Thread: L'antichambre
View Single Post
Old
11-07-2008, 11:22 AM
  #60
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 26,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
I don't think it's too hard to project. When you compare era to era, you have to pro rate available training techniques, the larger bodies, advances in equipement, rules etc.

They were talking about how/why Lafleur played as low as 16 minutes at times, and there were a few answers, they usually had leads and Bowman would roll all lines to get everyone into it, as well as to keep the players united in being pissed off at him. When a fan says that Lafleur was better than Kovalev, he's doing so in relative terms.

Many still maintain that Jim Brown was the finest football player that ever lived. The fact that Brown never faced a 300 lb lineman is irrelevant.
That's where I disagree.

I would agree if it were little changes, but seeing as how the game changed so much, I don't think relativity has much of a bargain here.

I feel that putting the word ''era'' whenever you want to say this guy or that guy was the best is important because the game has changed so much.

Scoring 50Goals today >>>>>>>> Scoring 50G 30years ago, which is what I found dumb about Le Baron's statement because he was trying to pass it off as if it was the same thing.

So when Le Baron is saying Gui scored 50G compared to players that score 25G today, I feel that's an unfair comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newhabfan View Post
To follow you on your reasoning, players that earn millions today, after 40 pts seasons deserve those millions more that Guy Lafleur, because their job is harder ?

There is only one way to compare athletes from different moments - you compare the impact they had on their sport. There are players today that earn more in one year than Lafleur in his career and that have 1/1000th of the Impact Lafleur had in his time. That does sound as somehow injust.
What?..

I've been saying from the beginning you can't compare different Eras. Now you're saying that by my reasoning you can compare salaries made between eras???...

First of all, the league back in the days wasn't as rich nor as big as it is today. Major TV deals, publicities, sponsors, PR campaign, etc..
It has absolutely nothing to do with back in the days.

Second, the economy back then was also not the same as it is today. The value of One Dollar was not the same.
You might not remember this because you've only been here for 8years. But there was a time when you could go buy a can of pepsi for a dime.

So comparing salaries is also not possible, as a lot of factors come into place.

Today's minimum salary is 450K. That's just the way it is now. Does this mean I feel 4th liners deserve more than Lafleur?..Am I trying to say Aaron Downey is better than Lafleur because he's playing in the NHL today??..I still don't know how you got to that reasoning.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 11-07-2008 at 01:15 PM.
Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote