Canucks Young Guns

[Tciso]

To be honest; Instead of a summer full of off-ice training programs, I like to hear about these groups of pros that get together and get
as much "on-ice" time as they can.
Off ice training can be of some assistance but at the end of the day, if you want strong wrists to shoot the puck harder,
then get out on the ice and shoot a lot of pucks.
Of course a good nutritionist is a very good thing but that can, unwisely chosen, be a disaster.
This is an area where the home-team should try and stay involved if at all possible.
That isn't easy though.

And no NHL team has offered you a contract yet??? Overall strength, core strength and conditioning/endurance are all off-ice.

[Mickey107]

No-Way. Don't believe it.
It's all about money and how to extract it from players by making them think they need expensive off-ice programs.

It's just like "energy drinks" are good for athletes.
May as well drink poison!

It's the money they bring. It's freaking huge.

Look at how fragile modern day tennis players are.
It's a joke.

[Per]

Look at how fragile modern day tennis players are.
It's a joke.

You are saying that tennis players are fragile because they mainly practice off ice?

Of course, Björn Borg was an excellent skater, and probably would have made the WJC roster had he not decided to focus on tennis, but I had no idea ice practice was considered that important for tennis players in general.

[Mickey107]

Look at how fragile modern day tennis players are.
It's a joke.

You are saying that tennis players are fragile because they mainly practice off ice?

Of course, Björn Borg was an excellent skater, and probably would have made the WJC roster had he not decided to focus on tennis, but I had no idea ice practice was considered that important for tennis players in general.

Don't be such a goof Per.
Look at all the multi colored drinks they have. or have been made to believe, they feel they have to drink.
At a certain time, in a certain sequence.
It's comical.

[Topper]

Look at how fragile modern day tennis players are.
It's a joke.

You are saying that tennis players are fragile because they mainly practice off ice?

Of course, Björn Borg was an excellent skater, and probably would have made the WJC roster had he not decided to focus on tennis, but I had no idea ice practice was considered that important for tennis players in general.

both are explosive sprint sports

[Puck]

I'm not going to investigate this, but I suspect modern tennis players are in better shape than any previous generations in exactly the same way as all the athletes in other sports.

Mick you're kinda jumping up and down and ranting more than usual

[ESQ]

Kinda funny how women's and men's tennis is still being dominated by players who've been peaking for 13-18 years...

What's in those multi-coloured drinks anyway?!

[Carlyee]

No-Way. Don't believe it.
It's all about money and how to extract it from players by making them think they need expensive off-ice programs.

It's just like "energy drinks" are good for athletes.
May as well drink poison!

It's the money they bring. It's freaking huge.

Look at how fragile modern day tennis players are.
It's a joke.

I try not to post here but I feel I must try and offer you a little insight to training. This is not an all encompassing post but cherry picked to try and assist you. Because it is pretty clear you don't really understand what's going on.

Take a look at this:

https://www.ptdirect.com/training-desig ... n-overview

There are plenty of sources you can reference to learn about the 3 energy systems that humans use. With respect to your line of reasoning, while it varies slightly from source to source the consensus appears to be that tennis players actually derive more of their total energy from the ATP PCr energy pathway than hockey players do. Ignore body contact and consider this as well, tennis is a higher impact sport than hockey. So tennis athletes use the best energy system more and put more strain on their body than a hockey player does. Tennis was a poor comparison to choose.

Your posts appear to indicate that you have not performed at a high physical level. This is an assumption on my part. Try not to get defensive, I have not in a very long time either. But one coach I had said something like this "who told you practice makes perfect?, He was an idiot, perfect practice makes perfect". Practicing, and perfecting skills can only happen once the basics are covered. In other words dry land or off ice training builds the foundation for on ice training. Strength, endurance, speed, flexibility, agility and discipline can all be improved with off ice training. Once these factors are locked in on-ice training, or specialized training is used for skill set improvements, systems practice etc. Boil this down to the lowest denominator, who has more fun playing adult rec league hockey? The guy that works out 6 days a week or the guy that plays hockey once a week? Who is more useful to his team?

Ice time is more expensive than gym time too. So I really can't understand what you are throwing cost into the argument for.

Here is some more reading, in no particular order.

https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/3-ener ... rainer.htm

http://www.itftennis.com/scienceandmedi ... rview.aspx

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3281210

For the sake of not getting my post deleted I would like to add that. Pettersson, in his early 20s can easily add muscle without sacrificing the other factors that make him the most exciting prospect to me in a long time. It will take longer and one has to be cognizant of not bulking for the sake of bulking. Fine line.

[Ronning's Ghost]

I try not to post here...

Personally, I'd like to see more posts of this calibre.

I'm looking forward to DHA weighing in on the topic of off-ice training, as well.

For the sake of not getting my post deleted....

In spite of the impression that some of them like to create, the Mods here exercise a light touch. There's no reason to expect anything in that post to be deleted. (Or was that comment a joke that went over my head?)

[Aaronp18]

I try not to post here but I feel I must try and offer you a little insight to training. This is not an all encompassing post but cherry picked to try and assist you. Because it is pretty clear you don't really understand what's going on.

Take a look at this:

https://www.ptdirect.com/training-desig ... n-overview

There are plenty of sources you can reference to learn about the 3 energy systems that humans use. With respect to your line of reasoning, while it varies slightly from source to source the consensus appears to be that tennis players actually derive more of their total energy from the ATP PCr energy pathway than hockey players do. Ignore body contact and consider this as well, tennis is a higher impact sport than hockey. So tennis athletes use the best energy system more and put more strain on their body than a hockey player does. Tennis was a poor comparison to choose.

Your posts appear to indicate that you have not performed at a high physical level. This is an assumption on my part. Try not to get defensive, I have not in a very long time either. But one coach I had said something like this "who told you practice makes perfect?, He was an idiot, perfect practice makes perfect". Practicing, and perfecting skills can only happen once the basics are covered. In other words dry land or off ice training builds the foundation for on ice training. Strength, endurance, speed, flexibility, agility and discipline can all be improved with off ice training. Once these factors are locked in on-ice training, or specialized training is used for skill set improvements, systems practice etc. Boil this down to the lowest denominator, who has more fun playing adult rec league hockey? The guy that works out 6 days a week or the guy that plays hockey once a week? Who is more useful to his team?

Ice time is more expensive than gym time too. So I really can't understand what you are throwing cost into the argument for.

Here is some more reading, in no particular order.

https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/3-ener ... rainer.htm

http://www.itftennis.com/scienceandmedi ... rview.aspx

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3281210

For the sake of not getting my post deleted I would like to add that. Pettersson, in his early 20s can easily add muscle without sacrificing the other factors that make him the most exciting prospect to me in a long time. It will take longer and one has to be cognizant of not bulking for the sake of bulking. Fine line.

Always nice to have factual information posted and referenced instead of personal opinions pulled from nether regions!

Honestly didn't have the energy to get into it so well done Carlyee.

There's an article that was posted the other day, can't recall if someone posted here or I saw it somewhere else about Elias' older brother Emil. He was drafted a few years ago and was even slighter than Elias. He's now 23 and weighing in at about 185lbs at 6'1" and putting up decent numbers in the AHL.
http://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bu ... 1.23277398

So Elias has a head start in the weight and height category and may just be one of those guys who matures physically a little later than others much like his bro. It'll come with time and training! The skillset is there, he's way above his brother in that department. If he winds up at a playing weight of 185 at 6'2" he won't be too bulky and should have no issue maintaining his skill level, likely improving on it with better on ice strength and balance.

[Mickey107]

No-Way. Don't believe it.
It's all about money and how to extract it from players by making them think they need expensive off-ice programs.

It's just like "energy drinks" are good for athletes.
May as well drink poison!

It's the money they bring. It's freaking huge.

Look at how fragile modern day tennis players are.
It's a joke.

I try not to post here but I feel I must try and offer you a little insight to training. This is not an all encompassing post but cherry picked to try and assist you. Because it is pretty clear you don't really understand what's going on.

Take a look at this:

https://www.ptdirect.com/training-desig ... n-overview

There are plenty of sources you can reference to learn about the 3 energy systems that humans use. With respect to your line of reasoning, while it varies slightly from source to source the consensus appears to be that tennis players actually derive more of their total energy from the ATP PCr energy pathway than hockey players do. Ignore body contact and consider this as well, tennis is a higher impact sport than hockey. So tennis athletes use the best energy system more and put more strain on their body than a hockey player does. Tennis was a poor comparison to choose.

Your posts appear to indicate that you have not performed at a high physical level. This is an assumption on my part. Try not to get defensive, I have not in a very long time either. But one coach I had said something like this "who told you practice makes perfect?, He was an idiot, perfect practice makes perfect". Practicing, and perfecting skills can only happen once the basics are covered. In other words dry land or off ice training builds the foundation for on ice training. Strength, endurance, speed, flexibility, agility and discipline can all be improved with off ice training. Once these factors are locked in on-ice training, or specialized training is used for skill set improvements, systems practice etc. Boil this down to the lowest denominator, who has more fun playing adult rec league hockey? The guy that works out 6 days a week or the guy that plays hockey once a week? Who is more useful to his team?

Ice time is more expensive than gym time too. So I really can't understand what you are throwing cost into the argument for.

Here is some more reading, in no particular order.

https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/3-ener ... rainer.htm

http://www.itftennis.com/scienceandmedi ... rview.aspx

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3281210

For the sake of not getting my post deleted I would like to add that. Pettersson, in his early 20s can easily add muscle without sacrificing the other factors that make him the most exciting prospect to me in a long time. It will take longer and one has to be cognizant of not bulking for the sake of bulking. Fine line.

You would be best served not to try and assume. You will hurt whats' left of your brain.
I will leave for a while but let me make one thing very clear.
Don't ever think you are even remotely capable of judging me, shit for brains, or whatever you are.

[Aaronp18]

[2Fingers]

Micks post

Hi Mick,

I thought his post was well done and informative.

I also didn't think he came across wrong, I have seen much worse here.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Micky's Post

Hi Carlyee,

Obviously, you need a bit of a thick skin to post here, but please don't be discouraged.

Feel free to disregard Micky; I'm pretty sure everyone else does.

[Strangelove]

I try not to post here...

What? WHY?!!

You would be best served not to try and assume. You will hurt whats' left of your brain.
I will leave for a while but let me make one thing very clear.
Don't ever think you are even remotely capable of judging me, shit for brains, or whatever you are.

Oh I see.

Too bad because I think you're a bit of a fan favorite around here Carlyee...