|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 23, 2008 12:24:26 GMT -5
Throw a 29 yr old Gordie Howe into a time-machine and equip him with today's best and he'll have a hard time making an NHL 3rd line. I'm convinced of it. In general I agree that todays athletes are better trained, skilled, stronger and faster. They are in every way superior to the players of 50 years ago. Howe is an exception who scored more at age 45 than at age 20. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jun 23, 2008 13:44:18 GMT -5
Howe is an exception who scored more at age 45 than at age 20. ....in the extremely watered-down WHL playing top-line minutes with sons Mark (star-in-the-making) and Marty. Gordie, of course, was an exception...he DID make it back into the NHL for one more very successful season in Hartford...he was 51...but make no mistake, he was VERY "molly-coddled" at the time. Howe was a superior athlete in his time....in HIS time. Again, the sheer speed alone of today's NHL would see a young Howe left-in-the-dust....heck, my all-time fave Guy Lafleur would even have trouble making 1st-line RW. Humans keep getting bigger, stronger and faster; they're better equipped, play on better surfaces, are better councilled, coached, commuted, conditioned, fed...better, better, better...and in our game of hockey, and arguably moreso than any other sport on earth, these factors become more and more prevalent. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 23, 2008 14:03:15 GMT -5
they're better equipped, play on better surfaces, are better councilled, coached, commuted, conditioned, fed...better, better, better...and in our game of hockey, and arguably moreso than any other sport on earth, these factors become more and more prevalent. So if Gordie Howe and Guy Lafleur were better equipped, played on better surfaces, were better councilled, coached, commuted, conditioned, fed...better, better, better... how good would they have been? Talent comparison, were they inferior to today's stars? |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jun 23, 2008 14:31:30 GMT -5
Talent comparison, were they inferior to today's stars? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 23, 2008 15:29:39 GMT -5
Talent comparison, were they inferior to today's stars? Yes. I agree, but it's not just coddling. I learned to play hockey alone, on an outdoor rink, playing with guys my own age, younger and older; whoever showed up. I like to fondly remember that I left the house an 8:00am and didn't come back in until 10:00pm when they watered the rink. Truth is, the rink opened in January after a week of cold days when the ice was strong enough and closed in March after the ice turned to slosh. In between there were warm weeks when the ice melted, occasional rain or snowstorm that dumped 3 feet on the rink. Our season was short and coaching was whoever's father came out. Today there are trained professional coaches, skating drills, power skating, shooting, puck control, three on two's all year long. Ice usage is maximized by utilizing every corner of the rink for skill development. When I watch Gordie Howe skate and then compare him to the skilled Crosby, Ovetchkin and Malkins I regret that I see a big gap. Look at Utube and you see hundreds of tricks that Howe would never attempt. I admit that I like John Ferguson/Gordie Howe smashmouth style of hockey, but for pure skill and speed the kids of today are miles ahead. John and Fergy had intangibles, desire, respect, hard work and no fear. If Stamkos put the puck between his legs to beat a goaltender, Howe would give him a backwards impression of CCM on his forehead and Fergy would interrupt his celebration. Truth is, todays kids are much more skilled at a higher speed. Give Fergy a new one piece stick and you would be pulling fiberglass out from your front teeth, but it wouldn't turn him into Crosby. (You can probably extend the season in Floral Sask and shrink it in Toronna, but our hockey seasons were augmented by harvesting in summer) |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 23, 2008 20:02:22 GMT -5
Howe is an exception who scored more at age 45 than at age 20. ....in the extremely watered-down WHL playing top-line minutes with sons Mark (star-in-the-making) and Marty. Gordie, of course, was an exception...he DID make it back into the NHL for one more very successful season in Hartford...he was 51...but make no mistake, he was VERY "molly-coddled" at the time. Howe was a superior athlete in his time....in HIS time. Again, the sheer speed alone of today's NHL would see a young Howe left-in-the-dust....heck, my all-time fave Guy Lafleur would even have trouble making 1st-line RW. Humans keep getting bigger, stronger and faster; they're better equipped, play on better surfaces, are better councilled, coached, commuted, conditioned, fed...better, better, better...and in our game of hockey, and arguably moreso than any other sport on earth, these factors become more and more prevalent. Maybe not Guy, CO. Shutt, I think ... but Guy? |
|
|
|
Post by halihab on Jun 23, 2008 22:15:27 GMT -5
For the record I DO watch golf. I am from a golfing family, so it's been in my blood since 3 years old.
I would just like to say Skilly, that I disagree with you 100%. Tigers Woods is already the best golfer to ever swing a club. You say that he has no competition and that the players of today's era are not as competitive as Nicklaus' era. Tiger is so far ahead of everyone else that it just appears that way. The PGA player's of today are far superior to the 60's to 80's it's scary. Sure they have better equipment and hit the ball alot further, but remember they are also playing 7500 yard courses that are much tougher than the 50's 60's and 70's etc. Tiger Woods is one of a kind and I enjoy watching him win tournaments every week. I must say that I am a big fan of Tiger Woods, not just because he wins more than the others, but because of his dedication to the game, his mental game and his fearless attitude.
By the way I did watch the playoff and the last few holes when he needed a big drive down the gun he did it and he did grimace. Not just on bad shots. I've watched Nicklaus, Watson (my favorite) and Trevino and there is no comparison skill wise.
After his surgery to finally repair the knee properly, it's hard to believe how many tournaments he will win before he is 40.
p.s. Guy Lafleur is my favorite Habs, but I do believe that Crosby or Ovechkin are superior to him skill wise. It's just the way it is, athlete's are bigger and stronger and more skilled today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 24, 2008 14:48:47 GMT -5
I remember Elaine Tanner swimming for Canada and winning lots of medals. Her times would not get her to the finals of the California State championships. 4 minute mile would not qualify for most countries Olympic teams. Bill Russel, the great center for the Celtics would be a short power forward looking on in awe as Kobe (yech!) blows by him. Golfers that aimed for the middle of the fairway would be regularly drubbed by todays pros who aim for specific locations for second shots.
I miss the good old days when gasoline was $0.39 a gallon and the Texaco station pumped your gas and gave away beachballs if you bought more than $2.00. The cars had am radios, carbs, three on a tree, side vent windows instead of airconditioning, body on frame and stretched longer and lower than todays garages can hold. Today we have cars with over 180,000 miles on the odometer and they are better performing than the old cars.
I miss the Rocket, Gros Bill, Butch Bouchard (when Butch meant tough GUY), but acknowledge that todays athletes are better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 24, 2008 16:11:16 GMT -5
, but acknowledge that todays athletes are better. No where did I say they weren't ..... I said they were not as competitive. There is a huge difference. Sure they are better. They hit is further mainly due to equipment mind you (Tiger may be excluded, who knows). Nicklaus did not have a 460cc Titanium high MOI weighted driver. Earlier in his career he had an actual 3-wood. Today announcers make the specific distinction to call it a 3-metal. There were no hybrids, no balata balls, no core wound balls ... etc etc... But back then more golfers won ... more golfers were competitive. You can hold the opinion that Tiger is that good, and I can have the opinion that the rest of the field is just not as good ..... the athleticism has nothing to do with it. Kenny Perry isn't exactly carry ripple abs and he wins occasionally (as does Daly) ....... more golfers are becoming "true athletes" (led by Tiger) but just because they concentrate on diet and exercise routines doesn't make them competitive. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 24, 2008 17:11:13 GMT -5
Except the technology is available to everyone, not just Tiger Woods. It's still a level playing field, and the end of it is that one guy (Tiger) has improved quicker than the field. Partly by using technology, partly with his talent and skill.
Not that the argument isn't without merit, I just have a hard time believing that Tiger wins so much because everyone else sucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by halihab on Jun 24, 2008 20:54:16 GMT -5
Except the technology is available to everyone, not just Tiger Woods. It's still a level playing field, and the end of it is that one guy (Tiger) has improved quicker than the field. Partly by using technology, partly with his talent and skill. Not that the argument isn't without merit, I just have a hard time believing that Tiger wins so much because everyone else sucks. You are right Redskull. It's much more difficult to obtain your PGA tour card today than it was 25 years ago. Wonder why that is ?  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 25, 2008 16:51:30 GMT -5
Except the technology is available to everyone, not just Tiger Woods. It's still a level playing field, and the end of it is that one guy (Tiger) has improved quicker than the field. Partly by using technology, partly with his talent and skill. Not that the argument isn't without merit, I just have a hard time believing that Tiger wins so much because everyone else sucks. You are right Redskull. It's much more difficult to obtain your PGA tour card today than it was 25 years ago. Wonder why that is ? And you come to this conclusion based on what? Q school is still Q school..... and back in Nicklaus' era (oh btw, I dont like Nicklaus either, my favourite golfer was Tom Watson and Payne Stewart) they didnt have all these other tours where you can earn your card (Nationwide, for example, the top 25 golfers earn their card) ... so from where I sit, it is actually easier, since you have more ways, now. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 25, 2008 17:04:37 GMT -5
Except the technology is available to everyone, not just Tiger Woods. It's still a level playing field, and the end of it is that one guy (Tiger) has improved quicker than the field. Partly by using technology, partly with his talent and skill. Not that the argument isn't without merit, I just have a hard time believing that Tiger wins so much because everyone else sucks. Yes, but the technology is made for Tiger .... then the PGA approves it. (the Nike SQ driver for instance.... was not PGA approved, then 460cc driver were allowed). I'm not saying that Tiger is bad ... he is a great talent. But look at the technology now. They have weights to enhance/correct your draw/fade.... didnt have them back in the 60's/70's. Also look at the rulings Tiger gets ..... now, not that he gets them often, but he is given the benefit of the doubt more than other golfers when it comes to free drops/rulings. I am an RCGA rules official, and the most famous decision they show us in the seminars is the "loose impediment" ruling that Tiger got a few years back. His ball was behind a huge boulder. The boulder was about 200lbs .... Tiger asked if it was a loose impediment. The rule is that if it is imbedded and can not be easily moved it is not a loose impediment. The rules official said if you can move it, it is a loose impediment. Tiger got 50 spectators to move it. No one else gets that ruling. Then in the US Open this year. Tiger put his drive behind the TV tower. The rules official said Tiger gets relief "at his option" to the left or right of the tower. Wrong. Tiger was suppose to get relief at the nearest point that gave him relief from the existing condition. There is no option. The nearest point is the nearest point. Tiger took relief away from the trees, when in fact his nearest point was into the trees. Now, Tiger doesn't need rules applied often .... and I am not saying that these incidents showcase that the officials make him better than he is ... but it does make me wonder why the officials seem to give Tiger "more leeway" (for lack of a better word). But my original point that I didnt convey properly was that Tiger sacrificed this year for the US Open ... and now he has to have surgery which may jeopardize his career. Was it worth it .... it seems alot to sacrifice to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 26, 2008 15:46:42 GMT -5
Except the technology is available to everyone, not just Tiger Woods. It's still a level playing field, and the end of it is that one guy (Tiger) has improved quicker than the field. Partly by using technology, partly with his talent and skill. Not that the argument isn't without merit, I just have a hard time believing that Tiger wins so much because everyone else sucks. Yes, but the technology is made for Tiger .... then the PGA approves it. (the Nike SQ driver for instance.... was not PGA approved, then 460cc driver were allowed). I'm not saying that Tiger is bad ... he is a great talent. But look at the technology now. They have weights to enhance/correct your draw/fade.... didnt have them back in the 60's/70's. Also look at the rulings Tiger gets ..... now, not that he gets them often, but he is given the benefit of the doubt more than other golfers when it comes to free drops/rulings. I am an RCGA rules official, and the most famous decision they show us in the seminars is the "loose impediment" ruling that Tiger got a few years back. His ball was behind a huge boulder. The boulder was about 200lbs .... Tiger asked if it was a loose impediment. The rule is that if it is imbedded and can not be easily moved it is not a loose impediment. The rules official said if you can move it, it is a loose impediment. Tiger got 50 spectators to move it. No one else gets that ruling. Then in the US Open this year. Tiger put his drive behind the TV tower. The rules official said Tiger gets relief "at his option" to the left or right of the tower. Wrong. Tiger was suppose to get relief at the nearest point that gave him relief from the existing condition. There is no option. The nearest point is the nearest point. Tiger took relief away from the trees, when in fact his nearest point was into the trees. Now, Tiger doesn't need rules applied often .... and I am not saying that these incidents showcase that the officials make him better than he is ... but it does make me wonder why the officials seem to give Tiger "more leeway" (for lack of a better word). But my original point that I didnt convey properly was that Tiger sacrificed this year for the US Open ... and now he has to have surgery which may jeopardize his career. Was it worth it .... it seems alot to sacrifice to me. If I was Tigers agent and another agency wanted me to trade him away; how many new PGA cardholder draft choices would I ask for? One of the few knocks against Rocket Richard was that he played in an era when all the best players were off fighting WW2. Does Kobe have less competition than Michael Jordan did? Did Wilt score all his points against much shorter players? It is impossible to directly compare Tiger and Jack any more than Alexander and Napoleon. Different eras. By now my Alzheimers has forgotten what the original comment was; I just figure if it's between Skilly and me, Ryder must be in there somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 26, 2008 15:49:10 GMT -5
I religiously watch golf ... and religiously cheer against Tiger. I don't want to sound like I am happy he is hurt, but it looks good on him. If it was any other tournament he would have pulled himself out of the tournament before the end of Round 1 ... but he is so concerned about beating Sam Snead's most victories and Jack Nicklaus' most majors that he risked even greater injury. In Round 1, he was lifting his front leg to try to dampen the pain .... ... every good shot it was "Tiger finds a way" .. every bad shot it was blamed on the leg. It was sickening coverage. And it was just a coincidence that Tiger only grimaced on the bad shots ...  I said when I was watching that he is risking the entire year (and 2 more majors) for the sake of one major ... oh but it was the US Open , the grand-daddy of them all ... whatever ... By my estimate there was only 2 people in the entire universe cheering for Tiger on Monday - Elin and his mother. Next time Eldrick, listen to the doctors and not your ego. Oh yeah, now I remember! This sounds like a leafs broadcase on the CBC, except the leafs always lose. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 18, 2008 9:53:49 GMT -5
Yesterday's sports update on the Fan 590 began like this:
"The British Open is underway....and the field is wide-open seeing as there's no Tiger Woods this year....."
I almost threw something.
It's the same everywhere.
Headlines on the internet such as: "Wide-open field looking for major championship at Tiger-free British Open."
Phrases such as: "Adam Scott and Justin Rose, friends since they were teenagers and top contenders in this British Open without Tiger Woods,"
I can see an asterisk beside the winners' names in every tournament this year.
*Tiger Woods did not play. So, it really isn't that big of an accomplishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jul 18, 2008 10:03:06 GMT -5
Yesterday's sports update on the Fan 590 began like this: "The British Open is underway....and the field is wide-open seeing as there's no Tiger Woods this year....."I almost threw something. It's the same everywhere. Headlines on the internet such as: "Wide-open field looking for major championship at Tiger-free British Open."Phrases such as: "Adam Scott and Justin Rose, friends since they were teenagers and top contenders in this British Open without Tiger Woods," I can see an asterisk beside the winners' names in every tournament this year. *Tiger Woods did not play. So, it really isn't that big of an accomplishment.When the best player in the world isn't playing, it makes a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 18, 2008 10:04:35 GMT -5
When the best player in the world isn't playing, it makes a difference. Apparently......  Mostly to ratings. Which says a lot about the game IMO. Everyone else is treated somewhat like chopped liver....i.e. grouped together as "a wide open field". |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jul 18, 2008 10:13:44 GMT -5
When the best player in the world isn't playing, it makes a difference. Apparently...... Mostly to ratings. Which says a lot about the game IMO. Everyone else is treated somewhat like chopped liver....i.e. grouped together as "a wide open field". If 2 years ago Federer didn't show up at Wimbledon (not so much now because Nadal has gotten immeasurably better), you would hear the same thing for that. I think it would be a bit bitter sweet to win a major while not competing against the best of the best, but in 50 years nobody will remember that Woods was injured. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 18, 2008 12:17:56 GMT -5
When the best player in the world isn't playing, it makes a difference. Apparently...... Mostly to ratings. Which says a lot about the game IMO. Everyone else is treated somewhat like chopped liver....i.e. grouped together as "a wide open field". Which brings me back to my arguement .... no competition. If Nicklaus missed a major they'd still have Watson, Player, Trevino, Lyle, Stewart .... the list goes on. Because the competition was better. Nowadays the media treat "the field" as one player ... Tiger vs the field .... which goes to my point that he has no competition. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jul 18, 2008 14:43:19 GMT -5
Apparently...... Mostly to ratings. Which says a lot about the game IMO. Everyone else is treated somewhat like chopped liver....i.e. grouped together as "a wide open field". Which brings me back to my arguement .... no competition. If Nicklaus missed a major they'd still have Watson, Player, Trevino, Lyle, Stewart .... the list goes on. Because the competition was better. Nowadays the media treat "the field" as one player ... Tiger vs the field .... which goes to my point that he has no competition. While I understand your point, there's no way of evaluating strength of competition in golf. As far as I (or anyone else) knows, Watson, Player et al. are no better than their modern equivalents in Mickelson, Garcia, whoever. Could use Occam's razor on this one, but I'm not even sure which is a simpler explanation. One guy is really good, or everyone sucks. |
|
