NHL Combine (Bench Press) Numbers

Off Topic
81


Texas,

I do agree that the numbers are weak, but the arguments already presented are valid, such as these guys are likely about 17 years old and most likely no strength training experience (I disagree with coaches not pushing this earlier, but it is what it is).

Also, you mentioned these are weak numbers for guys coming into the league. Unlike football or basketball, it is usually 3 or 4 years before these guys make the NHL (if the do). The NHL draft is really a prospect draft rather than a rookie draft. The obvious exceptions are guys like Crosby, Staal and Malkin who can walk right into the league.

I realize this wasn’t your original comment, but in regards to the “light hitting”, Phil Esposito (of the Flyers fame) made a good comment a few years ago when asked about the NHLs crack down on hooking and interference. He said something along the lines of, ‘with the guys getting bigger and faster every year, I worried serious injuries’.

Finally as for your comment about “if they were tough, they wouldn’t get hurt”, being tough has nothing to do with avoiding injury, it has to do with playing and recovering from injury.

If you don’t think players play through injury, watch the media reports and you will see teams do not disclose injuries because the players play through them. Injuries are reported as “upper body” or “lower body” or not reported at all until the season is finished.

Oh yeah, some players look pretty good as well.
Rod Brind’Amour (6’ 1", 205lbs, August 1970).

82

[quote]texasguy wrote:
Steve4192 wrote:
texasguy wrote:

yeah but they are still big pussies. and that is funny.

Having a big bench press does not make you any less of a pussy.

Most professional combat athletes (boxers, kickboxers, MMA) put up pathetic numbers in the weight room too. Just because I can outbench 'em by 100 pounds doesn’t mean I hold any illusions about being able to kick their asses.

skill, agility, endurance and a certain mental toughness are all very important for mma. but so is strength. most good mma fighters do put up decent numbers in the weight room.

matt hughes, frank shamrock (not ken though he is strong and was very good before mma was “cool”) vitor belfort in his prime, rampage jackson, randleman, ortiz, pick almost any champion and they will be strong.

take the gracies as an example. they concentrate on skill and put very little emphasis on strength, and they have their asses handed to them now that the sport has blown up and attracts good, in shape and strong athletes.

now, the gracies may be able to kick your ass, yet against equally skilled but stronger opponents they lose.

these hockey guys may have great hockey skills, but they are the cream of the crop of the hocky world and it isn’t too far fetched to believe they would be obsolete if players with real strength who could also match their skill level came along. maybe then body checks would be fun to watch!

i don’t care who you are or what sport you play. if you can only bench 150 lbs ten times and be considered the top at that, the sport has problems. (and people have suggested age and high school. by the time you graduate high school, if you are an athlete, you should be benching more than this.)

hockey has definately shown itself to NOT be a testosterone sport after this tidbit of information.

i’d put it with golf and tennis myself.

[/quote]

If you stepped on the Ice, you’d be killed. I played DIV 3 college hockey and we had plenty of guys benching 300 plus for reps.

83

I dont see what a bench press has to do with hockey. I cant really think of any movements that would require an unusually strong pressing chain.

Its like going to a powerlifting competition and calling them “big pussies” because they cant run a mile in under 8 minutes, or that your doctor doesn’t know enough about taxes.

Different goals require different skill sets; I just dont see how a strong bench press would be important to a hockey player. I think its a stupid test, given the circumstances.

84

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Oh, yeah, you’re right. Hockey players aren’t tough at all.

stop now before you look like even more of a dumbass. [/quote]

I got another one

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459454

weak?? lol

85

[quote]Steve4192 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
texasguy wrote:

the hockey and lacrosse players were indeed the kids who couldn’t hack it in other sports.

I am sure that is the case … in Texas.

My fellow americans have a tendency to forget that football is a strictly american sport. Baseball is pretty much limited to the US, South/Central America, and the Pacific Rim. Of the ‘Big Three’ American sports, basketball is the only one that is truly global.

Meanwhile, Hockey is pretty much played in every nation north of the 40th parallel, and is the primary sport in Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and most of the former Soviet countries. The best athletes in those countries all play hockey and have never stepped foot on a gridiron or baseball diamond.[/quote]

I wished I could find that link about some russian hoeckey players and their weight numbers. That ratio is insane compared to any other sports. The site was I believe even in english so do some search.

86

[quote]Man O’ War wrote:
texasguy wrote:
but ok fine. forget golf and tennis. hockey is on a level with soccer. except soccer players only pad their shins and very thinly, so hockey is actually a step behind.

That ice thing they play on is pretty hard. Perhaps that might be the reason for the padding!?!?!?!

It’s true that the numbers reported are laughable, but I’d still take any guy with skill over a guy with strength. Especially if the strength isn’t that transferrable to the game.
[/quote]

right, but the thread is about how weak they are. and that is the funny point that so many people are offended about. then they go on to say they’d take skill over strength any day in a thread about strength on a site about strength.

the numbers the players put up are weak and funny for pro athletes. that is all.

the defense of the sport hints that it is a weak sport as everyone seems to go with “skill over strength”, which is fine but the players are still weak.

87

[quote]texasguy wrote:
Man O’ War wrote:
texasguy wrote:
but ok fine. forget golf and tennis. hockey is on a level with soccer. except soccer players only pad their shins and very thinly, so hockey is actually a step behind.

That ice thing they play on is pretty hard. Perhaps that might be the reason for the padding!?!?!?!

It’s true that the numbers reported are laughable, but I’d still take any guy with skill over a guy with strength. Especially if the strength isn’t that transferrable to the game.

right, but the thread is about how weak they are. and that is the funny point that so many people are offended about. then they go on to say they’d take skill over strength any day in a thread about strength on a site about strength.

the numbers the players put up are weak and funny for pro athletes. that is all.

the defense of the sport hints that it is a weak sport as everyone seems to go with “skill over strength”, which is fine but the players are still weak. [/quote]

I don’t know what you were expecting from 17 year olds who spend all their time training for a skill sport.

You’re probably stronger in the bench press than figure skaters, speed skaters, and soccer players.

Also, there was a set cadence for the bench press, unlike the NFL. It likely allowed for quite a few less sloppy reps the way the NFL players will bang them out. It’s a different test in that way.

88

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
Also, you mentioned these are weak numbers for guys coming into the league. Unlike football or basketball, it is usually 3 or 4 years before these guys make the NHL (if the do). The NHL draft is really a prospect draft rather than a rookie draft. The obvious exceptions are guys like Crosby, Staal and Malkin who can walk right into the league.

I realize this wasn’t your original comment, but in regards to the “light hitting”, Phil Esposito (of the Flyers fame) made a good comment a few years ago when asked about the NHLs crack down on hooking and interference. He said something along the lines of, ‘with the guys getting bigger and faster every year, I worried serious injuries’.

Rod Brind’Amour (6’ 1", 205lbs, August 1970). [/quote]

just a couple things, malkin was drafted the same year as Ovechkin, so it was 2 years before he played a season in the show. Yeah bad example, that’s all.

Phil E. didn’t play for the flyers!!! :slight_smile: Bruins and rangers… (and I guess the hawks)

That pic of rod was last summer too, for anyone thinking the pic is 30 years old. August 1970 was his birthdate!

89

texasguy you’re an idiot.

90

[quote]StevenF wrote:
texasguy you’re an idiot. [/quote]

StevenF, 150 lbs for a max of 11 reps is piss poor and funny.

if that offends you, log off and hit the gym promptly. you have work to do.

91

I can tell you that those guys don’t have a lot of extra time. Lots of them live with sponsor families, go to school, have jobs and other commitments.

Sports up here is different then the US. The only time you see people in the stands are parents of young kids or if you have a near pro hockey team. We don’t have the sports culture that the US does. Basically, if you don’t have a change at making the NHL, you figure you will be a working person.

So if they have time to workout then they do, but it isn’t the most important if you have tight timelines. They are out there working on the skills to make them a better hockey player. The best hockey player in teh world, is probably the weakest, Wayne Gretzky. He has the skills and knowledge to make him the best.

92

[quote]texasguy wrote:
i am from texas, but i wouldn’t consider myself ignorant about hockey. i went to a suburban school with lots of funding and we had odd sports for a texas school, including ice hockey, lacrosse and a few others.

the hockey and lacrosse players were indeed the kids who couldn’t hack it in other sports. hockey isn’t as big here as else where, but they looked like pussies to me and these poor bench numbers reinforce that. a few exceptions don’t make the rule. [/quote]

(Apologies to all the others out there who are wrestlers, just making a point about how easy it is to rip on any sport using silly arguments.)

Hmmmm. And we could all say wrestling is a sport for pussies who want to roll around with other sweaty men, who are too slow to play a stand up sport, too stupid to play a complex sport like football, too uncoordinated to handle a ball or swing a bat, and too socially undeveloped and childish to play on a team. But we won’t.

Wow, you made state in a sport not even 1% of the high schools in Texas compete. Cheers for you! Yes in Texas wrestling is top dog and attracts all the best athletes, not a third rate sport like hockey that only attracts the athletes at preppy suburban schools who couldn’t hack it in the big three. LOL.

And as already mentioned, hockey IS king in lots of countries around the world and even parts of the USA.

If the mentioned set cadence is true, then they probably could do triple the reps “NFL style”. Still not great but not as horrible as first appear.

And what is with your avatar photo?

93

[quote]texasguy wrote:
StevenF wrote:
texasguy you’re an idiot.

StevenF, 150 lbs for a max of 11 reps is piss poor and funny.

if that offends you, log off and hit the gym promptly. you have work to do. [/quote]

Texasguy,

Please explain why any of these hockey players should take time off from their training to improve their hockey skills just so they can train their bench press.

It simply makes no sense to judge them based on that, since its not something that will help them reach their goal (being the best hockey player they can be).

94

I don’t know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but in hockey everyone is a skill player. Comparing the numbers from a lineman to a hockey player doesn’t make sense. Every hockey player has to be the equivalent of a quarterback, a safety, and a receiver. A fairer comparison of strength would be the squats of the 17 year old hockey players to 17 year old QBs.

95

I don’t really give a shit what everyones opinions on hockey as a sport are.

150 lbs for 10 reps is weak and funny. especially when the reporter says they really ripped it up.

if that is offensive, eat a hockey puck.

it’s pussy weight.

96

[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
texasguy wrote:
i am from texas, but i wouldn’t consider myself ignorant about hockey. i went to a suburban school with lots of funding and we had odd sports for a texas school, including ice hockey, lacrosse and a few others.

the hockey and lacrosse players were indeed the kids who couldn’t hack it in other sports. hockey isn’t as big here as else where, but they looked like pussies to me and these poor bench numbers reinforce that. a few exceptions don’t make the rule.

(Apologies to all the others out there who are wrestlers, just making a point about how easy it is to rip on any sport using silly arguments.)

Hmmmm. And we could all say wrestling is a sport for pussies who want to roll around with other sweaty men, who are too slow to play a stand up sport, too stupid to play a complex sport like football, too uncoordinated to handle a ball or swing a bat, and too socially undeveloped and childish to play on a team. But we won’t.

Wow, you made state in a sport not even 1% of the high schools in Texas compete. Cheers for you! Yes in Texas wrestling is top dog and attracts all the best athletes, not a third rate sport like hockey that only attracts the athletes at preppy suburban schools who couldn’t hack it in the big three. LOL.

And as already mentioned, hockey IS king in lots of countries around the world and even parts of the USA.

If the mentioned set cadence is true, then they probably could do triple the reps “NFL style”. Still not great but not as horrible as first appear.

And what is with your avatar photo?

[/quote]

i’d like to see the source for your statistic, and also remind you that texas has the population of three or four pennsylvanias, probably 30 rhode islands and at least 3 or 4 typical midwest states.

a lower percentage of wrestlers doesn’t make lower numbers. we also spent most of our time in invitationals with private schools, which skew your statistics.

in the off season, we traveled in freestyle and grecco roman clubs to wrestle other states and did pretty well.

mma is a big thing, in houston at least among all age groups.

and i did play football for a school that won state twice while i was starting at corner back. 5A, and football is huge in texas. I also played baseball.

if you are questioning my athleticism, don’t your worry your red ass. it is well rounded.

hockey is still gay and 150 lbs for ten reps as a max is still weak. try to argue that.

97

Like speed skaters I bet hockey players have a pretty high reliance on the leg press. But I honestly don’t believe this article. One sentence implies that a future pro 225lb athlete repped 150lbs on the bench press for 11 reps. I’d like to think this is all a horrible mistake and all the numbers are kilograms.

Or maybe this is a scouting article for private colleges in French Canada or private schools that have awful hockey programs. I just refuse to believe there are hockey players out there or MMA fighters or any male athletes getting paid to play a contact sport that can’t put up better numbers for a 150lb bench press rep test.

You gotta have more upper body strength that what this article suggests if you’re going to be able to rotate your shoulders and skate for speed.

98

[quote]texasguy wrote:
I don’t really give a shit what everyones opinions on hockey as a sport are.

150 lbs for 10 reps is weak and funny. especially when the reporter says they really ripped it up.

if that is offensive, eat a hockey puck.

it’s pussy weight. [/quote]

So they have a weak bench.

They should care because… uh… because it makes people on the internet call them mean names?

Come the fuck on dude. A hockey player shouldn’t care about his bench numbers.

99

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
texasguy wrote:
I don’t really give a shit what everyones opinions on hockey as a sport are.

150 lbs for 10 reps is weak and funny. especially when the reporter says they really ripped it up.

if that is offensive, eat a hockey puck.

it’s pussy weight.

So they have a weak bench.

They should care because… uh… because it makes people on the internet call them mean names?

Come the fuck on dude. A hockey player shouldn’t care about his bench numbers.
[/quote]
that is really not the point. this thread is getting ridiculous. i didn’t realize so many people would be so offended at the hilarity of the comment “really ripping it up” over such piss poor numbers.

it’s just funny. get over hockey. those numbers are weak.

i seriously question yours and others strength. you being weak yourself is the only logical explanation for your level of offense.

100

[quote]texasguy wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
texasguy wrote:
I don’t really give a shit what everyones opinions on hockey as a sport are.

150 lbs for 10 reps is weak and funny. especially when the reporter says they really ripped it up.

if that is offensive, eat a hockey puck.

it’s pussy weight.

So they have a weak bench.

They should care because… uh… because it makes people on the internet call them mean names?

Come the fuck on dude. A hockey player shouldn’t care about his bench numbers.

that is really not the point. this thread is getting ridiculous. i didn’t realize so many people would be so offended at the hilarity of the comment “really ripping it up” over such piss poor numbers.

it’s just funny. get over hockey. those numbers are weak.

i seriously question yours and others strength. you being weak yourself is the only logical explanation for your level of offense.
[/quote]

I’m not offended. I just dont see the rational of judging hockey players on their bench press. Will having a bigger bench make them better players? No. So why make a test that doesnt reflect the sport?

Like I said earlier, why not test powerlifters for their one mile run time? Same concept.

You’re just complaining about a really stupid thing.