Maybe you should re-read the post, seems like you are making assumptions on what was written based off you own perceptions and not the point the poster was trying to make with the evidence they presented.
The poster says, Kaprizov skating was called "bad", but when he got the NHL some started calling it "elite." This sets up Kaprizov as the example of an "elite" skater to use as a comparison to show Demidov's skating is, or could be, "elite."
Then he says that Demidov is "faster than Kaprizov." Thus putting an emphasis on the speed aspect of Demidov's skating compared to Kaprizov. But strangely, he finishes with "skating isn't all about speed," thus negating the usefulness of using Demidov's speed compared to Kaprizov as an example of why Demidov is being underrated as skater. It's an argument against his original point.
That would be like me saying:
I don't understand why people think Alexandra Daddario is not beautiful. I remember people called Megan Fox ugly. When she made Transformers, they started to call her beautiful. I'm pretty sure it's going to be the same with Daddario. Especially given her eyes are bluer than Fox. It looks like some people still don't understand that being beautiful isn't all about how blue your eyes are.
As you can see, it doesn't make sense to use an example of where a person/player is better than another person and then say that the example you just gave doesn't indicate that the person will be as good or better. If you're trying to make the point that Demidov will be an "elite" skater, but then say "skating isn't all about speed," they you need to use other aspects of Demidov's skating to bring your point home, or not say "skating isn't all about speed," otherwise, you're just making a circular argument and it doesn't make much sense.
Hope this lesson in reading comprehension was useful for you.
