View Single Post
10-28-2012, 08:48 PM
Global Moderator
tarheelhockey's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 53,887
vCash: 500
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.
As pointed out above, this list and pretty much anything on the History section operate from the assumption that all eras of hockey are to be respected and given equal proportionate weight (the rare exception being times like WWII when the best players were demonstrably not participating). So while your point of view is certainly valid, it is in philosophical conflict with the list, and I'm not sure there is any hope of a resolution between them.

On top of that, I think you're going to run into another problem. From a "purely objective" point of view, today's best players are easily more effective at playing hockey than the guys you want to add. Larionov needs to get in line behind Crosby, Tretiak comes somewhere after Lundqvist, and Mikhailov can wait till we get Iginla on the list.

And that is the reason why we give equal weight to all eras.

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.
So you believe that Canada has produced about 57% of the world's best players since roughly 1970?

Not saying you're wrong, but would you be prepared to defend that number?

tarheelhockey is offline