How many points does prime Erik Karlsson get if he played on the 60s and 70s Bruins?

[Laineux]

Sure the players today are better, it's not a reason to just throw the history of hockey to a trash can. The past players are who made the game to what it is today. Modern players will look bad in 30 years too.

 

[Legionnaire]

Sure the players today are better, it's not a reason to just throw the history of hockey to a trash can. The past players are who made the game to what it is today. Modern players will look bad in 30 years too.

There isn't even proof that today's players are inherently better. Bridge players disprove this fallacy.

eg. Lemieux at 40 was still as talented if not moreso even than an 18 year old Crosby.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

People are not technology (Yet, but integration is already here) and don't ever confuse the two. Once mankind starts adding chips then that is no longer mankind.

What does that have to do with the fact that Karlsson plays in a modern era that is greatly improved? The point I wanted to make was that the time machine argument where Bobby Orr gets the modern training or Karlsson loses the modern training is flawed. The correct way to do it is to either transport Orr to today's game with his 1960 conditions, or to transport Karlsson to 1960 with today's conditions.

Yes, people are not technology, but the iPhone 7 compared to the first cell phone looks a lot like today's game compared to the game when Bobby Orr played. You can't deny that.

There isn't even proof that today's players are inherently better. Bridge players disprove this fallacy.

eg. Lemieux at 40 was still as talented if not moreso even than an 18 year old Crosby.

Go watch a game from 1990. Seriously, today's players are clearly better. I don't understand how you can't see this. Bridge players improve, so your point is invalid. They get BETTER, so it follows that the game improves as well.

Lemieux was at the end of his career by the time Crosby was just getting started. Crosby surpassed Lemieux in skill a long time ago. What you need to understand is that Crosby can reach a level that was NEVER possible for Lemieux due to the fact the he is able to play against stronger competition. Lemieux maxes out at level 100, Crosby has the expansion that allows him to max out at level 110. McDavid has the expansion that allows him to max out at 120, and so on.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Crosby surpassed Lemieux in skill a long time ago. What you need to understand is that Crosby can reach a level that was NEVER possible for Lemieux due to the fact the he is able to play against stronger competition. Lemieux maxes out at level 100, Crosby has the expansion that allows him to max out at level 110. McDavid has the expansion that allows him to max out at 120, and so on.

Absolute nonsense.

 

[sr edler]

He would have been slaughtered, alternatively "sluttered".

Hockey was mean back then. Dustin Brown would have been seen as a very gentlemanly chap.

 

[Lays]

I agree, she is ****ing gorgeous.

Oh you're talking about Karlsson.

Karlsson is also very gorgeous ( I am a straight male)

 

[Legionnaire]

What does that have to do with the fact that Karlsson plays in a modern era that is greatly improved? The point I wanted to make was that the time machine argument where Bobby Orr gets the modern training or Karlsson loses the modern training is flawed. The correct way to do it is to either transport Orr to today's game with his 1960 conditions, or to transport Karlsson to 1960 with today's conditions.

Yes, people are not technology, but the iPhone 7 compared to the first cell phone looks a lot like today's game compared to the game when Bobby Orr played. You can't deny that.

Go watch a game from 1990. Seriously, today's players are clearly better. I don't understand how you can't see this. Bridge players improve, so your point is invalid. They get BETTER, so it follows that the game improves as well.

Once again, you are confusing TV and camera technology and what it looks like on your iphone to what it looks like on the ice. I don't need to "go back" because I watched games live. Trust me the game was just as fast and was actually more skilled.Today's players have a fraction of the skill and creativity and it shows on the ice in league wide scoring.

...try watching today's game on a non-hdmi feed on a 36 inch vacuum tube TV.

Lemieux was at the end of his career by the time Crosby was just getting started. Crosby surpassed Lemieux in skill a long time ago. What you need to understand is that Crosby can reach a level that was NEVER possible for Lemieux due to the fact the he is able to play against stronger competition. Lemieux maxes out at level 100, Crosby has the expansion that allows him to max out at level 110. McDavid has the expansion that allows him to max out at 120, and so on.

That's right. And it was clear that Lemieux was the much better player - even at 40 with a horrible back.

 

[Sykie]

That's right. And it was clear that Lemieux was the much better player - even at 40 with a horrible back.

I understand it always looks great on HF to over-exagerate players from the past, but come on now, Lemieux played only 26 games around his 40, and he clearly struggled to follow the speed of the game at that point. Saying he was better than Crosby at 40 is a pure invention, sorry.

He certainly produced before that though. But as a poster said previously, it is more a testament to his own ability to progress along with the league, than a testament to the theory that the league didn't progress over time.

Denying the league is much better today is really being in a total denial. Just watch the games, seriously. I had tapes of some of the classic between Devils, Pens and Flyers of the 2000s. Looking at those games today, it looks shockingly amateurish compared to the level of the NHL today. If you tell me straight in the face you don't see an improvement between now and then, then I would have to seriously question your ability to evaluate players.

Bottom line, I really don't see the point in denying the progression of the sport over time. It is actually giving respect to all the professional that worked in the NHL over-time, to make it to progress.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

Once again, you are confusing TV and camera technology and what it looks like on your iphone to what it looks like on the ice. I don't need to "go back" because I watched games live. Trust me the game was just as fast and was actually more skilled.Today's players have a fraction of the skill and creativity and it shows on the ice in league wide scoring.

...try watching today's game on a non-hdmi feed on a 36 inch vacuum tube TV.


That's right. And it was clear that Lemieux was the much better player - even at 40 with a horrible back.

The wrist shots from the blue line going five hole were more skilled? The game was worse and it was slower. That is a FACT. Come on dude.

 

[AlphaBravo]

Karlsson is already a million times better than Orr, so I would say double the points Orr ever scored.

 

[Legionnaire]

I understand it always looks great on HF to over-exagerate players from the past, but come on now, Lemieux played only 26 games around his 40, and he clearly struggled to follow the speed of the game at that point. Saying he was better than Crosby at 40 is a pure invention, sorry.

He certainly produced before that though. But as a poster said previously, it is more a testament to his own ability to progress along with the league, than a testament to the theory that the league didn't progress over time.

Denying the league is much better today is really being in a total denial. Just watch the games, seriously. I had tapes of some of the classic between Devils, Pens and Flyers of the 2000s. Looking at those games today, it looks shockingly amateurish compared to the level of the NHL today. If you tell me straight in the face you don't see an improvement between now and then, then I would have to seriously question your ability to evaluate players.

Bottom line, I really don't see the point in denying the progression of the sport over time. It is actually giving respect to all the professional that worked in the NHL over-time, to make it to progress.

It's not. I had Center Ice and I watched every game of Mario's farewell tour. Mario looked as deadly as ever but he was just physically done as a player.

 

[Legionnaire]

The wrist shots from the blue line going five hole were more skilled? The game was worse and it was slower. That is a FACT. Come on dude.

Plenty of crap shots go in every season. Wrist shots? How many did you see? About as many as you do today. Little flutter shots give goalies fits when they're expecting slap shots. The shots from the point were just as hard and just as accurate.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

It's not. I have Center Ice and I watched every game. Mario looked as deadly as ever but he was just physically done as a player.

You're in denial man. The game was way worse, no doubt about it. If you really feel that the game wasn't, then what can I do.

 

[Legionnaire]

You're in denial man. The game was way worse, no doubt about it. If you really feel that the game wasn't, then what can I do.

If you really think the game is better, then you're in denial. There are no metrics that support your claims so what can *I* do?

 

[NyQuil]

Karlsson is already a million times better than Orr, so I would say double the points Orr ever scored.

Yeah, this stopped being funny about 6 months ago.

But you fight the good fight!

 

[Agent Zub]

If you really think the game is better, then you're in denial. There are no metrics that support your claims so what can *I* do?

Do you really think the game was faster and more skilled in the 1970s than it is now?

is that what you are saying?

 

[Legionnaire]

Do you really think the game was faster and more skilled in the 1970s than it is now?

is that what you are saying?

I'm saying it's relative to advances in both skate and ice technology and their improvements.

 

[Agent Zub]

I'm saying it's relative to advances in both skate and ice technology and their improvements.

The difference is that almost everyone playing in the NHL is now insanely fit, fast, and skilled. Back in the day, you could separate yourself more easily by relying on pure skill, which is why the top guys stood out more. But nowadays even the 4th liners are big strong and fast.Not to mention the systems, coaching, and preparation.

 

[ImpartialNHLfan]

I prefer 80's and 90's hockey over today's figure skating... Does that make me wrong?

 

[PB37]

He wouldn't have been able to live the lifestyle that the core group of the Bruins lead in those days. They were wild childs that would drive today's coaches and managements insane.

 

[Toene]

No ****. Gordie Howe played in the 40's to 80's. When he began the best player was likely Richard, when he retired Ray Bourque won the Calder. When he retired Ray Bourque was still an elite defenseman in a league with guys like Lidstrom, Thornton, Jagr, and Elias. All players who are still relevant or are not far removed from playing. The players have improved off the backs and skills of all those who came before them, nutrition, technology, training. They aren't better physically apart from the inherent advantages that time has provided them with. You don't gain skill on your own, you gain it competing against other talented people.

100% this. We have bridge players to prove that the difference isnt as big as some think.

 

[psycat]

5-10 points, was no Snus around then so his game would be less effective without one in.

Now I realize this was a joke or whatever but Snus is obviously a much older invention, like 500 years old.

 

[Bieber fever]

Were 60's players even full time hockey player ?

 

[sr edler]

Do you really think the game was faster and more skilled in the 1970s than it is now?

I can't speak for the 70s but from the 90s and onwards there isn't really that much of a difference. Simply isn't, except that some skill got lost in the DPE because of the "you can't teach size" philosophy that has poisoned the league for over two decades now, and except that fourth liners are faster now. Not necessarily more skilled, but yeah a bit faster.

When the last Soviet school players like Fedorov, Bure and Mogilny, combined with the extended Iron Curtain players like Jagr and Hasek, came into the league, the league as a whole became much better and more competitive because of a natural influx of skill and crazy training regiments. One reason both Bure brothers burned out at such an early age was because their father over-trained them.

And yeah, I know it sounds crazy but people trained in the 70s too. Look up some naked photos of Bobby Hull. There's plenty of them on this thing called the internet.

 

[boredmale]

And yeah, I know it sounds crazy but people trained in the 70s too.

I will say this about my memories of the 80s. In the 80s is seemed way more players careers started to decline around there late 20s/very early 30s. There was a couple exceptions but it seems like today's NHL top end players careers seem to last longer. I do think proper training had alot to do with that