I'm sorry but you guys rate the old timers way too high

[895]

I mean this with a lot of respect. You guys are far more knowledgable than me. I don't dispute that. But I think in an effort to seem more knowledgeable than the average casual fan who thinks Ovechkin and Crosby are top 5 players of all time, you guys have gone too far the other way.

Don't get me wrong. I am not talking about Grezky's era. I am not one of those who thinks Gretzky would suck if he was playing today. Far from it.

I am talking about guys like Eddie Shore, Frank Nighbor and Howie Morenz. Even guys like Harvey, Richard and Kelly to an extent. The further back you go, the more you have to discount the old timers. These guys have no place being as high as they are in your top 100 greatest players of all time list.

I won't elaborate too much on the details because I'm sure you guys have done this countless times, but the quality of competition in those days is simply just too low. And I know the rebuttal to that is "well that's just the quality of competition available then, it's not Eddie Shore's fault he played against plumbers and no Europeans". But the counter-counter argument to that is...

Hayley Wickenheiser. The greatest hockey player of all time. It's not her fault she's a woman and only plays against other women. She's the best player, playing against the best competition available to her. It's not her fault women are physically weaker and only two national women's teams are any good at all.

This is an absurd argument right? To claim that Wickenheiser is the greatest hockey player of all time? Yet that's exactly the same reasoning used to justify the old timers.

Crosby, McDavid and Ovechkin are all comfortably in the 5-15 range. The modern game is simply too competitive to simply do a straight across "well Shore has 4 harts, Crosby/Ovechkin/McDavid only have 2/3/3/" comparison.

Click to read more...

 

[TheGreenTBer]

I could write you an essay about how you need to judge players on their performance against their peers and that comparing across eras is generally a fool's errand, but saying Crosby, McDavid and Ovechkin being in the 5-15 range is a very reasonable take. Shitting on Doug Harvey and Maurice Richard, though, is not.

Women's hockey cannot be compared in any way to men's hockey, eras be damned. Women's sports are great in their own right but you just can't conflate them with men's sports.

 

[the valiant effort]

“‘Rocket’ Richard is once again no match for Teej Brodie.”

 

[895]

I could write you an essay about how you need to judge players on their performance against their peers and that comparing across eras is generally a fool's errand, but saying Crosby, McDavid and Ovechkin being in the 5-15 range is a very reasonable take. Shitting on Doug Harvey and Maurice Richard, though, is not.

Women's hockey cannot be compared in any way to men's hockey, eras be damned. Women's sports are great in their own right but you just can't conflate them with men's sports.

if we say Crosby and McDavid are 5-10 and Ovechkin is say 11 or 12, you gotta be taking out some old timers to make room for them, no?

 

[TheGreenTBer]

if we say Crosby and McDavid are 5-10 and Ovechkin is say 11 or 12, you gotta be taking out some old timers to make room for them, no?

Of course. Those ratings, while I might not necessarily fully agree with them, are totally reasonable.

If you were going to put Crosby or McDavid in the Top 4 I'd bite your face off in the written word though lmao.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

“‘Rocket’ Richard is once again no match for Teej Brodie.”

Rocket was such a baller. I'm as far as you can get from a Habs fan but that guy was so damn cool.

 

[Gerulaitis]

Whoever doesn't understand that we compare players from different eras by the level they performed against their generation, should be "shredded to pieces" and covered in icehokke(not literally, of course)

 

[895]

Whoever doesn't understand that we compare players from different eras by the level they performed against their generation, should be "shredded to pieces" and covered in icehokke(not literally, of course)

No I understand this. But where I disagree is that you give equal weight to each era. That doesn’t make sense.

The history of hockey is not as clear cut but the sport of rugby is. It was invented in the rugby school in rugby England in 1845. I don’t know who the greatest rugby player of all time is but I think it would be absurd to consider it to be someone who dominated the schoolyard in 1845 when it was literally only played in that school by privileged boarding school boys.

The increase in competition is slow and gradual over time. Weighing the achievements of older eras less than the modern era makes sense.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

@895, you're welcome here but if you don't think that coming into the history forum and saying "with all due respect, I'm going to shit all over everything you do here" isn't trolling, you've got another think coming.

I'm giving you a pass this one time. You won't get a second one.