HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)
View Single Post
10-29-2012, 01:57 AM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Originally Posted by
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.
Thanks for acknowledging the elephant in the room but why separate the WW2 players as different from late 60 players from Europe?
Everyone both knows that the level of play and competition was less than the best at the time, in both cases, but it's really a hard circle to square as we saw with the treatment of some guys in the top 60 Dman project.
It causes a huge problem in the respecting past players by treating all eras as equal when they clearly are not equal.
Like I stated earlier, it's pretty clear that all players post early to mid 90's must be way and beyond better to jump on any top lists if all eras are to be treated equal and we ignore the quality of competition and number of teams and talent and variance that comes with such issues.
I respectfully submit that to be fair and equal and indeed more relevant players shouldn't be judged too far out of their eras if the equal treatment analysis is the criteria as it really does a disservice to the title "the greatest players of all time" IMO.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Hardyvan123