Hull's 119.5mph Slapshot A Myth

[Hockey Monkey]

Sure. Its something obviously Goaltenders are more than familiar with, something you almost have to experience to understand, and a painful lesson it can be. Essentially what your dealing with is that though any given Slapshot might be travelling at the same speed, lets say 100mph, some players put a spin on the puck which makes it rotate like for example the bit on a drill. It carries more impact, more weight & heft. Can knock you right off your feet, rip the trapper from your hand if you catch one like that, bruising the body even through chest, shoulder, arm pads. The spin, which is what Al MacInnis and a lot of others cottoned on to at an early age & practised, is achieved by a combination of subtle techniques as explained in this article....

www.eqjournal.org/?p=2791

That article is...pretty bad. Rotational force might make a puck more difficult to stop based on unpredictable reactions off of gloves or shoulders or something, but it absolutely is not additive to the force delivered on a lateral axis. This is pretty basic physics.

Also no hockey puck carries enough force to "knock you off your feet". This is the most basic newtonian law, sort of like when people say bullets have "knockdown power". If a puck or bullet is traveling with enough momentum to knock down a person, then the shooter must have also been knocked down by the release of the object.

The only plausible explanation for "heavy" shots is that the speed of the shot is incongruent to the speed/pace of the windup/delivery, eg, a player's shot motion looks like it will deliver a shot at a certain speed, and instead the shot comes at a faster one.

 

[Killion]

No wonder they were terrified.

... Now just a minute here Bobby. No goalie worth his salt would be "terrified" by Geoffrion, Bathgate, Hull, Mikita or anyones slapshot. "Wary" yes, but really only of guys who's shots were wild & high. Sure Ive heard Worsley, Bower & others who played from the late 40's through the 60's use words like "terrified" but thats just hyperbole. At first they mightve been a bit scared, playing through the transitional period mid to late 50's through the early 60's when first encountering that deadly new shot, but terrified? I dont think so. What was bad were the Banana Blades in the hands of players who shot wild & high. The Slapshot was like the new in thing to do back then, everybody from the NHL on down emulating it, practising it, sort of the new glamour play if you will, like the long bomb in football, electrifying the game, kicking it up several notches. Required goalies to take their games to a whole new level, stand-up, playing it out of the crease, angles, actually moving toward the shooter as their winding up. A lot of satisfaction in stopping a slapshot or in playing the angles forcing the shot wide.

Its a power move and a bit of a power trip for the shooter, already running high on testosterone & dopamine he's supercharged, not thinkin straight. In "challenging" the shooter as the goalie, most guys would shoot glove side thinking egotistically they could just smoke it past you, instead either depositing the puck right into your open waiting mitt or missing the post by inches or feet as youve got the angles covered & still moving towards them. I cant begin to tell you how satisfying that was. Some Big Stud Slapshot Artist with nothin to shoot at. Hows that workin for ya Pal? Parked right on his doorstep. A good 15' out of the net and comin atcha still. Dudes already wound up, cant reverse, knows he's screwed. Got nothing to shoot at. Or from the point when facing a PP. Some supposedly awesome Defenceman with a "terrifying" slapshot constantly being fed the puck, ridiculous super-duper wind-up in a lot of cases. Go out for a coffee and a smoke in the amount of time it takes a lot of them from wind-up to actual contact & release. Totally telegraphed. You can see where he looked, you read his body, you watch where & how that puck makes contact with & leaves his blade, and if a serious shot, it vanishes in flight but no matter as youve already got it pegged, know exactly where its going. If you can see the shooter & see all that, you can stop him. Highly entertaining. I and a lot of goalies used to love slapshot drills in practice as well. Some though, like Cheevers & Hall, not so much.... ya, fun stuff.

 

[tombombadil]

If we take Hull's wrist shot down from 105mph to a realistic figure (80-85?) his slapper, under skills competition conditions of today would reduce to around 95mph. Purist's may squawk at that estimation, but it is very easy to realize how his shot became the stuff of legend back then with goalies wearing those early masks (which didn't protect much against impact) and some not even wearing a mask at all yet. No wonder they were terrified.

First of all, I like your estimates. But, we don't need estimates to estimate the fear (wariness, Killion) that goalies would have felt, nor the fame his slapper would have earned him.

Simply by taking the median of the other shooters in the testing, about 107, we can find that Hull's slapper is 1.10 times as fast.... 10% harder. The average top shooter in today's AS game is about 100, so, someone with a 110 mph slapper would get the same attention. Zdeno gets a ton of attention for 105, 106, 107 mph slappers.

I can get why Hull gets the rep, and I guess that might make him the all time slapmaster, as he may have been the most distanced from his peers (MacIniss may have something to say)

Ditto all this type of thinking for skating.

Makes me guess that he didn't think the game as well as Howe and Beliveau, actually.

 

[Killion]

Makes me guess that he didn't think the game as well as Howe and Beliveau, actually.

Im not so sure about that tom. Bobby Hull had quite the hockey IQ, admired & respected the European & Russian games, their players, relished the opportunity to compete against & certainly play with them as he did in Winnipeg with Hedberg & Nilsson. In many respects he was ahead of his time & to some degree misunderstood I think. He thought the game in a somewhat different manner than the more traditionalist & vastly talented Howe & Beliveau, was definitely an outlier, throughout his career during the 06 era & beyond a target. Not given the kind of room Howe received, who of course made that room for himself, reliant more on his speed to create it as few could match him much less catch him. I appreciate your comment though as its an interesting thought, comparatively speaking. I've read some bio's on the guy, definitely some serious smarts in terms of thinking the game going on there.

 

[mbhhofr]

119.5 mph or 100 mph. Hull's shot was still freakin fast and heavy. Both Gump Worsley and Gerry Cheevers skated out of their net and left it wide open when they saw Hull winding up for his slap shot.

 

[Pominville Knows]

119.5 mph or 100 mph. Hull's shot was still freakin fast and heavy. Both Gump Worsley and Gerry Cheevers skated out of their net and left it wide open when they saw Hull winding up for his slap shot.

How often did this happen? I would think that Hull would have scored a hundred goals per season easily if this was something more than just a legend.

 

[billybudd]

That article is...pretty bad. Rotational force might make a puck more difficult to stop based on unpredictable reactions off of gloves or shoulders or something, but it absolutely is not additive to the force delivered on a lateral axis. This is pretty basic physics.

Also no hockey puck carries enough force to "knock you off your feet". This is the most basic newtonian law, sort of like when people say bullets have "knockdown power". If a puck or bullet is traveling with enough momentum to knock down a person, then the shooter must have also been knocked down by the release of the object.

I've never played goal, but I can tell you without question there's an audible difference between a shot with a lot of spin and one with little hitting glass, particularly among those with NHL shots. The second type of shot is at least twice as loud if they're moving at roughly the same pace.

 

[MS]

Right, so I don't get why people just say "impossible!"

Obviously it was possible - just under different conditions.

It is too bad we don't know what they were. At least I don't think anyone has found the methodology?

Old thread, but I'll say the same thing again that I did then - no, it's not possible.

There is simply nothing a human being can do to make a puck travel 96 MPH off a backhand shot. It's utterly impossible, by ANY methodology. Likewise a 105 MPH wristshot is hilariously unbelievable. And when the numbers on those two shots are out by at least 20 MPH from reality, the slapshot numbers will be too ... and what a surprise, that drops him down into the region that the best players today can reach.

Either there was a massive timing error or the equipment was mis-calibrated. Or someone lied, although that's probably less likely.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Old thread, but I'll say the same thing again that I did then - no, it's not possible.

There is simply nothing a human being can do to make a puck travel 96 MPH off a backhand shot. It's utterly impossible, by ANY methodology. Likewise a 105 MPH wristshot is hilariously unbelievable. And when the numbers on those two shots are out by at least 20 MPH from reality, the slapshot numbers will be too ... and what a surprise, that drops him down into the region that the best players today can reach.

Either there was a massive timing error or the equipment was mis-calibrated. Or someone lied, although that's probably less likely.

I think you guys are all missing the point of what I am saying.

I am not saying that I believe someone had a 96MPH backhand shot or 105MPH wrist shot. I don't.

I'm saying we have no way of knowing how those figures compare with what players could do today because we don't know the methodology or the equipment used.

I do have no problem believing that Bobby Hull was putting up a 100(+?) mph slapshot back in the day.

 

[Killion]

That article is...pretty bad. Rotational force might make a puck more difficult to stop based on unpredictable reactions off of gloves or shoulders or something, but it absolutely is not additive to the force delivered on a lateral axis. This is pretty basic physics.... Also no hockey puck carries enough force to "knock you off your feet". This is the most basic newtonian law, sort of like when people say bullets have "knockdown power".

Best I could find Im afraid... as for a puck not carrying enough force or weight behind to knock someone off their feet? Not true, happened to me on numerous occasions and I was strong on my skates, good balance. If you take one unsuspectingly via a deflection on the chest or mid section, it can drive you backwards like being shoved really hard. Its a shock so you tend to reel, freak out a bit, wind up on your butt.

119.5 mph or 100 mph. Hull's shot was still freakin fast and heavy. Both Gump Worsley and Gerry Cheevers skated out of their net and left it wide open when they saw Hull winding up for his slap shot.

Ya. Happened. Late in the 3rd of a game between Chicago & Boston with the Bruins up 7-4, Hull corralled the puck at Centre, came charging across the blue-line & wound up, Cheevers literally skating out of his net, there ya go Bobby, fill yer boots. When asked why, Cheevers said something to the affect that "I wasnt going to stand there & get killed over a meaningless goal. Had the score been 4-3 then sure". But that was Cheevers. Very strange man. Most goalies have pride and wouldnt dream of pulling a stunt like that regardless of the score.

 

[jcbio11]

just to let you know Gordie Howe loaded trucks with bags of concrete after school starting at age 12 and that was in addition to working construction with his father from around the same age. This was a lot different then working after school in a Macdonalds like most kids do today

I saw both Howe and Hull play in their primes and whether you like to think so or not they would tear most guys in todays NHL a new ahole. They're was a ferocity and toughness about them that was extraordinary in comparison to todays players. While they probably weren't quite as aerobically fit as todays NHLer, both were generational and amongst the greatest who ever played.

While Lucic may seem "really tough" to you, I really doubt he could handle a John Ferguson whom both Howe and Hull battered. Belittling those old-timers may seem really clever, but not having seen them play, you know very little about them.

As for how hard they shot the puck, there wasn't much difference from todays kids, the biggest difference now to then is that more guys today have those big shots. In yesterdays NHL it was only a couple of guys on each team, whereas today it's more than likely that only a couple of guys don't have great shots on each team

The bolded part -

That's nice that he helped his dad with construction work. Sure. But don't you think claiming they would tear a new ahole to most guys in today's NHL is a little ridiculous?

Today's athletes are perfectly conditioned (well, at least most of them). Their conditioning is miles better than the one of the athletes of previous eras. I mean they smoked for god's sake.

As for the OP and the following Chara vs Hulls discussion, I agree with what many posters in this thread already said - no way Hull's slap shot was that fast.

No. Way.

 

[tombombadil]

Im not so sure about that tom. Bobby Hull had quite the hockey IQ, admired & respected the European & Russian games, their players, relished the opportunity to compete against & certainly play with them as he did in Winnipeg with Hedberg & Nilsson. In many respects he was ahead of his time & to some degree misunderstood I think. He thought the game in a somewhat different manner than the more traditionalist & vastly talented Howe & Beliveau, was definitely an outlier, throughout his career during the 06 era & beyond a target. Not given the kind of room Howe received, who of course made that room for himself, reliant more on his speed to create it as few could match him much less catch him. I appreciate your comment though as its an interesting thought, comparatively speaking. I've read some bio's on the guy, definitely some serious smarts in terms of thinking the game going on there.

alrighty, then. Thanks for the reply. I didn't speculate thoroughly. There could be many reasons why he wouldn't dominate, points-wise, over everyone due to his physical gifts.

Obviously I haven't taken into account stickhandling, and many minor details, but on top of that, it doesn't mean he 'doesn't think the game' at an elite level if he simply 'doesn't mesh' (by the way, I obviously realize he was elite, I just assumed he would be overtop of Howe and Jean if he thought the game as well as them, due to speed and shooting) Ya, the more I think about this, the more I realize it was an unthought out comment. Beliveau likely had a better supporting cast, and Howe made room for himself, as you stated. 3 very different players.

Would you say that Hull spent more time in his own end than the average star forward in the 60's? I've watched all of '76 CC, and I was impressed by his workload and responsibility. Of course, he was the only old fart in that tourney.

 

[Killion]

Would you say that Hull spent more time in his own end than the average star forward in the 60's? I've watched all of '76 CC, and I was impressed by his workload and responsibility. Of course, he was the only old fart in that tourney.

He was responsible defensively, yes, absolutely. All players of that generation were (in Toronto often to their own detriment as was the case with Frank Mahovlich to some degree, Carl Brewer as well, a choke chain attached, too much defence, these guys not aloud, permitted to free-lance, get creative, go all out offence) regardless of who they played for. Had he not been, just a one dimensional goal scorer, entirely possible he plays out the early part of his career in the minors. Because he was such a great skater, stickhandler generally always on the offence, facing whichever teams best defensive forwards to try & stop him, two of them assigned to be his shadow & get in his face shift-shift. These guys could keep up to Hull in short bursts, but they'd tire with Hull out there 2-3-4 minutes at a stretch if Chicago was behind or in a tied game. His stamina quite incredible considering he was operating at full speed much of that time.

 

[Hockey Monkey]

Best I could find Im afraid...

That's probably because he's incorrect.

I looked at it again, and the mistake that he makes is assuming that rotational momentum (which with a puck is still negligible compared to the overall momentum of the puck) is released onto a single point when rotation stops, eg, a jersey, or a glove, or whatever. This isn't the case. So long as the projectile does not deform, a projectile with a circular cross section will disspiate its energy roughly equally around its circumference. Thus, only a tiny fraction is being transferred to the goalie. The delta would be completely undetectable, a fraction of a percent.

Also, the statement "think about a modern bullet that spins compared to a musket ball that doesn’t. A spinning bullet has much, much greater impact than a musket ball and a lot more penetrating power too" is so wrong it kind of irritates me.

as for a puck not carrying enough force or weight behind to knock someone off their feet? Not true, happened to me on numerous occasions and I was strong on my skates, good balance. If you take one unsuspectingly via a deflection on the chest or mid section, it can drive you backwards like being shoved really hard. Its a shock so you tend to reel, freak out a bit, wind up on your butt.

A puck shot by a person with a hockey stick cannot carry enough energy to knock a person down via the momentum of the puck, period. What you're describing is getting hit by a puck, being surprised, and losing your balance due to the surprise/shock.

 

[BobbyAwe]

... Now just a minute here Bobby. No goalie worth his salt would be "terrified" by Geoffrion, Bathgate, Hull, Mikita or anyones slapshot. "Wary" yes, but really only of guys who's shots were wild & high. Sure Ive heard Worsley, Bower & others who played from the late 40's through the 60's use words like "terrified" but thats just hyperbole. At first they mightve been a bit scared, playing through the transitional period mid to late 50's through the early 60's when first encountering that deadly new shot, but terrified? I dont think so. What was bad were the Banana Blades in the hands of players who shot wild & high. The Slapshot was like the new in thing to do back then, everybody from the NHL on down emulating it, practising it, sort of the new glamour play if you will, like the long bomb in football, electrifying the game, kicking it up several notches. Required goalies to take their games to a whole new level, stand-up, playing it out of the crease, angles, actually moving toward the shooter as their winding up. A lot of satisfaction in stopping a slapshot or in playing the angles forcing the shot wide.

Its a power move and a bit of a power trip for the shooter, already running high on testosterone & dopamine he's supercharged, not thinkin straight. In "challenging" the shooter as the goalie, most guys would shoot glove side thinking egotistically they could just smoke it past you, instead either depositing the puck right into your open waiting mitt or missing the post by inches or feet as youve got the angles covered & still moving towards them. I cant begin to tell you how satisfying that was. Some Big Stud Slapshot Artist with nothin to shoot at. Hows that workin for ya Pal? Parked right on his doorstep. A good 15' out of the net and comin atcha still. Dudes already wound up, cant reverse, knows he's screwed. Got nothing to shoot at. Or from the point when facing a PP. Some supposedly awesome Defenceman with a "terrifying" slapshot constantly being fed the puck, ridiculous super-duper wind-up in a lot of cases. Go out for a coffee and a smoke in the amount of time it takes a lot of them from wind-up to actual contact & release. Totally telegraphed. You can see where he looked, you read his body, you watch where & how that puck makes contact with & leaves his blade, and if a serious shot, it vanishes in flight but no matter as youve already got it pegged, know exactly where its going. If you can see the shooter & see all that, you can stop him. Highly entertaining. I and a lot of goalies used to love slapshot drills in practice as well. Some though, like Cheevers & Hall, not so much.... ya, fun stuff.

Would you be "wary" or "terrified" about the prospect of playing in today's game without a mask or with early "Michael Meyers" type mask which was flush against the face and did little to dispel impact?

 

[Killion]

Also, the statement "think about a modern bullet that spins compared to a musket ball that doesn’t. A spinning bullet has much, much greater impact than a musket ball and a lot more penetrating power too" is so wrong it kind of irritates me.... A puck shot by a person with a hockey stick cannot carry enough energy to knock a person down via the momentum of the puck, period. What you're describing is getting hit by a puck, being surprised, and losing your balance due to the surprise/shock.

Ya, thats exactly accurate, however, your still on your bottom wondering what the *%@# just hit me so I guess the end results the same. Cause with indirect affect, another layer or level, the shock & surprise.... you seem to have quite grasp of physics, ballistics' & whatnot. Interesting. To what then would you specifically attribute to the difference being between two shots travelling at the same speed, one termed "hard" the other "heavy", carry with it far more "punch" if not the Spinning Puck Theory?

 

[Killion]

Would you be "wary" or "terrified" about the prospect of playing in today's game without a mask or with early "Michael Meyers" type mask which was flush against the face and did little to dispel impact?

If maskless altogether, could I be like seriously medicated & impaired before doing so? Water bottle full of 190 proof Everclear?...
... but with a Michael Meyers, Plante Fibrosport, even my old Greg Harrison custom jobbie, no problem. Good to go. Sober.

 

[Hockey Monkey]

To what then would you specifically attribute to the difference being between two shots travelling at the same speed, one termed "hard" the other "heavy", carry with it far more "punch" if not the Spinning Puck Theory?

I think there are two plausible explanations. I mentioned the first above, and I think this probably explains most of the phenomenon: certain players have a disparity between the anticipated velocity and actual velocity based on their shooting motion.

You've mentioned how important it is for goalies to "read" the shooter (and how good they are at it also). As a goalie, you see thousands and thousands of shots and you get very inundated to expect a certain velocity from a certain shot motion. When someone like MacInnis comes along, whose windup/delivery is so smooth and compact yet the shot is so hard, it turns into an instant outlier to the goalie. In other words, his shot is significantly harder than what you're conditioned to expect based on the things you "read" in the shooter, and that disparity makes the shot seem to carry more force than it does.

You see similar phenomena in other sports; batters describe pitchers who "pop" (in other words, their arm speed is inconguent to the ball speed); golfers "explode" (someone like Ernie Els, whose swing looks so slow and smooth, yet he can outhit most of the world), things like that. The biomechanics to this are enormously complex and I don't know much about it, other than to say that there are definitely certain athletes whose "motions" in their respective sports are outliers.

The other possibility, which is somewhat less compelling to me, is that certain shooters release the puck in such a way that it travels with a slight incline (or decline) angle on the horizontal axis and thus the "corner" of the puck, rather than the edge, is making first contact. This MIGHT make a slight different in how "focused" the energy transfer is to the goalie. My gut tells me it is probably still pretty negligible though.

 

[Ben Grimm]

It's well documented that some pitchers throw a heavy ball that is harder to handle than the average hard pitch at the same speed.

 

[Hockey Monkey]

It's well documented that some pitchers throw a heavy ball that is harder to handle than the average hard pitch at the same speed.

Well...yeah? What you're describing comes from effectively concealing the pitching motion and the movement of the ball during flight. It has nothing to do with weight.

 

[Ben Grimm]

Well...yeah? What you're describing comes from effectively concealing the pitching motion and the movement of the ball during flight. It has nothing to do with weight.

Wily Peralta had a great recipe for keeping the Texas Rangers' imposing lineup at bay -- keep the ball down. Utilizing a heavy sinker liberally, Peralta recorded nine ground-ball outs -- including three in the fourth inning -- in setting the stage for a much-needed 6-3 victory for the Milwaukee Brewers on Monday night at Miller Park. Peralta had recorded six ground-ball outs through four innings,

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/206536101.html

Concealing the pitching motion has nothing to do with the impact of the pitch on the bat. The movement of the ball during flight affects all pitches so that's not saying anything. I never said it had anything to do with weight.

Some pitchers throw a "heavy" ball that is more likely to "saw off" or crack the bat or cause a grounder. This is extremely well known and documented. Watch some MLB games on tv and listen to the announcers and you'll hear them talk about this phenomena often.

 

[Epsilon]

The problem is that the use of the term "heavy" has stuck around even though it has nothing to do with what makes those sinkers difficult to hit (and specifically get underneath and drive with power).

 

[Hockey Monkey]

Some pitchers throw a "heavy" ball that is more likely to "saw off" or crack the bat or cause a grounder. This is extremely well known and documented. Watch some MLB games on tv and listen to the announcers and you'll hear them talk about this phenomena often.

The reason for this is that the pitch breaks inside relatively late and makes contact with the bat at a weaker point and/or causes the batter to miss clean contact.

I think what you're trying to suggest is that the rotation of the pitch interacts with the bat somehow at the moment of impact, which is incorrect.

 

[BobbyAwe]

If maskless altogether, could I be like seriously medicated & impaired before doing so? Water bottle full of 190 proof Everclear?...

So then it would be accurate to say you'd be terrified to face Bobby Hull's shot, mask less, and sober?

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

The reason for this is that the pitch breaks inside relatively late and makes contact with the bat at a weaker point and/or causes the batter to miss clean contact.

I think what you're trying to suggest is that the rotation of the pitch interacts with the bat somehow at the moment of impact, which is incorrect.

No, he means heavy ball. I've hit against numerous pitchers of the relatively same height and weight who threw nearly the same velocity and generally straight. One guy's fastball almost ripped the bat out of my hands it was so heavy. Other pitchers' fastballs felt so light when you'd make contact that sometimes you hardly felt the ball hit the bat. Now part of that is making contact with the sweet spot on the bat, but there was a definitive difference in the heaviness of their pitch.