Yes that's the most notable difference and of course in some cases goaltending techniques (much of that is equipment aided to be sure) and the concept of team defense is much more advanced in the junior games that I'm talking about.
But to imply that it's hard to tell the difference from 71 to today is bordering on the absurd, unless Redbull meant something else which doesn't seem to be the case.
To clarify, I'm talking about the talent-gap, I don't see any talent gap of significance.
Granted, i didn't watch a series of games from the early 70s, besides the one-off video of a full game. Same for the 60s for that matter.
But here's my point. It's pretty obvious that Doug Harvey was the best player on the ice when I saw him. It's also obvious that everyone on the ice, and coaches, probably tried really hard against him. I think players "back then" wanted to win as much as players today.
Bobby Orr and Phil Espositio, in the 1971 game I referred to, they were the best players on the ice. They stood out, their talent level, their ability to impact a shift, a game, it clearly showed. I also saw a Leaf team that played tough against them, the talent level of an Orr, relative to that competition, would very likely be the same today, against NHL competition.
The players today are bigger, equipment is bigger, the game is played faster but I don't think it's significantly faster. Essentially, I'm saying the talent & speed factor is often overblown on these boards.
The context of my statement was in response to how 99 & 66 dominated players in their era and my point is that Orr and Espo did the same in their era. And it's NOT that the other players were somehow bad players.
Gretzky dominated Trottier, Stastny, Bossy, Dionne, Hawerchuk and the best international players at the time.
And I don't see any reason to suggest that talent gap wouldn't apply today, equally, against Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos (whom I see in the same ball-park, talent wise, as Trottier, Stastny, etc - of that era)
It's not like there were no "systems" back then, ever hear Scotty Bowman talk about his defensive system when coaching the Habs? I'd say the talent gap across the NHL, from the haves & have nots was higher, as it was pre-salary cap. As it was in '94 when the NYR had twice the payroll of the Canucks for example.
When Crosby played in the Olympics, it wasn't OBVIOUS that he was the best player on the ice. There were times when it was Towes, Nash. Small sample size, against the best competition in the world, it's a pretty even playing field these days at the elite level. Kessel was awful for USA, non-existant. Malkin was ordinary and Ovechkin terrible. That never happened with Gretzky, even at his worst he dominated international tournaments. The gap was large because he was that much better, it's NOT the ERA.
Somebody is losing their credibility here, but it isn't redbull.
if you can't tell the effect of modern equipment on performance & modern video on your perception then you're missing out some of the most skilled players to ever take the ice. Maybe you you haven't personally experienced the transition from on era to another.
Man i wish they'd roll back the goalie equipment...
I wish for smaller equipment, barely large enough to ensure protection from INJURY, NOT to cover the net. I think it'll mean better goaltending, more athleticism and a better game. I also think it would help scoring but not as drastically as one might think. The sticks today allow for a much faster shot and you could beat a goalie with a wrist shot from the circles, when that wasn't possible years ago.
I think smaller equipment,
much smaller, even smaller than the 70s/80s, for both players and goalies would really help the game.
The materials are so much better (lighter/stronger) that I don't believe there's any argument around player protection for the most part, concussions and head-shots notwithstanding.
I think you can point to the closer parity today (salary cap) and highly-structured method of coaching (where teams have very nicely designed systems that can shut other players down; minimizing the talent gap).
But other than that and equipment.....yes, players do work out more. But how much of a gain is that going to get them? We obviously know that physical conditioning is only a small factor. Crosby wasn't even the best in his draft class...moreover, it is not like players today can bench twice their weight while players in the 70s couldn't lift 100 pounds...players today weigh a little more and are a little taller, but I don't think it makes that of a difference if Martin St.Louis can succeed today.
I think it's the parity over the systems. Teams/coaches always had systems and even if the systems are different today, I wouldn't think this is a significant change - but the parity definitely makes a difference.
It's not size or conditioning that makes for a great hockey player. It's largely talent, vision, hockey sense. These are what the elites possess above the rest. Reggie Leach could play drunk and out of shape because he could outright play, he had talent. Mario could dominate at half-speed with a bad back after cancer because he was better than everyone else.
Gary Roberts didn't really get "better" when his conditioning got better (after his neck injury). He was the same player, talent-wise, he probably extended his career a bit but he didn't suddenly start winning scoring championships.
Too much is said about conditioning, it's not a differentiator of significance, not then, not now.