Hull's 119.5mph Slapshot A Myth

[Canadiens1958]

Methodology and Considerations

The argument is not that there is not one player from back then who could challenge or match today's shots. The argument is that it is very unlikely that a whole bunch of players can do it.
And then, even more obvious, there is the margin. If Howe's wrister is 114mph and Hull's slapshot is 119,5mph, the equivalent wouldn't be Beamon's 8,90m, it would be like Beamon jumping north of 10 meters. Hull's shot is about 10% faster than anyone's today, and Howe's wrister even more that that. And now do the math with Beamon's jump, which was additionally helped by the height in Mexico.

The point was that measuring methodology in sports was in place by the late 1960s to provide a fair report of an athletic event from hockey to track and field.

Margin was not even being discussed but since you introduce it then consider that the long jump is a rather unique event. Jesse Owens held the record for approx 24 years from 1936 to 1960 and Bob Beamon for approx 23 years from 1968 to 1991. Seriously doubt that during those spans no one was attempting the high jump at high altitudes - Denver has been a popular venue for track and field events over the years events.

Your use of equivalents is interesting. Let's limit this aspect to hockey. A slapshot for the most part is effective within the blueline, Bobby Hull, Bobby Orr, Al MacInnis stretched this to the red line. Zdeno Chara or Al Iafrate were never effective from outside the blueline and both needed to be in a limited comfort zone within the blueline.

The wrist shot for the most part has a shorter effective radius. Most are effective within a 30 foot radius, some within 45 feet, the rare player Howe, Beliveau, Bobby Hull, Mike Bossy, could stretch the effectiveness to 60 feet. Backhand has an even shorter effective radius, usually well within 30 feet, few - Maurice Richard could stretch it a bit beyond 30 feet but with the advent of curved sticks effective backhands are few and far between.

The velocity of shots is a different issue altogether. The wrist and backhand shots have very short optimal velocities. This is what is being measured when looking at the various shots. That a wrist or backhand shot may have a high short term velocity is no different than a runner having a high short term or the best short term velocity during a race but not have the fastest time over the length of the race.

Actually no evidence for any era has been presented to suggest anything about a whole bunch of players but that is another issue altogether.

 

[BraveCanadian]

i think the underlying truth is that you can't really trust any of these numbers unless everyone is tested by the same equipment. I don't think Percival intended a ploy, but whatever he used may/must have been apples to our oranges.

Yay. Someone else gets it.

I don't think that Percival was inflating results, I don't think that the numbers he measured were "impossible", I just think that whatever equipment and/or method he used was obviously very different than what is used in the all-star game today.

It is exactly the same issue with the khl results and today's allstar game. They weren't done in the same way so there is an argument about it.

So basically people are getting upset that their favourite apple isn't as tasty as an orange.

Complete waste of time.

 

[tombombadil]

And no one has scored 92 goals in a season in the 32 years since Gretzky did it. Not today, not a decade ago, not 20 years ago. That doesn't mean Gretzky didn't score 92. Although by your logic it's impossible for Gretzky to have scored 92 in a season because no one has done so since.

Too much wind negates a world record in sprinting, because the tracks are considered different. Take a page home with you. It applies to Gretzky, and we think it applies to Percival's test.

 

[Epsilon]

So you mean that they consistently stopped the clock too early. Not ever late?

Yes, this has consistently been observed. The error resulting from hand-timed measurements rather than using Fully Automatic Time is in the range of 0.2-0.25 seconds in favor of the runner being timed. Here are the links again, read them:

http://heismanpundit.com/2013/06/14/the-fastest-players-in-college-football-2013/

You know the old saying: “To err is human?” That definitely applies to the timing of the 40-yard dash. Almost every 40-yard dash time you’ve heard attributed to a player was timed by hand, meaning a human digit had a significant influence on its outcome. Even so-called electronically-timed 40-yard dashes require a human to start the clock once the runner begins the race on his own accord.

Studies have shown that such hand-based methods are prone to error and wipe away, on average, at least .24 seconds off the real time of a race. So that “official” 4.35 you think your favorite player ran at the combine? Yeah, it was probably more like a 4.69.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/13682485/34964121

NFL teams were briefed on the new timing method Wednesday. Because NFL teams keep 40 times to a hundredth of a second, there has long been a push to further legitimize those times by using the same methods as track and field and the Olympics.

However, according to coaches and scouts who discussed this with The Sports Xchange, the FAT times are expected to be .20 to .24 seconds slower than the relative times recorded using methods the Combine has gone with since 1990, and before.

"We were told it is just an experiment and we won't be told the results," said one team official. "People are worried about the reaction players may have if the 40 times change that much."

Combine, team and league officials are concerned that an abrupt change to recognizing the more accurate FAT times would create a culture shock of sorts for players.

Have you seen these beasts physiques?

No, I've never seen a football player in my life. I walked around the University of Oregon campus with my eyes closed for the 6 years I was there.

Actually, I have in fact seen two of the fastest players in college football history compete directly in track & field: Jeff Demps and Marquise Goodwin, at the US Olympic trials. Both are incredibly fast athletes and amazingly well-conditioned. Neither is even remotely in the class of say, Usain Bolt, Yohan Blake, or Justin Gatlin. No football players are when it comes to pure speed.

 

[Harry Waters]

The velocity of shots is a different issue altogether. The wrist and backhand shots have very short optimal velocities. This is what is being measured when looking at the various shots. That a wrist or backhand shot may have a high short term velocity is no different than a runner having a high short term or the best short term velocity during a race but not have the fastest time over the length of the race.

While I won't put the same arguments forward you didn't reply to, I'll reply to your above claim: That is simply false (given I understand you correctly).
If a puck leaves the blade, no extra power is added. There goes the analogy with a runner. Of course a runner can be faster for 10 meters while losing the race for 100. But a puck can't be slower for the first few inches/meters/whatever and overtake a puck which is faster at the beginning. It's that obvious that I'm not sure I understood you right, but I can't see another way to understand it!? What would this "short term velocity" vs. long term or continued velocity be if we are talking inanimate objects? The runner continously adds power, the puck, once gone from the blade, has a certain energy which directly depends on speed. I don't get it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pucks

While I won't put the same arguments forward you didn't reply to, I'll reply to your above claim: That is simply false (given I understand you correctly).
If a puck leaves the blade, no extra power is added. There goes the analogy with a runner. Of course a runner can be faster for 10 meters while losing the race for 100. But a puck can't be slower for the first few inches/meters/whatever and overtake a puck which is faster at the beginning. It's that obvious that I'm not sure I understood you right, but I can't see another way to understand it!? What would this "short term velocity" vs. long term or continued velocity be if we are talking inanimate objects? The runner continously adds power, the puck, once gone from the blade, has a certain energy which directly depends on speed. I don't get it.

There is never another puck to compete with or overtake so why go there?

Focus on the once gone from the blade part of your post. Now what has to happen before it is gone from the blade?

Consider the execution of the shot. Jean Beliveau's or Gordie Howe's wrist shot execution was vastly superior to a Terry Harper's slap shot or wrist shot so in terms of velocity and range their wrist shot was superior to the slap shot or wrist shot of many players.

The point that is in play is the assumption that the slap shot has to always be the fastest shot or that there is a ratio between the velocities of various shots.

 

[Harry Waters]

There is never another puck to compete with or overtake so why go there?

Focus on the once gone from the blade part of your post. Now what has to happen before it is gone from the blade?

Consider the execution of the shot. Jean Beliveau's or Gordie Howe's wrist shot execution was vastly superior to a Terry Harper's slap shot or wrist shot so in terms of velocity and range their wrist shot was superior to the slap shot or wrist shot of many players.

The point that is in play is the assumption that the slap shot has to always be the fastest shot or that there is a ratio between the velocities of various shots.

Fine, we are playing word games now. You brought the running example up, and you know what I meant. The overtake-argument was just to make it clearer/to illustrate the point.

And to the second bolded part: The shot is/has to be measured after the puck left the blade, so everything happening before that is totally irrelevant. Shot speed is the speed of the puck, not anything happening before it leaves the blade. If the puck is faster at any time in that process, it stays that way. There is nothing to debate. Of course someone's wristers can be faster than some other's slappers - but every halfway acceptable slapshot is faster than a wrist shot, and you know that, too.

Sorry if I didn't get what you meant, english isn't my first language - perhaps others can help - but for me, the argument has come to an end here.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oh Well.......

Fine, we are playing word games now. You brought the running example up, and you know what I meant. The overtake-argument was just to make it clearer/to illustrate the point.

And to the second bolded part: The shot is/has to be measured after the puck left the blade, so everything happening before that is totally irrelevant. Shot speed is the speed of the puck, not anything happening before it leaves the blade. If the puck is faster at any time in that process, it stays that way. There is nothing to debate. Of course someone's wristers can be faster than some other's slappers - but every halfway acceptable slapshot is faster than a wrist shot, and you know that, too.

Sorry if I didn't get what you meant, english isn't my first language - perhaps others can help - but for me, the argument has come to an end here.

Everything happening before dictates how the puck leaves the blade. Without the before the puck does not move.

Halfway acceptable slapshot? Love to see your definition of this phrase.

 

[Killion]

I think were done here. Circular, going nowhere, spiralling around the drain.