot's of complications with that assertion.

Boston for example didn't have a team of all stars in the 60's by any metric.
The same way YOU can claim that 30 teams today are stacked compared to 21 teams 25 years ago.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 09:27 PM
  #488
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The same way YOU can claim that 30 teams today are stacked compared to 21 teams 25 years ago.


Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 09:29 PM
  #489
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The same way YOU can claim that 30 teams today are stacked compared to 21 teams 25 years ago.
Really?

How so, I have a starting reference point, 1967,71,78,88,98 and some numbers from the increased countries to at least back my claim.

Take a close look on how the players that are non Canadian and how they make up a great set of 9 teams two times over with the US set and the European set of 9.

As far as I can see you have provided nothing other than your opinion.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 09:34 PM
  #490
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Really?

How so, I have a starting reference point, 1967,71,78,88,98 and some numbers from the increased countries to at least back my claim.

Take a close look on how the players that are non Canadian and how they make up a great set of 9 teams two times over with the US set and the European set of 9.

As far as I can see you have provided nothing other than your opinion.
Canadian vs non-Canadian is irrelevant. You're the only one in these discussions who gives a rip where players come from. I could care less whether they're from Ontario or Outer Mongolia.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 09:37 PM
  #491
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Really?

How so, I have a starting reference point, 1967,71,78,88,98 and some numbers from the increased countries to at least back my claim.

Take a close look on how the players that are non Canadian and how they make up a great set of 9 teams two times over with the US set and the European set of 9.

As far as I can see you have provided nothing other than your opinion.

Except the 9 team reference is from '92 till today when the League went from 21 to 30 teams.
Many Russian's were already in the League in '89 and the Yanks, Swedes and Finns were already well established long before '89.
The ENTIRE KML UNIT was in the NHL in 89/90, not just the line, the entire UNIT!

So the 9 team reference you keep bringing up only really consists of the remaining Russian's and the Czech's.

And you can NOT make up 9 teams with only the Czech's and 2/3's to 3/4's of the Russian's.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 09:44 PM
  #492
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
how exactly can you even determine or quantify all 6 teams being 'stacked' or 120 players at all star level?.. extremely subjective and even if one buys the premise it would be more applicable in the later stages than in the early 06 era when the NHL contracted right?
Well no, even by subjective perspectives having been around myself during that era and as a no nothing kid, even I could clearly see the suck that passed for an NHL team with the Bruins & Rangers. I clearly remember watching the Leafs or Habs playing Boston or New York, and it wasnt much to watch. Both teams a good step slower, almost always on the defensive, like they didnt even belong in the league but for a handful of their players. Sure they were "game" enough, but you had a pretty good idea it was all but over by about halfway through the 1st period. Loved guys like Howell, Rod Gilbert was a hell of a talent, some good goalies, Worsley, Villemure; Boston with Bucyk, Boivin, Kurtenbach & Eddie Johnston but beyond that, slim pickins.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:19 PM
  #493
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
The play is better everywhere.


Now - we know that Usain Bolt has run 100 meters faster than Jesse Owens ever did. Way faster. Some sports are easy to compare because it is a static experiment measuring one athlete against one set of rules, in this case - 100 meters of track.
So perhaps Bolt is another freak like Owens was.

But his numbers look better because he had the modern technique and training. We make the assumption that if Owens had those advantages, his scores would look better; the reverse is true for Bolt. Would you not agree that were Bolt born during the early 20th century, he wouldn't have run "way faster" than Owens ever did?

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:23 PM
  #494
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
So perhaps Bolt is another freak like Owens was.

But his numbers look better because he had the modern technique and training. We make the assumption that if Owens had those advantages, his scores would look better; the reverse is true for Bolt. Would you not agree that were Bolt born during the early 20th century, he wouldn't have run "way faster" than Owens ever did?
Not to mention setting those times on modern running surfaces using modern running shoes ect. Put Bolt in those cruddy old running shoes on a cinder track from the 1930s and I'd guarantee his times would get worse.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:30 PM
  #495
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Cinder Tracks

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Not to mention setting those times on modern running surfaces using modern running shoes ect. Put Bolt in those cruddy old running shoes on a cinder track from the 1930s and I'd guarantee his times would get worse.
Assuming a large number of countries in the thirties offered access to basic cinder tracks to the masses like they do today.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:30 PM
  #496
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,275
vCash: 500
As of today, about 8% of the NHL consists of Czech's (4.9%) and Russian's (3.3%).
Canada 53%
USA 23.2%
Swedes 6.9%
Other 4.3%
Finns 3.1%
Slovakia 1.4%

Last I checked, 9 teams equals 30% of the League.

Canadian's, Yanks, Swedes and Finn's make up 80% of the league or 24 teams.
Canadian's make up 16 teams on their own.

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_Pla...ionalities.php


In 89/90
Can 74.3%
USA 16.6%
Swed 3%
Finn 2.2%
Czch 1.5%
Russ 1.2%
Other .8%
Slov .3%


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 03-19-2013 at 10:40 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:51 PM
  #497
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Assuming a large number of countries in the thirties offered access to basic cinder tracks to the masses like they do today.
Bob Hayes of the US, 1964 in Tokyo, 10.0 flat in the 100M, winning Gold, last time a cinder track was used in Olympic competition. Usain Bolt, 2009 in Berlin, 9.58, World Record, synthetic track.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:53 PM
  #498
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Bob Hayes of the US, 1964 in Tokyo, 10.0 flat in the 100M, winning Gold, last time a cinder track was used in Olympic competition. Usain Bolt, 2009 in Berlin, 9.58, World Record, synthetic track.
"Bullet" Bob Hayes, wide receiver for the Dallas Cowboys.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:56 PM
  #499
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
"Bullet" Bob Hayes, wide receiver for the Dallas Cowboys.
Thats right. Had earlier run a 9.99, World Record for the time but it was "wind assisted".

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:56 PM
  #500
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Access

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Bob Hayes of the US, 1964 in Tokyo, 10.0 flat in the 100M, winning Gold, last time a cinder track was used in Olympic competition. Usain Bolt, 2009 in Berlin, 9.58, World Record, synthetic track.
Still comes done to the access to proper facilities and equipment issue regardless of the era, country or sport.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.