If you want to compare the developmental phase of hockey in Europe with pre-World War I hockey in North America, then you might have a point. But hockey was quite strong in Canada by Cleghorn's generation. Not quite as strong as it would later become (which is why Cleghorn wasn't in our top 10 and isn't guaranteed to be in our top 15), but definitely well past its developmental stage. Remember, the Stanley Cup was first awarded in 1893 and there was semi-organized hockey even before then.
Thank you for the interesting quotes from the ATD (Sturminator and others). If you want to direct me to similar sources/discussions, you are welcome.
I do find the subject interesting.
(I would actually like a special section for these kind of discussions, that seem to take place pretty often. The forum veterans who have participated in discussions like ATD may built up some sort of knowledge base that newcombers don't have, which makes us now and then question things that veterans consider having already been "settled". At least to me, trying to determine strength of different environments is very interesting and also educating.)
I suppose it is wise to divide into two things:
N: development within North America
E: development within Europe (maybe split into subparts) and compare that to N.
I think the European hockey (including pre 1972) is being underestimated here on this forum. Others may think I may be overestimating it. I suppose it won't be resolved here now, so I would want to point out that national championships were played in different European countries since around 1920 or so. I also think I make some points my bandy paragraph.
Regarding North American hockey, I'm pretty novice and thus often uses different forms of logic to present my thoughts. Sometimes one may not have awareness of all the factors contributing, and "logical assumptions" may not hold up in reality.
I want to know basically how many guys, with talent (etc.) to succeed in a hockey like sport, that are/were trying hard to become as good and successful hockey players as possible.
I'm aware of other sports robbing hockey today, perhaps (far?) more so in Canada today than in 1920s-1970s. But I don't know how many who attempted a sports career in the first place.
If there was about as many Canadian guys attempting a hockey career (or play at high level) during the 1930s, as today, that to me would be a sign of pretty equal environments.
If so, it might also indicate in itself it was as easy to shine, or to dominate in ones environment.
Then comes the question about preparations, etc. Today, "all" players train hard and get hockey education. Back then I suppose it was a wider spread. A guy back then who decided to really devote himself to hockey (and was able to), might get himself a domination compared to his contemporaries by doing so. That may be harder today. How do you think one should approach that (if this is the right place)? Should the "inventors"/"pioneers" regarding preparation get credit for that? (I suppose they should, but am not wholly comfortable with it.)