Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from matttt87. Show matttt87's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]Soxfan, my point isn't about the twine or that it was the hardest shot ever (the twine could have been frayed easily). It was more about physics. If you get a puck, and have great timing and can connect with it with a one-timer while it's half a centimetre or more above the ice and moving (moving gives it more kinetic engery on the reconnect than a still puck, and off the ice gives it less friction on which to lose that kinetic energy) then the puck will move faster. Basic phyisics, but it comes down to execution, and the circumstances of off the ice and with existing energy can't happen in a hardest shot compeition. In game, if you have the execution, you should be able to shoot it harder, given the proper circumstance. Think of it this way - if I'm standing in the high slot and Marc Savard feathers me a pass from the half boards that floats over the ice by half an inch and I connect with it perfectly with a one-timer, that puck will travel faster than a puck that was unmoving and in direct contact with the ice that I hit with the exact same shot from the exact same position on the ice.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    I'd have to disagree with the physics in that, while the puck does have kinetic energy it is directly proportional to the velocity. If the puck has to be shot at an angle perpendicular to the path of motion you must stop the momentum the puck has in that direction, and put it in a new direction with requires energy - so some of the energy that could go into shooting the puck in the new direction is taken away in order to stop it's current motion. So by the time the puck is shot, the kinetic energy it originally had is already gone.

    And while the friction would take away from the shot, I would expect the second the puck is no longer in contact with stick it is off the ice, negating any frictional loss.

    I really would think that in a hardest shot contest there is a clear advantage to getting the "hardest" shot based on the fact the skater is skating forward, has no interuption, and is purely trying to hammer the puck as hard as possible and nothing else.

    But that's just my two cents.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    I like your side note , the part married to a Sicilian.  Minghia!
    Mine is always right also, she's from "Potenza"

    Ok,  I think the release of the shot is important on how fast you get it off .  
    With Chara while in a contest he has all the time to wind up and put all his force into the shot , In a game it's rare we'll see his full wind up when shooting therefore rarely will the puck go over 100miles . Looks almost like a snap shot.
    A guy like Rolston and especially Stamkos , their shots are as hard as Chara's in a game because of their quick release.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    Not sure if this is useful for this debate, but a puck looses about 0.2 mph for each foot it travels.  Are the people credited with a harder "in-game" shot generally closer to the net?  I suppose only 2 mph faster for 10 ft closer isn't that much, though.

    I think the thought process here is that, at the very top-end of hard shots, everything has to be perfect to hit 105 mph.  In game, that is less likely to occur.

    So, it is not that Rolston shoots it harder in game than out, it's that all the big shooters in the skills competition generally have their speed come down in game, and Rolston's shot (which comes down too, just not as much since it doesn't start as pure) compares more favorably.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now-- : Haley Wickenheiser would be a better fit on the Bruins then Brian Rolston. Yup, i can see it now...wee Chippy "the ticket" Campbell will be calling Daddy on behalf of his team to get more officiating baby sitting service.  How embarassing it must be to have the refs win most of the B's games.
    Posted by null[/QUOTE]


    May I ask what your malfunction is?  You seem to be an angry little troll, don't you?

    The refs help Boston win games? Does this also include the strange rulings from the league office and Brendan Shanahan on supposed illegal or non-illegal hits?

    I don't think there has been a team more victimized by dirty hits or fined/suspended irrationally by Shanahan in this league.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now-- : May I ask what your malfunction is?  You seem to be an angry little troll, don't you? The refs help Boston win games? Does this also include the strange rulings from the league office and Brendan Shanahan on supposed illegal or non-illegal hits? I don't think there has been a team more victimed by dirty hits or fined/suspended irrationally by Shanahan in this league.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    You'd be better off trying to talk a house cat into not licking their privates in front of company.  There's no intention of discussion whatsoever.
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now-- : May I ask what your malfunction is?  You seem to be an angry little troll, don't you? The refs help Boston win games? Does this also include the strange rulings from the league office and Brendan Shanahan on supposed illegal or non-illegal hits? I don't think there has been a team more victimized by dirty hits or fined/suspended irrationally by Shanahan in this league.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    welcome aboard !  Just ignore that one.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    Thanks, but I've been around before, but I don't remember seeing this character and his babbling here.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]Thanks, but I've been around before, but I don't remember seeing this character and his babbling here.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]
    He's just another bitter Canuck fan, wishing he could have a do over in last years SCF.He'll go away eventually, they all do, except 49north, but he at least tries to talk hockey.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ed121501. Show ed121501's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    A few things:
    Love the pickup of Rolston. Cant wait to see him in the stretch drive.
    I also married a sicilian (and she's from Revere). Can you imagine ???. I havent been right once since the day we were married !!
    As I stated, Love the Rolston acquisition, but wondering why the Bruins would have given up assets in a trade when they could have picked him up for nothing when he was on waivers earlier this week. Am I missing something ?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]A few things: Love the pickup of Rolston. Cant wait to see him in the stretch drive. I also married a sicilian (and she's from Revere). Can you imagine ???. I havent been right once since the day we were married !! As I stated, Love the Rolston acquisition, but wondering why the Bruins would have given up assets in a trade when they could have picked him up for nothing when he was on waivers earlier this week. Am I missing something ?
    Posted by ed121501[/QUOTE]
    Maybe it was a salary dump thing ?It would be 2 minor league salaries going back to the Isles, but who knows. Maybe they just wanted to weed out the system and sending them to the Isles was a good opportunity.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    According to Chiarelli, Rolston still has his wheels and instinct. Being on a line with Kreji and Lucic should provide him with some high percentage shots on goal, no matter what the speed will be. Why Claude has him centering the 3rd line in pracice is confusing to me. Sure he can play there, but why not with Kreji, and Kelly back on the 3rd line?? I know Chowda, Claude is the coach, but , at least, Kelly knows how Pouliot floats, and expecting Rolston to pick that up in practice is not realistic. Nice to know we can have a difference in perspective.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    Red is correct, there is more energy behind redirecting a puck via one-timer. Most in game shots are not a stationary puck, therefore the debate will almost likely never be answered with 100% certainty. Variables such as the effect that adrenaline can have and the quality of the ice and hell even the elevation of the rink is going to effect all of the speeds of the puck. There's just no valid way to compare.

    There is no clause that says the defense has to step back to let a d-man put the puck at a dead stop with no movement and line-up a blast.

    A one-timer is always faster than a straight up slap shot. Not too mention they are different shots. I almost guarantee there have been faster shots TAKEN than Chara's, but they were not recorded. They were also not under uniform and fixed conditions so therefore the record needed to be established with rules and specific guidelines.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now-- : I'd have to disagree with the physics in that, while the puck does have kinetic energy it is directly proportional to the velocity. If the puck has to be shot at an angle perpendicular to the path of motion you must stop the momentum the puck has in that direction, and put it in a new direction with requires energy - so some of the energy that could go into shooting the puck in the new direction is taken away in order to stop it's current motion. So by the time the puck is shot, the kinetic energy it originally had is already gone. And while the friction would take away from the shot, I would expect the second the puck is no longer in contact with stick it is off the ice, negating any frictional loss. I really would think that in a hardest shot contest there is a clear advantage to getting the "hardest" shot based on the fact the skater is skating forward, has no interuption, and is purely trying to hammer the puck as hard as possible and nothing else. But that's just my two cents.
    Posted by matttt87[/QUOTE]


    Here's a quick excerpt from a synopsis of the awesome book "The Physics of Hockey" ( a must read if you're both a hockey nut and a geek like myself)

    Slapshot Power From Bounce Effect
    A stationary puck will not produce the bounce effect. In physics, it is known that when object #1 (i.e. hockey puck) is in motion and meets another object #2 (i.e. hockey stick) in motion going against it, object #1 will leave object #2 (bounce) at a higher velocity than if either or both were stationary when they collided. Furthermore, if the objects travel faster toward each other the bounce will be faster also. Moreover, object #1 will go even faster still if it’s direction is completely reversed rather than just diverted. The brute force of a complete direction change where object #1’s path is reversed 180 degrees from it’s original path will be greater than if it’s changed by 45 degrees as in a slightly sideways pass for a one-timer slapshot.

    I also agree with lambda that due to a number of mitigating factors, the comparison between the two are tenuous at best.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now-- : Here's a quick excerpt from a synopsis of the awesome book "The Physics of Hockey" ( a must read if you're both a hockey nut and a geek like myself) Slapshot Power From Bounce Effect A stationary puck will not produce the bounce effect. In physics, it is known that when object #1 (i.e. hockey puck) is in motion and meets another object #2 (i.e. hockey stick) in motion going against it, object #1 will leave object #2 (bounce) at a higher velocity than if either or both were stationary when they collided. Furthermore, if the objects travel faster toward each other the bounce will be faster also. Moreover, object #1 will go even faster still if it’s direction is completely reversed rather than just diverted. The brute force of a complete direction change where object #1’s path is reversed 180 degrees from it’s original path will be greater than if it’s changed by 45 degrees as in a slightly sideways pass for a one-timer slapshot. I also agree with lambda that due to a number of mitigating factors, the comparison between the two are tenuous at best.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE] the same reason a hit fastball travels a WHOLE lot further than off a tee in baseball. i learned this stuff in middle school. science trumps peoples opinions everytime. score one for red.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]A few things: Love the pickup of Rolston. Cant wait to see him in the stretch drive. I also married a sicilian (and she's from Revere). Can you imagine ???. I havent been right once since the day we were married !! As I stated, Love the Rolston acquisition, but wondering why the Bruins would have given up assets in a trade when they could have picked him up for nothing when he was on waivers earlier this week. Am I missing something ?
    Posted by ed121501[/QUOTE]

    credits to BB & Dez - not salary dump, but contract dump.  You can only have 50 contacts.

    --------------------------------

    Also puck speed in games v. contest.
    I declare this debate null and void on the grounds that the contest is a very short sampling comparitively to games.

    I don't think that Ricky Middleton is particularly known for his shot, but I remember being at a game where he took an absolute lazer beam that got deflected and almost made the balcony.

    And for my own experience it's only every so often I can unloose a relative bomb in compared to the usual.

    So I say it's numbers and circumstance that gets harder shots in games.

    And I didn't read the physics book, but I can easily imagine that about a zillion factors could add up to a harder shot, if there is rotation on the puck for a one timer, where exactly you catch the puck on the blade and on your stroke, and of course the direction of the puck toward the shooting player.

    Don't they ever radar gun pucks in games?

    There's also perception.  I swear I've seen pucks pick up speed off a deflection, but thinking about it I don't think that is possible.  So what you *think* you see might not be what's really happening.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Canadianfan6. Show Canadianfan6's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    I like the Rolston pick up!!
    He will know it is his last chance for a cup and wiil bring it!!!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from matttt87. Show matttt87's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now-- : Here's a quick excerpt from a synopsis of the awesome book "The Physics of Hockey" ( a must read if you're both a hockey nut and a geek like myself) Slapshot Power From Bounce Effect A stationary puck will not produce the bounce effect. In physics, it is known that when object #1 (i.e. hockey puck) is in motion and meets another object #2 (i.e. hockey stick) in motion going against it, object #1 will leave object #2 (bounce) at a higher velocity than if either or both were stationary when they collided. Furthermore, if the objects travel faster toward each other the bounce will be faster also. Moreover, object #1 will go even faster still if it’s direction is completely reversed rather than just diverted. The brute force of a complete direction change where object #1’s path is reversed 180 degrees from it’s original path will be greater than if it’s changed by 45 degrees as in a slightly sideways pass for a one-timer slapshot. I also agree with lambda that due to a number of mitigating factors, the comparison between the two are tenuous at best.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    Interesting, maybe I'll have to check it out - thanks red.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE] I swear I've seen pucks pick up speed off a deflection, but thinking about it I don't think that is possible.  So what you *think* you see might not be what's really happening.
    Posted by BadHabitude[/QUOTE]

    It's quite possible, and is in fact guaranteed, if whatever the puck deflects off is also in motion. See the explanation above of the bounce effect.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    "i didn't read the physics book, but i can easily IMAGINE a ZILLION factors"???? i know this is a hockey forum, but do try and follow me. the ball speed leaving the bat of a pitched fastball is considerably faster than that of ball hit off a tee. in the case of the tee(same as in hardest shot comp), the power is supplied solely by the batter/shooter. there is energy(i know you can't SEE it, but it really is there) supplied by the ball coming at the batter that is redirected and added to the swing itself. it's science. this is not a matter of opinion, it's tested and proven science.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    And Badhab, according to that book, the most important factors for slapshot power are, in order,

    1. speed of puck toward player taking the slapshot
    2. body motion of the shooter
    3. direction of puck before the slapshot
    4. speed of swing of the hockey stick
    5. distance from puck where blade slaps the ice
    6. lower arm of player taking the slapshot
    7. flexibility of shooter’s hockey stick
    8. position of puck on stick blade
    9. slapshot follow through.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now-- : It's quite possible, and is in fact guaranteed, if whatever the puck deflects off is also in motion. See the explanation above of the bounce effect.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]
    That might be an over-simplification.  I know I tend to get into trouble when I try to discuss classical mechanics, but shouldn't that be direction dependent?  So if the deflection causes the puck to reverse direction the "bounce" effect (which should be a function of the puck's elasticity, does the book discuss that?) would be large, but if it is just a few degree change in direction, it shouldn't be a noticeable difference.

    Ah... just figure out how to think of this on a molecular scale.  I think I've got it now.

    I think the deciding factor is whether the new force compresses the puck, and presents a barrier against which the puck pushes as it decompresses.  The flex of the stick might add to it too.

    This is more complicated than at first though, that's for sure.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now-- : That might be an over-simplification.  I know I tend to get into trouble when I try to discuss classical mechanics, but shouldn't that be direction dependent?  So if the deflection causes the puck to reverse direction the "bounce" effect (which should be a function of the puck's elasticity, does the book discuss that?) would be large, but if it is just a few degree change in direction, it shouldn't be a noticeable difference. Ah... just figure out how to think of this on a molecular scale.  I think I've got it now. I think the deciding factor is whether the new force compresses the puck, and presents a barrier against which the puck pushes as it decompresses.  The flex of the stick might add to it too. This is more complicated than at first though, that's for sure.
    Posted by DrCC[/QUOTE]

    The density of the puck is definitely a factor, as is the angle of defection - the bounce will be there regardless, but may be negligible or unnoticeable if the offsetting angle is minimal. Keep in mind a puck will move faster in a warmer rink - if the tempeature of the puck is higher, then its elasticity increases as does the transmission of energy in the bounce effect.

    Also remember a puck is going to move faster in the Pepsi Centre in Denver than it will in Rogers arena in Vancouver  due to the difference in altitude and air pressure.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    I seem to remember humidity being cited too.

    I wonder though, what are the magnitudes of all these differences?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Brian Rolston Debate--it's in your hands now--

    First half of this thread I was thinking "boy I wish I had the vocabulary to discuss the physics, because I know the work has been done on baseball...".  Now I just feel dumb.  But totally agree with adk that this is very much like difference between connecting on a Nolan Ryan fastball vs. connecting on a Pascal Perez euphus pitch.
     

Share