I have addressed this point but, you seem to have missed it.
First, how can you tell me what the best peer group of NHLers was? Can you say it was the group that played in the 80s? Can you say it was the group from the 60s? The truth is, you cannot determine the best peer group ever because there is no way to do it.
Secondly, it stands to reason that the greatest athletes are not all born at exactly the same time. The greatest hockey players in the world were not all born between 1960 and 1965. God spreads out the great people of society over the course of history. Some were in their primes in the 20s, others in the 80s and others were in the 1500s. Great members of society are not all from one era, they are spread out across all eras. That is simply how it is. All NHL seasons feature the best players available. All peer groups are equal, save for evolution.
Saying that I am putting Ted Lindsay and Wayne Gretzky as equals is a complete misunderstanding. Gordie Howe beat ALL NHLers by at least 34% in his best season. He not only beat Lindsay, he beat 3rd place Rocket Richard by 56% that year. Howe's margin of victory tells us that he completely blew away the competition and was totally dominant that season. As I said in a previous post, in Mario's best year he beat Gretzky by 18% but, if you pull Gretzky out of the equation, he still only beat Yzerman by 28%. In Mario's second best season, he beat Gretzky by 13%. Pull Gretzky out of the equation again and he beat Denis Savard by 28%. The bottom line is, Mario did not dominate the rest of the league to the extent that Gordie Howe did - EVEN WHEN YOU PULL GRETZKY OUT OF THE EQUATION.
The larger peer groups of today are a non-issue. If a person is the best in the world at anything, they are the best in the world. Period. Just because the Swedes didn't take hockey seriously until the middle of the 20th century (Not sure when they did, it is irrelevant) that does not make the players of the early 20th century any worse. In the 20s no Swede would ever have made an NHL roster because they were complete novices at the game. Same as today. When India and China take hockey seriously, we will have a talent pool 2 billion people larger than it is now. Obviously that means Jarome Iginla and Peter Forsberg are not that great.
If the Russians weren't in the NHL in the 60s, who cares? Gordie Howe dominated the best players the top hockey league in the world had to offer. He was the greatest player of his time by a wide margin.
A truly great athlete will dominate his peer group by a large margin no matter how large the pool of athletes is. Saying that being dominant in the 80s is better than being dominant in the 60s becuase there is a larger pool of players to draw from, is a flawed thought process. You are talking about evolution. The world evolves and grows and that automatically makes us bigger, stronger, faster and more educated than our forefathers. Being the best in the world now is the same as being the best in the world in 1950. I don't know how to help you understand that point. Using your thought process, we will never see the greatest player of all time because that will only be the player that plays in the last ever season before Armageddon.
Again, how can you determine what peer group is the best? Maybe the numbers were so much higher in the 80s because there were so many bad players in the league? Maybe it was the weakest peer group ever? There is no way to determine that. If you have a system that allows you to do it, I would love to hear about it.
Again, my system is designed to reward players for their accomplishments no matter when they played. If the two greatest players of all time, played at the same time, that is no matter. They will still end up #1 and #2 on my list.
The results of the poll on this thread tell me that
A. Most people saw Mario play but have never seen Howe play and
B. Most people know little or nothing about Gordie Howe. It is simply people voting for what they are familiar with. Most people would say that they live in the best city as well.