View Single Post
11-08-2012, 01:04 AM
Join Date: Mar 2011
Originally Posted by
eva unit zero
That would be accurate. Looking at scoring lists, probably a better comparison based on style, as well as where they ranked in scoring over their career would be Datsyuk v. Kovalchuk; Datsyuk is jut inside the top ten in scoring during his career, Kovalchuk is top five.
Lafleur dominated during a period of time when there were just as many teams as there are now (if you include the WHA) but talent distribution was far more lopsided. He enjoyed the benefits of playing on what is arguably the most stacked team ever, against team full of players that would be in the AHL today. He was a dominant player and a great player, one of the best of his era.
But if you were to have the choice between a prime Lafleur or a prime Fedorov - a they actually were, not adjusting their conditioning to the era or assuming their talent level follows the league's continued increase - the answer is clearly Fedorov.
I don't know what more I can say other than that a very good NHL player is almost always better than the best player outside the NHL.
IF i get this right you are saying that Fedorov is/was better than Lafleur if you compare them head to head? Like you mean take Lafleur straight from the 70's and Fedorov from the 90's?
That might be true, but there is no value in a comparison like this. We can give credit to this days players and still acknowledge the players from history. By your definition Karlsson is better than Orr and Crosby is better than Gretzky. This kind of judging makes history of the game irrelevant and frankly i think this is a bit easy way to judge players. Easy and disrespectful.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by TAnnala