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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Let's say there was a time machine...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-29-2007, 08:20 AM
  #26
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Kariya is definetly one of the if he stays healthy options.

I totally disagree on Hasek. He could have easily won the Conn Smythe twice, he's the only goalie ever to win two Harts, and he could dominate games at the same level as Lemieux. He may be frail, but when he's primed, he's the best ever.

And yeah, Roy does make a huge difference.
I disagree that Roy would make a huge difference especially if equipment was equalized. How would Roy do without his oversized equipment and without a face mask? Goalies like Sawchuck & Hall were just as skilled. The big difference is the equipment which changed the style of play. Glen Hall made these comments in the late 80's.

"The styles have changed so much since the mask came in. We tried to get our feet over in front of the puck & our head out of the way. It was survival, number one. We couldn't get ourselves into some of the awkward positions, you see goalies in today. We couldn't afford the luxury of getting hit in the face or the head like they can today. When we got hit(in the face or head), it was a real accident because we weren't trying to stop the puck. We got hit in the face because we were doing something wrong, in a bad position or one would get away from you........I was more of a reflex goalie than an angle one. Today, the goalies just try to get out there and let the puck hit them."

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 08:24 AM
  #27
derbyfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleh View Post
Before anyone gets all upset, I'm not including non-canadian teams because that wasn't the question, not because I think they couldn't compete (although I don't think there's many teams that could compete with the '76 team).
As I said from the top, you can substitute any teams you want. Hell, you can compare the Great Britain Olympic gold medal team from 1936 vs. The Soviets from the '81 Canada Cup if you want (yikes).

I find the answers so far to be fascinating - this is exactly the type of debate I was hoping for, so thanks guys. A couple of points:

1) I'm very surprised the majority seem to be saying that using similar equipment, '72 would likely win. Players from that era seem to always concede that the modern player is so much bigger, stronger and even the huge defencemen of today are incredibly mobile.
2) My understanding is the '72 Summit Series marked a huge new learning period for Canadian hockey. Where we had always though we were the best, suddenly we realized we had a hell of a lot to work on. Just as Europeans play more of a hybrid European-Canadian game today (with much more toughness and contact), do we Canadians not play a hybrid game as well, that focuses more on skating and mobility than we did back in the ealry '70's?

derbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 09:18 AM
  #28
J0e Th0rnton*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by derbyfan View Post
As I said from the top, you can substitute any teams you want. Hell, you can compare the Great Britain Olympic gold medal team from 1936 vs. The Soviets from the '81 Canada Cup if you want (yikes).

I find the answers so far to be fascinating - this is exactly the type of debate I was hoping for, so thanks guys. A couple of points:

1) I'm very surprised the majority seem to be saying that using similar equipment, '72 would likely win. Players from that era seem to always concede that the modern player is so much bigger, stronger and even the huge defencemen of today are incredibly mobile.
2) My understanding is the '72 Summit Series marked a huge new learning period for Canadian hockey. Where we had always though we were the best, suddenly we realized we had a hell of a lot to work on. Just as Europeans play more of a hybrid European-Canadian game today (with much more toughness and contact), do we Canadians not play a hybrid game as well, that focuses more on skating and mobility than we did back in the ealry '70's?
The 60's players all agree that the modern player's got better. The 70's were when players actually started getting paid big sum's of money, and thus started taking things more serious like a job and keeping in peak physical condition.

The difference between the 70's and 80's is almost unnoticable. Between the 70's and late 90's the only thing really noticable was the return of defensive minded hockey

J0e Th0rnton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 07:59 PM
  #29
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Kariya is definetly one of the if he stays healthy options.

I totally disagree on Hasek. He could have easily won the Conn Smythe twice, he's the only goalie ever to win two Harts, and he could dominate games at the same level as Lemieux. He may be frail, but when he's primed, he's the best ever.

And yeah, Roy does make a huge difference.
Not when he's on both teams?

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 08:04 PM
  #30
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by J0e Th0rnton View Post
The 60's players all agree that the modern player's got better. The 70's were when players actually started getting paid big sum's of money, and thus started taking things more serious like a job and keeping in peak physical condition.

The difference between the 70's and 80's is almost unnoticable. Between the 70's and late 90's the only thing really noticable was the return of defensive minded hockey
I don't think there was a big jump in ability between the 60's & the 70's. There was a big jump in the number of major league players (NHL & WHA) meaning weaker competition & inflated stats which continued into the 80's.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 08:07 PM
  #31
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
I disagree that Roy would make a huge difference especially if equipment was equalized. How would Roy do without his oversized equipment and without a face mask? Goalies like Sawchuck & Hall were just as skilled. The big difference is the equipment which changed the style of play. Glen Hall made these comments in the late 80's.

"The styles have changed so much since the mask came in. We tried to get our feet over in front of the puck & our head out of the way. It was survival, number one. We couldn't get ourselves into some of the awkward positions, you see goalies in today. We couldn't afford the luxury of getting hit in the face or the head like they can today. When we got hit(in the face or head), it was a real accident because we weren't trying to stop the puck. We got hit in the face because we were doing something wrong, in a bad position or one would get away from you........I was more of a reflex goalie than an angle one. Today, the goalies just try to get out there and let the puck hit them."
If this was 50's or earlier equipment, I'd agree. But we're talking 70's equipment, so, even if less effective, Roy could still play his game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTENOUGHBREWER View Post
Not when he's on both teams?
86-87 Roy is not as good as 90-03 Roy.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 08:25 PM
  #32
J0e Th0rnton*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
If this was 50's or earlier equipment, I'd agree. But we're talking 70's equipment, so, even if less effective, Roy could still play his game.



86-87 Roy is not as good as 90-03 Roy.
Uh, the Rookie Roy who won the cup with smaller pads carrying a worse team is not as good as the Roy who won in his later years?

I'd say he was consistantly great.

J0e Th0rnton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 08:31 PM
  #33
Raoul Duke*
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,007
vCash: 500
Just the way equipment changed, the style of hockey evolved to know more aspects of the game, etc... It wouldn't be close, 2002 Canada would smoke them.

Nothing against talent, because if Bobby Orr grew up as a kid born 20 years ago, he'd be even more evolved and better today than he was in the 60s/70s...

Raoul Duke* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 10:33 PM
  #34
Crosby87.*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by derbyfan View Post
We know it's impossible to compare eras... but what the heck.
I'm extremely bored today.

Let's say a time machine exists. I say we put it to good use, and have the 2002 Canadian Gold Medal men's team travel back to 1972 and play Team Canada '72.
After all, that's what any sane, scientific-thinking human being would want, right?

So - today's team obviously has superior size, equipment and conditioning. I'm not saying this is fair.
While the '72 team was loaded with future Hall of Famers, would they even stand a chance against a modern day squad?

1) Who wins a 7-game series
2) Is it even close
3) What players from '72 could have cracked the '02 lineup (or, if you feel '72 was superior, vice-versa).

Feel free to substitute any teams you'd like ('77 Canadiens vs. '99 Red Wings, '67 Leafs vs. '91 Penguins etc.)

Leave the logistics of what I'm proposing out the discussion please. I know it's nutso.
Just have some fun with it...
For the 02 Canada team vs the 72 Canada team.

1) 02, easily. I say in 4-5 games, pending injury
2) No
3) I don't think they would really stand a chance, and the only way I think they'd win a game is playing that old, dirtier style hockey. They'd definitely rough some players up.

Crosby87.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 10:51 PM
  #35
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by J0e Th0rnton View Post
Uh, the Rookie Roy who won the cup with smaller pads carrying a worse team is not as good as the Roy who won in his later years?

I'd say he was consistantly great.
He wasn't as good after the run. It was a great run. But it was still an issolated incident. Where as starting in about '91 he was just consistently amazing.

And the '86 Habs were better than the '93 Habs.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 11:01 PM
  #36
Masao
Registered User
 
Masao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
I think the 72 team would give 2002 a run for its money. Those players were extremely talented, and had very good hockey instincts. Donald Brashear is a very strong skater and has a good shot and is a super athlete, but you'll never see him get 100 points in a season... the reason is, reaction time, hockey sense, which are IMO the most important thing for an NHL player. Poor players may be great athletes, but they make a lot of mistakes with the puck, they pass the puck to the wrong player, they can't anticipate the play, etc.
Mario Lemieux in 2000-01 was quite behind the rest of the NHL in physical fitness, but he still scored 35 goals in 43 games because of his amazing hockey sense, his puckhandling skills, his decision-making under pressure, etc... the following years he was injured so it was a lot more difficult, but he was still better than at least 80% of the NHL

The 2002 team are better athletes, there's no question there... the training regimen modern players follow and the medical attention and everything can't compare to 30 years ago. But I don't think it's an automatic win nonetheless.

Masao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 11:18 PM
  #37
Crosby87.*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,767
vCash: 500
Players of today have just as amazing reation time and hockey sense, if not better IMO.

Crosby87.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 11:32 PM
  #38
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 9,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMCHockey View Post
For the 02 Canada team vs the 72 Canada team.

1) 02, easily. I say in 4-5 games, pending injury
2) No
3) I don't think they would really stand a chance, and the only way I think they'd win a game is playing that old, dirtier style hockey. They'd definitely rough some players up.
I disagree. The '72 team would get pwned physically......absolutely crushed.
The biggest player on that squad was only 205 lbs.

Heck, the '72 Soviets withstood the Canadian physical attack despite having only 2 players over 200 lbs.........and speaking as a Russian fan, the '70s era Soviets aren't even in the same ballpark in terms of physical play compared to today's Russians.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2007, 11:35 PM
  #39
Masao
Registered User
 
Masao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMCHockey View Post
Players of today have just as amazing reation time and hockey sense, if not better IMO.
Perhaps. Still, Pete Mahovlich and Phil Esposito weren't duds either. And if you add Orr and Hull, you've got a tremendous talent core

Masao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2007, 12:50 AM
  #40
Crosby87.*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
I disagree. The '72 team would get pwned physically......absolutely crushed.
The biggest player on that squad was only 205 lbs.


Heck, the '72 Soviets withstood the Canadian physical attack despite having only 2 players over 200 lbs.........and speaking as a Russian fan, the '70s era Soviets aren't even in the same ballpark in terms of physical play compared to today's Russians.
They knew how to hack a wrist off though.

Crosby87.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2007, 12:50 AM
  #41
Crosby87.*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masao View Post
Perhaps. Still, Pete Mahovlich and Phil Esposito weren't duds either. And if you add Orr and Hull, you've got a tremendous talent core
I do not disagree one bit.

Crosby87.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2007, 01:18 AM
  #42
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masao View Post
I think the 72 team would give 2002 a run for its money. Those players were extremely talented, and had very good hockey instincts. Donald Brashear is a very strong skater and has a good shot and is a super athlete, but you'll never see him get 100 points in a season... the reason is, reaction time, hockey sense, which are IMO the most important thing for an NHL player. Poor players may be great athletes, but they make a lot of mistakes with the puck, they pass the puck to the wrong player, they can't anticipate the play, etc.
Mario Lemieux in 2000-01 was quite behind the rest of the NHL in physical fitness, but he still scored 35 goals in 43 games because of his amazing hockey sense, his puckhandling skills, his decision-making under pressure, etc... the following years he was injured so it was a lot more difficult, but he was still better than at least 80% of the NHL

The 2002 team are better athletes, there's no question there... the training regimen modern players follow and the medical attention and everything can't compare to 30 years ago. But I don't think it's an automatic win nonetheless.
Thats true. You could give Kovalev robot legs and make him 2 feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle stronger but he still wouldnt dominate the way Gretzky could since he doesnt have the hockey sense.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2007, 04:58 PM
  #43
jiggs 10
Registered User
 
jiggs 10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hockeytown, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
There seems to be some MYTH about the 1972 Canadian team that I still do not understand. They BARELY won an 8 games series over a team they were projected to beat 8 times. They won 4, lost 3 and tied one. They were shown that their way of hockey not only wasn't necessarily the best, it often worked against them. The only thing they showed was heart (and dirty play by Booby Clarke to cheat their way to a win) by winning the last 3 games in OT. But watch those games again without the blinders on: the players are much slower, the games are slower, the goalies are terrible (compared to today), and the stickwork is unbelievable! The 2002 team (who is not even all that good, IMO) would blow right by the 1972 team in a one-game series, and should win an 8-game series 6-2, even in the old equipment. Because you would not be able to take away the TALENT the goaltenders of today have over the 1972 versions. You would not be able to take away the training and conditioning of the modern athlete, which is MUCH better than 1972's version. The modern players would adapt very quickly to the old skates, and going back to wood sticks would not even be a factor. The rest of the equipment is not much different at all, unless you mean SMALLER and lighter in 1972! And that would help the modern players.

I think the 1987 Canada team was better than the 1972 team by quite a margin AS A TEAM, but maybe not as individuals. But as All-Star games have shown, great individuals do not a great TEAM make.

Heck, I think the 1998 Red Wings would handily beat the 1972 Canadian team in a series!

jiggs 10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2007, 07:51 PM
  #44
RUSqueelin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiggs 10 View Post
There seems to be some MYTH about the 1972 Canadian team that I still do not understand. They BARELY won an 8 games series over a team they were projected to beat 8 times. They won 4, lost 3 and tied one. They were shown that their way of hockey not only wasn't necessarily the best, it often worked against them. The only thing they showed was heart (and dirty play by Booby Clarke to cheat their way to a win) by winning the last 3 games in OT. But watch those games again without the blinders on: the players are much slower, the games are slower, the goalies are terrible (compared to today), and the stickwork is unbelievable! The 2002 team (who is not even all that good, IMO) would blow right by the 1972 team in a one-game series, and should win an 8-game series 6-2, even in the old equipment. Because you would not be able to take away the TALENT the goaltenders of today have over the 1972 versions. You would not be able to take away the training and conditioning of the modern athlete, which is MUCH better than 1972's version. The modern players would adapt very quickly to the old skates, and going back to wood sticks would not even be a factor. The rest of the equipment is not much different at all, unless you mean SMALLER and lighter in 1972! And that would help the modern players.

I think the 1987 Canada team was better than the 1972 team by quite a margin AS A TEAM, but maybe not as individuals. But as All-Star games have shown, great individuals do not a great TEAM make.

Heck, I think the 1998 Red Wings would handily beat the 1972 Canadian team in a series!
What a joker you are. Sometimes its hard to come on here and read this stuff. Do us all a favour, and before you ever post on a topic like this again, go down to the Hockey Hall of Fame and check out the equipment they wore in the 70's. "They would just adapt to the equipment" Have you seen a stick from the 70's? You wouldn't use it as firewood. And the goalies would be completely lost.

And do you think TV technology has anything to do with how fast the game looked? It looked slow cause the video was brutal. Even an NHL game today broadcast on a crappy American network looks slow compared to a game on HNIC.

As far as the best Canada teams of alltime, 76 and 87 were the two best. They'd both rip apart the 02 team in a one game showdown or a 7 game series.

RUSqueelin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2007, 07:55 PM
  #45
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiggs 10 View Post
There seems to be some MYTH about the 1972 Canadian team that I still do not understand. They BARELY won an 8 games series over a team they were projected to beat 8 times. They won 4, lost 3 and tied one. They were shown that their way of hockey not only wasn't necessarily the best, it often worked against them. The only thing they showed was heart (and dirty play by Booby Clarke to cheat their way to a win) by winning the last 3 games in OT. But watch those games again without the blinders on: the players are much slower, the games are slower, the goalies are terrible (compared to today), and the stickwork is unbelievable! The 2002 team (who is not even all that good, IMO) would blow right by the 1972 team in a one-game series, and should win an 8-game series 6-2, even in the old equipment. Because you would not be able to take away the TALENT the goaltenders of today have over the 1972 versions. You would not be able to take away the training and conditioning of the modern athlete, which is MUCH better than 1972's version. The modern players would adapt very quickly to the old skates, and going back to wood sticks would not even be a factor. The rest of the equipment is not much different at all, unless you mean SMALLER and lighter in 1972! And that would help the modern players.

I think the 1987 Canada team was better than the 1972 team by quite a margin AS A TEAM, but maybe not as individuals. But as All-Star games have shown, great individuals do not a great TEAM make.

Heck, I think the 1998 Red Wings would handily beat the 1972 Canadian team in a series!
I agree that there is a myth about the 72 canadian team. This was a badly constructed team. They excluded great players like Hull, Tremblay & Cheevers wko had jumped to the WHA. Giacomon & Plaqte were the best golies that season but weren't picked. Also, where were players like Keon Ullman, Busyk, Tzchuk & Sanderson.It was over represented by Eagleson clients. The assistant coach was a moron who had no coaching experience & had been a goon player. Having 35 players vieing for ice time meant a lot of conflict. They were way over confident. I remember seeing Paul Henderson that summer saying how they were going to destroy the Russians. They were out of shape. Yet they still found a way to win.

That team constructed properly & in condition (with equipment equalization) would beat the 2002 team, Even better was the 76 team (with Hull & Orr) which would destroy the 2002 team.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2007, 04:19 AM
  #46
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 9,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUSqueelin View Post
What a joker you are. Sometimes its hard to come on here and read this stuff. Do us all a favour, and before you ever post on a topic like this again, go down to the Hockey Hall of Fame and check out the equipment they wore in the 70's. "They would just adapt to the equipment" Have you seen a stick from the 70's? You wouldn't use it as firewood. And the goalies would be completely lost.

And do you think TV technology has anything to do with how fast the game looked? It looked slow cause the video was brutal. Even an NHL game today broadcast on a crappy American network looks slow compared to a game on HNIC.

As far as the best Canada teams of alltime, 76 and 87 were the two best. They'd both rip apart the 02 team in a one game showdown or a 7 game series.
Equipment only makes a small bit of difference……it’s just an excuse. The truth is players are more skilled today because of better skill development.

Of course the great players possess talent you can’t teach, but that’s a constant that runs throughout the decades – and would nullify itself out in any ‘best of’ series between two different decade teams. The 70’s guys didn’t have more innate ability to play the game, and that’s also true visa versa.

The difference is today’s players have much more developed ‘teachable’ skills (in addition to their unteachable talent). A good example is skating. Players are MUCH better skaters today…..not so much because of equipment but because of the emphasis put on understanding the science behind skating and applying that to skill development. If Esposito played today he’d be a much better skater due to modern training – hence he’d be a better and more TALENTED/SKILLED all-round player than he ever was in the 70’s.

Simply put, despite being equal in terms of raw talent.....today's players are the more skilled 'finished product'.

Plus, there’s waaaayyy more better players today b/c there’s just so many more people playing the game; and throw in the ridiculous size advantage of today’s players and its obvious that those 70’s teams would get owned pretty badly.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2007, 07:12 AM
  #47
Nordic*
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tellus
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 13,712
vCash: 500
2002 wins 12-1.


The lone goal being a gift from the ref, feeling sorry for the oldtimers.

In a 7-game series, the result would be 4-0 or 7-0 if all games had to be played.

This one isnīt even remotely close.

Nordic* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2007, 07:18 AM
  #48
J0e Th0rnton*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilros View Post
2002 wins 12-1.


The lone goal being a gift from the ref, feeling sorry for the oldtimers.

In a 7-game series, the result would be 4-0 or 7-0 if all games had to be played.

This one isnīt even remotely close.
Rofl. Very constructive analysis. Then again, you said Lidstrom is better than Orr, so your opinion is worthless

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masao View Post
I think the 72 team would give 2002 a run for its money. Those players were extremely talented, and had very good hockey instincts. Donald Brashear is a very strong skater and has a good shot and is a super athlete, but you'll never see him get 100 points in a season... the reason is, reaction time, hockey sense, which are IMO the most important thing for an NHL player. Poor players may be great athletes, but they make a lot of mistakes with the puck, they pass the puck to the wrong player, they can't anticipate the play, etc.
Mario Lemieux in 2000-01 was quite behind the rest of the NHL in physical fitness, but he still scored 35 goals in 43 games because of his amazing hockey sense, his puckhandling skills, his decision-making under pressure, etc... the following years he was injured so it was a lot more difficult, but he was still better than at least 80% of the NHL

The 2002 team are better athletes, there's no question there... the training regimen modern players follow and the medical attention and everything can't compare to 30 years ago. But I don't think it's an automatic win nonetheless.
Exactly.

J0e Th0rnton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2007, 08:34 AM
  #49
J0e Th0rnton*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilros View Post
I said 2007, not 2002 but what ever.

Are you seriously building an arguement through comparing a goon, to the past superstars?

Chad Kilger would be that fastest player in the league if he played 1970.
Hell, even Brashear would be right up there.
Of course. By your reckoning, his physical conditioning would make him better. He is a known great skater, stickhandler, and tough. His key missing components?

Vision, Reaction time, hockey sense. A ton of the guys today do not compare when it comes to those attributes. Orr, Hull, Clarke, Esposito. All had it.

A better comparison. Lemieux in 2001 and 2004. He was slower than sin and not well conditioned because of injuries and age, and he can't practice much and he said as much. He still scores 76 points in 43 games and 91 points in 67 games. At his age and super slow speed, if he had played a full season, he would have easily taken the art ross and Richard against guys way faster and stronger and in better condition.

Why? the attributes I listed. All of which Orr had equally.

J0e Th0rnton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2007, 03:02 PM
  #50
Nordic*
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tellus
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 13,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by J0e Th0rnton View Post
Of course. By your reckoning, his physical conditioning would make him better. He is a known great skater, stickhandler, and tough. His key missing components?

Vision, Reaction time, hockey sense. A ton of the guys today do not compare when it comes to those attributes. Orr, Hull, Clarke, Esposito. All had it.

A better comparison. Lemieux in 2001 and 2004. He was slower than sin and not well conditioned because of injuries and age, and he can't practice much and he said as much. He still scores 76 points in 43 games and 91 points in 67 games. At his age and super slow speed, if he had played a full season, he would have easily taken the art ross and Richard against guys way faster and stronger and in better condition.

Why? the attributes I listed. All of which Orr had equally.


Hmm...Brashear is a great skater and stickhandler?

Uhm...no

Hossa is a great skater and Datsyuk is a great stickhandler.

He might be tough in the sense that he likes to beat people up, but thatīs what goons do.

Iīd say that players today in general, are about 15-20% faster than the ones active during the early 70:s, and the pace of the game itself is equally faster. Players also have 30% more stamina and strenght.

A player from 1972 would be totally exhausted after one shift, if he had to endure the increased tempo of the game 2007. Even the top athletes back then (lets say Orr was one of them) would lack the general physique to endure the tempo of a whole game, no less a 7-game series in the playoffs.


Itīs a big deal.

There simply is NO way, that 1972 could win oiver 2002.

Sure there are flukes in all sports, where vastly inferior teams manage to beat a worldclass team (Belarus - Swe for instance), but the difference between 1972 and 2002 is even bigger than that.

Players are simply too good, strong, fast and physically fit today.


-case closed-

Nordic* 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 11:20 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. Đ2016 All Rights Reserved.