Who was the most talented out of Mogilny, Bure and Fedorov?

[BenchBrawl]

Bure's talent was more extraordinary.

Fedorov was the best hockey player.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Maybe the better description of what we call talent is skills that appear unaccountable.

If one kid in a beginner skating class can execute stops and turns long before the rest, is he working harder, and does he even know if he is? If a graphic artist picks up a new piece of software and immediately does something creative with it, do his colleagues understand the thought process behind why he's able to do that?

I think you'd be right if you said that there's a lot of hard work and forethought that sits under the hood, in a way that doesn't look like obvious spitting-blood effort. I also think that "talented" people approach a new task from a certain plateau of ability that another person simply has no hope of bypassing with any amount of work.

I guess nobody can overcome pure genetics.
Height and reach can't be taught.

But size and strength and speed and power can be.
Reflexes can be. Intuition can be. Offensive and defensive awareness can be practiced and taught.

In the case of Bure/Fed/AlMo I just see 3 completely different players who devoted their skill and focus into to 3 completely different areas of a team sport. And the reason Fed is running away with it, is because he is the CENTER who focused on the areas that helped teams win the most.

I grock what you're saying.

It's a bit like trying to define "charisma". It's not just being good-looking or being an Alpha-male or being rich. There are other undefinable qualities... which we can't define.

So it is with talent or "genius". We perceive that some individuals have it more than others, but it's hard to define or quantify.

You're literally just listing a bunch of things that can be achieved with effort.

'Talent' doesn't exist.

 

[Killer Orcas]

Mogilny was the most talented for me followed by Bure and Fedorov. Though as strange as this sounds Fedorov was the best player followed by Bure and lastly Mogilny. Talent isn't anything unless you got drive I suppose.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

As you say that, you massively overrate Bure over Fedorov. Fedorov was a '60-70' point guy on the wings who rolled 4 lines. Then he was old and beaten up when he left.


Most talented, not the best. Mogilny looked like he should be putting up 150 points a season at times. Then he would score 50 points when it wasn't a contract year.

Bure was obviously a great and consistent goalscorer. He also looked like he didn't care in the 2nd half of his career. Never seen a player look so happy scoring in a 5-1 loss, as long as he was closer to his bonus.

Fedorov came 2nd in nhl scoring, while winning the selke. While bringing it in the playoffs every single year.


Mogilny probably had the best hands out of the 3. I'm not sure if Bure was faster than Fedorov, but he looked like he accelerated faster. Especially if he was 1 goal closer to his bonus.

All I get out of this is you didn’t watch prime Bure much or at all.

 

[MadArcand]

I guess nobody can overcome pure genetics.
Height and reach can't be taught.

But size and strength and speed and power can be.
Reflexes can be. Intuition can be. Offensive and defensive awareness can be practiced and taught.

In the case of Bure/Fed/AlMo I just see 3 completely different players who devoted their skill and focus into to 3 completely different areas of a team sport. And the reason Fed is running away with it, is because he is the CENTER who focused on the areas that helped teams win the most.



You're literally just listing a bunch of things that can be achieved with effort.

'Talent' doesn't exist.

All those things that you listed have a range in every given player, and all of them have therefore a different possible maximum cap in each player, defined by... wait for it... TALENT. And yes, that word does largely encompass genetics. No amount of practice or "hard work" is going to turn someone innately extremely clumsy into a Bruce Lee. No amount of teaching is going to turn a moron into Einstein.

"Talent doesn't exist" is a silly phrase, and effort can only get you as far as your talent allows.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

All those things that you listed have a range in every given player, and all of them have therefore a different possible maximum cap in each player, defined by... wait for it... TALENT. And yes, that word does largely encompass genetics. No amount of practice or "hard work" is going to turn someone innately extremely clumsy into a Bruce Lee. No amount of teaching is going to turn a moron into Einstein.

"Talent doesn't exist" is a silly phrase, and effort can only get you as far as your talent allows.

So you define talent as genetics and intelligence?

Because the rest is learned.


Btw. Bruce lee literally echo'd what I am saying:

 

[MadArcand]

So you define talent as genetics and intelligence?

Because the rest is learned.


Btw. Bruce lee literally echo'd what I am saying:

View attachment 978413

Essentially, yes. Genetical and intellectual capacity/potential for a specific activity/field.

 

[Gorskyontario]

All I get out of this is you didn’t watch prime Bure much or at all.

Why do you think that? Bure peaked at 110 points, but he was the first Canuck to score more than 80 points. Which is why he is so popular there.

 

[MadLuke]

"Talent doesn't exist" is a silly phrase, and effort can only get you as far as your talent allows.

I am not sure if those people really believe, do they think any women (outside handicapped one, we will allow that they are not that extreme) could have matched Gretzky record if only they had worked hard enough ?

Do they believe the same for chess, say do they really think we take 200 clone of Mike Tyson and 200 clone of Kasparov, we train 100 of each group at chess and boxing from when they were age 3, they all train really hard until age 20.

That they expect that the average Tyson will be as good in chess than the average Kasparov and vice versa for boxing, there is absolutely no genetic innate ceiling and ability distribution among human beings ?

I think sometime they just do not realize how much they do not believe that, in such conversation someone at some point (not sure trolling or not) even brought the fact that Shaquille ONeal trained very hard with very harsh father discipline (before stopping to work at all older...) when he was young, as if that was not an extreme example of gifted talent by nature to be good at basketball... that being a 7foot1 genetic freak (like Jordan being a 6'6'' genetic freak) had nothing to do with scoring 28,000 points despite not being better than me a shooting the free throw.

To take an easy one, your max Vo2max is extremely determined by your genes, even your level if you are not an athlete will be quite different based on genes, like almost everything 50/50 split guess between nature-nurture would probably be close. Anything an human do that a plant can't will be gene based in some way at the end and those vary a lot from people to people.

 

[MadArcand]

I am not sure if those people really believe, do they think any women (outside handicapped one, we will allow that they are not that extreme) could have match Gretzky record if only they had worked hard enough ?

Do they believe the same for chess, say do they really think we take 200 clone of Mike Tyson and 200 clone of Kasparov, we train 100 of each group at chess and boxing from when they were 3, they all train really hard.

That they expect that the average Tyson will be as good in chess than the average Kasparov and vice versa, there is absolutely no genetic innate ceiling and ability distribution among human beings ?

Obviously, a hard-training Danny DeVito will beat up The Rock no problem!

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I am not sure if those people really believe, do they think any women (outside handicapped one, we will allow that they are not that extreme) could have match Gretzky record if only they had worked hard enough ?

Do they believe the same for chess, say do they really think we take 200 clone of Mike Tyson and 200 clone of Kasparov, we train 100 of each group at chess and boxing from when they were 3, they all train really hard.

That they expect that the average Tyson will be as good in chess than the average Kasparov and vice versa, there is absolutely no genetic innate ceiling and ability distribution among human beings ?

 

[Overrated]

International junior numbers:

 

[PettersonHughes]

International junior numbers:

View attachment 978529

Lol what about the rest of their careers?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Lol what about the rest of their careers?

Where did he say "This is all you should consider with respect to their careers?"

 

[Overrated]

Lol what about the rest of their careers?

Well this thread is about talent so looking at their pre-NHL career is relevant. We all know both Mogilny and Bure suffered a lot of injuries and their careers didn't pan out as well as they could. Nevertheless both of them put up elite level seasons even in the NHL.

 

[Johnny Engine]

So you define talent as genetics and intelligence?

Because the rest is learned.

There's also a fair amount of learning that happens either unconsciously or invisibly. A kid who has heard hours and hours of interesting and complex music before they can even speak might intuitively try things the first time they pick up am instrument that another kid wouldn't, whether or not their fingers are innately nimble. And we can't prove the effect of a kid daydreaming about their next game, performance or project, but we can be pretty sure that's a type of work as well.
That's what I meant by "unaccountable", and I think it's a misunderstanding of the idea to think of talent as an entirely innate thing.

 

[Staniowski]

International junior numbers:

View attachment 978529

Mogilny and Bure were certainly better natural scorers than Fedorov. They always were. I remember when they were juniors...Bure would've been a unanimous 1st Overall in the NHL Draft under today's conditions; Mogilny a possible 1st Overall; and some team would've been very lucky to get Fedorov a little lower.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i mean i was going to go here



but damn yours is better

 

[Felidae]

International junior numbers:

View attachment 978529

I wouldn't have expected that huge of a gap between Mogilny/Bure and Fedorov offensively especially considering how their NHL Careers turned out (all of them being very close offensively if you picked their best season)

 

[Hanji]

If memory serves me right, on Spittin Chicklets Adrian Aucoin, who played with both Bure/Mogilny in Vancouver, said Mogilny was more talented of the two. Said Mogilny would just destroy players in practice when he wanted too. He just didn't give a shit most of the time.

 

[sr edler]

Mogilny was greatly talented, but I'm not sure practice anecdotes is really the way to go here.

I remember some talk years ago about Jannik Hansen looking absolutely amazing in practice (and how he apparently couldn't translate it to games).

You're saying Mogilny didn't care. Okay. But a lot of people don't care that much about practice either, just ask Allen Iverson.

 

[Michael Farkas]

In terms of just pure technical skill, skip practices and watch his last legs as NJ Devil...more dekes per shift than miles per hour generated haha

 

[authentic]

International junior numbers:

View attachment 978529

Funny how the same in juniors applies in the NHL, Mogilny with the best offensive peak, Bure the best goal scorer and overall offensive player. Perhaps Mogilny actually was the most talented but I just hate that such talented players only had 2 seasons where they could really be considered among the very best, in the regular season atleast as Fedorov often stepped up in the playoffs. If you ask me, all three are top 10-15 level talents just judging by their skill level and ability at their peaks.

 

[authentic]

If memory serves me right, on Spittin Chicklets Adrian Aucoin, who played with both Bure/Mogilny in Vancouver, said Mogilny was more talented of the two. Said Mogilny would just destroy players in practice when he wanted too. He just didn't give a shit most of the time.

That honestly really sucks. He could’ve been so much greater than he was. I would say Kovalev even reached more of his NHL potential than Mogilny did.

I wouldn't have expected that huge of a gap between Mogilny/Bure and Fedorov offensively especially considering how their NHL Careers turned out (all of them being very close offensively if you picked their best season)

Was Fedorov always the best defensively of the two through Junior as well?