View Single Post
11-16-2012, 09:58 AM
Registered User
lazerbullet's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The art analogies lead us nowhere because art is measured by a rather subjective benchmark: taste. In hockey taste is secondary. A player who is the most elegant skater and the flashiest stickhandler is still not a good player if he neither helps his team to score goals nor to prevent goals against. The objective aim is winning and every player is measured against this aim. Now granted, it's not always easy to decide how much a player actually contributes to success or failure of his team, which is the reason for most of the debates on the boards. But basically we strive for an objective evaluation. To answer the question whether Wayne Gretzky was one of the Top 3 forwards in history or not is not a matter of taste, it's a matter of fact. In art it's different. Statements like the following are arbitrary:
That's certainly true. Art is quite a bad example, because it's 100% subjective and 100% matter of taste.

Just some people sound here like mankind has regressed over time and there are no bright talents, right now. Back in the old days we had serious talent in every field of activity! This is simply ignorant. There are many talented people in the world who make big things happen in various fields. One just has to open their eyes (and mind) to see them.

But comparing hockey players is a bit like art. It's somewhat subjective. Lidstrom vs Harvey, Howe vs Orr, Roy vs Hasek. You can find hard evidence for either side. But how much weight one puts into them is totally subjective and simply a matter of... taste.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote