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.

HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All-Time

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2012, 04:59 PM
  #276
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
To the children on this site understand there are less children playing the game of hockey than ever before this is a serious problem.The two hockey hotbeds Canada And Russia have seen dramatic amount of kids.Compare it to 1980 the numbers will shock you.
Can you provide some hard data? Would be very interesting.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 05:11 PM
  #277
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,255
vCash: 500
I'm not going to waste much time here because it's very frustrating to read people deny the obvious over and over again.

I will respond to this though:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
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.
Really, has anyone ever said it simply mirrors raw population alone? If you think I have then you haven't been paying attention to me well. Why don't you show how little the talent pool has grown since, say, 1960 then? Since you've examined it before it should be easy.

I'll help you out. Canada had an estimated population of 17,870,000 then and has approximately 35,000,000 now. I live in Canada btw and can tell you hockey is alive and well here. New arenas are still being built and arenas are zoos filled with kids playing. The amount of registered players certainly hasn't decreased since 1960 and has undoubtly grown quite a lot. Remember, HNIC only started broadcasting games on TV in 1952!!

Here are some more statistics for you...registered hockey players by country from 2011 near the bottom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey

In 1960 hockey was truly a fringe sport everywhere except Canada and it still hadn't even grown to what it is now in all of Canada by then. Now the US and the rest of the world combine for nearly 1,000,000 registered players. The US eclipsed over 500,000 recently which was unheard of in the past.

A talent pool increase of 5X since 1960 is probably about right. It may have even grown more than that.


Also, trying to pretend that young players today can't become hockey "geniuses" like Harvey is just silly.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 05:14 PM
  #278
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
And Red Kelly played how? They became pros at the same time and at first Kelly was considered better. Or did Harvey style evolve during his career and he "wrote the book" later?
Kelly was considered better because he was a better skater, puck carrier and he was much flashier offensively.
Much in the same way that Leetch was considered better than Lidstrom at first.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 05:17 PM
  #279
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,200
vCash: 500
I'v worked in Minor hockey as a volunteer over the years and have seen dramatic slowdown in memberships over the past 3 decades.If you do research on minor hockey membership or write a letter to the association they will back up my point.In terms of Russia only 100000 kids play during the communist era over 12 million kids played.Russia only the kids who have parents who have money can play.Hockey arenas in russia and many eastern European countries have been replaced.There are tones of factual data to prove the point.

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 05:59 PM
  #280
Hammer Time
Registered User
 
Hammer Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
And what's the difference between eras?

If you have no winters/rinks in region, then you have no kids playing hockey. Of course there won't be elite hockey players from Zimbabwe. No matter if we talk about the 50s or 90s.

Yes, I agree that athletes are more likely to have kids who will be athletes themselves. But I don't see how this affects talent distribution between the eras.

IMHO, it's all pretty damn random. And assuming normal distribution, bigger population should produce more top talent in absolute terms. In relative terms it should be roughly the same number.

Someone explain why in the 50s you have 10 000 kids and 5 of them are geniuses. While in the 90s you have 50 000 kids, but still only 5 of them are geniuses. This could and sometimes does happen, but odds are against it. And we are dealing with pretty big numbers (population) in hockey, so numbers should play out more or less according to normal distribution. At least more often than not.



I'm not here to beat down the old-timers. But I see that quite often modern players get the short stick in those discussions. Look at how often are Lidstrom, Broduer, Niedermayer beaten down by some. Especially against the guys from the O6 era.

But in reality, if you create similar environment for Broduer or Niedermayer they look pretty damn dominant. Make their competition all-Canadian and see how much "better" they are. We are just adjusting talent pool to roughly what it were in the 50s. You tell me it's not harder to stand out, right now with all that extra talent. It sure was for Broduer and Niedermayer.
If you're going to go down that route, you also have to cut the league down to 6 teams. So if want to get rid of all the Europeans, you also have to dump all the 3rd/4th line players, and assign the 1st/2nd line players from the expansion teams onto the Wings, Hawks, Rangers, Bruins, Leafs, and Canadiens. So now Brodeur is only playing against Canadians, but all the teams he's playing against also get that much more stacked.

Hammer Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 08:42 PM
  #281
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And what information is that?
Lidstrom vs his peers?
Lidstrom's defense vs Harvey's?
Lidstrom's offense vs Harvey's?
Lidstrom longevity vs Harvey's?
Lidstrom's control and puck possession vs Harvey's?
Like I said I will do a complete breakdown over the weekend when there is more time but one thing we do know forsure is that Harvey and Lidstrom played in vastly different NHL's and that's the major point that keeps getting glossed over here.

Instead of addresing that point you throw out a weak "well you don't respect Harveys era" argument which tells us that your argument is pretty weak if there is one at all to be made.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 08:50 PM
  #282
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesensation19 View Post
Eddie Shore, Doug Harvey may have played in a different time than Bobby Orr and Brad park and a much different era than Niklas Lidstrom and Ray Bourque but we cannot act as though its incomparable.

From the 20's to now... the game is very much the same. There are two teams who battle to score one neutral puck into the opposing teams goal which is being guarded by that opposing team and their respective goalies. They played with sticks, they played with skates and it was on ice. The game is very much the same...

For example.
The technology now is far greater. A stick today can help many shoot faster but shooting harder does not mean your a great player. being faster does not mean your a greater player. Being a good player has to do with your hockey IQ. great analogy above with the movies!
Well for the most part after forward passing was allowed the game is more or less the same but there are many differences in the makeup of the players (larger pools, more countries) and advanced coaching and systems that have huge impacts on how players look relative to each other.

we know how the players in the 30 did under the conditions they played under but we don't know how they would have stacked up if the Candian players say in the 90s did with increased coaching, systems and players form other strong hockey countries like Russia and more of Europe and the US had been mixed in with those 30 stars.

It is extremely likely that we would look at those players in a different light foresure but to pretend that we are comparing apples with apples just isn't true.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 09:09 PM
  #283
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
I'v worked in Minor hockey as a volunteer over the years and have seen dramatic slowdown in memberships over the past 3 decades.If you do research on minor hockey membership or write a letter to the association they will back up my point.In terms of Russia only 100000 kids play during the communist era over 12 million kids played.Russia only the kids who have parents who have money can play.Hockey arenas in russia and many eastern European countries have been replaced.There are tones of factual data to prove the point.
It's not just the raw numbers but the Russians have taught the Candians and US that taking top level players at younger ages and putting them into elite training hockey programs can affect the amount of talent players (technically) as well.

The lack of seperation in domination supports this point of view actually.

DaninCanada is right too many people ignore the changes that have taken place and treat each era as if everything was the same or near enough the same when we make these comparisons and it comes up in the "well Shore won 4 Hart trophies and Lidstrom won none" as if they were being judged by the same criteria and under the same conditions.

Even when we judge Nieds how he fared against all over Canadian competition like previous Canadian only players, Nieds greatness was ignored because his competition wasn't Canadian.

For those that actually want to play the eras haven't really changed then judge a guy like Lidstrom against only all over Canadian competition (like Harvey) then take the "apple to apple" comp into account.

Lidstrom comes out ahead here as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 09:14 PM
  #284
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meteor View Post
If you're going to go down that route, you also have to cut the league down to 6 teams. So if want to get rid of all the Europeans, you also have to dump all the 3rd/4th line players, and assign the 1st/2nd line players from the expansion teams onto the Wings, Hawks, Rangers, Bruins, Leafs, and Canadiens. So now Brodeur is only playing against Canadians, but all the teams he's playing against also get that much more stacked.
What purpose would this serve?

We have NHLers coming out of the maritimes and BC now in far greater proportion and sometimes a star or 2 much more than in the 06 era as well.

Even accounting only for Canadians at some point the probability of the talent pool(for the entire NHL) being better with the population increases between the 50's and 90's (in the case for Nieds and Broduer) would account for much more talent over 6 teams right?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 09:58 PM
  #285
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Really, has anyone ever said it simply mirrors raw population alone?
Yes, that is pretty much always the starting point, which is shot down in due course.

Quote:
If you think I have then you haven't been paying attention to me well.
Sorry, I'm afraid I haven't. I'll try and catch up.

Quote:
Why don't you show how little the talent pool has grown since, say, 1960 then? Since you've examined it before it should be easy.
It's not easy at all. In fact, you'd be better served to make use of this forum's search feature to find the relevant threads than to further derail this one.

Quote:
I'll help you out. Canada had an estimated population of 17,870,000 then and has approximately 35,000,000 now. ... A talent pool increase of 5X since 1960 is probably about right.


Ok.


Quote:
Also, trying to pretend that young players today can't become hockey "geniuses" like Harvey is just silly.
Can't =/= Don't

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:53 PM
  #286
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
So there is no data how many players play the game?
Unfortunately there isn't. The only thing we have is a count of registered players, which isn't a comprehensive number. For example, I play rec league hockey and skate 2-3 times in a normal week... I'm not registered with USA Hockey, so I'm "invisible" as a player.

But cases like mine aren't as important as the millions of kids over the years who have played on ponds and rinks across North America and never registered. There simply isn't a way to know how the number of young recreational players has changed -- and the number matters a lot, because it defines the true level of hockey activity in the community. Backyard rinks and public hockey rinks are feeders for competitive, registered rosters. They're the bellwether for the talent pool, and it's virtually impossible to generate data on them.

The best I can tell you is this: there has been an awful lot of anxiety about the long term health of the sport in the middle class, and that smoke probably leads to a fire somewhere.


Quote:
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.
I agree, and that's why I don't expect this discussion to go much farther than the previous ones. It's a lot of guesswork.


Quote:
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.
Agreed.





Quote:
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.
I think that pretty well describes Orr, Harvey and Shore. They were revolutionary players, pushing the boundaries of what people believed defensemen could do. That's a huge part of why they're ranked so highly.

This is an absolutely horrible comparison, but in a sense guys like Shore and Harvey are in the role of Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, and Lidstrom is in the role of Wynton Marsalis. Marsalis is surely capable of doing more on a technical level, and he has built a level of fame that easily surpasses the rest of his generation. There's nothing wrong with Marsalis. But ask a jazz fan if he's as great as Armstrong and they'll just shake their head at you. Not because he's "worse" at playing jazz, but because he's playing from the book that Armstrong wrote. To surpass Armstrong, he'd have to write a new book, and to do so would require a truly rare genius that Marsalis just doesn't have.

Bobby Orr, on the other hand, wrote a new book. Gretzky did it. Hasek did it. That's the level that you have to hit to get near #1 on these lists, and the best current players for all their technical perfection simply haven't shown it...


... yet.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:58 PM
  #287
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post


Ok.
Laugh all you want and use "..." to skip other numbers I provided, but your post simply shows a fear of actually facing this topic head on. I would be scared too if I had to try to explain how the talent pool didn't increase multiple times since 1960 when the US is nearly equal to Canada in producing hockey players now and Europe as a whole is right behind. This wasn't at all the case in 1960 of course and everyone realizes this fact if they have any sense of how hockey has grown as a sport since then and before. Then factor in the doubling of Canada's population, which is still as hockey crazed as ever, and all you have to do is use simple mathematical logic.

I understand many people on here put a lot of time and research into making these lists but you have to check your ego at the door at some point and admit they are completely flawed because you didn't and couldn't properly factor in the talent pool these players were competing with in the past. It's not what it is today and you are not being fair to the current player who has 1,600,000 players emulating them and trying to be #1, whereas in a year like 1960 it was probably only 400,000 at best. It makes a huge difference and anyone denying it is only fooling themselves.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone but it's about time you just finally admit this. The lists are definitely fun but they are really like a fantasy league with very little basis in reality. How could they be when the NHL and, more importantly, the hockey world has been far from static over time in every sense. Comparing across eras is never apples to apples when the sport is constantly growing and advancing.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 11:43 PM
  #288
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Laugh all you want and use "..." to skip other numbers I provided, but your post simply shows a fear of actually facing this topic head on. I would be scared too if I had to try to explain how the talent pool didn't increase multiple times since 1960 when the US is nearly equal to Canada in producing hockey players now and Europe as a whole is right behind. This wasn't at all the case in 1960 of course and everyone realizes this fact if they have any sense of how hockey has grown as a sport since then and before. Then factor in the doubling of Canada's population, which is still as hockey crazed as ever, and all you have to do is use simple mathematical logic.

I understand many people on here put a lot of time and research into making these lists but you have to check your ego at the door at some point and admit they are completely flawed because you didn't and couldn't properly factor in the talent pool these players were competing with in the past. It's not what it is today and you are not being fair to the current player who has 1,600,000 players emulating them and trying to be #1, whereas in a year like 1960 it was probably only 400,000 at best. It makes a huge difference and anyone denying it is only fooling themselves.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone but it's about time you just finally admit this. The lists are definitely fun but they are really like a fantasy league with very little basis in reality. How could they be when the NHL and, more importantly, the hockey world has been far from static over time in every sense. Comparing across eras is never apples to apples when the sport is constantly growing and advancing.
You can't cite a population increase and assume hockey registration has increased by the same amount.
I can't speak for all of Canada but I can tell about where I live.
When I was playing AAA and AA, the population here was around 70k and there would be over 100 kids trying out, resulting in 60 being cut by the end. House league back then had anywhere from 8-12 teams per age group.
All the guys I talk to that coach and I go to work with their goalies with, they tell me they are lucky to get 60-65 kids trying out and that house league is lucky to have 6-8 teams per age group now. Population here is around 120k now.

And you know, there's a very, very simply explanation...cost!
When I played it was just under $100 to register and tryouts/All-star registration cost you about another $100 total. Today, parents are looking at over $450 easy just to register and All-star fees over $600 now.
And that isn't even mentioning that you used to be able to buy a full set of equipment for the price of a pair of skates today.

Do you really think that when Tarheel mentioned issues with Hockey and the middle class, that he was just blowing smoke up your ass?

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 12:00 AM
  #289
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You can't cite a population increase and assume hockey registration has increased by the same amount.
I can't speak for all of Canada but I can tell about where I live.
When I was playing AAA and AA, the population here was around 70k and there would be over 100 kids trying out, resulting in 60 being cut by the end. House league back then had anywhere from 8-12 teams per age group.
All the guys I talk to that coach and I go to work with their goalies with, they tell me they are lucky to get 60-65 kids trying out and that house league is lucky to have 6-8 teams per age group now. Population here is around 120k now.
I never have said it increased by the same amount, just that it definitely has increased due to a doubling, I repeat, doubling of population since 1960 in Canada.

As for your example, I live in the Greater Toronto Area and new arenas have been built over the years, many have multiple ice surfaces (I play at one with 4 and have played at another with 6) and many are open year round. I'm not having the same experience you are in your area. You also aren't that old. Now think about how it was in 1960 or earlier and compare to now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And you know, there's a very, very simply explanation...cost!
When I played it was just under $100 to register and tryouts/All-star registration cost you about another $100 total. Today, parents are looking at over $450 easy just to register and All-star fees over $600 now.
And that isn't even mentioning that you used to be able to buy a full set of equipment for the price of a pair of skates today.

Do you really think that when Tarheel mentioned issues with Hockey and the middle class, that he was just blowing smoke up your ass?
Playing hockey and buying hockey equipment has always been expensive!! You are forgetting about inflation. Do you think peoples salaries haven't generally increased a lot as well since then?

My father couldn't afford to play as a kid but I was fortunate enough to be able to play.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 12:42 AM
  #290
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
I never have said it increased by the same amount, just that it definitely has increased due to a doubling, I repeat, doubling of population since 1960 in Canada.

As for your example, I live in the Greater Toronto Area and new arenas have been built over the years, many have multiple ice surfaces (I play at one with 4 and have played at another with 6) and many are open year round. I'm not having the same experience you are in your area. You also aren't that old. Now think about how it was in 1960 or earlier and compare to now.



Playing hockey and buying hockey equipment has always been expensive!! You are forgetting about inflation. Do you think peoples salaries haven't generally increased a lot as well since then?
I just did something you should seriously think about doing before continuing to put your foot in your mouth...I researched it.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...563/p1-eng.cfm

"Median earnings of Canadians employed on a full-time basis for a full year changed little during the past quarter century, edging up from $41,348 in 1980 to $41,401 in 2005"

Seriously, come back with the facts, not opinion and this will go a lot better for everyone.

And what does an arena staying open year round have to do with under 18 players being developed???
You need the official numbers for under 18 players from now, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago before you will ever make any headway here.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 01:03 AM
  #291
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Laugh all you want and use "..." to skip other numbers I provided, but your post simply shows a fear of actually facing this topic head on.
If you calm down a little, you should be able to figure out what I found funny. See if you can find it:

"Really, has anyone ever said it simply mirrors raw population alone? If you think I have then you haven't been paying attention to me well.... I'll help you out. Canada had an estimated population of 17,870,000 then and has approximately 35,000,000 now.... I never have said it increased by the same amount, just that it definitely has increased due to a doubling, I repeat, doubling of population since 1960 in Canada.... Then factor in the doubling of Canada's population, which is still as hockey crazed as ever, and all you have to do is use simple mathematical logic. "

Quote:
the US is nearly equal to Canada in producing hockey players now and Europe as a whole is right behind.
I'm sure you don't mean NHL-quality players when you say that.


Quote:
I understand many people on here put a lot of time and research into making these lists
Not only that, but we've also put in the time and research necessary to know what we're talking about on the current subject. The way you're approaching it is not novel. It's nothing that hasn't been shot down before. And it's not going anywhere.

You're welcome to your opinion, but after a certain point you're just a corner preacher ranting at passers-by.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 02:31 AM
  #292
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I just did something you should seriously think about doing before continuing to put your foot in your mouth...I researched it.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...563/p1-eng.cfm

"Median earnings of Canadians employed on a full-time basis for a full year changed little during the past quarter century, edging up from $41,348 in 1980 to $41,401 in 2005"
These are in constant dollars (adjusted for inflation and are shown in 2005 dollars). Your hockey equipment cost were not. So don't compare two numbers that mean two different things.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 02:40 AM
  #293
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
These are in constant dollars (adjusted for inflation and are shown in 2005 dollars). Your hockey equipment cost were not. So don't compare two numbers that mean two different things.
Hockey equipment is 8-10 times what it was in 1980.
Inflation is not 800-1000% nor is it the 500% that hockey registration has gone up since 1980 either.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 03:08 AM
  #294
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Hockey equipment is 8-10 times what it was in 1980.
Inflation is not 800-1000% nor is it the 500% that hockey registration has gone up since 1980 either.
I'm not arguing that costs to play hockey have not gone up. I'm just pointing out that it's simply wrong to compare two different numbers. You can't analyze data like that and make conclusion.

I made some calculations. From the 1980 until 2005 inflation in Canada has been 267%. Until 2012 it's 305%.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 03:09 AM
  #295
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,000
vCash: 500
I agree with your general point, Rhiessan, but I think you're off on the dollars part. Does registration actually cost 4.5X as much as it did 32 years ago? I'd believe it. But inflation has, by my rough estimate, tripled costs of goods and services. So although costs of hockey have likely gone up faster than inflation, it doesn't appear to be astronomical or prohibitive.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 03:18 AM
  #296
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I agree with your general point, Rhiessan, but I think you're off on the dollars part. Does registration actually cost 4.5X as much as it did 32 years ago? I'd believe it. But inflation has, by my rough estimate, tripled costs of goods and services. So although costs of hockey have likely gone up faster than inflation, it doesn't appear to be astronomical or prohibitive.
Yeah, sadly it is. I looked it up.
When i was 10 in 1981, my parents paid $104 for minor hockey registration and paid another $92 for All-star fees.

Regualr registration now in the same league for a 10 year old is $460-470 for early bird and $560-570 if you wait.
All-star fees are now between $725-765 for A and AA, $750-775 for AAA, select is $465
10 year olds is $725 or $750.
http://www.guelphminorhockey.com/def...gistration2012

So as an early bird, for your 10 year old kid to play All-star now, that's $1185 for AA and A, $1210 for AAA and $925 for select compared to $196 for AAA in 1981.
It has increased by double what inflation has. New hockey equipment is 8-10 times more than it was then and used stuff is 4-5 times what it was.

Now granted, I can only speak for Guelph here but I highly doubt other area's will be much different and some will be even higher.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-17-2012 at 03:36 AM. Reason: Fixed my numbers, added link
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 07:02 AM
  #297
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,511
vCash: 500
Travel Costs

If we are using the early 1980s as a base the largest increase has come in travel costs and time to play,coach or administer youth hockey.

You cannot simply look at raw costs. The season has grown from five-seven months to a year round activity. The Summer league/tournament phenomena is especially costly since there is very little local play, most of it is inter-provincial or international with related travel and lodging costs.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 08:33 AM
  #298
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I just did something you should seriously think about doing before continuing to put your foot in your mouth...I researched it.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...563/p1-eng.cfm

"Median earnings of Canadians employed on a full-time basis for a full year changed little during the past quarter century, edging up from $41,348 in 1980 to $41,401 in 2005"

Seriously, come back with the facts, not opinion and this will go a lot better for everyone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And what does an arena staying open year round have to do with under 18 players being developed???
You need the official numbers for under 18 players from now, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago before you will ever make any headway here.
You've never heard of summer hockey or hockey camps that take place during the summer months?

Yet, you guys have never brought in official numbers either. Just deny deny deny and gang up on people who expose what you have obviously missed in your cross era comparisons.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 08:44 AM
  #299
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
If you calm down a little, you should be able to figure out what I found funny. See if you can find it:

"Really, has anyone ever said it simply mirrors raw population alone? If you think I have then you haven't been paying attention to me well.... I'll help you out. Canada had an estimated population of 17,870,000 then and has approximately 35,000,000 now.... I never have said it increased by the same amount, just that it definitely has increased due to a doubling, I repeat, doubling of population since 1960 in Canada.... Then factor in the doubling of Canada's population, which is still as hockey crazed as ever, and all you have to do is use simple mathematical logic. "
Now you've combined two of my posts. The one you laughed at was the first.

You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying mathematical logic would show the talent pool has definitely doubled due to population. What I'm saying is that hockey is still huge in Canada and knowing the population has doubled makes it extremely likely that the talent pool has also increased by some factor. Do you think it hasn't increased at all since Harvey or Shore's time??

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I'm sure you don't mean NHL-quality players when you say that.
US hockey is doing just fine. They are producing lots of young talented players, more than ever before. Did you watch the last Olympics? Canada just ran over them in a blowout, didn't they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Not only that, but we've also put in the time and research necessary to know what we're talking about on the current subject. The way you're approaching it is not novel. It's nothing that hasn't been shot down before. And it's not going anywhere.

You're welcome to your opinion, but after a certain point you're just a corner preacher ranting at passers-by.
I keep hearing about this great research but have seen nothing in terms of numbers. Please share. You've "shot it down" in the past with the same denial you're doing here. Then C58 trots out the outdoor rink points and high cost of playing now. Well, it may be expensive and it may be easier to play if you're from an upper middle class family but we've still got far more people playing now than in the past.

Yeah, I'm the crazy one. You're totally sane to believe the talent pool hasn't multiplied since the 60's and even if it has that wouldn't have a large affect on competition at the highest level. Please.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 01:03 PM
  #300
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Numbers and feeder systems to the NHL

there has been a bit of sidetracking here about numbers.

A couple of points about relevant numbers to the NHL.

People should simply go look at place of birth on hockey reference (at the bottom under frivolities) and look up any non traditional 06 and before feeder system.

I took BC first because I live there and have noticed the elite minor systems that are producing top level talent recently.

By sorting under the column "from" it brings up players in chronological order."

http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv...ince=BC&state=

From 27-69 there were exactly 16 players
From 70-80 there were 66 players
from 81-90 there were 91 players
from 91-00 there were 73 players
from 00-12 there were 102 players

Atlantic provinces same thing.

All Us states the same and that's before we get to Europe

Much of the increase in terms of both quality and quantity comes in the later 80's and early 90's which is the landscape that Lidstrom entered the league into.

The 2nd point is the increase in the number of Top junior teams in the 3 leagues that provide talent to the NHL. If one looks over time we can see the increases there as well.

A quick search at hockey db will reveal that.

Add the college system (both in terms of Canadian and US talent) we have a large increase in the talent pool entering the NHL.

We could run numbers based on NHL points or games played to try and prove how large this increase actually is but it would be faulty because rating "talent" is subjective."

But given the numbers in these increased feeder systems in addition to countries like Russia, Sweden the US ect all competing better against Canada in the international scene it becomes really hard to argue that the talent level hasn't increased more than 5 fold from the 06 era unless one wants to premise that the traditional feeder systems, ie Ontario, Quebec and the 3 western provinces have seen a decline in talent which obviously is not the case IMO.

This is one of the reasons I put Lidstrom ahead of Harvey (and actually 1st all time) but there will be more on that later.

Hardyvan123 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 05:07 AM.

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.