Unfortunately, 3 different people seeing the same hockey game will have 3 slightly different takes on the game as well.
First hand accounts are usefull but should also be taken into perspective as well.
It's kind of funny but some of the modern day experts can be vilified, even ridiculed here, guys from the Hockey News and Stan Fischler, but most everything from the way off past is taken as close to truth or absolute fact (since we don't have the eyeball test or other ways of discounting it like we do for players and games we have seen)
You're still barking up this tree? Nobody thinks the opinion of a single writer from the past is worth "absolute truth," but when multiple writers and the large majority of writers agree on something, it means something. Especially coming from a time when every writer saw every team 12-14 times per season.
Nor could he generate any offence as his stats for the 1985 playoffs indicate. So he road off into the sunset a Conn Smythe winner based on memories and a reasonable regular season in front of a young Tom Barrasso.
Hmmm, you think you "nailed" me on the use of the phrase "throughout the 1980s"; should I nail you on the name of the trophy? naah, I'll be nice.
Anyway, thanks for the informative hockey-reference links. They of course don't prove at all that Craig Ramsay could not cover any of those RWs when they were short shifted. If you have anything that actually proves that, I would be happy to peruse it.
Yet you somehow continue to postulate that Craig Ramsay was the Best Defensive Forward Ever.
No, I don't, actually. If you don't recall, this whole sub-thread was started when I mentioned two wingers to debunk someone's claim that no winger can be as good defensively as a center - I named a winger who many claim was the best of all-time, and another who was statistically superior and therefore arguably in the same league or better. You and Killion have brought us to this point from there.
Is there any evidence that you produce to support this claim that has been debunked by his poor playoff performances - see above. Where`s the beef? Show us the meat of your position. Numerous players have been introduced who could actually play defense against the likes of Gordie Howe or various other greats or completely neutralize a Rick Middleton.
It's been discussed before. Ramsay simply allowed fewer goals when he was on the ice. That's the end result that matters the most. Unless you're talking playoff wins and stanley cups and pretending the only thing that had anything to do with playoff success or failure was whether the top checking LW had a good series.
I know what conventional wisdom says, but the statistical case is so overwhelming that it's not outlandish to say that Ramsay was arguably as good. We'd be fools to not explore that.
Originally Posted by overpass
I don't know if the difference says anything about them as players.
Lots of greats mentioned: Clarke, Gainey, Ramsay, Lehtinen, Peca, Jarvis, Kasper, Kurri, Marcotte. But for my money the best I ever saw was Carbonneau. Great on the face-off, superlative shot blocker, excellent skater with tremendous anticipation, incredibly smart. About the only negative, maybe, was that he wasn't a huge hitter, but looking at the others I've just listed, outside of Gainey, none of them were. He's got the rings and the hardware, longevity and superlative play-off performances.
He's the Gold standard. Gretzky played him only twice a year yet called him the best he played against.
He's also the best PK'ing forward I've ever seen. Nowadays, if you block a shot, you're considered a good PK'er. Guy was a master at telegraphing passes and timing his pressure on the points perfectly.
Know all the big names but how do these guys rank? Ric Seiling, Bob Kelly, Dave (not Dale) Hunter, and Gaetan Duchesne? What they all have in common is less than 400 pts, more than 700 games, and a career +/- 30 or above.