HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   National Hockey League Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
-   -   Best Player to ever Play the game? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1426181)

GermanTitov 05-10-2013 01:18 PM

Best Player to ever Play the game?
 
Does anyone else beleive that current players are the best to ever play the game? for example Ovechkin is a better pure goal scorer than anyone to ever the game, if you took rocket richard and brought him to todays game ovechkin would smoke him. if you took ovechkin and played him in richards era ovechkin would smoke him. i think you could say that about all major sports. they superstars you are watching today are far better than anyone who has played before. Im just sick of current players being compared to players from the past and all the gretzky records. Take crosby and his skill set back 20 years and hes a 200-300 pts pre season guy

Grasshopperking 05-10-2013 01:19 PM

I think you have the wrong forum

Leo W 05-10-2013 01:20 PM

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/...216066715.jpeg

Yes this is the most skilled era to play the game simply because of training. And the next one will be better, etc etc.

Bob Loblawbrovsky 05-10-2013 01:21 PM

I'd say by this point PK Subban has dethroned Bobby Orr.

Seriously though, as with any sport, the advances made w/ regard to how the game is played and how players have just about unlimited knowledge when it comes to training and nutrition, it's pretty much impossible to compare players from this era to those that played 20-30 years ago.

Unless we're talking Peter Forsberg.

NewFang 05-10-2013 01:33 PM

Give Richard the same modern equipment, technology, and supplements that OV gets. Plus the same lifetime of training and fitness, etc to make it fair.

Best way to judge across generations like this is to look at dominance against peers.

Fun Fact: OV uses a new pair of skates every couple of games.

Trance Kuja 05-10-2013 01:35 PM

Pierre-Marc Bouchard.

Wrath 05-10-2013 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Loblawbrovsky (Post 65766025)
I'd say by this point PK Subban has dethroned Bobby Orr.

Seriously though, as with any sport, the advances made w/ regard to how the game is played and how players have just about unlimited knowledge when it comes to training and nutrition, it's pretty much impossible to compare players from this era to those that played 20-30 years ago.

Unless we're talking Peter Forsberg.

:handclap:

zaYG 05-10-2013 01:37 PM

Not a huge fan, but what about Lemieux? I feel as if his skill set is exactly the same as the top guys. He dominated in the 90s and hockey wasn't that different back then. I bet he would be the best.

Gretzky and Orr would definitely be up there too. Their game sense was on another level. You can train the rest of the game into someone.

Lebowski 05-10-2013 01:38 PM

I'm surprised there's no mention of Brodin yet.

pete goegan 05-10-2013 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanTitov (Post 65765861)
Take crosby and his skill set back 20 years and hes a 200-300 pts pre season guy

With his injury history, take him back to the pre-helmet days and his career would already be over. Different eras, different skill sets, different games. Comparisons are difficult and useless. Might as well speculate on what would have happened if Hannibal had tanks instead of elephants.

Tripod 05-10-2013 01:46 PM

a 39 year old Ray Whitney finished 13th in scoring last year ahead of:
Ovie
Staal
Zetterburg
St. Louis
Kane
etc...

I wonder what a 22 year old Gretzky could do?

Chip Chipperson 05-10-2013 01:48 PM

Players in the Rockets era were pack a day smokers that had to work a second job to sustain themselves. Comparing eras is ridiculous.

Aucoin11* 05-10-2013 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Loblawbrovsky (Post 65766025)
I'd say by this point PK Subban has dethroned Bobby Orr.

Seriously though, as with any sport, the advances made w/ regard to how the game is played and how players have just about unlimited knowledge when it comes to training and nutrition, it's pretty much impossible to compare players from this era to those that played 20-30 years ago.

Unless we're talking Peter Forsberg.

Church. Forsberg was not only better than jagr, lemieux, and fedorov, but he also could have given don beaupre a run for his money. #eras

Turrican* 05-10-2013 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewFang (Post 65766775)
Give Richard the same modern equipment, technology, and supplements that OV gets. Plus the same lifetime of training and fitness, etc to make it fair.

Best way to judge across generations like this is to look at dominance against peers.

Fun Fact: OV uses a new pair of skates every couple of games.

Nothing compares to the diet of cigarettes and beer of the 50's.

The Wizard of Oz 05-10-2013 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turrican (Post 65767643)
Nothing compares to the diet of cigarettes and beer of the 50's.

Or the old soaking wet equipment during the 3rd period. :nod:

Alex The Loyal 05-10-2013 01:53 PM

Jean Gabriel Pageau. :sarcasm:

Wrath 05-10-2013 01:56 PM

Anyways, along with the blinding flash of obvious that you can't compare players across eras and simply say "put crosby in the 50s and he'd win the art ross every year by 100% margins", I still posit that even now Crosby and Ovechkin aren't the best players we've ever seen, even with training, equipment, etc. taken into account.

In the 2000-2001 season Mario Lemieux comes back mid season from retirement and puts up a staggering 76 points in 43 games. This isn't the high flying 80s and early 90s, this is the middle of the DPE, and Lemieux still can outshine the competition by such a margin. I don't think it's such a stretch to compare the quality of hockey in 2000-2001 to the hockey post-lockout.

To put it simply, I don't think Ovechkin or Crosby have an argument for being better than Mario Lemieux, even if you completely disregard era (training, equipment, nutrition, etc.), which by definition means they can't be the "best hockey players ever". The last player to warrant GOAT discussion was Mario, and rightfully so, yet even he is bested in most ways by Wayne Gretzky, and they shared a lot of career overlap, so it's quite easy to compare them too.

I'd say the average talent level of hockey has steadily increased due to better training, larger talent pool (expanding US youth hockey+ international players). The average 3rd/4th line grinder are definitely better now than ever probably (maybe not on some of those stacked O6 teams, back when it was a 6 team league).

TL;DR: I don't see any argument for Crosby and/or Ovechkin being the best hockey players of all time, with or without respect to era.

Crease 05-10-2013 02:03 PM

If you drop Ryan Callahan into the 1950's with his current conditioning and equipment, he would smoke 99% of the league. But what's the point of that mental exercise? You're putting historical players at a disadvantage.

Put another way:

How long would Peter Forsberg have lasted if he played in the 1950s with Firestone hockey skates and the then rudimentary understanding of orthopedic medicine?

Mike Farkas 05-10-2013 02:06 PM

There's no way George Washington could lead his troops to victory against the current British Army...therefore, he wasn't very good.

I like the thought process, if applicable.

aloonda 05-10-2013 02:16 PM

I can't even imagine how much of a beast howe would be with today's training/nutrition

Plante 05-10-2013 02:21 PM

Gretzkey with lots of PP time and no red line?

Om nom nom

Rob Nieds work ethic 05-10-2013 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Loblawbrovsky (Post 65766025)
I'd say by this point PK Subban has dethroned Bobby Orr.

Seriously though, as with any sport, the advances made w/ regard to how the game is played and how players have just about unlimited knowledge when it comes to training and nutrition, it's pretty much impossible to compare players from this era to those that played 20-30 years ago.

Unless we're talking Peter Forsberg.

Pretty much this.

Raym11 05-10-2013 02:35 PM

it only took 4 posts to mention Peter Forsberg

Evincar 05-10-2013 02:42 PM

I highly doubt that Doug Harvey would have been an alcoholic if he was getting paid Matt Carle/Dennis Wideman money. This game is fun.

iamjs 05-10-2013 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Farkas (Post 65768563)
There's no way George Washington could lead his troops to victory against the current British Army...therefore, he wasn't very good.

I like the thought process, if applicable.

If George Washington had today's technology, not only would he have defended his own zone, but he definitely would have been considered a two-way threat and could have taken over England in record time.

As long as you overlook his days in New York and pay closer attention to how he played in Boston and New Jersey, GW is a first ballot HOFer.

AINEC:nod:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.