Hull's 119.5mph Slapshot A Myth

[BobbyAwe]

Hard to judge the accuracy of the shot results but there is no question in my mind that those were the speeds recorded. Unfortunately, the article does not mention the equipment and methods used.

Keep in mind that this study was not done in the stone age. It was done in 1968 which was the year before they put a man on the moon. The technology was there to measure hockey shots with reasonable accuracy.

Also keep in mind that Lloyd Percival was a man away ahead of his time in studying hockey players and their conditioning. His 1951 book "The Hockey Handbook" was used by Tarosov in the development of Russian Hockey. Tarasov remarked "I read it like a school boy". There should not be any doubt that Percival recorded and reported on the results accurately.

Now maybe there is a a margin of error. The OP says Hull's slap shot was likely 100mph. But why 100mph? Why not 109mph which provides a margin of error of 10. The OP also mentions that Chara can only shot 108mph yet he is twice Hull's size. What has size got to do with it. Hull was only 5'10". Why couldn't all those 6' plus players shoot hard than him? I think people find it in difficult to accept that there is a possibility that 40 years ago there was a player that could shoot harder than anyone today.

Someone also mentioned that he didn't believe the skating speeds. Well they certainly did have stopwatches in 1968.

Do you also believe that Eddie Shack had a slapshot of 109.1 - faster than Zdeno Chara's 108.8? This is Eddie Shack we're talking about. Recorded that 109.1 under the same conditions as Hull recorded a 118.3. I guess "Clear the Track" would win the All-Star Hardest Shot competition today if he were young again? That's what you would have us believe?

 

[pappyline]

Do you also believe that Eddie Shack had a slapshot of 109.1 - faster than Zdeno Chara's 108.8? This is Eddie Shack we're talking about. Recorded that 109.1 under the same conditions as Hull recorded a 118.3. I guess "Clear the Track" would win the All-Star Hardest Shot competition today if he were young again? That's what you would have us believe?

Who the hell knows. We don't know the details. Eddie Shack had a helluva shot. I suggest you go back and reread my post. I said that there is likely a margin of error in Perceval's tests. I suggested that Hull's shot may be more in the 109 range which would make Shack's in the 99 range. And yes I find that quite believable.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I used to believe Hull's shot speed because

1) he had a curve on his stick that would be illegal today

2) he likely practiced his slapshot more than any player today, since players today have more standardized training regimens.

3) by all reports, he was a generational talent

But then when I see stuff like a 96 mph Hull backhand and Howe and Believeau with wrist shots faster than anybody's slapshot today, I think the whole thing loses credibility.

 

[VanIslander]

There's nobody in the game today as strong as a Howe, Hull or Trottier, guys often mentioned among the strongest ever, though some pre-Original Six players were incredibly strong by historical accounts.

 

[BraveCanadian]

But then when I see stuff like a 96 mph Hull backhand and Howe and Believeau with wrist shots faster than anybody's slapshot today, I think the whole thing loses credibility.

I didn't see it noted anywhere but if they are claiming these guys were getting a 96 mph backhand from a standing stopped position then I would have to agree with you. Unless they were measuring it at the stick instead of at the net or something strange like that.

I think that this just makes it obvious that the methodology was different. Sticks are different. The equipment being used to measure is certainly different.

So we're comparing apples to oranges.

I have little doubt that all the results are valid within their respective margins of error.. but lets be honest, none of these measurements are perfect by a long shot.

I remember Al Iafrate (?) remarking one time about how it was important to try to place the puck along the right trajectory to get a good result etc. I think it was low so that the radar got the puck coming at it straight but not touching the ice.

There is a lot of variation.

In any case the fact that Al MacInnis and Al Iafrate could still win the hardest shot competition on any given day means that for everyone's blabbing about equipment being better and players being bigger.. none of those things matter all that much in the grand scheme of things.

And even if it was the case.. imagine giving Hull or MacInnis one of the new sticks if they are supposedly so much better.. I'm pretty sure all their best marks were with wooden sticks only.

 

[Weztex]

this opinion is likely to get ripped apart here, due to the mythological status of yesteryear's greats - but i have always thought it was a dubious claim. You're right, the 96 mph backhand really clears up my doubt that there was something wrong with the testing.

This topic have been debated here a couple of years ago and the consensus was that those numbers were way off. Most of us are not blindfolded like many posters like to believe.

 

[CLF4life]

Myth, although given a composite stick with the banana shaped curve he used while at full speed, It would probably be true. My gramps told me a story about Hull's TeePee days, in practice he came flying down the wing and let one rip, missed the net but put a hole through the boards and broke some guys shin that was standing on the other side.

Bobby said in an interview that Brett has/had a harder and more accurate shot then he did.

 

[pappyline]

Has there been any more recent studies of player wrist shot and backhand shot speed? I tried to google it and found nothing. Surely Lloyd Percival was not the last person to do one.

 

[whatname]

Myth, although given a composite stick with the banana shaped curve he used while at full speed, It would probably be true. My gramps told me a story about Hull's TeePee days, in practice he came flying down the wing and let one rip, missed the net but put a hole through the boards and broke some guys shin that was standing on the other side.

Bobby said in an interview that Brett has/had a harder and more accurate shot then he did.

Speaking of Brett, did he ever participate in the hardest shot contest in the All Star skills comp? I don't recall seeing him.

 

[Epsilon]

Hard to judge the accuracy of the shot results but there is no question in my mind that those were the speeds recorded. Unfortunately, the article does not mention the equipment and methods used.

Keep in mind that this study was not done in the stone age. It was done in 1968 which was the year before they put a man on the moon. The technology was there to measure hockey shots with reasonable accuracy.

Also keep in mind that Lloyd Percival was a man away ahead of his time in studying hockey players and their conditioning. His 1951 book "The Hockey Handbook" was used by Tarosov in the development of Russian Hockey. Tarasov remarked "I read it like a school boy". There should not be any doubt that Percival recorded and reported on the results accurately.

Now maybe there is a a margin of error. The OP says Hull's slap shot was likely 100mph. But why 100mph? Why not 109mph which provides a margin of error of 10. The OP also mentions that Chara can only shot 108mph yet he is twice Hull's size. What has size got to do with it. Hull was only 5'10". Why couldn't all those 6' plus players shoot hard than him? I think people find it in difficult to accept that there is a possibility that 40 years ago there was a player that could shoot harder than anyone today.

Someone also mentioned that he didn't believe the skating speeds. Well they certainly did have stopwatches in 1968.

The fact that you would write this in defense of some of these claims suggests you don't understand the potential problems with them at all. Stopwatches being used as any sort of timing mechanism in these types of situations (measuring athlete foot speed or the speed of projectiles) are prone to huge errors that seem (for various reasons) to almost invariably fall on the side of giving a faster reading than what actually occurred. This has been demonstrated time and time again in football vis-a-vis 40 yard dash times: the hand recorded ones suggest times that would make many college and NFL players competitive in the 100m spring Olympic finals; the electronically measured times reveal these stopwatch-recorded numbers to be pure fiction.

In fact, at this year's NFL combine player speeds in the 40 yard dash were recorded unofficially using properly calibrated track-and-field equipment, in addition to the usual hand timings. These highly accurate track numbers were not released to the media/public because it was felt they would embarrass the players!

 

[Hanji]

These numbers are so outrageous and varied, there doesn't even appear to be any uniformity within the methodology used.

 

[pappyline]

The fact that you would write this in defense of some of these claims suggests you don't understand the potential problems with them at all. Stopwatches being used as any sort of timing mechanism in these types of situations (measuring athlete foot speed or the speed of projectiles) are prone to huge errors that seem (for various reasons) to almost invariably fall on the side of giving a faster reading than what actually occurred. This has been demonstrated time and time again in football vis-a-vis 40 yard dash times: the hand recorded ones suggest times that would make many college and NFL players competitive in the 100m spring Olympic finals; the electronically measured times reveal these stopwatch-recorded numbers to be pure fiction.

In fact, at this year's NFL combine player speeds in the 40 yard dash were recorded unofficially using properly calibrated track-and-field equipment, in addition to the usual hand timings. These highly accurate track numbers were not released to the media/public because it was felt they would embarrass the players!

Are you telling me that Roger Banister didn't really run a 4 minute mile? If what you are saying is correct then stopwatch times are no more accurate today then they were in 1968.

 

[Analyzer*]

How would you account for the numbers being flawed ?

Hull then, is ripped like enforcers today who seem to only practice fighting after then turn 18.

Hull could skate, Hull could shoot and Hull get beat the **** out of people.

On the Brett Hull note. Which brother, or father doesn't say his son/brother has the better shot, or is more skilled ?

For his backhand, it might not have been a traditional backhand where the puck starts touching the blade, but rather a windup slap at the puck.

 

[Epsilon]

Are you telling me that Roger Banister didn't really run a 4 minute mile?

Sigh, you are really making yourself sound ignorant here when it comes to procedures in timed sports.

But just to show how irrelevant your little quip is, a 4.5 second 40 yard dash corresponds to a 3:18 miles (assuming one runs at a constant pace). whereas a 4.75 second 40 yard dash (i.e. a mistake of 0.25 seconds, not unheard of when it comes to football 40 yard dash handheld times) corresponds to a 3:29 mile, or an error of a full 11 seconds when extrapolated over such a long distance. Inaccuracies in short-range, high-speed measurements propagate to huge errors over longer distances.

If what you are saying is correct then stopwatch times are no more accurate today then they were in 1968.

Stopwatch times are inherently inaccurate due to being human-operated, which is why any times recorded by them are highly dubious and no sports mark should be taken seriously (especially in comparison to modern numbers recorded using properly calibrated radar and other electronic equipment) unless there's documentation describing the accuracy of the timing procedure.

All this is a myth that certain fans want to believe is true because it further mythologizes their Original 6 heroes.

 

[Epsilon]

Just to give an even more relevant example of how an error can propagate here:

Let's assume that a shot taken for a hardest shot competition travels 50 feet. We will also assume for simplicity that it maintains constant velocity during its flight, i.e. there is no loss of velocity due to air friction (clearly incorrect but this is more to illustrate the point of error propagation).

Let's start with a shot that is clocked at 108 mph. But let's see how that number could actually be arrived at through hand timing:

-108 miles/hour corresponds to 1/108 hours/mile
-1/108 hours/mile corresponds to 0.006313131 seconds/foot
-if the shot travelled 50 feet then this would correspond to a timer measurement of 0.31565657 seconds

Now, assume an error of -0.05 seconds; that is, a measurement of time that is 1/20th of a second faster than in actuality.

-this corresponds to a timer measurement of 0.26565657 seconds.
-over 50 feet, this corresponds to a speed of 0.005313131 seconds/foot
-0.006313131 seconds/foot corresponds to 0.0077925926 hours/mile
-0.0077925926 hours/mile corresponds to 128.33 miles/hour!

So in other words, a 0.05 second error (on say, a stopwatch) over 50 feet would give a shot speed measurement error of over 20mph.

 

[Individual 1]

Believing these numbers is also believing in Howe and Believeau having harder wrist shots then Charas slapshot, and Hull having a harder backhand then alot of players slapshot, keep drinking the coolaid.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think it's clear that Percival was using a different measuring standard than they use today. That doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it not a simple comparison

 

[Killion]

.... and Hull get beat the **** out of people.

... where do you get that idea from?. Hull played to "Code".

 

[tombombadil]

There's nobody in the game today as strong as a Howe, Hull or Trottier, guys often mentioned among the strongest ever, though some pre-Original Six players were incredibly strong by historical accounts.

this is insane.

 

[RobertKron]

How would you account for the numbers being flawed ?

Hull then, is ripped like enforcers today who seem to only practice fighting after then turn 18.

Hull could skate, Hull could shoot and Hull get beat the **** out of people.

On the Brett Hull note. Which brother, or father doesn't say his son/brother has the better shot, or is more skilled ?

For his backhand, it might not have been a traditional backhand where the puck starts touching the blade, but rather a windup slap at the puck.

Go try to take that shot.

 

[alanschu]

This is somewhat oversimplified (but unless someone wants to bust out some actual physics equations, it'll have to be), but imagine the puck like an RC car that can instantaneously accelerate to 50 km/h, with a 50 km/h top speed.

If driven off a stationary flatbed (player), it will travel forward at 50km/h relative to the ground.

If driven off a flatbed moving in the same direction at 20 km/h, the RC car will add the 50 km/h to the 20km/h of the flatbed and will initially travel forward at a speed of 70 km/h relative to the ground (ignoring things like wind resistance and other crap that will affect the numbers a little).

It won't be as direct an effect in a real world situation (if the puck is moving faster than the player as he winds up, then he won't transfer as much energy to it when he hits it, just as an example), but the overall effect of carrying the puck when it's shot is that the player/puck's on-ice velocity will at least partially translate into the puck's initial shooting velocity.

This ignores the elasticity of the collision. If Hull is moving with the puck at the same speed, he's effectively shooting as though he's standing still relative to the puck. Do you think Big Z would get as much on the shot if he had to just stand beside the puck and couldn't skate up into it but unloading? While the details of your analogy are correct, it's not an appropriate analogue for someone hitting a puck.

In fact, to maximize the velocity of the the shot you'd be better served skating into a shot that is traveling towards the player (away from the net) as it puts more energy into the collision. Connecting on a major league fastball will typically go farther than tossing the ball up to yourself and connecting. This is also part of the reason why one timers are often rockets as well.

If you want to see a simple experiment of this in motion, simply take a stick and a ball and shoot the ball against the wall. If you shoot a hard shot, do you expect the ball to bounce farther away from the wall, compared to a softer shot?

 

[coo1beans]

There's nobody in the game today as strong as a Howe, Hull or Trottier, guys often mentioned among the strongest ever, though some pre-Original Six players were incredibly strong by historical accounts.

So player development in hockey is apparently backwards. As according to you, all the athletes we have now do not compare to the ones from the 70's-80's, who in turn are inferior to players from the pre-original 6 days.

It's great to respect the history and pioneers of the game, but take off your rose colored glasses. Any beer league player today would be a decent player for any pre-Original 6 team.

 

[pvr]

Here's a link to a couple of previous threads on the subject. Actually there have been many threads on the topic of Hull's shot...

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=824951
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=647625

 

[Hanji]

Who the hell knows. We don't know the details. Eddie Shack had a helluva shot. I suggest you go back and reread my post. I said that there is likely a margin of error in Perceval's tests. I suggested that Hull's shot may be more in the 109 range which would make Shack's in the 99 range. And yes I find that quite believable.

That same margin of error still gives Gordie Howe had a 104 mph wrist shot.

Forget about margin of error, these test results point towards a flawed methodology. Not only are they obviously out of sync with today's results, but some of Perceval's measurements aren't even believable in relation to some of his other measurements.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Anybody know what the fastest wristers and backhands are today?

Ps the numbers above are ridiculous but I wouldnt be shocked if the backhands were faster in the 60's because so many players still used the straight blade.