Who would still be a star?
View Single Post
08-01-2014, 03:16 PM
Join Date: Feb 2008
Originally Posted by
But it isn't the talent level and natural instincts of the players that changes that much.
Equipment, training methods and medical advances by FAR account for the differences in today's players compared to players from 50 years ago.
Talent is talent is talent period.
Is there more all around talent in the NHL today, that's pretty probable as there are more players but is there more elite talent...there is NOTHING to prove that as
there seems to be the same 3-4 players every single year leading the pack while the next 10-20 spots fluctuate every season
. It's been that way for decades.
If it's your contention that Crosby would be great in any era despite being subjected to the same restrictions as Howe was under (training and growing up playing the same way Howe did, wearing the same equipment and under the same medical conditions) then you are saying it's all about talent.
That talent is the one thing that transcends era and if it's true one way, it's also damned well true going the other.
So it doesn't matter if the talent pool doubles, triples or quadruples, there are 3 or 4 truly elite and then everyone else? The talent level doesn't change among those two groups even with this in mind?
Wow, it's hard to believe anyone would actually believe this to be the case. I guess it's the same mentality as "the best are always the best", which is a lazy way of saying all era's are equal no matter how much hockey participation has grown. Gotcha.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by danincanada