I like what Mr Ed Ferguson wrote about the rise in "violence" and injuries
in hockey.  I think the same thing can be attributed to other sports, that
are not discussable in this hockey forum.
 
Players have consistently gotten bigger, faster, stronger, and more skillful
as the big-league player has evolved from a part-time player to a true
professional.  I believe (from what I've read and heard over the course of
my life, sorry, bibliography unavailable) that back in the 50's it was
common for the "pro" athletes to have other jobs in the off-season to make
ends meet.  With that as in incentive, I don't wonder why amateur athletes
played for the fun of the sport, and not as a spring-board to the pros.
Today, athletes are better paid than the average factory worker, but the
flip side is that more people are competing for those few pro slots.  To
make the pro roster, the amateur hopefuls have had to use their pre-pro
lives to attain the size and skills necessary to "make the cut", hence the
flow-down of increased size/skill from the NHL (and others--OOPS!) to the
amateur ranks.  I don't doubt that most D-I teams of today would match very
favorably with the Stanley Cup teams of the 50s.
 
To account for the increased size and strength, protective equipment has
evolved right with the size and strength of the players.  And, in true
Darwinian fashion, the style of play has evolved with the use of (better)
protective equipment (or at least that's what I believe, albeit in the
absence of irrefutable evidence).
 
So, to respond directly to Mr Karl Schmidt, I think a deep analysis (which
I'm not prepared to do) would show that the increase in violent physical
content is due to both the size/skill of the players AND to the use of
protective equipment.  I would further postulate that the evolution has
been:  player --> equipment --> technique (=degree of violence), but that
now, with the pressures for success in ataining that highly paid "top rung"
of the sport, the physical changes in players, the changes in equipment, and
the changes in technique are all so tightly interrelated, efficient, and
fast that the old A --> B --> C is not distinguishable anymore.
 
And, (risking the wrath of the 100% hockey-content purists) I'll offer that
the reason for the increased pace of improvement is directly attributable to
the money involved (incentive) and the increase in communication technology
(video, broadcast) that enables the precise analysis of the sport as a whole
(shameless plug there for all computer and technology folks!)
 
Steve G
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.