Connect with us

Culture

Have NHL players maxed out the slap shot? The science behind the speed

Published

on

Have NHL players maxed out the slap shot? The science behind the speed

Thirty years ago, the average PGA golfer drove the ball 261.84 yards. Davis Love III was the longest hitter at 283.8 yards.

In 2024, the average distance is 300.9 yards, with Cameron Champ leading the way at a whopping 323.3 yards. Technological advances for both clubs and golf balls — combined with a greater focus on fitness — have turned 7,000-yard tracks into pitch-and-putts for the world’s best golfers.

Thirty years ago, Al Iafrate won the NHL’s hardest shot competition at the All-Star skills competition with a 102.7 mph blast, down from his 105.2 a year before.

At the 2024 All-Star weekend, Cale Makar won with a slap shot of 102.5 mph. Utah’s Michael Kesselring and the Buffalo Sabres’ Tage Thompson recently had blasts of 103.77 mph and 104.69 mph, respectively — the only two 100 mph clappers in the league this season. Last season, the 10 biggest bombers combined for 26 shots at or above 100 mph, with the Winnipeg Jets’ Colin Miller topping out at 102.59.

What gives? Iafrate was using an old-school wooden stick. Makar, Kesselring, Thompson, Miller and everyone else in the league is using a custom composite stick, designed to their exact body and mechanical specifications to generate maximum force. Yet the numbers are comparable. There might be more big shooters in the league — tracking data in the NHL only dates back to the 2021-22 season, so we’ll never know for sure — but they’re not really raising the bar by much. Certainly not to the degree that golfers are. Or tennis players are, for that matter.

Advertisement

In fact, it’s more akin to baseball, in which pitchers seem to have reached the limit of human capability at about 105 mph. More and more pitchers throw hard every year — 203 pitchers averaged a four-seam fastball of 95 mph or more this season, up from 123 just seven years ago — but the ceiling isn’t budging. Since Aroldis Chapman hit a record 105.8 mph back in 2010, only Ben Joyce and Jordan Hicks have touched 105, and only once each (Chapman did it nine times). Of course, pitchers aren’t using any equipment. It’s just muscle and mechanics. The human body can only do so much, no matter how feverishly you exercise, no matter how impeccable your nutritional habits are.

Hockey’s different, right? Shouldn’t there be 110 mph shots by now? Or 120, for that matter? Shouldn’t we be talking about scaling back the technology to preserve the integrity of the game, the way the golf world always is? Like every other sport, hockey players keep getting bigger and stronger. But the low-100s remains the gold standard for shot speed.

It begs two questions: Have we reached the ceiling of what a slap shot can be? And why?

“There’s always a limit,” said Detroit Red Wings defenseman Moritz Seider, who has reached 95.54 mph this season, in the league’s 91st percentile. “The human factor only allows you to do so much. And there does come a point where we’re not superhuman.”

Advertisement

Alain Haché knows a thing or two about high-speed projectiles. The experimental physicist and University of Moncton professor seemed to defy the very laws of physics in 2002 when he and one of his students sent a pulse of radiation 120 meters at superluminal speed — that’s faster than the speed of light. But Haché is a hockey nerd, too, the author of two books on the science behind the sport. It makes him uniquely qualified to address such an esoteric topic.

He believes the plateauing speeds of NHL slap shots means that we might have reached our technological limit when it comes to hockey sticks. Iafrate and Al MacInnis and Bobby Hull were physical freaks in the wooden-stick days. All the composites have done is let the rest of the league catch up to them.

“What it means probably is the limitation is no longer the stick itself,” Haché said. “Hockey sticks are pretty efficient already.”

A slap shot is pretty simple from a physics standpoint. When a player rears back and fires, he doesn’t aim for the puck, but rather a foot or so behind the puck. When the stick hits the ice, it flexes, or bends. By flexing the stick, a player is storing potential energy into the stick. When the stick unbends and whips back around, it’s turning that potential energy into kinetic energy, sending the puck on its way.

Energy is always lost in the bending and unbending of the stick, Haché said. A perfectly elastic stick would convert 100 percent of a player’s potential energy into kinetic energy, but modern sticks are pretty close. Haché estimated that modern composites convert “maybe 90 percent.”

Advertisement

“So if you improve your stick (even further), you’re not going to gain a lot,” he said. “You’re not going to double the amount of energy you can transfer. So the energy becomes limited by the player.”

In Iafrate’s and MacInnis’ day, the wooden sticks could flex only so much, and there wasn’t any significant variety from twig to twig.

These days, players have all sorts of options with composite sticks. A stick’s flex — or “whippiness,” in the players’ parlance — is assigned a number. A number above 100 is stiffer, a number below 100 is “whippier.”

Zdeno Chara, a nearly 7-foot-tall giant who holds the record for hardest shot in an NHL skills competition at 108.8 mph, used a famously stiff stick. Alex Ovechkin, on the verge of becoming the league’s all-time leading goal scorer largely on the strength of his cannonading one-timer slap shot, uses an extra whippy stick, in the mid-to-upper-70s. Connor Bedard, who doesn’t have the physical stature of either of those players, uses a super-whippy stick in the low-70s. Whatever suits the player’s mechanics best.


Chicago’s Connor Bedard uses a particularly “whippy” stick, with a flex in the low-70s. (Chris Tanouye / Freestyle Photography / Getty Images)

Naturally, there’s more to it than that, depending on how deep into the scientific weeds you want to get. There’s the “bounce effect,” which means a shot will have more velocity if the puck is moving toward the player at speed when he hits it — think of big Aaron Judge squaring up a 100 mph fastball and imagine the exit velocity. Judge wouldn’t be able to hit a ball off a tee nearly as far, or as fast. It’s not a one-for-one factor because it’s not a perfectly elastic collision; if a 60 mph pass from behind the net is one-timed back toward the net, the shooter won’t get an additional 60 mph on his shot. But he will get a bump.

Advertisement

Now if the player is carrying the puck up the ice at speed and manages to get off a slapper on the rush, he will get all that additional speed. Let’s say Connor McDavid is carrying the puck up ice at 23 mph, his top speed so far this season. If he somehow managed to rip a full slap shot at 83 mph, his top shot velocity this season, while the puck was still moving at 23 mph, his shot would go 106 mph. Easier said than done, but maybe Hall of Famer Marián Hossa was onto something when he would blast those slap shots while racing into the low slot during shootout attempts.

The stick — wood, fiberglass, carbon fiber, aluminum, whatever — is just a tool, though. Technique matters more than anything else. But a little muscle mass doesn’t hurt.

“The power comes entirely from the player,” Haché said. “He will rotate his body. He will time the slap shot so that he can put as much flex as he can in the stick.”

That’s why San Jose defenseman Jake Walman says his shots are harder and heavier earlier in the season, while he still has all the muscle he added over the summer. Players typically lose much of their bulk over the course of the grueling season, as weight-lifting takes a back seat to the endless cardio they’re doing night after night. Their shots can fade along with their weight.

But while behemoths such as Chara and Shea Weber (who nearly caught Chara with a 108.5 at the 2015 All-Star weekend) and the 6-6 Thompson have an inherent advantage, size isn’t everything. Timing is crucial. Pick the puck clean instead of hitting the ice first and the stick won’t flex and the puck will flutter weakly. Hit too far behind the puck and most of the kinetic energy will be spent before the blade even gets to the puck.

Advertisement

“Everyone shoots different, but there are certain things you have to do in order to have a hard shot,” said Chicago’s Seth Jones, who topped out at 97.97 mph last season. “You see small guys have hard shots all the time. You don’t need to be 220 pounds and 6-3 to have a hard shot. And the flex is whatever you’re comfortable with. Some guys shoot harder with (a) 100 flex, some guys shoot even harder with a 75. There’s no one way to do it.”


Zdeno Chara unleashes a 108.8 mph slap shot at the NHL’s 2012 hardest shot competition in Ottawa. (Bruce Bennett / Getty Images)

Power in one sport doesn’t necessarily mean power in the other. Walman’s best golf drives go a relatively modest 270 yards down the middle.

But oh, man, can Walman spin the ball.

“I’m hitting down on it pretty hard,” he said.

The Sharks defenseman blasted a slapper 101.6 mph last year in Vancouver when he was with the Detroit Red Wings. This year, he’s topped out at 94.93 mph. And it’s the same body mechanics that allow him to put so much backspin into a 9-iron that allow him to so consistently hit a hockey puck really hard — the way he rears back and opens up his upper body, the way he transfers nearly all the weight into his front foot with vicious body torque, the way he leans into the stick to create all that flex as he hits the ice six to 12 inches behind the puck, the way he follows through with all of his weight moving forward.

Advertisement

“You’re leaning over way more in hockey than in golf,” he said. “I’m bent over, all my power is generating into that one spot in front. … I’m leaning so far over the puck that all my weight is going down into the puck.”

Hardest shots by year since NHL tracking data implementation

Year Season Leader Speed (mph)

2024-25

104.69

2023-24

Advertisement

102.59

2022-23

101.71

2021-22

101.95

Advertisement

Walman’s always had a big shot, even when he didn’t have the right tools. He said he was pretty much the last kid in youth hockey to play with a wooden stick. His teammates chirped him for it, and his coaches “gave my mom and dad heck” for not buying him a composite stick. But even at a young age, Walman was able to bring out the flex in the wood and launch missiles all day. To this day, he still wonders which kind of stick is really more powerful when leveraged perfectly.

“I’d say the first 50 percent is everything that you do — the power you’re generating, leaning into it,” Walman said. “And then the stick takes over after that. The second half is the technology.”

So while Haché thinks sticks might be approaching the point of perfection, players aren’t so sure. Jones, for one, was skeptical when asked if the NHL had hit the ceiling.

“It depends on where the technology can go,” Jones said. “Athletes are developing every year, we’re getting faster and stronger and bigger, but it’s not just the human body. It’s a little different than pitching, where it’s just you and your arm and the ball. Here, we’re using equipment. Right now, it seems like it maxed out with how light and strong sticks are with the carbon fiber. But who knows in 10 years where the hell technology can be?”


There’s another question that needs to be addressed here: Does any of this even matter?

Advertisement

While MLB teams have high-tech “pitch labs” and huge staffs devoted to squeezing every last bit of velocity and spin out of their pitchers — if a pitcher’s velocity drops a single mile per hour from one start to the next, team medical staffs kick into gear and fan bases go into a panic — NHL players seem a lot less concerned with the science behind the shot.

See puck, hit puck. Puck go fast.

“I honestly have no idea” how the science works, said Edmonton’s Evan Bouchard, who hit 103 in an AHL skills competition.

Most of the biggest shots in the game come from defensemen, and you’ll see them firing off blasts from the point at that night’s starting goalie at the tail end of every morning skate. It’s more of a ritual than a rigorous scientific process, though.

“I just figure the more you do it, the better you get at it,” Bouchard said. “It’s just practice, repetition.”

Advertisement

When told he was in the top 10 percent in the league when it came to shot speed, Seider said: “That’s obviously cool. But that’s not a stat I’ve ever checked.”

See, a 100 mph shot is a great weapon in hockey. But there are several reasons why it’s not the be-all, end-all the way a 100 mph four-seam fastball is.

For one, full-bore slap shots are very difficult to get off in game situations. There’s a reason most of the biggest blasts come from skills competitions with pristine conditions — a free run-up, a stationary puck (the timing is too tricky to risk playing for the aforementioned bounce effect) and no defender. In a game, time and space are often nonexistent.

“The game is just way too fast for taking the time, going all the way to the top and letting one rip,” Seider said. “People are just in your way more. There’s better coverage, opponents have better sticks on you. You hardly ever get off your best slap shot in an actual game.”

Another reason it’s not as critical: Harder isn’t always better. Back when the Blackhawks were winning championships, they had big Brent Seabrook blasting shots from the point on the power play. But light-hitting Michal Rozsíval would get his share of power-play time, too. And his wimpy little shots just seemed to have a knack for getting through traffic, hitting the net and creating rebounds.

Advertisement

“It’s hard to get off a big shot nowadays,” Bouchard said. “Sometimes it’s better to throw a quick wrist shot on net and see what happens. It doesn’t always have to be as hard as you can hit it. That’s not always the best shot.”

A big windup also gives a defender an extra split second to throw himself in front of the puck. That said, Jones posited that one big shot that gets very painfully blocked might lead to an open lane later in the game, as a defender thinks twice about stepping in front of the next one.

But even he acknowledged that rarely happens.

“It’s a competitive sport,” Jones said. “You’re still going to see guys laying out in front of shots to win the Stanley Cup, whether it’s 80 miles per hour or 120.”

After all, physics might be able to explain how flex and torque and weight transfer and potential energy all add up to a classic clapper. But there’s no explaining what drives someone to step in front of one.

Advertisement

“No one said we’re smart,” Jones said with a chuckle. “We’re athletes.”

(Illustration: Meech Robinson / The Athletic. Photos: Bruce Bennett, Patrick Smith, Steph Chambers / Getty Images)

Culture

Book Review: ‘When the Forest Breathes,’ by Suzanne Simard

Published

on

Book Review: ‘When the Forest Breathes,’ by Suzanne Simard

WHEN THE FOREST BREATHES: Renewal and Resilience in the Natural World, by Suzanne Simard


It’s the summer of 2023 and the Canadian forest ecologist Suzanne Simard is sitting tucked in the knobby embrace of an Amazonian tree trunk, imagining that she too is a tree as she “reached out with leaves unfurling to greet the sun.” She can feel the rat-a-tat of woodpeckers on her bark, the stretch of her roots in the soil below. She draws strength from a sense of family: “The trees were in my blood. They were my kin.”

But in Simard’s new book, “When the Forest Breathes,” trees are not just supportive relatives. They are teachers and healers, capable of communication and perception, a woodland congregation in which young trees grow “in halos” around their elders. Back in Canada, she describes a forest visit that further amplifies that sense of magic, a moment in which she stands beneath aged cedars, “the supernatural trees, the grandmothers,” listening as they whisper wisdom on the breeze.

All of which brings a heady, inspirational quality to her writing as she urges readers to hear the forest as she does. “Nature is waiting for us to listen,” she writes, “and to learn.” The siren quality of her message is almost tangible, as is the allure of gaining knowledge from the Zen master inhabitants of the ancient forests.

And yet. I find myself considering the message in my annoyingly cautious, science-writerly way. Would I find it inspiring to be pecked by a woodpecker? Probably not. Have I ever thought of myself as a tree? Probably never. Is this the measured language we hear from most scientists? Not even close. Simard emphasizes this point in the book: her growing sense of alienation from the methodologies of Western science, its tendency to obsess over small details and, as she sees it, miss the forest for the trees. “I found myself longing to push back against these rigid boundaries,” she writes, and to find “other ways of seeing and knowing the natural world.”

Advertisement

This longing derives in part from her collaborations with Indigenous scientists on Canadian forest management, which led her to deeply admire their more holistic approach to nature. She cites studies showing that “Indigenous-held land,” including forests, “contained some of the most biodiverse and carbon-rich ecosystems in the world.” Amid perilous global climate change, Simard is drawn to their loving attitude to nature as her “philosophical and spiritual home.”

Increasingly, she feels more anchored in their worldview than in that of her longtime research community. A professor of forest ecology at the University of British Columbia, Simard published her first semi-autobiographical book, “Finding the Mother Tree,” in 2021, and it became an international best seller. In it she wove her central theory about the forest — that trees “talk” to one another through an underground network of connective fungi, fostering an intergenerational system in which older trees protect and help the younger ones — with her own experience of grief and illness, emphasizing the parallels between the lives of trees and those of humans.

Despite the book’s rapturous public reception, the scientific community’s response was often unenthusiastic. Other biologists accused her of exaggerating the evidence for cooperation among organisms at the expense of “the important role of competition in forest dynamics.” They worried she was selling a forest story that might be only partly true. And they disliked her use of anthropomorphizing descriptors like “mother tree,” which suggested these organisms should be valued for their similarities to humans, instead of for their own remarkable biology.

Simard admits to having been hurt and frustrated by these accusations, to which she responded with a point-by-point rebuttal in a scientific journal. She returns to these grievances in the new book, where she expresses resentment for the demeaning accusation of anthropomorphism (“the mere utterance of the word” in Western science “suggests the scientist who makes this blasphemous mistake is not an objective observer, but rather impure, intuitive and subjective, perhaps lacking integrity”), and the resistance to her efforts to do justice to the inherent poetry of the forest.

This book is not, however, a rejection of the insights that good science — including Simard’s own — can bring. She provides examples of experiments showing how the heavy machinery used by loggers destroys the ability of the forest floor to sequester carbon; and how clear-cutting of old-growth forests can turn wooded lands into places that release carbon into the atmosphere rather than absorbing it.

Advertisement

Given the urgency of climate change, Simard’s dissatisfaction with the standard research model is in many ways a dissatisfaction with communication. If we are to protect our endangered forests, she argues, then science needs to be less timid in its messaging. She urges her colleagues to take a lesson from the First Nations people who fight for what they believe. To “stand tall in the wind,” as the Mother Trees do.


WHEN THE FOREST BREATHES: Renewal and Resilience in the Natural World | By Suzanne Simard | Knopf | 310 pp. | $30

Continue Reading

Culture

Do You Recognize These Snappy Lines From Popular Crime Novels?

Published

on

Do You Recognize These Snappy Lines From Popular Crime Novels?

Welcome to Literary Quotable Quotes, a quiz that tests your recognition of classic lines. This week’s installment celebrates lines from popular crime novels. (As a hint, the correct books are all “firsts” in one category or another.) In the five multiple-choice questions below, tap or click on the answer you think is correct. After the last question, you’ll find links to the novels if you’re intrigued and inspired to read more.

Continue Reading

Culture

Xia De-hong, 94, Dies; Persecuted in China, She Starred in Daughter’s Memoir

Published

on

Xia De-hong, 94, Dies; Persecuted in China, She Starred in Daughter’s Memoir

Xia De-hong, who survived persecution and torture as an official in Mao Zedong’s China and was later the central figure in her daughter’s best-selling 1991 memoir, “Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China,” died on April 15 in Chengdu, China. She was 94.

Ms. Xia’s death, in a hospital, was confirmed by her daughter Jung Chang.

Ms. Chang’s memoir, which was banned in China, was a groundbreaking, intimate account of the country’s turbulent 20th century and the iron grip of Mao’s Communist Party, told through the lives of three generations of women: herself, her mother and her grandmother. An epic of imprisonment, suffering and family loyalty, it sold over 15 million copies in 40 languages.

The story of Ms. Chang’s stoic mother holding the family together while battling on behalf of her husband, a functionary who was tortured and imprisoned during Mao’s regime, was the focus of “Wild Swans,” which emerged out of hours of recordings that Ms. Chang made when Ms. Xia visited her in London in 1988.

Ms. Xia was inspired as a teenager to become an ardent Communist revolutionary because of the mistreatment of women in the Republic of China, as well as the corruption of the Kuomintang nationalists in power. (Her own mother had been forced into concubinage at 15 by a powerful warlord.)

Advertisement

In 1947, in Ms. Xia’s home city of Jinzhou, the Communists were waging guerrilla war against the government. She joined the struggle by distributing pamphlets for Mao, rolling them up inside green peppers after they had been smuggled into the city in bundles of sorghum stalks.

Captured by the Kuomintang, she was forced to listen to “the screams of people being tortured in the rooms nearby,” her daughter later wrote. But that only stiffened her resolve.

She married Chang Shou-yu, an up-and-coming Communist civil servant and acolyte of Mao, in 1949.

It was then that disillusionment began to set in, according to her daughter. The newlyweds were ordered to travel a thousand miles to Sichuan, her husband’s home province. Because of Mr. Chang’s rank, he was allowed to ride in a jeep, but she had to walk, even though she was pregnant, and suffered a miscarriage as a result.

“She was vomiting all the time,” her daughter wrote. “Could he not let her travel in his jeep occasionally? He said he could not, because it would be taken as favoritism since my mother was not entitled to the car.”

Advertisement

That was the first of many times that her husband would insist she bow to the rigid dictates of the party, despite the immense suffering it caused.

When she was a party official in the mid-1950s, Ms. Xia was investigated for her “bourgeois” background and imprisoned for months. She received little support from Mr. Chang.

“As my mother was leaving for detention,” Ms. Chang wrote, “my father advised her: ‘Be completely honest with the party, and have complete trust in it. It will give you the right verdict.’ A wave of aversion swept over her.”

Upon her release in 1957, she told her husband, “You are a good Communist, but a rotten husband.” Mr. Chang could only nod in agreement.

He became one of the top officials in Sichuan, entitled to a life of privilege. But by the late 1960s, he had become outraged by the injustices of the Cultural Revolution, Mao’s blood-soaked purge, and was determined to register a formal complaint.

Advertisement

Ms. Xia was in despair; she knew what became of families who spoke out. “Why do you want to be a moth that throws itself into the fire?” she asked.

Mr. Chang’s career was over, and both he and his wife were subjected to physical abuse and imprisoned. Ms. Xia’s position was lower profile; she was in charge of resolving personal problems, such as housing, transfers and pensions, for people in her district. But that did not save her from brutal treatment.

Ms. Xia was made to kneel on broken glass; paraded through the streets of Chengdu wearing a dunce’s cap and a heavy placard with her name crossed out; and forced to bow to jeering crowds.

Still, she resisted pressure from the party to denounce her husband. And unlike many other women in her position, she refused to divorce him.

Twice she journeyed to Beijing to seek his release, the second time securing a meeting with the prime minister, Zhou Enlai, who was considered a moderate. Ms. Xia was “one of the very few spouses of victims who had the courage to go and appeal in Peking,” her daughter wrote in “Wild Swans.”

Advertisement

But Ms. Xia and her husband never criticized the Cultural Revolution in front of their children, checked by the party’s absolute power and the fear it inspired.

“My parents never said anything to me or my siblings,” Ms. Chang wrote. “The restraints which had kept them silent about politics before still prevented them from opening their minds to us.”

She was held at Xichiang prison camp from 1969 to 1971 as a “class enemy,” made to do heavy labor and endure denunciation meetings.

The camp, though less harsh than her husband’s, was a bitter experience. “She reflected with remorse on the pointlessness of her devotion,” her daughter wrote. “She found she missed her children with a pain which was almost unbearable.”

Xia De-hong was born on May 4, 1931, in Yixian, the daughter of Yang Yu-fang and Gen. Xue Zhi-heng, the inspector general of the metropolitan police in the nationalist government.

Advertisement

When she was an infant, her mother fled the house of the general, who was dying, and returned to her parents, eventually marrying a rich Manchurian doctor, Xia Rui-tang.

Ms. Xia grew up in Jinzhou, Manchuria, where she attended school before joining the Communist underground.

In the 1950s, when she began to have doubts about the Communist Party, she considered abandoning it and pursuing her dream of studying medicine, her daughter said. But the idea terrified her husband, Ms. Chang said in an interview, because it would have meant disavowing the Communists.

By the late 1950s, during the Mao-induced Great Famine that killed tens of millions, both of her parents had become “totally disillusioned,” Ms. Chang said, and “could no longer find excuses to forgive their party.”

Mr. Chang died in 1975, broken by years of imprisonment and ill treatment. Ms. Xia retired from her government service, as deputy head of the People’s Congress of the Eastern District of Chengdu, in 1983.

Advertisement

Besides Ms. Chang, Ms. Xia is survived by another daughter, Xiao-hong Chang; three sons, Jin-ming, Xiao-hei and Xiao-fang; and two grandchildren.

Jung Chang saw her mother for the last time in 2018. Ms. Chang’s criticism of the regime, in her memoir and a subsequent biography, made returning to China unthinkable. She told the BBC in a recent interview that she never knew whether her mother had read “Wild Swans.”

But the advice her mother gave her and her brother Xiao-hei, a journalist who also lives in London, was firm: “She only wanted us to write truthfully, and accurately.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending