View Single Post
04-09-2013, 12:07 AM
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,777
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I didn't think it was necessary to do so and didn't take the time to search for the exact post.

If you think it is then I will do so because I remember it quite clearly.

Also just to clarify the ATD doesn't take era into context does it? It's my general impression, although I have never actually participated in it but have looked at it a bit.

Also there was some limited mention in the project that some guys look at era and context but looking at the discussions and arguments, and lack of general discussion of the topic during the project, it's hard to say that era was really taken into context all that much really.

It wasn't you that I was referring to BTW.

Note to mods, this post is in reference to a question form another poster who is a mod and not an attempt to highjack or derail the thread.

My comments are about the top 60 Dman project.
Like Rhiessan said, no one actually considers all eras equal in any sort of absolute sense, and very, very few consider them all equal in a relative sense, either.

You'll be delighted to know that, although I don't say so openly very often, I think if you time warped a prime Doug Harvey into today's world he would be an AHL player.

But that's not how I judge players in a historical context, and that is not how this section operates, either.

I don't automatically think that a player being xth best in 1950 means that it's the same as being xth best in 2000. Nor does anyone else in the ATD or the HOH discussions. The difference between you and most of us, is that you seem to want to take that "x" and multiply it by about 10 in order to appropriately judge 1950s (for example) rankings and achievements compared to modern day, whereas most of us have a factor that is somewhere in the 1.5-5 range. Correct me if I'm wrong.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote