Eisen
Registered User
Nope!
Jagr at 0:48 "I think I am better than I was 15 years ago but everybody else is a lot lot better."
That`s the opening joke. At about 3:20 he sings a different tune.
Nope!
Jagr at 0:48 "I think I am better than I was 15 years ago but everybody else is a lot lot better."
I thought people putting 66 ahead of Howe was bad.... now he's apparently not even top 4 because 1950s?
Indeed.... and while Montreal built & maintained outdoor rinks in city parks & on school grounds on an industrial scale, pretty much epic, the same model followed in just about every other city large & small where climate was favorable throughout the late 19th & 20th centuries. A great many of these rinks were multi pads, figure skating ovals around a boarded hockey rink or adjacent to them. Many werent ever even used for league or school games, strictly shinny, pickup. Absolutely free of charge. Floodlighting in a lot of cases so you could play if you so wished from dawn through well past dusk. Within walking distance of home for hundreds of 1000's, generations.
For years I was told we don't have numbers for past registration.
We get them and then it's all about them not being accurate.
They may not be accurate
but as I've stated several times already, hockey in Canada didn't start at 50,000, 100,000, or 200,000 organized players. It took time to build up to that
and with very few Americans and no Europeans involved during the O6 it's extremely obvious it was a shallow pool when compared to what came later. So it's just ignored completely and people pretend the talent pool has been consistent even though it very obviously hasn't been.
1995-1996
2. Eric Lindros 115/73 = 100 %
1. Jaromír Jágr 149/82 = 115.3 %
1996-1997
2. Paul Kariya 99/69 = 100%
1. Jaromír Jágr 95/63 = 105.1 %
1997-1998
2. Wayne Gretzky 90/82 = 100 %
1. Jaromír Jágr 102/77 = 120.7 %
1998-1999
2. Joe Sakic 96/73 = 100 %
1. Jaromír Jágr 127/81 = 119.2 %
1999-2000
2. Joe Sakic 81/60 = 100 %
1. Jaromír Jágr 96/63 = 112.9 %
2000-2001
2. Joe Sakic 118/82 = 100 %
1. Jaromír Jágr 121/81 = 103.8 %
The bolded points. You are making things up now and trying for a "Golden BB" to salvage anything.
The reason US participation in the NHL dropped post 1942-43 is very basic. The NHL introduced the Center Red Line with related new rules. The CAHA followed suit. The NCAA and the various American governing bodies did not. They kept the international rules. So you had a CFL / NFL rule diachotomy which made it very difficult for players trained since pre teen days in the international rules to adapt quickly to the NHL rules. Even returning Canadian scholarship players at US universities did not transition back smoothly. 1969 when the basic NHL rules were adopted by the IIHF the barriers quickly disappeared and Americans followed by Internationals started to play in the NHL and other NA leagues.
The rest of Canada, you ask? You jest?
St Michael's College in Toronto since 1906 has been playing hockey, a seminary, also produced teaching priests that coach. hockey at Catholic schools across Canada.
Ottawa, had a great hockey program in the schools going back to pre NHL days, in the twenties it was at a level where certain high schools had upwards of three future NHLers on the school team.
Kingston, Winnipeg, Saskatchewan(Notre Dame) also had and still have great school hockey programs. Other towns and communities with boarding high schools featured hockey programs.
Most Quebec boarding schools - high school level had excellent hockey programs, some(Roussin, LCC, Loyola, Brebeuf, others) even built arenas pre NHL thru the pre WWII era.
Montreal, I use as a foundation to build and extend from.
Why the reproachful tone? If you were told we don't have these numbers, it's because we did not have them.
Which of course has a good reason:
You even concede it yourself.
No doubt, but since organized hockey goes back to the 1880s in Canada, it's pure guesswork for us to determine when that point was reached.
I can't speak for others, but I've always acknowledged the fact that the NHL talent pool has increased considerably due to the influx of Americans and Europeans. Which e.g. is why I use the method of excluding non-Canadians* when I compare the scoring dominance of Jaromír Jágr and Gordie Howe relative to their peers (*other than Jágr himself, obviously):
Peter Forsberg, Teemu Selänne, Pavel Bure etc were all removed from the comparison.
The Canadian talent pool, however, is a tougher nut to crack. It is not obvious to me how much the Canadian pool has grown from, say, the O6 era to the 1990s. I have my reservations about the national registration numbers as we do know for a fact that they weren't as inclusive and all-covering in the 1950s and 1960s as they were later. As far as I can see, we don't have anything tangible and reliable to rest upon, which reduces us to working assumptions until new evidence is presented. The working assumption (it's not more than that, really) I'm operating under is that the overall rate of the Canadian population actively playing hockey has been roughly the same from the 1950s to the present day, which is why I've been using the number of births in Canada as a basic framework. Numbers of births per decade (as per Statistic Canada):
1931-1941: 2,3 million births (20 years of age: 1951-1961)
1941-1951: 3,2 million births (20 years of age: 1961-1971)
1951-1961: 4,5 million births (20 years of age: 1971-1981)
1961-1971: 4,1 million births (20 years of age: 1981-1991)
1971-1981: 3,6 million births (20 years of age: 1991-2001)
1981-1991: 3,8 million births (20 years of age: 2001-2011)
Based on this, my assumption is that the Canadian talent pool was indeed quite a bit smaller in the O6 era than it was in later decades, but not nearly as "shallow" as you seem to suggest.
Of course, this workig assumption of mine could turn out wrong once new evidence is unearthed. Maybe the talent pool was smaller than I assume. Or you're in for a surprise and it was even larger than I assume.
Seriously? You're the one who is seemingly trying to argue that hockey hasn't grown as a sport since the early 1900's. That's a non-starter for any debate on the subject. Most sensible people wouldn't even engage in such a debate so I guess I'm not sensible.
This is why the US wasn't a talent stream for the NHL during part of the O6. Good to know. The problem is they weren't part of the talent stream feeding the league so that made it less competitive overall and backs up my argument.
St. Michael's College still has a very nice hockey program. The rest are all major cities in Canada that fed the early NHL. We know this already. What about BC and the Maritimes? Yet more missing talent streams that we do have now. Nova Scotia has given us Crosby, McKinnon, Marchand, MacInnis, etc. No such talent came from there during the O6 or before. It's all downhill from there when you add what the US has developed the last 40 or so years and what Europe has developed the last 50 or so years.
The debate actually concluded years ago when it started.
This post right here proves Howe is significantly overrated.
That said, I do believe it's easier to be the best out of 150 players than out of a 1000.
That said, I do believe it's easier to be the best out of 150 players than out of a 1000.
Great players are great, regardless of the era.
That's fine. And if you think Howe is better than Lemieux that's your opinion. But saying "I thought it was bad saying 66 was better" is highly overating Howe.What exactly is overrated about
* 6 Art Ross Trophies (1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1963)
* 6 Hart Trophies (1952, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963) - as many as Lemieux and Orr combined
* First or second team All-Star every season from 1949-1970 except for 1955, or 21 times in the NHL in 22 seasons
* Top 5 in points in the NHL 20 straight times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969)
* Top 5 in goals in the NHL 13 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1969)
* Top 5 in assists in the NHL 17 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969)
* Top 5 in PIM in the NHL 1 time (1954)
Here is some extra reading for you, on how damn good Howe was -
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/atd-2010-bios.737224/#post-23805029
That's fine. And if you think Howe is better than Lemieux that's your opinion. But saying "I thought it was bad saying 66 was better" is highly overating Howe.
That's fine. And if you think Howe is better than Lemieux that's your opinion. But saying "I thought it was bad saying 66 was better" is highly overating Howe.
Just be mindful, though it goes without saying - I'm going to say it anyway, not every poster here (much less non-regular posters) speaks for all of us...
Why the reproachful tone? If you were told we don't have these numbers, it's because we did not have them.
No doubt, but since organized hockey goes back to the 1880s in Canada, it's pure guesswork for us to determine when that point was reached.
I can't speak for others, but I've always acknowledged the fact that the NHL talent pool has increased considerably due to the influx of Americans and Europeans. Which e.g. is why I use the method of excluding non-Canadians* when I compare the scoring dominance of Jaromír Jágr and Gordie Howe relative to their peers (*other than Jágr himself, obviously):
The Canadian talent pool, however, is a tougher nut to crack. It is not obvious to me how much the Canadian pool has grown from, say, the O6 era to the 1990s. I have my reservations about the national registration numbers as we do know for a fact that they weren't as inclusive and all-covering in the 1950s and 1960s as they were later. As far as I can see, we don't have anything tangible and reliable to rest upon, which reduces us to working assumptions until new evidence is presented. The working assumption (it's not more than that, really) I'm operating under is that the overall rate of the Canadian population actively playing hockey has been roughly the same from the 1950s to the present day, which is why I've been using the number of births in Canada as a basic framework. Numbers of births per decade (as per Statistic Canada):
1931-1941: 2,3 million births (20 years of age: 1951-1961)
1941-1951: 3,2 million births (20 years of age: 1961-1971)
1951-1961: 4,5 million births (20 years of age: 1971-1981)
1961-1971: 4,1 million births (20 years of age: 1981-1991)
1971-1981: 3,6 million births (20 years of age: 1991-2001)
1981-1991: 3,8 million births (20 years of age: 2001-2011)
Based on this, my assumption is that the Canadian talent pool was indeed quite a bit smaller in the O6 era than it was in later decades, but not nearly as "shallow" as you seem to suggest.
Of course, this workig assumption of mine could turn out wrong once new evidence is unearthed. Maybe the talent pool was smaller than I assume. Or you're in for a surprise and it was even larger than I assume.
I don't know how long you've been on this board. Maybe you went by another name, or I just don't remember you, but I guess I've been around for well over 10 years now. Originally, one couldn't even try to discuss this topic without regular posters complaining to mods, who would either give you a warning or close the thread down. It's obviously got a lot better since then but it always seemed as though those same regulars hid behind the strange rules of this section and the fact that we did not have statistics.
Doubtful. Competition for best or the various AST spots and honours usually is limited to the top 50 to 100 players each season. O6 or prior eras or even today. Probably tending to 50.
Back to a very valid point you made in post #183 about great players dominating. True but does their dominating play lead a team to victory or ultimate honours?
Exhibit A = Conor McDavid. Exhibit B = the Las Vegas expansion team. Examine all facets of the argument in this light and the relationship between individual play and team play comes into focus.
US trained players from the universities came to O6 NHL training camps but were not willing to take pay cuts to apprentice in the minors adapting to the NHL rules and longer season demands.
BC and the Maritimes you say. Pre WWI Maritime teams challenged for the Stanley Cup - 1912(Moncton) and 1913(Sydney):
Greatest Hockey Legends.com: Stanley Cup History: The Challenge Cup Years 1893-1913
Well the Maritimes was producing quality players - pre WWII - Gordie Drillon HHOF and others. You do manage to overlook the various Maritime teams that competed and won the Allan Cup with home grown talent. Similarly BC players stayed in BC to play locally. Look at the Allan Cup champions and finalists, The Maritime and BC teams did very well into the sixties.
Allan Cup - Wikipedia
Then you have Mike Buckna from BC who turned down the NHL to accelerate the growth of hockey in pre and post WWII Czechoslovakia.
Basically you should have researched claims instead of starting a debate unprepared.
Gordie Howe. By far!
His greatness lies in his seemingly never-ending career. If he retired 15 years earlier nobody would even mention him in any top list. Not to mention he peaked in the 50s when nobody could even play hockey (or any sport really).
The true big 4 is:
Gretzky
Orr
Lemieux
Hasek
I know Canadian extremists will get mad but yes, there are non Canadians in the top 10.
I hope you don't ban me because I am not trolling, this post is dead serious.
Gordie Howe. By far!
His greatness lies in his seemingly never-ending career. If he retired 15 years earlier nobody would even mention him in any top list. Not to mention he peaked in the 50s when nobody could even play hockey (or any sport really).
The true big 4 is:
Gretzky
Orr
Lemieux
Hasek
I know Canadian extremists will get mad but yes, there are non Canadians in the top 10.
I hope you don't ban me because I am not trolling, this post is dead serious.