Peter Forsberg vs. Evgeni Malkin

[93LEAFS]

How can you compare players from different eras/situations and then come up with a fair conclusion as to who the best was?

When I was a kid, I dominated the other kids on my street in soccer more than Messi does today.

With your logic, I waz better than Messi?

Were you the best player of your era? Did you win a Ballon D'or? Your logic is so faulty it is ridiculous. So, unless your name is Edson Arantes do Nascimento I don't think you have a point here.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

Were you the best player of your era? Did you win a Ballon D'or? Your logic is so faulty it is ridiculous. So, unless your name is Edson Arantes do Nascimento I don't think you have a point here.

The whole point is that dominating your peers means nada, when the next comparison is made towards clearly superior players from another era.

Who was better at 100 m, Jesse Owens or Usain Bolt?

 

[93LEAFS]

The whole point is that dominating your peers means nada, when the next comparison is made towards clearly superior players from another era.

Who was better at 100 m, Jesse Owens or Usain Bolt?

Again, you can't measure people 70 years apart from different eras without putting in historical context. Jesse Owens was the best in the world at 3 different track events during his peak. That is in no-way comparable to you being able to be the best player on the schoolyard. Both sprinters competition was the entire world.

Obviously, Bolt dominates Jesse Owens in a race, and due to how long he dominated he is probably the greatest sprinter of all-time.

But, whatever, have your views, were just going to go in circles. You can't examine players historically without examining the era and player relative to it. I'm glad that people out there can tell Hab's fans that Matt Martin is a better player than Rocket Richard.

 

[daver]

How can you compare players from different eras/situations and then come up with a fair conclusion as to who the best was?

When I was a kid, I dominated the other kids on my street in soccer more than Messi does today.

With your logic, I waz better than Messi?

The fairest conclusion is the measure how they performed vs. their respective peers. It makes a reasonable assumption that there would a player would perform equally vs. his peers if he played in another era.

It makes for interesting discussion, nothing more. Your opinion is frankly boring and not original and simply puts the end to any discussion.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

Again, you can't measure people 70 years apart from different eras without putting in historical context. Jesse Owens was the best in the world at 3 different track events during his peak. That is in no-way comparable to you being able to be the best player on the schoolyard. Both sprinters competition was the entire world.

Obviously, Bolt dominates Jesse Owens in a race, and due to how long he dominated he is probably the greatest sprinter of all-time.

But, whatever, have your views, were just going to go in circles. You can't examine players historically without examining the era and player relative to it. I'm glad that people out there can tell Hab's fans that Matt Martin is a better player than Rocket Richard.

You compare the players exactly as they were, to eachother. If not, don't even bother making the comparison between eras.

 

[psycat]

Yes, that is correct.



It doesn't matter, they didn't.

With that logic, any man in the history om mankind could've been the best hockey player ever - given the right training and circumstances.

It's a flawed and dishonest logic.

The only way to conclude who is the best ever, is to compare players to one another, regardless of other factors, eras being one of them.

The best 100 m runner from the 1970s dominated his peers more than Bolt does today.

Which of them is the best/fastest runner?

Well I mean all of this only applies if you truly believe that hockey evolve every year more or less. Personally I could see a reality where talent is spawned pretty randomly and that means the most talented person ever in a particular field doesnt have to exist at this very moment, no?

Furthermore would you say some random scientist today is a greater one than, say, Albert Einstein just because they know the formula he invented and then built upon it?

 

[93LEAFS]

Well I mean all of this only applies if you truly believe that hockey evolve every year more or less. Personally I could see a reality where talent is spawned pretty randomly and that means the most talented person ever in a particular field doesnt have to exist at this very moment, no?

Furthermore would you say some random scientist today is a greater one than, say, Albert Einstein just because they know the formula he invented and then built upon it?

Is Trump a greater president than Lincoln because there isn't a civil war and there are more civil rights under his regime?

To ignore historical context is absolutely ridiculous when comparing things that don't occur in the same time frame.

 

[daver]

You compare the players exactly as they were, to eachother. If not, don't even bother making the comparison between eras.

The OP doesn't stipulate to why are you bothering to bring it up. The clear assumption is you compare the players vs. their peers top compare their careers. If not, don't even bother posting.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

Well I mean all of this only applies if you truly believe that hockey evolve every year more or less.

Furthermore would you say some random scientist today is a greater one than, say, Albert Einstein just because they know the formula he invented and then built upon it?

Are the top scientists today more knowledgeable than Einstein? Yes, without a doubt.

Was Einstein's intelligence higher? Yes, probably (without knowing enough about the IQ of today's scientists).

And comparing pro sports/athletes with the evolution of science might not be the best way to support your stance.

 

[KingBran]

Been able to watch both a whole bunch.

Malkin - No question for me.

 

[Peggy]

how is toews top 100 of all time, but Malkin isn't? robbery

 

[Thenameless]

Neutral. Malkin.

 

[Nocashstyle]

This is Malkin and it's not even remotely close. I will never understand this board's obsession with Forsberg.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

You can't do that. You can only compare players to their era. That is why guys like gretzky and Wilt chamberlain are imo the best indivividuals of their sport because they dominated their era's

Wilt didn’t dominate shit. He only won 2 championships. MJ and Lebron dominated.

 

[GoGoSens]

Malkin has a shot at a third art ross.

only 2 players since 2000-2001 have more than 1

Crosby and Malkin.

Then if you go into history with players that have 3 art ross trophies?

Gretzky, Gordie Howe, Stan Makita, Gordie Howe, Phil Esposito, Guy Lafleur, Mario Lemieux, Jagr,

Malkin joins a very elite tier of player if he wins a third Art ross Trophy.

Forsberg was a very good player in his own right.

But its time to start admitting that Malkin probably goes down as a top 10 nhl center when his career is over.

 

[psycat]

Are the top scientists today more knowledgeable than Einstein? Yes, without a doubt.

Was Einstein's intelligence higher? Yes, probably (without knowing enough about the IQ of today's scientists).

And comparing pro sports/athletes with the evolution of science might not be the best way to support your stance.

Well I mean you provided nothing so far that supports your stance. Except that you seem to believe that humans(or just hockey players?) magically evolves every 5 years or so, normally evolution takes place over quite a different span of time to say the least.

 

[Slapshot Sultan]

Pretty equal really. Malkin might be a little better, but would propably still pick Forsberg, as I just like him more. Malkin is pretty whiny and Forsberg was tough as nails..

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Malkin has a shot at a third art ross.

only 2 players since 2000-2001 have more than 1

Crosby and Malkin.

Then if you go into history with players that have 3 art ross trophies?

Gretzky, Gordie Howe, Stan Makita, Gordie Howe, Phil Esposito, Guy Lafleur, Mario Lemieux, Jagr,

Malkin joins a very elite tier of player if he wins a third Art ross Trophy.

Forsberg was a very good player in his own right.

But its time to start admitting that Malkin probably goes down as a top 10 nhl center when his career is over.

St. Louis has 2 art rosses as well, 2004 and 2013. That said 3 art rosses for Malkin puts him firmly up there with Crosby and Ovechkin as the best of this era, and one of the greatest players of all time. At this point he's knocking on top 25.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

Well I mean you provided nothing so far that supports your stance. Except that you seem to believe that humans(or just hockey players?) magically evolves every 5 years or so, normally evolution takes place over quite a different span of time to say the least.

If you used a time-machine and moved the best players from 1970 to face fhe best of today - and give them the exact same equipment.

Do you SERIOUSLY think that team 1970 would stand a chance?

Honestly?

Team 2018 could win 10-0 without breaking a sweat.

 

[Yuri35]

St. Louis has 2 art rosses as well, 2004 and 2013. That said 3 art rosses for Malkin puts him firmly up there with Crosby and Ovechkin as the best of this era, and one of the greatest players of all time. At this point he's knocking on top 25.

Well, with 3 Art Rosses, Malkin would simply have as much Art Rosses as Sid and Ovie combined so....
And no need for him to win this third Art Ross to know that he is up there with Sid and Ovie as the best of this era.

 

[K Fleur]

Malkin is the better regular season and playoff performer, has the higher peak, and a better prime.

The only argument I can see for Forsberg is play style preference.

 

[Laineux]

If you used a time-machine and moved the best players from 1970 to face fhe best of today - and give them the exact same equipment.

Do you SERIOUSLY think that team 1970 would stand a chance?

Honestly?

Team 2018 could win 10-0 without breaking a sweat.

The players today are better because the environment is completely different. It's not fair to compare people from different time like that. There aren't many fields where the modern counterpart wouldn't be superior if he was time machined several decades back.

The current players stand on the shoulders of the past generations who made hockey what it is now.

 

[ViD]

Statically it's Malkin, that's inevitable. But if both are healthy there are few players that I'd take over Forsberg in a playoff series.

Malkin singlehandedly won the first cup for the Pens of this era

 

[authentic]

This is Malkin and it's not even remotely close. I will never understand this board's obsession with Forsberg.

See the fact that you don't think it's remotely close shows you have no idea how good Forsberg was. His status as a hockey player goes far beyond an hfboards obsession, he was voted the 5th best forward in NHL history by the players, apparently NHL hockey players have an obsession with him too.

 

[authentic]

Malkin is the better regular season and playoff performer, has the higher peak, and a better prime.

The only argument I can see for Forsberg is play style preference.

That is highly debatable, and when you dig deeper than one peak run I would say the playoffs are in Forsberg's favour. His overall offense there was just as good but he was more consistent and a better two way player.