With all the advancements in sports science, how are today's hockey players not the best ever?

Question

I am just starting a debate, not taking sides.
But I had this conversation last night and I would like your input.

With all the advancements in on and off ice training, the increase in size of athletes in general, nutrition, equipment, sophisticated systems play, rule changes, etc. It can easily be argued that today's athletes have a distinct advantage over those of years past and therefore should be the best overall athletes in the history of the game.

Even with the NHL talent level diluted to the degree that it is now, do you believe that these advancements have increased the ability of players to be better than ever?

Or is the fact that records aren't being shattered right and left just magnify how diluted the talent really is considering these advantages?

Answer 1

I think it goes both ways my son.

I think the fact that players works out more and come to camp ready to play instead of playing to get into shape has made them appear to be invincible.

However, nutrition and exercize are just one aspect of the human being. There isn't a player in the NHL today who can stickhandle as well as Denis Savard and Steve Yzerman. None. There isn't a player in the game today who reads the ice as well as Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky. None.

There are a lot of skills that can be generated, worked on, and perfected regardless of your nutrition.

Now, having said that, we do have caveats. In Gretzky's day, he was at the top of the heap physically, as was Brett Hull in his day, and Sidney Crosby is today. And Sidney Crosby is probably in better condition than Brett Hull ever was, who in turn was in better condition than Wayne Gretzky ever was.

But that seems to have lead to more injuries than in the past.


Equipment.
More than any other human powered sport, equipment has changed the game of hockey like no other.

In baseball, home runs have increased primarily because of two things
1) steroids
2) the average park is 43" shorter to the fences today then in Babe Ruth's days
- bats are still made of northern white ash
- balls are still made the same (pretty much)
- gloves are very similar now to what they were in the 30s and 40s
- the average pitching speed is almost identical (89.56mph in 1944, 89.714mph in 2004)

Basketball
- the court is the same size
- the ball is the same size
- the net is the same height
as they all were in the mid-40s

Football
- football has seen the same remarkable changes in padding as hockey has seen
- the footballs are remarkable very similar.

Hockey on the other hand
- new stick materials have resulted in a lighter and faster shot
- current goalie gloves are 2.3x larger than they were in 1980
- current goaltender pads are 40% the weight of what they were 20 years ago making goaltenders appear better (what if Ken Dryden used today's pads....does anybody ever score on him?)


Some notes
The reflex times generated by Rogie Vachon, Tony Esposito and Ken Dryden, are far superior to anything generated by Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur and Dominik Hasek. Thus making the goalies of yesteryear...better.

Take a look this year at Brendan Shanahan. Look closely at his shoulders. Then look at every other player in the league. The new uniforms clearly tell you who is wearing circa 1085 shoulder pads (Shanahan) and who isn't.



In closing
While new strengthand conditioning programs, and healthier players (no 3 pack a day smoke habits like Vaive, Lafleur and Savard) are welcomed. I don't think it makes for a 'better' or 'more skilled' player. More athletic, flexible, and stronger yes. Better and more skilled...no.

If today's goaltenders were forced to wear the pads of yesteryear, I think scoring increases. At the height of the WHA, the NHL and WHA consisted of 30+ teams at the highest level in North America......with less than 10% non-Canadian players.

I think the influx of the best of the European and American players makes for a less diluted league than it did 30 years ago by replacing marginal Canadian talent witrh superior European talent. However, (to quote Scotty Bowman) the lack of new coaching strategies and the outrageous equipment, have left us with a tighter checking game that favours defence over offence.

As the evolution of hockey takes place (and more than any other sport hockey is constantly evolving (it's the canadian way) and has been evolving long before Gary Bettman and the current owners) it is always going to be natural to compare players. Was Richard better than Howe? Was Howe better than Orr? Was Orr better than Gretzky? Will Crosby be better than Lemiex and Gretzky?

1. Both Howe and Richard played their careers in a 6 team league (although in 12 team league Howe finally scored 100 points) but over that time goal scoring increased, and by virtue of playing longer (and winning more scoring titles) Howe is considered better.

2. Comparing Orr and Howe, or Orr and Gretzky, is like comparing apples to oranges. Orr revolutionzed the game like no other. What if he had been a forward? Good question.

3. Comparing Gretzky to anybody is pointless. From point 122 onwards, he reached the plateau faster than anybody (after 915 games (the number that Mario played) he has over 300 points more). From goal 200 something onwards, he reached it faster than anybody else in history (he reached goal 690 (the number Mario reached) half a season faster). Wayne Gretzky played the last 2/3rds of his career with herniated discs in his back, even Mario will tell you that is far more oain than he ever endured.

4. Crosby vs the rest
Of the fastest players to 250points, Crosby was the 2nd youngest (Gretzky was younger) but in terms of games, he was barely in the top 10, and as he moves towards 300 points, he's dropped a further notch. Certainly not the makings of one of the sports greats.

I'll stop my rant now.

Answer 2

Well I guess it comes down to a few things.

First no matter how hard they try there is one thing that sports science CAN'T improve on. That is heart. The players back then were just that good and just tried that hard. I'm not taking from today's players. It is as simple as it can't be matched and I think more players back then were playing with that heart.

Second is the diluted talent pool. I think that is an important thing when you look at teams as a whole. When the team is all superstars and the league is all superstars it makes EVERYONE look better. Your teammate makes you look better just as much as you make them look better. The players today aren't good enough to do that as a whole.

Third is rose colored glasses. I mean yeah the records aren't falling, so we have some proof the players aren't as a whole better, but how great where they past those records. How much of it is what we see and how much would they compare if you looked now to then. I mean if we never knew the past would the players look that bad.

Fourth is that the advances come on BOTH ends. So records won't be shattered. For every advance a Forward has they see the Defense(defensemen and Goalies) getting better as well. To be honest they are basically kept on even ground as far as advances.

Answer 3

First of all, you have to be able to play. Doesn't matter what era you're in!

Second, if one side has improved, so has the other. There's two ways at looking at it. Either it has evened things out, or escalated exponentially. Common thought would be 50-50, but think of this: Liken 1950s hockey to a demolition derby with cars going 5 mph. When they hit, little damage is done and they go on. Fast forward to the 1960s. The cars are now going 10 mph. Dents are getting bigger. 1980s - 30 mph - windows are breaking out. Here we are in the 21st Century. With all the gear and the advanced science, these kids (cars) are hitting 55-60 mph, colliding into each other 60-65 minutes a night, 82 nights a year. Tires are getting blown out, gas tanks rupturing, T-bone rollovers. It's a miracle we don't have more episodes like that knockout in the NYR-Carolina game the other night.

The players are too big and too athletic to fit on that small a rink. Drop to 4-on-4 or widen the surface.

Answer 4

Well also i just realized the fact that padding sizes on goalies was decreased after the lockout, that should have helped players a lot to start breaking goal scoring records.

But think about it this way. I think that players these days are too driven by the money, that it's not really about the game to them anymore. The great Wayne Gretzky will never be topped, he had talent and a passion for the game which was unrivaled. The only one i could see breaking some records and becoming one of the greats is Sydney Crosby, so young and yet already a leader and so good.

Also might have to do with the fact that athletes these days have everything handed to them, the old players were hardcore and had to work for everything they got, without the fancy training facilities and such. But ya it is pretty wierd that today's hockey players are not much better. At least my team's Luongo is dominating.

Answer 5

The talent pool is diluted. Is there any player today so thoroughly dominant that when he steps on the ice he just takes complete control of the game? Is there a player today who could repeatedly skate through the opposition and score?
In an era when there were 6 and 12 teams there was a player like that.
This same player destroyed the best European players including the Soviets at the 76 Canada Cup.
He wore number 4 and there hasn't been a player close to being as talented as him since he retired.
Put him in modern equipment, playing modern rules and he would lead the current league in scoring.
There will never be another Bobby Orr.
One more time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv0-9Wi713o

Answer 6

I personally think that the talent across the board is dramatically better today and that is one reason why records are not being broken. An average player today with speed, strength and improved technologies in equipment and training methods would be a dominant player 10 - 20 years ago. I don't think the difference between a good and a great player today is as wide as it was back in the day. By sheer numbers of available prospects to the NHL makes those players that do make it that much better than the players of yesteryear..

I doubt that if you could clone a dominant player from the past, they would have the same impact on today's game as they did on the games of their era.

Answer 7

Well, as a big hockey fan (Go Stars!) I think you hit the nail on the proverbial head about today's players simply being the best at what they do. But here's the kicker. You asked why records aren't being shattered in a sense. Well, they are the best players! The talent is still amazing to the extent that very few actually shine as they did in times past. Players are definitely faster and stronger and much bigger. Their skills are far advanced. But the parity is mistaken for a decreased level of ability.

Answer 8

I'm throwing my hat into the ring for this debate. In past eras, there was one great player amid several very good players. The exceptional player was the one setting records because of inate skills/talents. However, talent is diluted because there are amazing players from all over the globe (as opposed to previous eras where said dominant player was usually Canadian-born and bred). Today you have several great players (no one is heads and shoulders above anyone else, Joe Thornton/Sidney Crosby/Vincent Lecavalier supporters be damned) fighting for hierarchy. In other sports, the theme is universal. While the athletes have many more advantages and are better conditioned than their predecessors, money is a huge factor in why some records are not falling.

Back in the day, the biggest motivation for athletes was not the paycheck, but the everlasting recognition by peers and observers associated with their hard work and dedication. In laymen's terms, the record setting would keep their names alive for many generations to come. Today's athlete can have one monster season, earn a large contract, and be set for life. Why try to challenge records for the future (and risk injury in the process) when you can earn major coin with one (or more) breakout seasons?

Answer 9

Players from years past were tougher and rugged with more natural ability than anything else. I agree with you that today's hockey players aren't as good....and yes, with all of the advancements - you'd think that they would be.

No debate here.

Answer 10

Good one Zam...
I'll be short and simple..
Probably conditioning and endurance are the only real things you can improve with all the advancements.. Equipment technology has improved the odds that a player can absorb more impact and abuse.. It can help with a players speed and strength of his slapshot..
One thing that will never be altered by sports science is the pure talent and heart of the player when its finally his moment to step up..

Answer 11

I think athletes today are better prepared and in better physical condition. Their basic skills have also improved. However, I don't think they are as tough as the players were in the original 6 era. If you were hurt, you played if at all possible since your replacement might be keeper and you'd find yourself out of a job. Todays players have many more options, if you don't feel your sevices are required, you can go elsewhere, a luxury the original 6 players didn't have. They also didn't have the quality of equipment to help them appear tougher than they may really be.