View Single Post
10-29-2012, 02:52 AM
Global Moderator
tarheelhockey's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 53,224
vCash: 1020
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Thanks for acknowledging the elephant in the room but why separate the WW2 players as different from late 60 players from Europe?
Because in the case of WWII, players who had already demonstrated that they were the best in the world against elite competition during full seasons abruptly left the league for non-hockey reasons. The group of leftover players should be treated with a grain of salt, for inescapably logical reasons, particularly since almost all of them fell back to the minors after WWII.

That's obviously different than a group of players which is isolated from elite competition and may possibly have some players worth recognizing. That presents its own challenges, but the situations aren't similar at all.

It causes a huge problem in the respecting past players by treating all eras as equal when they clearly are not equal.
"Clearly" according to whom? "Not equal" in what way? The bolded statement sounds closer to opinion than fact.

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.
And what's wrong with that, considering EVERY player on the list was "way and beyond better" during his own era? Isn't that the point of a board called History of Hockey?

Going by the "objective" standard you're promoting, it would be almost impossible for a player whose career began before about 1978 to make it into any all-time list. Goalies prior to 1990 may as well not even exist.

tarheelhockey is offline