to all the smaller hombres out there

[Konig von Kuhlem 0]

I know I'm going old school again, but Reggie Leach was clocked at 115 mph according to the book "Hockey's Most Wanted".

[automorph 0]

most of you who feel like they can "bring it" like a car dyno will be dissapointed

[Jordan 13]

I would be dubious about claims like the one's of Hull having a 118 MPH slapshot and Leach being "clocked" at 115...sort of like claiming that an old time pitcher who was short and fat had a 150 mph fastball.

BTW, if you notice, since they started using radar guns, and doing this regularly at the all-star game, the guys with big shots are mostly beasts...Bobby Hull though stocky for his era, would be a small guy in today's game and Reggie Leach was about 170lbs soaking wet (yeah, I know Hockeydb has him at 180...there is just no way).

The physics just argues that it helps to tall, and strong.

[Larry54 243]

I would be dubious about claims like the one's of Hull having a 118 MPH slapshot and Leach being "clocked" at 115...sort of like claiming that an old time pitcher who was short and fat had a 150 mph fastball.

BTW, if you notice, since they started using radar guns, and doing this regularly at the all-star game, the guys with big shots are mostly beasts...Bobby Hull though stocky for his era, would be a small guy in today's game and Reggie Leach was about 170lbs soaking wet (yeah, I know Hockeydb has him at 180...there is just no way).

The physics just argues that it helps to tall, and strong.

Bobby Hull was a monster even to today's standards. And you didn't have the resrictions in the early days of curved stick blades so I wouldn't dismiss those claims.

[wrangler 157]

Bobby Hull was a monster even to today's standards. And you didn't have the resrictions in the early days of curved stick blades so I wouldn't dismiss those claims.

Nice pic. Chicago TV, before hockey season each year, used to show film of Bobby Hull tossing hay bales around, at his farm, and talked about the size of his forearms.

When did they not have restrictions on curves? I remember the refs stopping Hawks games regularly (mid 60s?) to measure Mikita's curve. And I thought that was when most guys were still using straight sticks.

[dsjunior1388 81]

Bobby Hull was a monster even to today's standards. And you didn't have the resrictions in the early days of curved stick blades so I wouldn't dismiss those claims.

Hull was obviously huge for his era, but you'd be hard pressed to find any guys his height who are not built like him, except maybe Patrick Kane, all though I suspect his 5'9" is a little "generous."

Hull was 5'10" 210, that might even be a little light for today's average 5'10" player.

[Hermans 9]

Google images of Bobby Hull and you'll see the dude had massive forearms. You'll also see him throwing hay bales with a pitch fork. He worked on a farm during the summer and apparently that gave him the strength to rip those shots.

[Jarick 5]

210 is light for an average 5'10 player? Most guys at that height seem to be in the 180 range.

There was a post over on HF Boards that was referencing wrist shots over 100mph from that era. That just tells me the measurements are way off. I mean, that KHL guy hit 110mph but they're shooting much closer to the net. If you have a radar gun that's maybe 5-10% off from 50 years ago, plus they're measuring at the point of impact rather than 20 feet away, it would make a pretty big difference.

[Jordan 13]

Hull was 5'10" 210, that might even be a little light for today's average 5'10" player.

Hull was on a local radio station (TheFan590) around Christmas time promoting his new book, that included that picture.

According to the man himself, he never weighed more than 192 pounds in his playing days.

At his height that makes him a small, but muscular man vis-a-vis today's pro athelete. In fact, he was about the size of Kris Draper to put it in modern terms.

Not likely to come close to a 118 mph slapshot. I saw him play live a more than a dozen times....never saw anything close to that claimed velocity.

By the way, I agree that Hull looks like a beast in that hey baling picture...but, pictures can be very deceiving...the beast below was 5'5" and 183 lbs...

[Chadd 916]

There was a post over on HF Boards that was referencing wrist shots over 100mph from that era. That just tells me the measurements are way off.

The normal frame rate for video/TV is way too low to accurately measure shot speed. Measuring it in person would be equally impossible without a radar gun.

[NuggyBuggy 0]

The normal frame rate for video/TV is way too low to accurately measure shot speed. Measuring it in person would be equally impossible without a radar gun.

Why would that be ? All you need to know is where the puck is at any two given points in time, and how much time separates the two measurements. That is unless the claim is a slapshot-puck will not appear in motion on any two frames from start to finish. If this were true, the slapshot would be invisible on TV, which it is not.

Anyways, I completely do not believe that the hardest shooters of the '60s and '70s can shoot anywhere near as hard as the best of the much larger, much better-conditioned athletes of today with all the technological, training and (ahem) pharmaceutical advantages they enjoy.

[Jordan 13]

Why would that be ? All you need to know is where the puck is at any two given points in time, and how much time separates the two measurements.

Because the elapsed time for a slapshot from start to finish is very fast. A 100 MPH slapshot travelling 50 feet will take approximately 1/3 of a second.

Frame rates for TV are around 24/second.

So for 1/3 of a second, that would equate to 8 frames. So what's the problem?

If it were 7 frames, that would be about an 85 mph slapshot...slower than almost all of them

If it were 9 frames it it would be around 115 mph...faster than every single one of them.

So, from 50 feet, they would all be about 8 frames...which would only tell you that the shot was somewhere between 85 and 115 mph.

Next problem would be determining exact distance if you used game footage.

Final problem for the old time guys, if you used tape, there are slight variations in the speed of the cameras and the tape players.

The frame rate is far too course of a measure. Sort of like measuring a 100 meter sprint in days.

[NuggyBuggy 0]

Because the elapsed time for a slapshot from start to finish is very fast. A 100 MPH slapshot travelling 50 feet will take approximately 1/3 of a second.

Frame rates for TV are around 24/second.

So for 1/3 of a second, that would equate to 8 frames. So what's the problem?

If it were 7 frames, that would be about an 85 mph slapshot...slower than almost all of them

If it were 9 frames it it would be around 115 mph...faster than every single one of them.

So, from 50 feet, they would all be about 8 frames...which would only tell you that the shot was somewhere between 85 and 115 mph.

Next problem would be determining exact distance if you used game footage.

Final problem for the old time guys, if you used tape, there are slight variations in the speed of the cameras and the tape players.

The frame rate is far too course of a measure. Sort of like measuring a 100 meter sprint in days.

I still don't see the problem - to use another analogy, if a car drove a 10000 miles in a straight line at a fixed speed, I could accurately measure its speed even if I only knew its position every 24-hours, or every week.

In our example, somewhere on either the 7th, 8th, or 9th frame, the puck will be captured in motion, at a determinable (to a reasonable approximation) distance from launch, and with a reasonably precise temporal relationship to launch time. If the number of frames after launch that the puck is seen is n, then the puck took (n*(1/framerate))seconds to travel that distance. So with known distance and time, what's the problem in determining velocity ?

If you're saying that the reason you can't the problem is inaccuracy in estimating distance, or framerate variability, that's fine, but different than saying the problem is framerate per se. However, even if our estimates either way is off by 5 or 10%, we should still be able to debunk the notion that the old-timers could shoot a puck almost 15% faster than the best modern athletes can.

[frankie56 0]

Because the elapsed time for a slapshot from start to finish is very fast. A 100 MPH slapshot travelling 50 feet will take approximately 1/3 of a second.

Frame rates for TV are around 24/second.

So for 1/3 of a second, that would equate to 8 frames. So what's the problem?

If it were 7 frames, that would be about an 85 mph slapshot...slower than almost all of them

If it were 9 frames it it would be around 115 mph...faster than every single one of them.

So, from 50 feet, they would all be about 8 frames...which would only tell you that the shot was somewhere between 85 and 115 mph.

Next problem would be determining exact distance if you used game footage.

Final problem for the old time guys, if you used tape, there are slight variations in the speed of the cameras and the tape players.

The frame rate is far too course of a measure. Sort of like measuring a 100 meter sprint in days.

We trust radar guns but even they have problems. The accuracy goes down if the puck is not moving directly towards the gun. That's why the high shots don't register well.

[Joshison 1]

We trust radar guns but even they have problems. The accuracy goes down if the puck is not moving directly towards the gun. That's why the high shots don't register well.

The announcers are always talking about strategy and keeping it low, I think their full of it. Pretty sure Chara's shot was high on the net.

[interpathway 9]

The announcers are always talking about strategy and keeping it low, I think their full of it. Pretty sure Chara's shot was high on the net.

It also could've registered a MPH or two harder if it was directly at the gun.

There's no coincidence that the KHL's 110 mark was about six inches off the ice down the middle.

[BarDownGinos 3]

Put 4-6 radar guns behind the net high and low so that all angles are covered. You'll either get a majority reading or be able to take an average. Problem solved.

[maxamillion 3]

Nice pic. Chicago TV, before hockey season each year, used to show film of Bobby Hull tossing hay bales around, at his farm, and talked about the size of his forearms.

When did they not have restrictions on curves? I remember the refs stopping Hawks games regularly (mid 60s?) to measure Mikita's curve. And I thought that was when most guys were still using straight sticks.

That's when it started. I remember reading that some guys found that by heating their blades and jamming them under the door, they could get some wicked curves, and that they found that these curves could really help their shots. it was a few years before the league caught on. I also remember hearing that Hull would blast a shot over the goalies head at the start of the game to scare him a bit.

EDIT: sorry forgot to quote.

[Konig von Kuhlem 0]

Put 4-6 radar guns behind the net high and low so that all angles are covered. You'll either get a majority reading or be able to take an average. Problem solved.

Cool idea! If you had them all pointed at the pucks starting position, I think that may give you more accurate results. How much the results vary would probably be minimal though... maybe within 1 mph.

Say you take a 100 mph shot from 30ft out and it hits the cross bar at 4 feet off the ice. The horizontal component of the velocity that the current radar gun system would see would be about 99.1 mph.

[wetwilly17 6]

Cool idea! If you had them all pointed at the pucks starting position, I think that may give you more accurate results. How much the results vary would probably be minimal though... maybe within 1 mph.

Say you take a 100 mph shot from 30ft out and it hits the cross bar at 4 feet off the ice. The horizontal component of the velocity that the current radar gun system would see would be about 99.1 mph.

exactly. the 'cosine' error is small given the angles.

[Jordan 13]

I still don't see the problem - to use another analogy, if a car drove a 10000 miles in a straight line at a fixed speed, I could accurately measure its speed even if I only knew its position every 24-hours, or every week.

In your analogy...you have a large distance covered relative to a small amount of error in the measurement, thus having a relatively small range of error.

The slapshot is the exact opposite. You have a very small range of distance/time, measured with very innaccurate measurement of time. Remember the frame is a snapshot, you don't know if the contact of the puck occurred at the beginning, middle or end of the frame.

Bottom line, all of these very high slapshot estimates prior to radar regarding Hull (118) and Leach(115) prove the innaccuracy. Do you honestly think that no one would have replicated those types of speeds on radar if it were indeed possible?

Another way of looking at it is to use the 100 meter dash. When they switched from hand timing to automated timing, the times went up. That's because the reaction time of the timer led to error that was large relative to the time in the race.

Anyhow...that's how it works.

[BarDownGinos 3]

In your analogy...you have a large distance covered relative to a small amount of error in the measurement, thus having a relatively small range of error.

The slapshot is the exact opposite. You have a very small range of distance/time, measured with very innaccurate measurement. remember the frame is a snapshot, you don't know if the contact of the puck occurred at the beginning, middle or end of the frame.

Bottom line, all of these very high slapshot estimates prior to radar regarding Hull (118) and Leach(115) prove the innaccuracie. Do you honestly think that no one would have replicated those types of speeds on radar if it were indeed possible?

Another way of looking at it is to use the 100 meter dash. When they switched from hand timing to automated timing, the times went up. That's because the reaction time of the timer led to error that was large relative to the time in the race.

Anyhow...that's how it works.

It would be interesting to see what a guy like Chara could do with a Hull or Mikita type curve.

[Chadd 916]

I still don't see the problem - to use another analogy, if a car drove a 10000 miles in a straight line at a fixed speed, I could accurately measure its speed even if I only knew its position every 24-hours, or every week.

In our example, somewhere on either the 7th, 8th, or 9th frame, the puck will be captured in motion, at a determinable (to a reasonable approximation) distance from launch, and with a reasonably precise temporal relationship to launch time. If the number of frames after launch that the puck is seen is n, then the puck took (n*(1/framerate))seconds to travel that distance. So with known distance and time, what's the problem in determining velocity ?

If you're saying that the reason you can't the problem is inaccuracy in estimating distance, or framerate variability, that's fine, but different than saying the problem is framerate per se. However, even if our estimates either way is off by 5 or 10%, we should still be able to debunk the notion that the old-timers could shoot a puck almost 15% faster than the best modern athletes can.

The fact that the frame rate is inadequate for the task, regardless of how you want to parse it.

By the way, you also have the same problem for the release of the puck that you do for the end point that you are using for velocity computation. Now you have that same three frame variable at the start and end of the shot, making the whole thing even more difficult to figure.

As for the car analogy, you're constantly adding force to continue the velocity at a consistent level. In the case of a hockey puck being shot, it begins to slow down as soon as you stop applying force to it. The longer the shot, the slower it will be when compared to the initial velocity.

[wetwilly17 6]

The fact that the frame rate is inadequate for the task, regardless of how you want to parse it.

By the way, you also have the same problem for the release of the puck that you do for the end point that you are using for velocity computation. Now you have that same three frame variable at the start and end of the shot, making the whole thing even more difficult to figure.

As for the car analogy, you're constantly adding force to continue the velocity at a consistent level. In the case of a hockey puck being shot, it begins to slow down as soon as you stop applying force to it. The longer the shot, the slower it will be when compared to the initial velocity.

since you are already getting into calculations, its not hard to determine the initial speed of the puck if average speed is known and distance travelled.