Why Is This The Most Successful "Body Type" In The NHL?

GodEmperor

Registered User
Oct 12, 2017
2,919
3,168






Basically, it's relatively long limbs, a very wide waist and narrow clavicles.

What is it about this body type that is so much better than average-long limbs, narrow waist and wide clavicles or even more Herculean proportions with a wide waist but wide clavicles that makes players successful? Or is this just more so recency bias and Mario, Wayne and Orr were different in their proportions?
 

Passchendaele

Registered User
Dec 11, 2006
7,731
1,153
Stamina is way more important than bulging muscles, unless you're a goon, but these are virtually out of the league nowadays.

That's also why NHL players look unimpressive when compared to NBA or NFL players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: teravaineSAROS

rynryn

Reluctant Optimist. Permanently Déclassé.
May 29, 2008
33,540
3,553
Minny
i'm going to regret it but i googled "nick lidstrom shirtless"

I'd say that. he was a machine out there. hockey robot.
 

Rygu

Registered User
Dec 24, 2017
1,498
2,341
B.C.
It’s more about stamina and lower body strength isn’t it?

I think this is the correct answer. Crosby probably doesn't have much more than average upper body strength, but from the waist down he's a bloody tank.

Also too much muscle = less stamina. Ovechkin doesn't look ripped but he's still 230+ with absurd core strength.
 

SmellOfVictory

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
10,959
653
If this claim is accurate, I can throw out some supposition limb-wise and hip-wise:

Long limbs are an asset in many sports, and this would include hockey. Better reach allows you to defend/protect the puck better, and I would assume helps you get more power in shots and passes.

Wider hips presumably widen the base a little bit, which would improve balance and maaaaaaaaybe help build larger glutes for skating power?

edit: Also for god's sake, read the entire OP, people. It has nothing to do with the amount of muscle you're seeing in those pics (which, by the way, is still quite a bit of muscle).
 

BorntoLose

Registered User
Nov 4, 2014
1,398
450
well i guess a stockier build with long limbs would be best harder to knock off of the puck compared to a lanky person, lower half is probably most important when looking at best players
 

Skinnyjimmy08

WorldTraveler
Mar 30, 2012
22,922
12,765
Majority of hockey players have massive legs and butt and have hideous upper bodies with little muscletone. They dont want their upper bodies bulky and muscular.

Its bizzare to say but many many hockey players are pretty unimpressive looking with no shirts on.

Alot of them have the "oldman" or "skinnyfat" bodies... Thin arms with little muscletone and a bit of a gut

I remember a couple years ago seeing Shea Theodore... His upper body looks like Mr Burns from The Simpsons but his legs are massive muscular tree trunks
 

Brent Burns

“”“Re-tooling on the fly”””
Feb 7, 2007
7,292
617
Also, y'all don't realize you need to accumulate a good amount of fat in the offseason. These guys play 82 games/season PLUS weight room PLUS morning practices PLUS preseason PLUS postseason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: teravaineSAROS

McDavidCrushedLarkin

Registered User
Jun 12, 2016
4,320
2,413
8btSllv.png
 

IPS

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
16,489
27,101
if they don't have huge ass chest, delts and arms it means they're not athletic.
 

teravaineSAROS

Registered User
Jul 29, 2015
3,883
1,588
Leaving your upper body relatively "untrained" compared to your core and lower body leaves less total muscle to gas out from, meaning if you skip building the less necessary muscles; you'll have more endurance to use the important ones.

Also a HUGE part about looking jacked is about having low fat percentage; which isn't super important in hockey since a wee bit of extra fat makes u heavier and is a slight advantage on the ice.

People often mistake having lower fat for having more muscle
 

Ad

Ad

Ad