jmog wrote:

NNN wrote: How many NHLers can jog or sprint for extended periods of time?

And how many non-NHLers can even stand up on skates, let alone skate at a speed 1.5 to 2 times as fast as what even a top-level athlete can sprint?* **

*Mike Gartner holds the NHL record for fastest lap at 13.386 seconds. An NHL rink is 200 feet long and 85 feet wide, which would mean that he would have covered 570 feet in less than 14 seconds after beginning in a stopped position. This gives us a figure of 42.6 ft/s, which comes out to roughly 29 MPH. Obviously Gartner didn't skate along the outermost perimeter of the rink, but there are four turns that he had to make, so I don't think that you can knock him on that basis. Going straight ahead over a distance, he'd probably average 30 MPH.

**Usain Bolt holds the record in the 100 meters with a time of 9.58 seconds. This comes out to 34.24 ft/s (328 feet = 100 meters), which is roughly 23.3 MPH.***

***Even the most middling NHL skater could achieve a 16.6-second lap, which would equal Bolt's sprinting speed. Except, of course, it's done on a 1/4"-wide piece of metal.

You obviously don't understand physics if you are arguing that they are better athletes because they move faster on ice skates than people can run.

Um...the coefficient of friction on ice is much less than any other typical ground surface like grass, track, asphalt, etc.

So, it takes less physical energy or force to get someone moving faster on ice than on the ground.

So no crap sherlock, people can move faster on ice than on the ground. You aren't winning a Nobel Prize for that revelation.

I've always said that hockey players are amazing athletes being able to do their sport on skates, but the fact that the speed they move is faster than people can run has zero to do with their athleticism and more to do with physics.

jmog wrote:
I'd bet that someone who could really hit like me in HS, wouldn't bat .100 against a pro pitcher, and the .100 (1 hit in 10 ABs) would probably be luck.

jmog wrote: You obviously don't understand physics if you are arguing that they are better athletes because they move faster on ice skates than people can run.

Um...the coefficient of friction on ice is much less than any other typical ground surface like grass, track, asphalt, etc.

So, it takes less physical energy or force to get someone moving faster on ice than on the ground.

So no crap sherlock, people can move faster on ice than on the ground. You aren't winning a Nobel Prize for that revelation.

I've always said that hockey players are amazing athletes being able to do their sport on skates, but the fact that the speed they move is faster than people can run has zero to do with their athleticism and more to do with physics.

NNN wrote: ...

**Usain Bolt holds the record in the 100 meters with a time of 9.58 seconds. This comes out to 34.24 ft/s (328 feet = 100 meters), which is roughly 23.3 MPH.***

...

NNN wrote:

jmog wrote: You obviously don't understand physics if you are arguing that they are better athletes because they move faster on ice skates than people can run.

Um...the coefficient of friction on ice is much less than any other typical ground surface like grass, track, asphalt, etc.

So, it takes less physical energy or force to get someone moving faster on ice than on the ground.

So no crap sherlock, people can move faster on ice than on the ground. You aren't winning a Nobel Prize for that revelation.

I've always said that hockey players are amazing athletes being able to do their sport on skates, but the fact that the speed they move is faster than people can run has zero to do with their athleticism and more to do with physics.

Considering that that wasn't my point, this all kind of goes for naught. When considering issues related to force and momentum across all sports, the actual acceleration and velocity of a 200-plus pound hockey player makes an enormous difference.

Personally, I'd love to calculate the actual force of this collision here and compare to some of the great hits in NFL history:

cbus4life wrote: I think Jeff Gordon is one of the best athletes ever because he can get around a track a lot faster in his sport than Bolt can in his. And, by extension, NASCAR probably has the best athletes, or at least should be heavily considered, IMO.

sleeper wrote: You could put a 200 pound stone on skates and have it be as athletic as a hockey player.

Seriously, can we stop putting Hockey in this thread? I can see junk sports like soccer and wrestling being in here, but hockey? Come on man.

cbus4life wrote: I think Jeff Gordon is one of the best athletes ever because he can get around a track a lot faster in his sport than Bolt can in his. And, by extension, NASCAR probably has the best athletes, or at least should be heavily considered, IMO.

The_Crosby_Show wrote:

sleeper wrote: You could put a 200 pound stone on skates and have it be as athletic as a hockey player.

Seriously, can we stop putting Hockey in this thread? I can see junk sports like soccer and wrestling being in here, but hockey? Come on man.

Really? Uhm, no.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Hockey should be thrown out, a foreign object increases their ability (skates).

jmog wrote: Your whole post was about how fast they can skate vs people running on land, and this is a topic on which sport had better athletes.

So, anyone using logic would believe you were using your post as evidence that hockey players were better athletes.

So once again, my post stands and yours was retarded.

NNN wrote:
Greater speed = less reaction time

We can talk about the fact that goalies don between 15 and 30 pounds of equipment and have to stop pucks that are launched at speeds that are right at the same level as an MLB fastball. We can talk about the fact that hockey is predicated on playing the game while skating (which, by virtue of the prime movers involved, is truly an unnatural motion). We can talk about the fact that a single shift is between a 45-60 second sprint and that the top defensemen average about 27 minutes a night.

I'm not going to knock football, but a 60-minute game averages about 12 minutes of actual playing time due to the clock rules being what they are. Hockey is 60 minutes of actual play, with each shift being the equal of between 10-15 football plays in duration and exertion.

jmog wrote: If you want to say being an NHL goalie is harder than being a MLB catcher, I'll buy it.

However, a goalie is MUCH easier than hitting in MLB, period, and you're a moron if you say otherwise.

Proof is in the statistics...

The best MLB hitters are successful (get a hit) only 30% of the time (bating 0.300).

The worst NHL goalies do better than 90% saves, heck, if a goalie is worse than 90% he's fired.

Catching/blocking (like a goalie or catcher in baseball) is 100 times easier than hitting.

Now, if the goalie was only allowed to use his stick and nothing else to block shots, then it might be close...but still the curveball in baseball would be harder.