Who would still be a star?
View Single Post
08-01-2014, 02:47 PM
Just a Fool
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Originally Posted by
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.
Ok, so what was participation in the late 70's/early 80's?
Higher or lower than it is today and by how much according to your research?
Lets say it has tripled for example.
Where's my 3 Gretzky's, where's my 3 Lemieux's?
Last I checked there isnt even one Gretzky or one Lemieux, not even anyone close.
So what's the explanation?
You keep saying that there's a correlation between the number of players and the number of elite players, PROVE IT!!!
Why is that for the last 50+ years it's always the same 3-4 players leading the way year after year while the rest of the top 20 changes drastically?
C'mon, explain it to us all.
And it's not just about pure talent either, instinct is a huge factor.
Kovalev was one of the most talented players ever, the guys skill set was off the chart, "a modern day superman player" by the definition of some around here yet he never broke 100 points even once!
Like, do you consider Kovalev to be an elite player in prime? He definitely had the talent but when one looks at his actual results one just can't justify giving him an elite status.
Last edited by Rhiessan71: 08-01-2014 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Rhiessan71