News from the Draft combine

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

I've been making this point in a few threads... I agree, the less developed player has more potential.

That's a little overly simplistic though. Some people simply are gifted with more athletic and muscular bodies. It's not a given that a guy that's an average specimen today will be above average when he's an adult and in fact some may even decline with age depending on metabolism. You can argue that the player that is stronger and more fit will remain so for their career while the other player is unknown as there is no guarantee that he has the genetics nor the work ethic as he may be another Kyle Wellwood.

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's a little overly simplistic though. Some people simply are gifted with more athletic and muscular bodies. It's not a given that a guy that's an average specimen today will be above average when he's an adult and in fact some may even decline with age depending on metabolism. You can argue that the player that is stronger and more fit will remain so for their career while the other player is unknown as there is no guarantee that he has the genetics nor the work ethic.

Yes, totally agree...I was being overly simplistic intentionally, just to provide the viewpoint that performing worse in these tests could be a good thing...but it's totally circumstantial.

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

This may be best post in he history of this forum.

I truly hope 'pube in the tank' replaces 'post-apex' in the Flames vernacular.

Agreed, i will now pay homage to it in my sig.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blah blah

Most teams almost surely know full well some tests are much more useful than others and that some tests won't show things that can't be seen on the ice. A workhorse playing 25+ minutes in the CHL scoring well in the V02 max shouldn't really be surprising whereas a guy with far less ice time doing well in the test probably shows a commitment to fitness. A guy doing well in the pushup test to me mostly shows he's trained specifically for the test but I don't think it's a particularly useful thing to train to help on-ice performance.

Teams may be a bit more attracted to guys that score well in the physical testing overall because it shows they're committed to the off-ice work needed to be a pro and in some cases better natural abilities. On the flipside though, doing well in fitness testing could even occasionally be seen as a slight negative if you think a guy is older and/or more physically developed and currently dominating lesser competition just from being a bit of an early bloomer without the skill and physical improvement to step up as much as others.

The pushup test is obviously aimed at testing endurance, as is the bench press test. If they want to test strength they should test 1RM for the squat, deadlift and bench press.

I agree that the pushup test, as it is currently done is no indication at all as to what the on-ice performance will be like, which begs the question, why the bloody hell are they testing it?

NFL combine has the same problem as I pointed out before.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Squats for example are much more important than bench press or any upper body workout. The core is the foundation of an athlete. His first few strides, putting weight into shots, skating through interference, and laying big hits, etc are all improved as an athlete increases his core strength.

Martin St.Louis and Crosby for example don't have huge upper bodies but their legs and glutes are massive for their size and it's how they have been able to excel playing against bigger men. Upper body helps as well but more as a supplement to core strength. The biggest mistake you see with kids (guilty myself when young) is a big chest, arms and chicken legs as young guys tend to flock to bench and arm curls as it gives an appearance of strength even though a smaller upper body and stronger core will almost always yield the more powerful man.

So why are upper body movements being tested, while the squat, which is probably a staple of any NHL fitness program, is being being ignored?

The tests are obviously out of date.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

Yes, totally agree...I was being overly simplistic intentionally, just to provide the viewpoint that performing worse in these tests could be a good thing...but it's totally circumstantial.

I agree that a player that tests poorly can still develop and become much better than a player that tested well.

But if we are using the argument that these kids are so busy playing hockey that they can't do anything else, I then ask what will change when they make the NHL? The Memorial Cup is already over, while the NHL playoffs are still going. CHL players have way more off-time to train during the off-season.

[Stampede2TheCup]

Originally Posted by Azure

The pushup test is obviously aimed at testing endurance, as is the bench press test. If they want to test strength they should test 1RM for the squat, deadlift and bench press.

I agree that the pushup test, as it is currently done is no indication at all as to what the on-ice performance will be like, which begs the question, why the bloody hell are they testing it?

NFL combine has the same problem as I pointed out before.

Innovations highlighted NHL Scouting Combine

Despite much of the article being about improvements outside of the actual physical testing methods, it sounds like they're trying to innovate and improve all aspects of the combine. You'd think there are enough good trainers working with NHL teams and players to have good information, but I guess it depends on who has the final say and how much the better information is really sought out.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

I agree that a player that tests poorly can still develop and become much better than a player that tested well.

But if we are using the argument that these kids are so busy playing hockey that they can't do anything else, I then ask what will change when they make the NHL? The Memorial Cup is already over, while the NHL playoffs are still going. CHL players have way more off-time to train during the off-season.

They train a tonne but especially in their draft year they train at the rink working on being a better player.

[FurnaceFace]

For reference from 2009:

Special Workout Invitee - TSN Anchor Darren Dutchyshen

6:25 pm et

TSN SportsCentre anchor Darren Dutchyshen took his best shot at the same tests that the prospects did. Dutchyshen first weighed in at a robust 220 pounds, and for his first test, completed 29 push-ups. That total was about average when measured against the prospects, but is very impressive considering that Dutchyshen weighs more than most of the players. He did 10 or 11 sit-ups, although it's not known if all would have counted if the results were formally measured. His vertical jump was very good.

Dutchyshen's best event was the bench press, where he turned in 25 lifts of 150 pounds. That total was the best of the day, far better than the top prospect total of 17. Again, Dutchyshen has an advantage since his frame is fully developed, while the 18-year old prospects will still mature a lot in the next few years.

Upon completing the Wingate cycle test, one of the athletic trainers told Dutchyshen "you should take a lot of Advil - you're going to feel it tomorrow and the day after that".

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Azure

So why are upper body movements being tested, while the squat, which is probably a staple of any NHL fitness program, is being being ignored?

The tests are obviously out of date.

Probably because you can't do squats and the cycle test.

[edmontonice]

Would a player have any recourse if he were to be seriously injured at a combine? Are these events insured for things like that?

"Squats aren't safe"

[hesh329]

Originally Posted by Azure

So why are upper body movements being tested, while the squat, which is probably a staple of any NHL fitness program, is being being ignored?

The tests are obviously out of date.

The problem with squats is it would be too easy to have a serious back injury like a blown disk. The jump tests are a lot safer and more predictive then a 1 rm squat.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by hesh329

The problem with squats is it would be too easy to have a serious back injury like a blown disk. The jump tests are a lot safer and more predictive then a 1 rm squat.

NHL players squat all the time. Hardly a big deal to be able to expect them to squat with proper form without blowing a disk.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by edmontonice

Would a player have any recourse if he were to be seriously injured at a combine? Are these events insured for things like that?

"Squats aren't safe"

Squats are perfectly safe if done with proper form under the guidance of a trained coach.

[hesh329]

Originally Posted by Azure

NHL players squat all the time. Hardly a big deal to be able to expect them to squat with proper form without blowing a disk.

Squats are fine in a training environment but injuries are more likely to happen in a 1 rm testing setting. I think its more a situation of whats safer and more practical. Plus its a lot more time consuming. If your vertical jump tests give you the similar information then its just a matter of why risk it, Instead if a squat test i would like to see them add a 5-10-5 drill like the NFL combine.

[Azure]

On that part I agree. But the vertical jump tests fast twitch muscles and has nothing really to do with true strength.

The best measure of true strength for a hockey player WOULD be the squat. Perhaps they should do a modified version of the squat and go for best 3RM squat. Players that train the squat will know their limits.

[hesh329]

Originally Posted by Azure

On that part I agree. But the vertical jump tests fast twitch muscles and has nothing really to do with true strength.

The best measure of true strength for a hockey player WOULD be the squat. Perhaps they should do a modified version of the squat and go for best 3RM squat. Players that train the squat will know their limits.

Yes the squat is an excellent test for strength and the 3RM is a lot safer and there is probably nothing better for testing strength. I think an easier test would be a medball scoop throw or rotational Med ball throw. It's safer, easier to test, still has a component of strength and is a more sports specific type of drill. The problem with a 1 or even 3 RM drill is that most sports movements take far less time to develop then it takes to generate maximal strength.