View Single Post
Old
10-28-2012, 06:27 PM
  #710
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
Honestly, I'd take out a whole lot of pre-1950 players. They are simply not as good as those who came later (for purely objective reasons). To give equal share of the "Best Of" list to all eras is to admit that hockey has not made any progress over the past century, which, to me, is just wrong.
That's one way to look at it but won't get any traction in the history section, regardless if there is validity in what you say or not.

Another way to look at it is to ask the question "what does a modern day player in a fully integrated NHL have to do to knock off or surpass an older 06 or before player on the list?"

There is a huge problem in counting top 5,10 ect finishes or SC or hardware or even all-star teams in a 6 team league to one that is 4-5 times larger, along with an influx of players from Europe who are clearly better than they were in the pre 70ish era.

Really to be fair to all groupings of players it is much more fair and easier to judge and compare players at least in some time constraints or eras IMO.



Quote:
Well, basically Russia/USSR should be just a couple of notches below Canada. In the Realm of the Relics Canada has the undisputed advantage. Then we'd have (roughly) 15 for Russia, 20 for Canada, 15 for Canadian relics, and 20 for the rest of the world... that sounds about right.
If it was just based on talent sure but we ahve the problem of lots of Russian talent today and much less international success, due in part to the lessening of the iron grip control the communists had on the entire society.

It is entirely possible that the Russian teams from the communist era were greater than the sum of their parts and their is quite a bit of evidence to support this idea as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote