View Single Post
11-08-2012, 01:21 AM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Originally Posted by
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.
I disagree with the idea that Karlsson and Crosby would be better, simply because a) Orr dominated the sport offensively, even adjusting for competition he'd still outperform Karlsson, and b) Gretzky succeeded through thinking the game; he wasn't fast or strong, but he knew what was going to happen and how to make things happen offensively - and did it on a level that has never been matched.
And then there is of course the problem. It's generally accepted that players from the 1920s-1940s would not have a chance to make the NHL today. Yet players like Howie Morenz and Joe Malone are considered some of the greatest players ever. By what method do we decide how much weight to put on performance vs. peers as opposed to their likely performance vs. a group of players from any given era, or all eras.
Is Pavel Bure a better goal scorer than Maurice Richard? Bure played in a lower-scoring environment and put up better per-game numbers. Assuming equal average talent level in the league, that should be an easy yes.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by pdd