Ron Francis

[unknown33]

My post

Player - phrase that makes him overrated

Ronald Michael Francis - Top 10 forward ever

Answers

Uh...he was. 4th in points, 2nd in assists, Selke and Clancy winner, multiple Byng winner, multiple Cup wins.

Check his stats, awards, cups, leadership abilities, and sportsmanship. Mostly with a below average team, mind you. He certainly is in the mix for top ten ever.

Where does this completely wrong and awful idea (on the main board) of Francis being a Top10 forward ever come from? Point total probably?
Could anyone here actually make a case for him being that ranked that high?

Click to read more...

 

[jkrx]

My post



Answers






Where does this completely wrong and awful idea (on the main board) of Francis being a Top10 forward ever come from? Point total probably?
Could anyone here actually make a case for him being that ranked that high?

Just ask them if he is/was better than Howe, Yzerman, Gretzky, Jagr, Bobby Hull, Lemieux, Beliveau, Richard, Mikita, Lafleur, Messier, Esposito, Morenz. I dare them to come with a argument over those players.

 

[Vagrant]

It comes from the very real sense that durability and longevity are HIGHLY valuable commodities among real life hockey clubs if not among hockey fans, who seek nothing more than entertainment value. Which is why the list compiled by this board is a farce for the most part considering it includes players that flashed red hot for 5-7 years and then burned out quickly ahead of players who achieved consistent success for a decade or more.

This board has a different ideology regarding what constitutes greatness. Here, it seems that greatness is defined on the grounds of if you had to ice a 6 vs. 6 team, who would you want at the absolute pinnacle of their abilities. In practice, that works. In application, it does not. Because real life hockey games are played over time, not all at once. Playing at a high level for 20 years is a quality of greatness.

If I had to choose which career I wanted between Bobby Orr and Ray Bourque, I would take Bourque. In terms of who to build around with the advance knowledge of what you're going to get from each player, I want Bourque for his 20 years over Orr for his less than 10.

 

[Michael Farkas]

He's top-10 right below Mike Gartner and Dino Ciccarelli for me...



(kidding, of course...Dave Andreychuk is ahead of him too)

As a younger fan, relative to much of the HoH forum, but older relative to the main board (which is quite painful re: historical value of players), I used to be near this line of thinking (OP). I wasn't quite so naive as to believe Francis was top-10 ever, I knew that at even a young age (with my Ron Francis jersey in tow). But I did think much higher of him before I really studied the history of the game - an ongoing, perpetual process.

But the OP line of thinking is quite common. On a different board, I'm leading the rally to compile the list of the 25 greatest Penguins of all-time. On that same board, someone called Jagr a top-10 player of all-time. I responded with a list (similar to above) of players that were better on an all-time scale...a small wave of responses included something along the lines of "Ron Francis is conspicuously absent from that list" - I was briefly taken aback.

Career totals mean everything, which can be described as consistency in some respects but not dominance. This board values dominance - the main board and most "living in the moment" hockey fans do not value or know quite how to value dominance. A lot of younger fans think it's clever to name "old greats" like Mike Gartner and Dino Ciccarelli when talking about the best players of all-time...I've had it explained to me that Mike Richter is a top-10 goalie of all-time and Scott Niedermayer is a top-10 defenseman of all-time several times now...

This HoH board, rightly or wrongly - I lean towards the former because, well, it just makes more sense to me - seems to value things in the following order:

1. Dominance + longevity (Gretzky, Bourque, Harvey)
2. Dominance - longevity (Orr, Bossy, Lemieux)
3. Short (relative to 99, 77, etc.) dominance + consistent longevity (Hull, Howe [a stretch])
4. Elite consistency
...
5. Semi-elite/very good consistency (Gartner, Francis)

When many hockey fans, who didn't necessarily study it and research it have a lot of that jumbled around. They'll take ten 40 goal seasons over five 70 goal seasons because 400 goals > 350 goals. They'll take 18 years of very good over 12 years of elite.

 

[BraveCanadian]

He was a very strong two way player and a classy guy for a long time in the NHL. And there is a lot of value in that for a franchise to build around.

But on pure talent/peak/results he is definitely not top 10.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It comes from the very real sense that durability and longevity are HIGHLY valuable commodities among real life hockey clubs if not among hockey fans, who seek nothing more than entertainment value. Which is why the list compiled by this board is a farce for the most part considering it includes players that flashed red hot for 5-7 years and then burned out quickly ahead of players who achieved consistent success for a decade or more.

This board has a different ideology regarding what constitutes greatness. Here, it seems that greatness is defined on the grounds of if you had to ice a 6 vs. 6 team, who would you want at the absolute pinnacle of their abilities. In practice, that works. In application, it does not. Because real life hockey games are played over time, not all at once. Playing at a high level for 20 years is a quality of greatness.

If I had to choose which career I wanted between Bobby Orr and Ray Bourque, I would take Bourque. In terms of who to build around with the advance knowledge of what you're going to get from each player, I want Bourque for his 20 years over Orr for his less than 10.

Real-life hockey is played in single seasons, with the goal of each season to win the Stanley Cup. Over a 20-year span, what type of team is more likely to win the Cup: A team that is elite for 5 seasons and crappy for 15, or a team that is just decent for 20? Most people would agree it's the team that is elite for 5 years. So which scenario gives you the best chance at winning the Cup over a time span: 5 years of prime Sidney Crosby or or 20 years of Mike Gartner? The answer should be quite obvious.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My post



Answers






Where does this completely wrong and awful idea (on the main board) of Francis being a Top10 forward ever come from? Point total probably?
Could anyone here actually make a case for him being that ranked that high?

It comes from people too young to have actually seen him play who just go by career accumulative stats, maybe with a few odd Whalers/Canes homers thrown in.

It's so strange to see the re-writing of Francis's career. When he actually played, he was one of my favorite players in the league because of how he quietly went about doing his job, while letting the true stars of the team take the spotlight.

Now that he retired, all of a sudden he's better than the actual star players in the league when he played, simply because he accumulated more points? Strange.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

him before I really studied the history of the game - an ongoing, perpetual process.

But the OP line of thinking is quite common. On a different board, I'm leading the rally to compile the list of the 25 greatest Penguins of all-time. On that same board, someone called Jagr a top-10 player of all-time. I responded with a list (similar to above) of players that were better on an all-time scale...a small wave of responses included something along the lines of "Ron Francis is conspicuously absent from that list" - I was briefly taken aback.

I saw that on the main board not that long ago and was taken aback too. Francis better than Jagr? Come on. These guys actually played together; it's not like it's a hard comparison to make, unless all you do is look at their career stats once they retired.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Real-life hockey is played in single seasons, with the goal of each season to win the Stanley Cup. Over a 20-year span, what type of team is more likely to win the Cup: A team that is elite for 5 seasons and crappy for 15, or a team that is just decent for 20? Most people would agree it's the team that is elite for 5 years. So which scenario gives you the best chance at winning the Cup over a time span: 5 years of prime Sidney Crosby or or 20 years of Mike Gartner? The answer should be quite obvious.

Another question, at any point in his career was Francis ever good enough to be the best player on a Cup winning team? I don't think so.

One of the best complementary forwards of all time, combined with ridiculous longevity. But the guy was never a dominant player in the NHL.

 

[Michael Farkas]

unless all you do is look at their career stats once they retired.

Yes. And most of the same people wouldn't even have the "he was a great two-way player" argument to fall back on if Francis had finished 2nd in Selke voting for 10 straight years...the fact that he won one or two gives free use of that though...

With stats, like an actual game, if you don't know what you're looking at, you don't know what you're looking at...for instance, when Crosby and Ovechkin first came into the league, Ovechkin was the more "complete" player because he hit, his physicality equated, strangely and inexplicably, into superb two-way play. Even though Crosby was, is and always will be far superior defensively (and is pretty underrated in Selke voting, IMO). It's all what you make of the information at hand...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Another question, at any point in his career was Francis ever good enough to be the best player on a Cup winning team? I don't think so.
One of the best complementary forwards of all time, combined with ridiculous longevity. But the guy was never a dominant player in the NHL.

Well, when he was 38 the Canes got to the finals and he led them in scoring during the regular season and the playoffs. So I guess he wasn't far off.

 

[DaveG]

Another question, at any point in his career was Francis ever good enough to be the best player on a Cup winning team? I don't think so.

One of the best complementary forwards of all time, combined with ridiculous longevity. But the guy was never a dominant player in the NHL.

Good enough to be the best player, while in the decline of his career at 38, on a cup finalist at least.

A lot of people underrate his scoring outside of Pittsburgh as well. He produced at a slightly lower PPG pace in Hartford as the lone weapon there (1.033 PPG) as he did in Pittsburgh while surrounded by vastly superior talent (1.15 PPG). It's not until he went to Carolina in the downswing of his career that his production started to drop.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not foolish enough to put him in my top 50 players of all time or anything, but there's absolutely no question in my mind that there are many players ahead of him on our top 100 list that I would take him over.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

That is true, but it's also true that making the final and actually winning the Cup are very different things, even if it seems like one should only be a little harder than the other. Plenty of non-elite teams have reached the final over the past 20 years, but not a single one has actually won the Cup.

So I agree with TDMM, I don't think you would win a Cup with Francis as your best player, short of him being the best of a very deep group of players by a slim margin.

I don't like having to rag on Ronnie though, like many, I loved him as a player and thought he was a real class act. But to suggest him amongst the top 10 forwards of all time is just....ugh. I mean, top 50 among forwards is probably pushing it.

 

[DaveG]

That is true, but it's also true that making the final and actually winning the Cup are very different things, even if it seems like one should only be a little harder than the other. Plenty of non-elite teams have reached the final over the past 20 years, but not a single one has actually won the Cup.

So I agree with TDMM, I don't think you would win a Cup with Francis as your best player, short of him being the best of a very deep group of players by a slim margin.

I don't like having to rag on Ronnie though, like many, I loved him as a player and thought he was a real class act. But to suggest him amongst the top 10 forwards of all time is just....ugh. I mean, top 50 among forwards is probably pushing it.

Yeah I'm not sure too many that know what they're talking about would argue for him to be top 10 of all time. I value longevity far more then most that are respected on this board and even then I still wouldn't have Ron in my top 30 or so forwards. I haven't compiled a list in a long time to tell you the truth.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That is true, but it's also true that making the final and actually winning the Cup are very different things, even if it seems like one should only be a little harder than the other. Plenty of non-elite teams have reached the final over the past 20 years, but not a single one has actually won the Cup.
So I agree with TDMM, I don't think you would win a Cup with Francis as your best player, short of him being the best of a very deep group of players by a slim margin.

I don't like having to rag on Ronnie though, like many, I loved him as a player and thought he was a real class act. But to suggest him amongst the top 10 forwards of all time is just....ugh. I mean, top 50 among forwards is probably pushing it.

1995 Devils? 1993 Canadiens?

 

[Vagrant]

Yes. And most of the same people wouldn't even have the "he was a great two-way player" argument to fall back on if Francis had finished 2nd in Selke voting for 10 straight years...the fact that he won one or two gives free use of that though...

With stats, like an actual game, if you don't know what you're looking at, you don't know what you're looking at...for instance, when Crosby and Ovechkin first came into the league, Ovechkin was the more "complete" player because he hit, his physicality equated, strangely and inexplicably, into superb two-way play. Even though Crosby was, is and always will be far superior defensively (and is pretty underrated in Selke voting, IMO). It's all what you make of the information at hand...

My God, man. You're younger than me by a few years and I am not even old enough to remember Francis' prime years. It amazes me how many people speak intelligently, in their minds, about players they saw in the waning portion of their career.

In your heart of hearts, you know as well as I do that you haven't watched a Francis era Hartford Whalers game. Give up the ghost.

The history of hockey board should have a 35 and over rule. I don't care how educated you attempt to make yourself, you're not going to have seen even the BEST players play 10 full games at random points of their career to compare them to each other.

And don't even try to argue that you have. It's futile. I think that's the most frustrating part of this board is that people claim knowledge they do not have of players they have never seen. To see people engage in passionate debates about Tim Horton's defense when they couldn't pick the guy out of a lineup.

Anyways, I know my own limitations and I know Francis and his peers and almost nothing further back than that and that's how everybody that is 30 or under is on these boards. If you say you have seen enough games of Phil Esposito in his prime to have an opinion, there's about a 90% chance or greater you're not being honest. So why pretend? Half the board if not more is under age to have seen these guys play. Myself included.

 

[Michael Farkas]

My God, man. You're younger than me by a few years and I am not even old enough to remember Francis' prime years. It amazes me how many people speak intelligently, in their minds, about players they saw in the waning portion of their career.

In your heart of hearts, you know as well as I do that you haven't watched a Francis era Hartford Whalers game. Give up the ghost.

The history of hockey board should have a 35 and over rule. I don't care how educated you attempt to make yourself, you're not going to have seen even the BEST players play 10 full games at random points of their career to compare them to each other.

And don't even try to argue that you have. It's futile. I think that's the most frustrating part of this board is that people claim knowledge they do not have of players they have never seen. To see people engage in passionate debates about Tim Horton's defense when they couldn't pick the guy out of a lineup.

Anyways, I know my own limitations and I know Francis and his peers and almost nothing further back than that and that's how everybody that is 30 or under is on these boards. If you say you have seen enough games of Phil Esposito in his prime to have an opinion, there's about a 90% chance or greater you're not being honest. So why pretend? Half the board if not more is under age to have seen these guys play. Myself included.

I don't recall claiming to see Francis in his "prime" years in Hartford. But I am a die-hard Penguins fans that has watched the team for a long time and has been able to watch a lot of older games of the Penguins to thanks to a friend of mine's father that happened to have solid collection of old VHS tapes from various eras.

Out of your strangely placed rant, what does the arbitrarily selected 35 year old rule mean? Does that mean that they magically saw Howie Morenz, Eddie Shore and Sprague Cleghorn? Are they any different than me (supposedly saying) seeing Ron Francis on the Whalers (whatever relevance that holds to this particular discussion)?

It's a shame that this may distract from what otherwise could have been an interesting discussion. Save the personal stuff for where it belongs - the main board sarcasm

 

[Vagrant]

I don't recall claiming to see Francis in his "prime" years in Hartford. But I am a die-hard Penguins fans that has watched the team for a long time and has been able to watch a lot of older games of the Penguins to thanks to a friend of mine's father that happened to have solid collection of old VHS tapes from various eras.

Out of your strangely placed rant, what does the arbitrarily selected 35 year old rule mean? Does that mean that they magically saw Howie Morenz, Eddie Shore and Sprague Cleghorn? Are they any different than me (supposedly saying) seeing Ron Francis on the Whalers (whatever relevance that holds to this particular discussion)?

It's a shame that this may distract from what otherwise could have been an interesting discussion. Save the personal stuff for where it belongs - the main board sarcasm

Ah, the VHS tapes of random NHL games from my Uncle/Cousin/Estranged Father collection. A classic choice.

My comment regarding the 35+ was in relation to people old enough to have seen Francis, Gartner, Dino, etc. in their prime years. Nothing about the older players. It's just that talking about the history of hockey, with authority, as somebody under 25 just smacks of irony. My philosophy is that you really don't understand the intricacies of the game until you're old enough to really appreciate what you're looking at. I have watched American football since I was a tot and I didn't understand the enormity of the sport until I was 16-17 years old. You have to have a certain amount of knowledge to really formulate opinions on players.

I don't know anything about your knowledge on current players. I would assume it is quite strong considering you're a big fan of the game, but it is quite literally impossible for you or I to be fully or even partially versed in hockey of the mid-80's. Could you watch 10-15 games of hockey from this past season and have a full appreciation for what hockey was like in 2009-2010? I really don't think you could. Even if your father's friend had 1,000 tapes with 100 games from each season, the odds that you saw, and focused upon, a particular star player are pretty slim. It's just not something you can "catch up" on.

In terms of relative greatness, we're dependent upon word of mouth, statistics, and folklore. History will always favor these players, because the legends become exaggerated caricatures of what they were.

It just beyond impossible for me to comprehend you, in 1988-1994, as being able to watch and fully understand the scope of Ron Francis or any other player for that matter. Myself included in that. I was 4-12 during that span. I wouldn't have known a back check from a cross check at that age.

And this venom shouldn't be totally reserved for you. It's more of a board wide frustration of mine. The championing of players we've never seen because the players we have were mortal in their late 30's when our memories are fixated upon them.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Ah, the VHS tapes of random NHL games from my Uncle/Cousin/Estranged Father collection. A classic choice.

My comment regarding the 35+ was in relation to people old enough to have seen Francis, Gartner, Dino, etc. in their prime years. Nothing about the older players. It's just that talking about the history of hockey, with authority, as somebody under 25 just smacks of irony. My philosophy is that you really don't understand the intricacies of the game until you're old enough to really appreciate what you're looking at. I have watched American football since I was a tot and I didn't understand the enormity of the sport until I was 16-17 years old. You have to have a certain amount of knowledge to really formulate opinions on players.

I don't know anything about your knowledge on current players. I would assume it is quite strong considering you're a big fan of the game, but it is quite literally impossible for you or I to be fully or even partially versed in hockey of the mid-80's. Could you watch 10-15 games of hockey from this past season and have a full appreciation for what hockey was like in 2009-2010? I really don't think you could. Even if your father's friend had 1,000 tapes with 100 games from each season, the odds that you saw, and focused upon, a particular star player are pretty slim. It's just not something you can "catch up" on.

In terms of relative greatness, we're dependent upon word of mouth, statistics, and folklore. History will always favor these players, because the legends become exaggerated caricatures of what they were.

It just beyond impossible for me to comprehend you, in 1988-1994, as being able to watch and fully understand the scope of Ron Francis or any other player for that matter. Myself included in that. I was 4-12 during that span. I wouldn't have known a back check from a cross check at that age.

And this venom shouldn't be totally reserved for you. It's more of a board wide frustration of mine. The championing of players we've never seen because the players we have were mortal in their late 30's when our memories are fixated upon them.

So lets just close this section of the board down then, since clearly it's useless to have any debate about players whose whole careers we didn't watch. If this is all you have to contribute to this section, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

 

[Vagrant]

So lets just close this section of the board down then, since clearly it's useless to have any debate about players whose whole careers we didn't watch. If this is all you have to contribute to this section, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Ideally, this section would be used for the veteran hockey watchers to educate those of us that didn't get to see these guys in person and share information back and forth instead of rating players by some elitist standard and holding that line like it's a blood right and the list is unimpeachable.

I see you're approximately the same age as the poster I was quoting, which explains your reaction a bit. There is nothing wrong with not having lived as long as anybody else, but it does limit your experiences.

And listen, I can understand being an expert in something that you didn't live through. I understand the principal of history majors doing extensive study to partially complete a knowledge about things that happened before they were born. However, the amount of dedication that takes is tremendous. The amount of resources that takes is tremendous.

History of other kinds is much more well documented than hockey history, for good reason.

I think this board would be much better served if the people that were old enough to have seen these players did much more talking and people our age and younger did a hell of a lot more listening than posting unless we need clarification on a subject. Not to come here and expose our ignorance.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Ideally, this section would be used for the veteran hockey watchers to educate those of us that didn't get to see these guys in person and share information back and forth instead of rating players by some elitist standard and holding that line like it's a blood right and the list is unimpeachable.

I see you're approximately the same age as the poster I was quoting, which explains your reaction a bit. There is nothing wrong with not having lived as long as anybody else, but it does limit your experiences.

And listen, I can understand being an expert in something that you didn't live through. I understand the principal of history majors doing extensive study to partially complete a knowledge about things that happened before they were born. However, the amount of dedication that takes is tremendous. The amount of resources that takes is tremendous.

History of other kinds is much more well documented than hockey history, for good reason.

I think this board would be much better served if the people that were old enough to have seen these players did much more talking and people our age and younger did a hell of a lot more listening than posting unless we need clarification on a subject. Not to come here and expose our ignorance.

There are a few veteran posters in here that were old enough to see Original Six hockey, and their accounts are listened to intently and greatly appreciated by most of us. But first-hand viewing experience isn't the ONLY available evaluation tool, nor is somebody's personal opinion infallible. Posters in here who both watched the same older players will often disagree on what they saw, just like people today with modern players.

It's just a simple fact that only a handful of posters in here amongst the few dozen regulars are even old enough to remember the Bobby Orr era with clarity. Maybe just two or three who have memories of Gordie Howe in his heyday, and as far as I know, none who witnessed any pre-World War II play. Should the 50+ years of hockey played before then simply not be discussed? Should a few people's opinions on Original Six players be strictly adhered to and never constructively challenged simply because they saw them and most of us didn't? In 50 years will my opinion that Crosby is better than Ovechkin become fact, something that somebody born in 2040 ought not to question?

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Ideally, this section would be used for the veteran hockey watchers to educate those of us that didn't get to see these guys in person and share information back and forth instead of rating players by some elitist standard and holding that line like it's a blood right and the list is unimpeachable.

I see you're approximately the same age as the poster I was quoting, which explains your reaction a bit. There is nothing wrong with not having lived as long as anybody else, but it does limit your experiences.

And listen, I can understand being an expert in something that you didn't live through. I understand the principal of history majors doing extensive study to partially complete a knowledge about things that happened before they were born. However, the amount of dedication that takes is tremendous. The amount of resources that takes is tremendous.

History of other kinds is much more well documented than hockey history, for good reason.

I think this board would be much better served if the people that were old enough to have seen these players did much more talking and people our age and younger did a hell of a lot more listening than posting unless we need clarification on a subject. Not to come here and expose our ignorance.

You have not been reading this board for long, obviously.

Plenty of posters here have been watching hockey for half a century and post first-hand observations regularly.

Anyways, I agree with your thoughts as a general sense of rule, but most here really are not guilty of that sweeping condescension.

Hockey history is not Babylonian history -- game footage is readily available for decades (and unless you claim to only comment on games you were actually in the arena for, it's pretty much the same experience), older games are harder to find but out there, and first hand accounts from newspaper clippings, articles and books written are numerous. In addition, reliable stats were kept on the most important aspects of the game.

You do not need a PHD or the ability to read a dead language to be knowledgable on the history of hockey. The fact that the average poster in this forum has taken the time to actually consider that there were comparable or even better players prior to their own personal history with the game is good enough for me.

Without accepting that, you may as well close this forum down. Individual first-hand accounts are valuable, but need to be taken with a grain of salt, or we would all have to bow down to Stan Fischler's observations that Shore, Harvey and Kelly were better than Orr.

 

[overpass]

Ideally, this section would be used for the veteran hockey watchers to educate those of us that didn't get to see these guys in person and share information back and forth instead of rating players by some elitist standard and holding that line like it's a blood right and the list is unimpeachable.

I see you're approximately the same age as the poster I was quoting, which explains your reaction a bit. There is nothing wrong with not having lived as long as anybody else, but it does limit your experiences.

And listen, I can understand being an expert in something that you didn't live through. I understand the principal of history majors doing extensive study to partially complete a knowledge about things that happened before they were born. However, the amount of dedication that takes is tremendous. The amount of resources that takes is tremendous.

History of other kinds is much more well documented than hockey history, for good reason.

I think this board would be much better served if the people that were old enough to have seen these players did much more talking and people our age and younger did a hell of a lot more listening than posting unless we need clarification on a subject. Not to come here and expose our ignorance.

I enjoy reading what the veteran hockey watchers have to say. They bring an invaluable perspective to the discussions on this board.

I don't think I've heard any of them suggest that Ron Francis is a top-10 forward.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ah, the VHS tapes of random NHL games from my Uncle/Cousin/Estranged Father collection. A classic choice.

My comment regarding the 35+ was in relation to people old enough to have seen Francis, Gartner, Dino, etc. in their prime years. Nothing about the older players. It's just that talking about the history of hockey, with authority, as somebody under 25 just smacks of irony. My philosophy is that you really don't understand the intricacies of the game until you're old enough to really appreciate what you're looking at. I have watched American football since I was a tot and I didn't understand the enormity of the sport until I was 16-17 years old. You have to have a certain amount of knowledge to really formulate opinions on players.

I don't know anything about your knowledge on current players. I would assume it is quite strong considering you're a big fan of the game, but it is quite literally impossible for you or I to be fully or even partially versed in hockey of the mid-80's. Could you watch 10-15 games of hockey from this past season and have a full appreciation for what hockey was like in 2009-2010? I really don't think you could. Even if your father's friend had 1,000 tapes with 100 games from each season, the odds that you saw, and focused upon, a particular star player are pretty slim. It's just not something you can "catch up" on.

In terms of relative greatness, we're dependent upon word of mouth, statistics, and folklore. History will always favor these players, because the legends become exaggerated caricatures of what they were.

It just beyond impossible for me to comprehend you, in 1988-1994, as being able to watch and fully understand the scope of Ron Francis or any other player for that matter. Myself included in that. I was 4-12 during that span. I wouldn't have known a back check from a cross check at that age.

And this venom shouldn't be totally reserved for you. It's more of a board wide frustration of mine. The championing of players we've never seen because the players we have were mortal in their late 30's when our memories are fixated upon them.

Thanks, just a decent collection of mostly late 80's to late 90's Penguins footage which I've had the opportunity to watch. And some great accounts of Penguins before Lemieux. Very informational for the things that are just before my time.

I agree with your point of not being able to appreciate it. I really preach that myself and I'm learning every day...looking back at 5 years ago, what I thought was brilliant is now foolish. I'm sure I'll do the same 5 years from now, I'll look back at some of my HF posts and think they're foolish too.

It's not about the amount of the games (which was admittedly few relative to the 82 and 84 game seasons) really, but it's being able to watch and research and other clips (video and otherwise) that can give you a good idea about a player. Not to mention, Francis seemed to get better with age anyhow, so it's quite likely that I saw his best years. But that's besides the point, it's not like the guy that watches Francis for 49 games is a novice and the guy watches him for 50 games is a certified Francis expert. I know that's not your point, but it's not about quantity in this case. I've watched them quite recently because it's only in the last year or so that I've really embraced the history of the game. So, I feel I have a good understanding of the game at this point and was able to get a good grasp of past players (relative term). To think that I watched these tapes in 1988 is puzzling. Your venom is carrying so much forward momentum with your argument that you're doing front flips at this point...take a second and a breath and worry about the discussion at hand instead of trying so hard to "catch" someone or whatever it is you're going for.

The inconsistent part that bothers me is that the 35+ rule (or whatever number you assign). I mean, if any part of this board was reserved for even 30 and up, I think you'd struggle mightily for discussion. And what does that do? Alright, so a bunch (read: 6) 50 year olds are in here talking about how good Gordie Howe was (but OMG, they didn't see him in his prime!) and much of a pansy Wayne Gretzky was. And in 2020, they're in here talking about how much better Cam Neely was than Sidney Crosby because he was a power forward.

Further, there's still no accouting for everyone before Bobby Orr really. I mean, if we can't all watch the requisite number of games of Eddie Shore's career then surely we're not fit to discuss him...so really, if these are the demands, then this board really needs to go...

 

[Vagrant]

There is no possible way I can respond to this wall of text that was presented to me, but I will make the concise point that nowhere did I say that hockey prior to your time should not be discussed. Only that you must admit that your perception of a player that you didn't get to experience in their prime is going to always be incomplete. No two ways about that. That particular piece of information is what makes the elitist attitudes that emanate from this section of the board to be highly confusing and frustrating.

This isn't an elaborate ploy to have Ron Francis recognized as the greatest player in hockey history. The discussion took a detour from there to a more broad issue regarding this section. A poster comes here making a statement about X player being better than Y player and has that opinion corroborated by several posters under 25 that couldn't have conceivably seen them at the height of their abilities.

It's like going to a middle school today and asking kids who is better in concert between Alice in Chains and Nirvana. Not only is the initial question subjective, but the people that you're asking for an answer from are highly unqualified to answer you to start with.

Just my two pennies.