Hardest recorded shot?

[Chadd 916]

I'm not sure about Modin...I know he was in the 100s but I don't think he was that high. I can call my friend - he works for the Lightning.

Heins hit 106 in the IHL All-Star competition.

UHL

http://www.hockeycanada.ca/e/news/1999/nr015.html

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

For what it's worth, as of 02/09/03, Sean Heins was the holder of the world's fastest

recorded slapshot.

Now, someone said that Modin may have beaten that in those local UPS/Fedex skills challenges. That might have happened right around that same time/after - not sure. But, I haven't seen a link for that either.

2.9.2003

Shawn Heins traded to Pittsburgh

San Jose defenseman Shawn Heins was traded to Pittsburgh this afternoon for a conditional 2003 draft pick. In 20 games with the Sharks this season, Heins had 1 assist and 9 penalty minutes.

With the addition of defenseman Kyle McLaren, and rookie Jim Fahey taking over the 7th spot on the depth chart, Shawn has not been able to crack the lineup.

According to NHLPA.com, Heins 2002/2003 compensation is listed at $600,000. Shawn fired the fastest recorded slapshot [106 mph] during the 1999 UHL allstar competition.

by the way, here are the 2001 results for the traveling skills competition. Modin hit 102~something back then

http://www.nhl.com/allstar2001/superskills/index.html

[sherwood21 0]

Huh..? I wasn't commenting on his theory, I was saying that it wasn't 30-40 years ago, that it was in 1996...

OK, and you're basing this on what, exactly?

Are you talking about Al Iafrate? Because I think that was when he cranked one at almost 106 at the Boston All-Star game (when out injured as a demo).

I don't recall that being when folks said Bobby Hull did it, and if so, you got a reliable link to the story? I mean, if it was in 1996 that is surely on line somewhere.

Just trying to decipher what is fact, folklore, and misunderstandings.....

Ah, I misunderstood quite a bit. I do believe that I confused myself with what you were talking about and what I was reading. I read on the 3rd page where MDE3 wrote that Hull had a shot that was 117 mph in 1996. Was your theory on Hull's shot..?

I'll go slow so you can keep up.

Bobby Hull was born in 1939 and was 57 years old in 1996.

His last season as a pro was 1979-1980.

In 1996 he was 57 years old and had not played pro hockey in nearly 16 years.

I find it very difficult to believe that he was able to shoot the puck 10mph harder at that age than any current NHL player has been able manage.

Thank you for being so caring. I was well aware that you find it difficult to believe the fact that he shot the puck ten mph harder at that age than anyone else can, to this date. I also find that hard to believe. I was also well aware that he was 57 years young when he took the shot, but thanks for clearing that up. Why you repeated your previous comment, I do not know, I was aware of all of the things that you stated. I was talking to Ogie in my first comment where he wrote that it was 30-40 years ago, which I stated above. I misunderstood the context of his math. Now I wasn't attempting to get involved in this discussion, but I was simply trying to see if Ogie was misquoting his years, but he was not and I stand corrected.

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

Ah, I misunderstood quite a bit. I do believe that I confused myself with what you were talking about and what I was reading. I read on the 3rd page where MDE3 wrote that Hull had a shot that was 117 mph in 1996. Was your theory on Hull's shot..?

I don't think anyone had a valid claim that Hull shot it at 117 in 1996 (at least, no one's been able to prove that with any sort of substantiated link - I think he was just going off recollection - which would likely be a bit hazy since it was a little over 9 years ago).

I did find reference that Al Iafrate's fastest shot was 105~something at a skills comp.

HOWEVER, my science was based on Hull's shot. Specifically, what his bio said regarding one of his shot's being timed at 120mph (guessing this was in the mid 60's, as I found reference to this in a 1966 paper). I merely choose 117mph because someone, somehow, got the impression that he fired it at that speed at one point in time (possibly at age 57), and I was merely pointing out that if it were measured with a stop watch how a simple miscalculation in time (due to reaction speed starting/stopping the watch, when it crossed, etc) could easily account for a erroneous speed calculation. The difference between measuring it as .035 seconds and .0386 would mean the difference between it being a 106mph shot, and a 117mph shot. Just pointing out that taking something timed with a stop watch should be taken with a grain of salt, not as gospel.

SO, that's where I was coming from at least.

[sherwood21 0]

Specifically, what his bio said regarding one of his shot's being timed at 120mph (guessing this was in the mid 60's, as I found reference to this in a 1966 paper). I merely choose 117mph because someone, somehow, got the impression that he fired it at that speed at one point in time (possibly at age 57), and I was merely pointing out that if it were measured with a stop watch how a simple miscalculation in time (due to reaction speed starting/stopping the watch, when it crossed, etc) could easily account for a erroneous speed calculation. The difference between measuring it as .035 seconds and .0386 would mean the difference between it being a 106mph shot, and a 117mph shot.

Merci.

[MDE3 0]

First of all I said 115 mph, not 117 mph, and then went on to say that since someone else.... on a site referred to in here..... claims that Hull had recorded 118.3 mph, that in fact maybe that was this same occasion, and I got the speed wrong.

Here's the deal....about 3 websites on Bobby Hull refer to his shot as 'approaching 120 mph...Do a search on "Bobby Hull's Slap shot". These are not "factual scientific reports", but from people who did significant research on a favorite player

For those of you who think these older players were not as strong as today's current breed....I think your ego may be getting in the way..sorry all you younger bigger guys...but these guys may not have had the levels of instruction and strength training coaches found today, but the hard core stars like Howe, Hull, Richard, Mikita etc. etc. were as strong as they get....a strength built, as I posted before, from the rigors of long hours of hard physical labor.

I need to make a correction on the way I reported the incidents at the 1996 NHL All Star Skills Competition I was referring to:...I did not witness this, as I was out of the room at the time, but my son did...I just now phoned him to ask if he remembered it.

Although I did recount the story I thought he had told me, what I recounted was not exactly what my son recalls. But the events impressed him so much as a ten year old hockey player that they remained vivid in his mind.

I always thought he told me there were two shots,...my son corrected me...he says it was only one....he says it was clocked at 116 mph, and broke the glass...he went on to say "yes he was in street shoes, and used a borrowed wooden stick".....Note this was measured with a radar gun, and was as accurate as any of the other readings made during this All Star Skill Competition.

I do remember my son being very excited, and calling me into the room to see the replay, but I didn't get there in time. I had often told him about how hard Bobby Hull used to fire the puck, and he was always "yeah yeah, sure sure (old farts)"...so when he actually saw this it really made an impression....One of the few occasions where my son actually agreed that maybe dad was right.....

[Chadd 916]

I still find it odd that there isn't a single report of that anywhere reputable online.

I never said Hull wasn't strong or didn't fire the puck hard as a current player, just that I don't believe that he had a shot that was 10MPH faster at the age of 57 than any current player has been able to record.

[MDE3 0]

HOWEVER, my science was based on Hull's shot. Specifically, what his bio said regarding one of his shot's being timed at 120mph (guessing this was in the mid 60's, as I found reference to this in a 1966 paper). I merely choose 117mph because someone, somehow, got the impression that he fired it at that speed at one point in time (possibly at age 57), and I was merely pointing out that if it were measured with a stop watch how a simple miscalculation in time (due to reaction speed starting/stopping the watch, when it crossed, etc) could easily account for a erroneous speed calculation. The difference between measuring it as .035 seconds and .0386 would mean the difference between it being a 106mph shot, and a 117mph shot. Just pointing out that taking something timed with a stop watch should be taken with a grain of salt, not as gospel.

SO, that's where I was coming from at least.

Except for the fact that the speed of the shot was not "timed with a stop watch" as you are assuming, but was estimated from counting video or film frames which ran at a known speed. By starting with the frame that showed the shot leaving the stick and counting the number of frames till it travelled a known distance, an estimate was created. This estimate while not completely acurate, would be considerably more precise than using a stop watch.

[MDE3 0]

I never said Hull wasn't strong or didn't fire the puck hard as a current player, just that I don't believe that he had a shot that was 10MPH faster at the age of 57 than any current player has been able to record.

My son had the same impression of my stories about how hard Hull fired the puck...until he saw this skills competition.....

Look we are not comparing just "some old player" whan talking about Bobby Hull....he was then, and has remained for 45 years, the benchmark player when talking about the hardest shot in the NHL.....So why would it be so surprising that he was head and shoulders above all the others?

PS he also continued to maintain and work his farm in the Belleville area long after he retired....so his physical conditioning routine did not change all that much.

Ever shake hands with a 65 year old farmer?...Heh heh

[Chadd 916]

Current US video standards are 30 frames per second for TV or .03 seconds between still images. European video standard is 25 frames per second or.04 seconds between still images.

Both provide a margin of error that make it impossible to measure the shot accurately using video.

[MDE3 0]

Not sure if that was the standard at the time, but it was a known speed in any case. However given all the old footage archived on Hull, it would not be too difficult I imagine, to find a video where he released a shot as the puck crossed the redline, or the blue line, and hit the net.

Based on 13 ft of space from the goal line to the boards at the time (I think)...the puck leaving the blue line would have to cover some 57 feet assuming it was shot from the center of the rink, till it crossed the goal line. a puck travelling at 116 mph, would have a speed in feet per minute of 170.13 fpm. Therefor to travel 57 feet would require counting 10.05 frames.... not all that difficult to do with slow motion technology, even in that "prehistoric" era..... :D

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

FIRST OFF: bear in mind, no one's "calling you out" on this

Except for the fact that the speed of the shot was not "timed with a stop watch" as you are assuming, but was estimated from counting video or film frames which ran at a known speed. By starting with the frame that showed the shot leaving the stick and counting the number of frames till it travelled a known distance, an estimate was created. This estimate while not completely acurate, would be considerably more precise than using a stop watch. 

BUT, ok, have it your way, it was "estimated". So, they have to estimate the distance and a few feet would make a difference, same as time. Also, I'm not exactly going to go out and buy it arbitrarily and have never thought of the technology from the 60's to be cutting edge in comparison to that of today.

Next, in regards to him firing 115 in his shoes and breaking a pane of glass and saying it was clocked with radar. Seems to me that'd be quite a feat, and no one - not one person - has been able to find this on the internet or even reference to it in passing. That would be quite a big deal, especially considering how Sean Hiens is now regarded as to having the hardest recorded slapper at 106. Previous to that, it was Al "The Planet" Iafrate at 105 & change.

In regards to the comment about ego getting in the way about players being stronger or what not, I'm a fat ass. There's no ego. Bobby Hull at his current age could beat my ass on street shoes while walking across the ice and me in full gear. No question. But, you've got to be painting in a poorly ventilated room if you think that equipment isn't better, training techniques aren't more refined, and due to the knowledge gained in health and nutrition that players aren't bigger and stronger now than the were (statistically) than they were in the 60's. Bobby Hull was listed at 5ft10, and 195 pounds.

No one is questioning that he was a hard shooter. Just that everything still comes back to his 120mph shots as ALL being estimates. A few hundreths of a seconds of a miscalculation means the difference between 106 and 120.

AGAIN, not calling you out - this is just meant to be an interesting discussion to burn the day away between projects here at the office.....

NOW: I do wonder this, and open it to debate - does anyone think that can the curvature mean a big difference in shot speed? I mean, I know the legend of the slapper originated by a curved blade, but the question is related to those of Hull's era didn't have a limit on max curvature. Could someone with a massive banana curve fire harder than if that person was using a minimally curved blade? I'm asking - don't know myself.

Current US video standards are 30 frames per second for TV or .03 seconds between still images. European video standard is 25 frames per second or.04 seconds between still images.

Both provide a margin of error that make it impossible to measure the shot accurately using video.

Since the difference between 120mph and 106mph was something like .0036 seconds (or whatever), if what Chadd says is true, then that could easily account for some subjectivity to be warranted.

[mack 44]

Can MSH give out Doctorates?

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

Oh, that would be cool....

my next thesis - Gary Bettman is a weenie, and here's why......

[Chadd 916]

Oh, that would be cool....

my next thesis - Gary Bettman is a weenie, and here's why......

Don't you just wish those two would whip them out, put them on the table, measure them up and get it over with already?

sorry, I miss NHL hockey

[mack 44]

Not me. I think at this point I can comfortably not care if they play another game so long as I'm still able to keep playing.

[JR Boucicaut 3789]

Hull said that a 2 1/2" curve is the optimal curve for shooting. Could it be that if he shot 120 mph back then, it is relative to the curve? And would explain why with all of the technology we have now, we can't improve on speed?

[Chadd 916]

Hull said that a 2 1/2" curve is the optimal curve for shooting. Could it be that if he shot 120 mph back then, it is relative to the curve? And would explain why with all of the technology we have now, we can't improve on speed?

2.5", that's more like a jai alai cesta than a hockey stick blade

[JR Boucicaut 3789]

Actually, I lie. It was 1.5".

I found what I was looking for. It had to do with the Off-set blade.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:3mIxE...lient=firefox-a

[Chadd 916]

Actually, I lie. It was 1.5".

I found what I was looking for. It had to do with the Off-set blade.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:3mIxE...lient=firefox-a

I remember Ballistik's marketing of the offset blade. I like how they give a few reasons why it helps your forehand and they also claim it improves your backhand without justifying that claim at all.

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

Don't you just wish those two would whip them out, put them on the table, measure them up and get it over with already?

Yes, yes I do. The whole situation (why it's happened, how it's gotten to this point, and why the problem still persists) sickens me to no end.

Hull said that a 2 1/2" curve is the optimal curve for shooting. Could it be that if he shot 120 mph back then, it is relative to the curve? And would explain why with all of the technology we have now, we can't improve on speed?

I don't know. I do recall reading how the whole curve thing started and how it supposedly helped speed. So, if someone had a huge banana curve would they be able to shoot faster with it than with a straighter blade? One can obviously see the "whip" factor on wrist shots (it's why they curve Jai-Lai blades, right?), but slappers? Not sure. It'd be curious to see the results, presuming someone had the time and ability to test the theory out.

2.5", that's more like a jai alai cesta than a hockey stick blade

Damn, Chadd beat me to my Jai-Lai reference......

I remember Ballistik's marketing of the offset blade. I like how they give a few reasons why it helps your forehand and they also claim it improves your backhand without justifying that claim at all.

Hespeller used to have one of those blades too - never seen anyone use it in hockey though.

See for yourself why the offset blade has prompted the Great One, Wayne Gretzky, to call it "theBig Bertha" of hockey sticks, and Jim McKenney, ex-Toronto Maple Leaf, to call it "the Viagra ofhockey sticks!" 

Wayne Gretzky calls the Ballistik offset blade "the big bertha" of hockey sticks? Oddly, I do recall the Hespeller offset blade having his name on the curve, but list me as a non-believer.

[MDE3 0]

Actually the issue with the large curved blades had less to do with the speed of the shots...and more to do with how unpredictable the direction became, as the shots would dip, tumble and curve much more with these exaggerated curves than without. It made the "goalies union" get really bent out of shape when these shots made them look so bad, or get hit where they were not expecting to.

[MDE3 0]

Next, in regards to him firing 115 in his shoes and breaking a pane of glass and saying it was clocked with radar.  Seems to me that'd be quite a feat, and no one - not one person - has been able to find this on the internet or even reference to it in passing.  That would be quite a big deal, especially considering how Sean Hiens is now regarded as to having the hardest recorded slapper at 106.  Previous to that, it was Al "The Planet" Iafrate at 105 & change.

Except for the fact that it is my son who recounted this to me, and I recall it happening as well, although as I said I did not witness it first hand.

Please understand that he has lived breathed and slept hockey since age 7, has been the youngest player allowed to play full contact semi pro inline at age 16, played Tohrs Pro at 17, played on the Men's Narch Winternationals Platinum Championship team this year, played on the XIHL Championship team this year,..played MLRH in GB in their demonstration tournament with CJ Yoder and Ron Tracey, Brian Yingling, etc. etc....

I point this out not in the context of "bragging", but just to say that if he says he saw this, I tend to believe him. He has no need to make up stories about hockey phenomena to achieve credibility with others in the sport.

Further in 1996, the use of the internet was considerably less common than it is today..which might go a long way to explain why there is so little reference to what was effectively a "side show" at the skills competition, at least on the internet.

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

Actually the issue with the large curved blades had less to do with the speed of the shots...and more to do with how unpredictable the direction became, as the shots would dip, tumble and curve much more with these exaggerated curves than without. It made the "goalies union" get really bent out of shape when these shots made them look so bad, or get hit where they were not expecting to.

Huh.... that's a pretty well stated argument, and makes a lot of sense.. Very interesting....

[Eazy_b97 1]

Actually the issue with the large curved blades had less to do with the speed of the shots...and more to do with how unpredictable the direction became, as the shots would dip, tumble and curve much more with these exaggerated curves than without. It made the "goalies union" get really bent out of shape when these shots made them look so bad, or get hit where they were not expecting to.

That was the way I understood it. I believe they came upon the idea after one of them broke their stick and took a shot. They saw the dip and got excited. It wasn't the velocity, it was the weird dips the puck would take that had them all jacked up.