The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread

[Kyle McMahon]

It hasn't been refuted it's been refused plain and simple.

No idea on why it would be since there has always been a traditional Canadian talent pool to compare each and every player in the NHL after the fall of the Western Professional league in the late 20's.

Why should a player from Ontario in 1950 be judged against other players from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta almost exclusively only and the guy from 2015 has to be judged against all players from the original group and then some.

It's a very weak and non existent argument to say that both players are being judged equally and compared equally plain and simple.

There has always been a talent pool of Canadian players, yes. But the assumption that this talent pool has remained at equal strength or grown over the years has been strongly questioned, with much evidence presented to the opposite effect; that is, the Canadian talent pool may be smaller now than it was in the middle of the last century.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Just for your information, 1 in 90 would be your "lottery odds" in a 30-team league, not 1 in 180.

Thanks and I really should have more caffeine on the mornings my dog wakes me up early

So we have now come back to the scoring race being equated to a random lottery where all 90 first line players have exactly the same chance of winning the Art Ross? If this is indeed the case, the data should show that it's exceptionally rare for the same player to make multiple appearances on the top-10 leaderboard within a period of several years. We could reasonably expect 27 different names to occupy the 30 top-10 slots in any and all given three-year samples since the NHL expanded to 30 teams. Feel free to present this data to back up your lottery hypothesis. It is readily available from many different sources, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be presented as supporting evidence.

No the lottery is an all things being equal starting point, and I'm not arguing that all things are equal and if fact have argued otherwise through out this discussion,.

Obviously the answer lies elsewhere in those 22 consecutive runs.

Also by looking at say 1 scorer per team so
6 for 06 era
12 for post expansion
30 for today
and how frequent repeats are one is going to find a more accurate pattern.

I'm not going to run the number now as I don't have time and one would also need to account for injuries right?

And I'm not exactly sure how one accounts for injuries.

But when I have time I will run the numbers and then we will see where we are at.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There has always been a talent pool of Canadian players, yes. But the assumption that this talent pool has remained at equal strength or grown over the years has been strongly questioned, with much evidence presented to the opposite effect; that is, the Canadian talent pool may be smaller now than it was in the middle of the last century.

That is incorrect as almost all of the evidence points in the other direction as I pointed out with the BC and Nova Scotia examples.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Opportunity to Play and Produce

It hasn't been refuted it's been refused plain and simple.

No idea on why it would be since there has always been a traditional Canadian talent pool to compare each and every player in the NHL after the fall of the Western Professional league in the late 20's.

Why should a player from Ontario in 1950 be judged against other players from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta almost exclusively only and the guy from 2015 has to be judged against all players from the original group and then some.

It's a very weak and non existent argument to say that both players are being judged equally and compared equally plain and simple.

You are the one judging. Everyone else with few exceptions is relying on actual results. The actual results simply do not support your theories, regardless of how you choose to present them.

Effectively you are arguing that the provenance of the scorer somehow changes the value or degree of difficulty of a goal or an assist. It does not. Every season, one goal is one goal, one assist is one assist . Every season meritocracy rules.

The only thing that has changed is the triage system, the number of NHL spots available for teams/players and how we define eligibility for NHL participation.

Doubling participation in the NHL from 6 teams to 17 teams between the 1966-67 and 1967-68 seasons did not produce new or different goal and scoring leaders from one season to the next. the 1967-68 NHL All-Star Teams were featured NHL regulars from the previous season, 1966-67 minor league regulars made the ASTs.

Only difference was that double the number of players received NHL salaries and pension time credit.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

No the lottery is an all things being equal starting point, and I'm not arguing that all things are equal and if fact have argued otherwise through out this discussion,.

Except that's exactly what you were arguing. When I pressed you to present actual data, you said:

It's simple math I will take the lottery where I have a 1 in 18 chance (representing top line players in a 6 team league) and you can have the one where you have a 1 in 180 chance(representing all of the top line players in a 30 team league)

No need for actual numbers it would seem; the lottery math speaks for itself.

That is incorrect as almost all of the evidence points in the other direction as I pointed out with the BC and Nova Scotia examples.

Players coming out of locales where they previously did not is not direct evidence of a bigger and better nationwide talent pool. A plethora of registration data has been presented over the years to counter the idea of a bigger talent pool, not to mention all the observable evidence such as the sport no longer being widely played at the organized high school level, the prohibitive cost that has turned high levels of organized play into an elitist sport, and modern technology that has created many other non-athletic hobbies and avenues of entertainment that may be pursued by Canadian youth.

None of this is groundbreaking new evidence. It has been presented by various participants in this forum for years. But it seems every few months it's simply forgotten again, and those who did all the original leg-work in disproving many of the "facts" and "common sense" arguments brought forth by the "modern=better, end of story" faction are forced to do it all over again.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Correct

There has always been a talent pool of Canadian players, yes. But the assumption that this talent pool has remained at equal strength or grown over the years has been strongly questioned, with much evidence presented to the opposite effect; that is, the Canadian talent pool may be smaller now than it was in the middle of the last century.

This is correct, contrary to HVs suppositions. The key to understanding the population paradox is recognizing the way hockey is played and organized at the developmental levels going back to the pre NHL days, pre Stanley Cup days.

Outdoor hockey was a populist sport with little registration of youth participants pre midget age until the post WWII era. The few available arenas were rarely if ever used for pre midget age hockey. With the national arena building boom mainly due to the 1967 Centennial community project programs, development hockey evolved towards arenas.

Outdoor hockey was climate dictated. Some winter Montreal's outdoor rinks could be used only 25 days, other winters upwards of 90 plus days. Data is available from Parks and Recreation or similarly titled sources in most Canadian cities.

Today with arenas, youngsters may play hockey 365 days of the year, but most youngsters choose to have other interests. So today Hockey Montréal has a registration rate that is app 90% below what it was in the 1950s and 1960s. This includes femaile participation at the youth level.

Ironically this drop of app 90% is also reflected in contemporary Russian numbers for youth hockey when compared to late 1960s, early 1970s Soviet Union numbers.

 

[Killion]

None of this is groundbreaking new evidence. It has been presented by various participants in this forum for years. But it seems every few months it's simply forgotten again, and those who did all the original leg-work in disproving many of the "facts" and "common sense" arguments brought forth by the "modern=better, end of story" faction are forced to do it all over again.

Indeed. And beyond annoying for those who have expended the time & energy in graciously debunking various theories. Wash, spin, cycle, repeat. We simply cant be having that here... its like some strange form of cognitive dissonance with some. Extreme Hang Gliders dropping bye every few months with new designs thinking they'll get more air-time with the same thermally heated hot air rhetoric of thoroughly discredited hypothesis. For the regulars here, beyond annoying. And while we pride ourselves in being welcoming, all inclusive as opposed to being exclusive, a place to enjoy, learn & share, pass on information & so on, theres a limit to peoples patience. We dont ask that anyone blindly follow whatever form of accredited & acceptable dogma, everyones right to question, but.... I can assure you we Moderators here on the HOH are fully cognizant, well aware of this phenomena & who's sitting behind the sticks of these strange flying objects.... yes... unlike the US Air Force, Naval Intelligence, Nasa, the NSA, CIA, FBI & every other top secret alphabet agency we admit that yes, they are here amongst us, we know what their up to, know who they are and generally have things under control.... Now....If in the future you encounter one of these... Beings... do not engage... Report their presence to the appropriate authorities... that would be the Triangular shaped icon (and yes, full-on inter-stellar anti-gravitic flying machine, we have our own) located under the Aliens handle & avatar. Aide & assistance just a click away though we do, and very much so proactively patrol the sky's, radar always on alert... Bogie at 200,000'.... bustin through the Van Allen... GD shot of radiation poisoning included... damn....

Crystal?

 

[danincanada]

Players coming out of locales where they previously did not is not direct evidence of a bigger and better nationwide talent pool. A plethora of registration data has been presented over the years to counter the idea of a bigger talent pool, not to mention all the observable evidence such as the sport no longer being widely played at the organized high school level, the prohibitive cost that has turned high levels of organized play into an elitist sport, and modern technology that has created many other non-athletic hobbies and avenues of entertainment that may be pursued by Canadian youth.

None of this is groundbreaking new evidence. It has been presented by various participants in this forum for years. But it seems every few months it's simply forgotten again, and those who did all the original leg-work in disproving many of the "facts" and "common sense" arguments brought forth by the "modern=better, end of story" faction are forced to do it all over again.

Where is this plethora of registration data? We've got this, which doesn't bode well for you at all:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1519261

It's not about modern=better either, it's about actually trying to compare across eras fairly and not realizing the talent pool of elite players has grown isn't doing that. HV is right, its refusal, not refuting.

I'll reply to tge other posts later, although I'm not sure why I should bother.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Where is this plethora of registration data? We've got this, which doesn't bode well for you at all:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1519261

It doesn't? Those numbers show that Canadian registration levels only just recently returned to mid-1970's levels. And that's before we even account for players that may not have been captured in the 1970's numbers due to the other streams of organized hockey that were much more prevalent then than they are today. The conclusion is that there was likely a smaller Canadian talent pool in the decades following the mid-70's than there was at that point. This is very damning evidence against the theory put forward by you and a few others of the ever-expanding talent pool.

 

[danincanada]

It doesn't? Those numbers show that Canadian registration levels only just recently returned to mid-1970's levels. And that's before we even account for players that may not have been captured in the 1970's numbers due to the other streams of organized hockey that were much more prevalent then than they are today. The conclusion is that there was likely a smaller Canadian talent pool in the decades following the mid-70's than there was at that point. This is very damning evidence against the theory put forward by you and a few others of the ever-expanding talent pool.

Very telling that you didn't mention the pre-70s numbers.

A great percentage of those registered players in the mid-70's were kids. When did those kids, that were fortunate enough to make it to the NHL, play as adults? Welcome to the conversation 1980s and 90s.

The "ever expanding talent pool" feeding the NHL has major contributions from the US and Europe with pure evidence of elite talent coming from both. Therefore, if Canada's numbers are anywhere close to what our "plethora of evidence" shows then my argument is far stronger than yours. Now cue the "but those numbers miss all the people playing on ponds" excuse. Because we all know non-registered kids who play pond hockey are often walk-ons onto NHL teams.

 

[Czech Your Math]

There has always been a talent pool of Canadian players, yes. But the assumption that this talent pool has remained at equal strength or grown over the years has been strongly questioned, with much evidence presented to the opposite effect; that is, the Canadian talent pool may be smaller now than it was in the middle of the last century.

I accept that there may be some evidence on the opposite side.
I find it better to at least recognize that the talent pool fluctuates in size and composition, even if we can't agree on the direction, magnitude, and composition... rather than blindly pretend that it stays exactly the same over time, when it clearly doesn't.
That is besides other dynamics in the NHL (league size, parity or lack thereof, competition from other leagues, etc.) that influence the competition for yearly rankings & awards.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Talent Pool

I accept that there may be some evidence on the opposite side.
I find it better to at least recognize that the talent pool fluctuates in size and composition, even if we can't agree on the direction, magnitude, and composition... rather than blindly pretend that it stays exactly the same over time, when it clearly doesn't.
That is besides other dynamics in the NHL (league size, parity or lack thereof, competition from other leagues, etc.) that influence the competition for yearly rankings & awards.

Data about the growth of the talent pool in Russia during the last five seasons:

http://www.statista.com/statistics/282128/number-of-registered-ice-hockey-players-russia/

Contrast with data about data about Soviet youth participation in the 1960s and 1970s in the Golden Puck Youth competition, upwards of 4,000,000

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=92244731&postcount=10

The structure of the Golden Puck event was identical to Montreal, in the fifties and sixties. League winners to zone winners to district winners to the city championship for each category,followed by the regional championship onto the provincial championship.

The drop experienced in Russia, that no one seems to dispute, is found elsewhere as well. The dynamics that you try to attribute to the NHL are found elsewhere as well.

 

[danincanada]

Data about the growth of the talent pool in Russia during the last five seasons:

http://www.statista.com/statistics/282128/number-of-registered-ice-hockey-players-russia/

Contrast with data about data about Soviet youth participation in the 1960s and 1970s in the Golden Puck Youth competition, upwards of 4,000,000

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=92244731&postcount=10

The structure of the Golden Puck event was identical to Montreal, in the fifties and sixties. League winners to zone winners to district winners to the city championship for each category,followed by the regional championship onto the provincial championship.

The drop experienced in Russia, that no one seems to dispute, is found elsewhere as well. The dynamics that you try to attribute to the NHL are found elsewhere as well.

Very interesting, however none of those kids would set foot in the NHL until after the wall came down, and if they did, that's considered the modern era. No one here is disputing that the modern era had a larger talent pool feeding the NHL than before it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It doesn't? Those numbers show that Canadian registration levels only just recently returned to mid-1970's levels. And that's before we even account for players that may not have been captured in the 1970's numbers due to the other streams of organized hockey that were much more prevalent then than they are today. The conclusion is that there was likely a smaller Canadian talent pool in the decades following the mid-70's than there was at that point. This is very damning evidence against the theory put forward by you and a few others of the ever-expanding talent pool.

So by looking at how many kids were playing in house leagues in the 70's is the proof?

And it really doesn't bode well for the argument the farther back one goes either.

but let's just assume those numbers have any actual correlation to NHL talent then compare Maurice Richard to say Ovechkin.

Those numbers above in the 2000's will need to be expanded to all of the other top hockey nations, ie USA, Europe ect...

Why evidence like this gets trotted out as any proof of the Canadian talent pool going down compared to the 06 era is simply baffling.

Even more so when one talks to former NHL players and their thoughts on the skill level of today's players compared to more recent times.

the most egregious example of this was in the 100 year divide of 4 seasons of Frank McGee and the then 6 year sample of Steve Stamkos.

 

[danincanada]

The problem with your "factual" analysis is that it's entirely based on guesswork. Remove the "if"s from your argument and you've got nothing. Here's the thing, though -- what happened in the past actually happened. It's not "if".

You avoided my question about Doughty and removing all non-Canadian defenseman In today's NHL. That was simply an example of how things actually were in the O6. That part is not an "if", it provides actual context and a reality if one is comparing those eras.

You make my point for me that the NHL is always changing. Here's a question: at what point now or in the future -- in the ever-changing NHL -- are you going to draw a line in the sand and say, "Henceforth, all things that happen are comparable! And previously they were not!" Let me guess: you want to draw that line NOW. But why not in 2005? 1994? 1980? 1960? Or, more to the point: why not in 2040? 2080? Logically, the League is going to expand in some way or fashion, to more players, more teams, more countries represented, right? So therefore, today's standards are going to be garbage compared to 2050, right? If not, then why not?

You couldn't be more wrong. Compare whatever you want but if you're going to ignore certain context then the comparison isn't worth much. I'm not all about NOW either, I'm about trying to keep comparisons across eras as fair as possible. Comparing a Canadian domestic league of the 50's and 60's and pretending it had the same amount of elite players as the modern NHL is bullocks.

(Mod)

 

[Canadiens1958]

House League

So by looking at how many kids were playing in house leagues in the 70's is the proof?

And it really doesn't bode well for the argument the farther back one goes either.

but let's just assume those numbers have any actual correlation to NHL talent then compare Maurice Richard to say Ovechkin.

Those numbers above in the 2000's will need to be expanded to all of the other top hockey nations, ie USA, Europe ect...

Why evidence like this gets trotted out as any proof of the Canadian talent pool going down compared to the 06 era is simply baffling.

Even more so when one talks to former NHL players and their thoughts on the skill level of today's players compared to more recent times.

Today house league is at the bottom of the triple, double, single letter structure. Well into the 1970s it was the entry into the organizations hockey structure.

Previously, early 1970s and before,all youngsters in an organization or school playing hockey played house league in their age category for internal competition. Then select and rep teams would be chosen for play in outside leagues, tournaments, competitions.

Yes there was a distinction between Select and Rep teams. Select reflected the best possible team in a category. Rep teams were representative team equal representation from all house league teams in an age category, often put together to participate in weekend festivals that were talent specific.

 

[Canadiens1958]

How Things Actually Were

You avoided my question about Doughty and removing all non-Canadian defenseman In today's NHL. That was simply an example of how things actually were in the O6. That part is not an "if", it provides actual context and a reality if one is comparing those eras.



You couldn't be more wrong. Compare whatever you want but if you're going to ignore certain context then the comparison isn't worth much. I'm not all about NOW either, I'm about trying to keep comparisons across eras as fair as possible. Comparing a Canadian domestic league of the 50's and 60's and pretending it had the same amount of elite players as the modern NHL is bullocks.

How things actually were in the O6 era are not remotely reflected in your Doughty question.

Will illustrate. In the late fifties there were roughly five europeans that NHL observers agreed deserved a chance, a trial in the NHL, Sven Tumba, Sologubov, Puchkov, Alexandrov, perhaps one or two others.

Outside the NHL there were players like Connie Broden, Jean Paul Lamirande, Charlie Burns with a bit of NHL or minor pro experience who played on Canadian teams at World Hockey Championships, winning awards and honours. Jean Paul Lamirande was named the best defenceman at the 1959 WHC. From 1954 onwards he was a Montreal Canadiens farmhand.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SearchPlayer.jsp?player=13289

Would you consider Jean Paul Lamirande a candidate for NHL AST honours in 1959?
Would you consider him a candidate for the Norris Trophy in 1959? Jean Paul Lamirande though an excellent player was not a threat to Doug Harvey, not even a threat to Albert Langlois. Had he been willing to take a pay cut to play for a week American team in the NHL he may have made a non-playoff team as a depth defenceman. Likewise some of the Europeans may have made an NHL team buy they would not have been factors in the NHL awards and honours since the adjustment curve was a very big challenge, plus the NHL salary would not come close to their European benefits.

 

[Boxscore]

I don't get all this fuss over players of today vs. players of the past. To me, it's very simple: players are as great as their level of dominance against their own peers/competition.

I couldn't care less how international the player pool is, how many teams there are, etc. When the NHL players were 99% Canadians (and 80% of them from Ontario & Quebec), it was just as difficult to dominate peers as it is today. And 50 years from now, when the NHL will probably be dominated by East Asians, it will just as difficult to dominate peers as it is today.

This ^ is the bottom line.

If it was so easy to dominate in the 80's, Bobby Smith would have been scoring 200 like Wayne.

We can try to muddy the waters all we like... but it's overkill and far to speculative to do so. Domination vs. peers is the most accurate way to evaluate generational and all-time talents.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Very telling that you didn't mention the pre-70s numbers.

A great percentage of those registered players in the mid-70's were kids. When did those kids, that were fortunate enough to make it to the NHL, play as adults? Welcome to the conversation 1980s and 90s.

The "ever expanding talent pool" feeding the NHL has major contributions from the US and Europe with pure evidence of elite talent coming from both. Therefore, if Canada's numbers are anywhere close to what our "plethora of evidence" shows then my argument is far stronger than yours. Now cue the "but those numbers miss all the people playing on ponds" excuse. Because we all know non-registered kids who play pond hockey are often walk-ons onto NHL teams.

So if the large amount of registrants from the mid-70's indicates strong talent levels in the 80's and 90's, it must necessarily mean that the lower numbers in subsequent decades meant things tailed off over the last 15 years, right? Combine that with diminishing participation in Russia, Czech Republic, and Slovakia...one might say the last decade has featured an NHL drawing from as thin a talent pool as we've seen in quite a long time.

Of course, this is all speculative. You've always been a big fan of the "higher raw numbers of participants=more elite talent" argument, which of course has never been backed up by more than your own thought experiments.

I accept that there may be some evidence on the opposite side.
I find it better to at least recognize that the talent pool fluctuates in size and composition, even if we can't agree on the direction, magnitude, and composition... rather than blindly pretend that it stays exactly the same over time, when it clearly doesn't.
That is besides other dynamics in the NHL (league size, parity or lack thereof, competition from other leagues, etc.) that influence the competition for yearly rankings & awards.

I don't think you'll find much argument that the talent pool can fluctuate over time. The issue seems to be that a few posters are extremely adamant that it has steadily increased in both size and quality with the passage of time, in spite of data collected by others that has cast serious doubt upon this premise.

So by looking at how many kids were playing in house leagues in the 70's is the proof?

And it really doesn't bode well for the argument the farther back one goes either.

but let's just assume those numbers have any actual correlation to NHL talent then compare Maurice Richard to say Ovechkin.

Those numbers above in the 2000's will need to be expanded to all of the other top hockey nations, ie USA, Europe ect...

Why evidence like this gets trotted out as any proof of the Canadian talent pool going down compared to the 06 era is simply baffling.

Even more so when one talks to former NHL players and their thoughts on the skill level of today's players compared to more recent times.

You can treat the evidence however you want, Hardy. But at least somebody took the time and trouble to assemble some real, actual numbers. Something that your side of the debate has traditionally forgone in favour of hypothetical situations involving phantom players, speculation framed as "common sense", and scoring races equated to random lotteries.

 

[danincanada]

How things actually were in the O6 era are not remotely reflected in your Doughty question.

Will illustrate. In the late fifties there were roughly five europeans that NHL observers agreed deserved a chance, a trial in the NHL, Sven Tumba, Sologubov, Puchkov, Alexandrov, perhaps one or two others.

Outside the NHL there were players like Connie Broden, Jean Paul Lamirande, Charlie Burns with a bit of NHL or minor pro experience who played on Canadian teams at World Hockey Championships, winning awards and honours. Jean Paul Lamirande was named the best defenceman at the 1959 WHC. From 1954 onwards he was a Montreal Canadiens farmhand.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SearchPlayer.jsp?player=13289

Would you consider Jean Paul Lamirande a candidate for NHL AST honours in 1959?
Would you consider him a candidate for the Norris Trophy in 1959? Jean Paul Lamirande though an excellent player was not a threat to Doug Harvey, not even a threat to Albert Langlois. Had he been willing to take a pay cut to play for a week American team in the NHL he may have made a non-playoff team as a depth defenceman. Likewise some of the Europeans may have made an NHL team buy they would not have been factors in the NHL awards and honours since the adjustment curve was a very big challenge, plus the NHL salary would not come close to their European benefits.

That's all wonderful information but the reality is that the NHL only had elite Canadians during the O6 and the modern era has far more than that as everyone knows. That's what my example was pointing to because that was my point. It's actually irrelevant as to why there weren't elite non-Canadians in the O6. The fact is they weren't there and therefore it was easier for the elite Canadians to get AS nominations, etc. than it is now.

 

[danincanada]

So if the large amount of registrants from the mid-70's indicates strong talent levels in the 80's and 90's, it must necessarily mean that the lower numbers in subsequent decades meant things tailed off over the last 15 years, right? Combine that with diminishing participation in Russia, Czech Republic, and Slovakia...one might say the last decade has featured an NHL drawing from as thin a talent pool as we've seen in quite a long time.

Of course, this is all speculative. You've always been a big fan of the "higher raw numbers of participants=more elite talent" argument, which of course has never been backed up by more than your own thought experiments.

Not quite because the US had huge growth and Scandinavian countries also grew, which at least made up for the difference. Canada shrunk a bit and some European countries grew and some shrunk. It seems to have been fairly steady overall for a while but it appears to be on the rise again in Canada and the US is still growing quickly.

My own thought experiments? It really is common sense. Hockey is a relatively new sport. It didn't grow into what it is suddenly in the early 1900's. My thought experiment makes a lot more sense than the argument against it.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Not quite because the US had huge growth and Scandinavian countries also grew, which at least made up for the difference. Canada shrunk a bit and some European countries grew and some shrunk. It seems to have been fairly steady overall for a while but it appears to be on the rise again in Canada and the US is still growing quickly.

My own thought experiments? It really is common sense. Hockey is a relatively new sport. It didn't grow into what it is suddenly in the early 1900's. My thought experiment makes a lot more sense than the argument against it.

Convenient; once again the burden of proof is shifted away from the person introducing the hypothesis and placed upon anyone who may question it.

So tell me, under what circumstances could the best player from 1905 be considered better than the best player from 2010? In order for your experiment to be free of bias, any outcome must be possible.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Quite

That's all wonderful information but the reality is that the NHL only had elite Canadians during the O6 and the modern era has far more than that as everyone knows. That's what my example was pointing to because that was my point. It's actually irrelevant as to why there weren't elite non-Canadians in the O6. The fact is they weren't there and therefore it was easier for the elite Canadians to get AS nominations, etc. than it is now.

Not quite.

The point is that hockey at the elite level was integrated during the O6 era but the venues of integration were distributed differently.

Today hockey is equally integrated, even more so, because a far greater number of Canadians are playing in Europe and on other continents than during the O6 era.

The number of elite honours and awards that non-Canadians(individually and team) earn in the NHL is eclipsed by the honours and awards Canadiens earn playing hockey internationally. Best exemplified by Gold Medal success in the last 20 to 30 years at the Winter Olympics, World Hockey Championships, World Junior Hockey Championships, World U18 championships, World Women's Olympic and World Championships. All these gold medal successes are accompanied by individual honours and awards earned by Canadian players.

Yet your examples and theories fail to account for this historically and in a contemporary context.

If it is harder for Canadians to win honours and awards in the NHL then it should be even harder for Canadian teams and players to succeed internationally. Yet the opposite is happening.

Your claims and arguments do not compute.

 

[danincanada]

Not quite.

The point is that hockey at the elite level was integrated during the O6 era but the venues of integration were distributed differently.

Today hockey is equally integrated, even more so, because a far greater number of Canadians are playing in Europe and on other continents than during the O6 era.

The number of elite honours and awards that non-Canadians(individually and team) earn in the NHL is eclipsed by the honours and awards Canadiens earn playing hockey internationally. Best exemplified by Gold Medal success in the last 20 to 30 years at the Winter Olympics, World Hockey Championships, World Junior Hockey Championships, World U18 championships, World Women's Olympic and World Championships. All these gold medal successes are accompanied by individual honours and awards earned by Canadian players.

Yet your examples and theories fail to account for this historically and in a contemporary context.

If it is harder for Canadians to win honours and awards in the NHL then it should be even harder for Canadian teams and players to succeed internationally. Yet the opposite is happening.

Your claims and arguments do not compute.

Isn't the NHL still the gold standard for elite players?

Canada wins best on best tournaments but so do other nations at times. This shows that Canada still produces great hockey players but so do other nations. How does that argue my point? Seems to back up what I'm saying more than anything.

 

[danincanada]

Convenient; once again the burden of proof is shifted away from the person introducing the hypothesis and placed upon anyone who may question it.

So tell me, under what circumstances could the best player from 1905 be considered better than the best player from 2010? In order for your experiment to be free of bias, any outcome must be possible.

My proof is that we've witnessed with our own eyes elite Americans and Europans in the NHL. They weren't there before so this added to the elite talent.

My other proof is the chronological hockey registration list of Canada that displays a huge growth during the baby boom with a fairly consistent stretch from the mid 70's until now.

Now what's your proof that the number of elite players in the NHL has remained about the same since its inception? Or what is your hypothesis exactly if you don't agree with mine?

1905 would be very difficult since we wouldn't even have film of such a player. I'm not really interested in comparing across such vastly different eras but if one did that 1905 guy better blow away his competition on a scale that's greater than anyone else who came after him. That's a starter. If he's merely equal in peer dominance to the 2010 then it's a non-starter.