The Ignorance of History In Mainstream

[blogofmike]

Agree. The baseball and football media revere in particular the old timers, whether it be Jim Brown or Babe Ruth.

I don't know why the hockey media is uninterested in the history of the game. I think part of the problem is that due to changing season lengths and the ebbs and flows goals per game, it's hard to compare eras using basic stats. So it's easy to say "Gordie Howe never scored 50 goals" or "Bobby Orr played when the league was super watered down!" or "Wayne Gretzky played when goalies didn't know what they were doing!"

NFL Top 100 left out Dwight Stephenson, who is considered by many to be the greatest center who ever lived. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-video...0-Players-No-101-Dwight-Stephenson?r_src=ramp Think of him as Bobby Orr if no one bothered to record individual ofensive stats. (If you think defensive stats are bad in hockey, try measuring the performance of individual offensive linemen in the NFL.)

Quarterbacks and running backs are remembered just fine, though mostly on reputation (Joe Namath, enemy of stat guys everywhere) and even then they might be forgotten if they're too old. Jim Thorpe, namesake of Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania, was also omitted from Top 100. The only member of the undefeated 72 Dolphins to make the list spent most of his career with Cleveland. Sid Luckman was quarterback of 4 NFL championship teams, and his 28 TD passes in 10 games in 1943 remained a Chicago Bears record until 1995 when Erik Kramer threw 29 in 16 games, and despite more games and rules designed to encourage passing, Kramer's still the only Bear to beat Luckman. Guess who didn't make the Top 100?

All baseball has is history. But mostly it's Yankees history, with a splish-splash of Boston or Chicago tossed in. Which is not good for guys like Stan Musial.

 

[Boxscore]

I think the reverse is just as common, if not more. Go to anything on youtube that's at least 10 years old (tv show, music video, etc..) and there's a very good chance that somebody will say "This is so much better than the crap we have today." It's often the highest rated comment too.

Canada, you make a good point here. But, you know what, I think the game was a lot better (as in enjoyable) years ago, even though the NHL has advanced over the years (thus meaning better).

Let's face it: Due to training, medicine, agents, big business, dieting, equipment and technology, the players today are bigger, faster, stronger and more schooled. Scouting staffs have global networks scouting the top talent in the world. Coaching staffs breakdown video 24/7 and have developed complex systems.

Unlike decade's past, kids now learn the X's and O's of hockey at an early age, instead of just creating fun hockey out on the ponds or outside rinks. Hockey is a huge business now and everything is overloaded.

The thing is, to me, this makes the game itself worse. Most of the players today are like clones. They are all covered in huge equipment, helmets and shieds and move North-South on the ice like table hockey players. They all play systems now and every player is the perfect position at all times. As a fan of close to 40 years, I can tell you that hockey has never been this boring, night in and night out.

Yes, the players used to be slower, the equipment was shabbier and the goaltenders were not as schooled. But the game was more fun. There were characters on the ice: Tiger Williams, Eddie Shack, the Rocket, Mr. Hockey, The Great One, Matthew Barnaby, Claude Lemieux, The Golden Jet and #4. These guys all had more personality. You could tell each player by their hairstyle and their unique skating stytle on the ice.

There were players like Orr who were gifted enough to go coast-to-coast at will, taking over a game whenever he felt like it. Bobby Hull, flying down the wing unleashing a wicked slap shot. Hell, even players like Denis Savard who would dazzle the crowd with his gorgeous spin-o-ramas, or Pavel Bure, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr, simply lifting the crowd out of their seats with their speed and moves.

What Crosby does today with sheer determination, these guys did with artistic elegance and color. Crosby will end up with 4-5 points in a night and you might remember one spectacular play... the rest he does by being in the right place at the right time or firing a nice puck past the goalie on the powerplay. On the flip side, a player like Bure would have 3 points and you would remember every one of them because they were amazing highlights. Someone like Mario Lemieux would be a show all by himself.

Going to a hockey game in the 80s or early-90s was like going to an event. You would be highly entertained from start to finish on most nights. Over the last 12 years I have probably been to 180 hockey games live in person and about 15 of them have been memorable, yet the price of tickets have gone through the roof.

The pressure now on managers, coaches and players to succeed has made hockey an overcoached, system-oriented game that lacks the creativity, freelancing excitement and fun of the games back in the day.

So, sure, just like film, food, automobiles and electronics, everything advances and improves. Hockey is no different. But just because something improves from a technical sense does not mean it is overall better from an enjoyment sense.

 

[MaskedSonja]

If I can chime in, someone approaching their 40th year

What I see, is a generation shift happening before our eyes, and the NHL is carried along with it. The younger generation (my kids generation), don't want to hear about the history-it's like it doesn't exist. This problem isn't just limited to the NHL. NBA rarely refers to the likes of Bird or Johnston now-even MJ is BARELY on the radar (as far as references from commentators). Golf doesn't seem to know what to talk about other than Woods-all the greats of the past are just that-the past. Even sports like Nascar ("Jimmie Johnson is among the greatest ever"-what? Foyt? Petty? Earnhardt Sr-Hello?) don't mean as much.

And I think part of it(IMO) they want the young fans to feel "you're experiencing history NOW-you're part of that moment! You were there when Crosby won the Cup! You were there for those Epic Caps/Pens playoffs!" Because the younger generation refuses to wait. All those "good old days" the old timers talk about-they want things NOW (interestingly, for a team like the Maple Leafs, these young fans are bucking the trend and very upset with Toronto's lack of success). These are fans are seem to know that a player "is worth 2.5 million as a 3rd line center-but not worth 3 million-what an overpayment!"

And the sad thing is, I don't things returning to days of remembering the history of the game-as rich a history as I've observed in any sport. Yet that is truly lost on this "Now" generation.

I sometimes think that's the hardest thing of growing older-watching you knew disappear.

 

[Mayor Bee]

The NHL is in the unenviable position of trying to promote the modern game while also attempting to educate on the history.

In one sense, it's a lot like what MLB was forced to do in the early 1990s. They were facing the first generation of sports fans who had grown up with NFL Films and had propelled the NFL to the position of "most popular league". So when Fox picked up the MLB contract for Saturday games, their announcers spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the history of baseball. Finally, the network implemented a system: if a broadcaster mentioned a player who was dead or had been retired for more than 40 years, he was fined $100 per offense.

This is where the NHL Network needs to really step up. Get a panel together, select a top 100 or top 150 of all-time, and have an hour-long biographical program on every single one of them. It'd be a lot better than watching "NHL On The Fly" for 15 straight hours.

 

[MaskedSonja]

The NHL is in the unenviable position of trying to promote the modern game while also attempting to educate on the history.

In one sense, it's a lot like what MLB was forced to do in the early 1990s. They were facing the first generation of sports fans who had grown up with NFL Films and had propelled the NFL to the position of "most popular league". So when Fox picked up the MLB contract for Saturday games, their announcers spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the history of baseball. Finally, the network implemented a system: if a broadcaster mentioned a player who was dead or had been retired for more than 40 years, he was fined $100 per offense.

This is where the NHL Network needs to really step up. Get a panel together, select a top 100 or top 150 of all-time, and have an hour-long biographical program on every single one of them. It'd be a lot better than watching "NHL On The Fly" for 15 straight hours.

Add to that, that at least baseball had the benefit of being America's pastime-they could at least work with how it was important to America.

Educating the American public, particularly those who have little to no exposure, on a game that is important to Canadians will be even more challenging. You have to give them a reason WHY they should care. Baseball is as American as apple pie. Hockey is as American as....what? That's the additional challenge.

 

[Hardyvan123]

media is astounding. Listening to one of the local sports stations in Toronto this morning, The Fan, and is taking up his usual place in the passenger seat.

they had one of the authors for Top 100 players by position of all-time from the hockey news and Roenick actually said he was pissed he wasn't one of the top 20 centres. The reason? Because if he went and played against Syl Apps today, he'd dominate him.

Hey, he isn't posting on thees boards and I'm pretty sure that 99% of us would feel exaclty like he does about this.

Roenick is a guy lots of people love to hate (his ego and mannerisms don't help in this reguard) but he was an excellent talent in his peak and is just another guy who wasn't as good as he could ahve been due to injuries.

 

[seventieslord]

Finally, the network implemented a system: if a broadcaster mentioned a player who was dead or had been retired for more than 40 years, he was fined $100 per offense.

I'm not sure if you're serious here.

 

[Epsilon]

The NHL is in the unenviable position of trying to promote the modern game while also attempting to educate on the history.

In one sense, it's a lot like what MLB was forced to do in the early 1990s. They were facing the first generation of sports fans who had grown up with NFL Films and had propelled the NFL to the position of "most popular league". So when Fox picked up the MLB contract for Saturday games, their announcers spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the history of baseball. Finally, the network implemented a system: if a broadcaster mentioned a player who was dead or had been retired for more than 40 years, he was fined $100 per offense.

This is where the NHL Network needs to really step up. Get a panel together, select a top 100 or top 150 of all-time, and have an hour-long biographical program on every single one of them. It'd be a lot better than watching "NHL On The Fly" for 15 straight hours.

I can't even imagine how awful that would probably end up being.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It used to drive me nuts when I would go over to the main board and read how some people believed that players in the 70's suck compared to players today. I don't bother with that anymore and the posters who believe this are typically very young and ignorant.

However, the media is a different story. These are paid professionals who should be able to understand how one can compare different players from different eras. It's not that hard to comprehend. I was watching something on Lidstrom stating how he is the best defensemen ever. This was on Global News (B.C. feed) a for weeks back. The only reason given was he had a lot of Norris Trophies and faced tougher competition. The tough competition was defined as Lidstrom played in a thirty team league and Orr played in a six team league (even though Orr didn't and again it shows what kind of quality research they did).

I don't see baseball, soccer, basketball or football do this.

Agree. The baseball and football media revere in particular the old timers, whether it be Jim Brown or Babe Ruth.

I don't know why the hockey media is uninterested in the history of the game. I think part of the problem is that due to changing season lengths and the ebbs and flows goals per game, it's hard to compare eras using basic stats. So it's easy to say "Gordie Howe never scored 50 goals" or "Bobby Orr played when the league was super watered down!" or "Wayne Gretzky played when goalies didn't know what they were doing!"

i think the bigger thing is that, people in the united states have heard of babe ruth and jim brown. even if joe born-yesterday casual sports fan doesn't know anything about those guys, the familiarity itself encourages a kind of reverence. so it makes sense for MLB or the NFL to promote the history of those sports. to an extent, you could say the same about the NBA, though the degree to which the names russell and wilt are meaningful to the average american is debatable.

but very very few americans outside of original six cities have heard of gordie howe or bobby orr. so it is only natural that the NHL, with the marketing agenda it holds and the kind of fan that it orients this marketing to, downplay the history of the game as much as possible. if i'm some guy watching sports on tv somewhere in ohio and in the pregame show of a baseball game they do a piece on lou gehrig, i watch, feel inspired, and maybe learn something. if i'm that same guy watching the bluejackets and they do piece on jean beliveau between periods, i get annoyed and tune out. it's just someone trying to tell me about something i have no context for and it feels like school. this is why the olympic hockey coverage was and is always so miracle-heavy-- it's the only real memory mainstream america has of hockey existing beyond the absolute present.

i say this as someone who grew up in canada, who loved watching those heritage moments clips about jacques plante, but was always bored as hell when i saw the equivalent for baseball and football, about whose history i know nothing.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I'm not sure if you're serious here.

There's horrible commentary in every sport. In the case of the early MLB/Fox contract, the constant references back to Slappy Finkelstein back in the 1920s when there's a game going on right then and there was the breaking point.

It's possible to be reverent of history without being shackled by it.

I can't even imagine how awful that would probably end up being.

It would get people talking, and it would educate an enormous number of people on players from all eras and what made them great.

Personally, I consider myself to be knowledgeable about the history of the game. But I always enjoy learning more, and especially getting new insights into something where my own knowledge is lacking.

i think the bigger thing is that, people in the united states have heard of babe ruth and jim brown. even if joe born-yesterday casual sports fan doesn't know anything about those guys, the familiarity itself encourages a kind of reverence. so it makes sense for MLB or the NFL to promote the history of those sports. to an extent, you could say the same about the NBA, though the degree to which the names russell and wilt are meaningful to the average american is debatable.

but very very few americans outside of original six cities have heard of gordie howe or bobby orr. so it is only natural that the NHL, with the marketing agenda it holds and the kind of fan that it orients this marketing to, downplay the history of the game as much as possible. if i'm some guy watching sports on tv somewhere in ohio and in the pregame show of a baseball game they do a piece on lou gehrig, i watch, feel inspired, and maybe learn something. if i'm that same guy watching the bluejackets and they do piece on jean beliveau between periods, i get annoyed and tune out. it's just someone trying to tell me about something i have no context for and it feels like school. this is why the olympic hockey coverage was and is always so miracle-heavy-- it's the only real memory mainstream america has of hockey existing beyond the absolute present.

i say this as someone who grew up in canada, who loved watching those heritage moments clips about jacques plante, but was always bored as hell when i saw the equivalent for baseball and football, about whose history i know nothing.

As some guy in Ohio who's seen things on the history between periods, I get annoyed and tune out. Not because I don't care about it, but because it's impossible to do any type of justice to anything historical in a five-minute segment. Ohio has a great history of hockey, but cramming the entire history of the Cleveland Barons IHL franchise into five minutes simply cannot be done.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

As some guy in Ohio who's seen things on the history between periods, I get annoyed and tune out. Not because I don't care about it, but because it's impossible to do any type of justice to anything historical in a five-minute segment. Ohio has a great history of hockey, but cramming the entire history of the Cleveland Barons IHL franchise into five minutes simply cannot be done.

touché. but i also suspect, being that you're here in the HOH board and that you know something about ohio's great history of hockey, that you aren't the kind of average american viewer that i'm talking about, or that bettman's NHL is actively targeting.

 

[Big Phil]

Yeah you can't cure ignorance. It isn't just hockey either. I have a friend who is a HUGE Pittsburgh Steelers fan. He claims Ben Roethlisberger is the best Steelers QB of all time. I looked at him like he had three heads. Ummmm..........Terry Bradshaw? His repsonse:

"Oh, well, it was easier to win in the 1970s."

"What evidence do you have that Big Ben is better than Bradshaw? Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls, 2 Super Bowl MVPs, one league MVP. Big Ben has two Super Bowls and never won even a Super Bowl MVP."

"Well, Bradshaw didn't have Brady or Manning to compete against for the MVP either."

"No, he only had Roger Staubach, Frank Tarkenton, Walter Payton, OJ Simpson, Dan Fouts and guys like that. You are right, the NFL was filled with passengers at that time."

"Well, teams can't win multiple championships like the Steelers did anymore. It just doesn't happen."

"Hmmmmm..........New England Patriots? A dynasty in the last 10 years. L.A. Lakers three peating and now the current two-time reigning champs........"

True conversation.



You see, it's easier to be ignorant than actually STUDY the history of a sport. I always bring this up too. In 30 years if some punk comes up to you and discredits what Tom Brady and Peyton Manning did or what Sidney Crosby did will you defend them or actually agree with them? Hopefully the former rather than the latter. So why would it be any different from 30 years ago today?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Mainstream Media

Mainstream media is interested in the sound bite that boosts ratings and does not care about educating the listener because an educated listener will quickly go elsewhere.

Marketing is another issue. Once you have the listeners interest with the sound bite you have to retain their interest and cater to the interest via marketing. In the case of a top 100, 50 or whatever the arbitrary number is, little is gained from a marketing standpoint if those named are "dead guys". Sponsors are not interested in spending dollars on names that cannot make appearances, do promos, sign autographs, etc.

Jeremy Roenick is well aware of this aspect of the game. He will make more money by claiming that he is better than Syl Apps. After all there is no absolute truth in the media game just opinions and all he has to offer is his willingness to offer opinions for a fee.

 

[Big Phil]

The quote that made water squirt out of my nose was "Syl Apps couldn't carry Jeremy Roenick's jock."

I was stunned, absolutely stunned. For starters Apps was a far superior skater, he was far more revered in his time and he was an instrumental part of a dynasty. Roenick should know better than that and what do you know, another idiotic radio host who makes a living knowing NOTHING about the history of the game.

The host, Andrew Krystal, says something along the lines of "I want to know the top MODERN centers" in other words if it happened before he was old enough to see it, it's irrelevant

 

[VM1138]

I think the lack of a hockey historian has hurt the sport. When Don Cherry is your main mouthpiece, there may be a problem.

Books about hockey are rare, few and far between, but they're usually pretty decent. But a great hockey historian could bring it all together. Also, imagine if someone of Ken Burns' caliber did a documentary on hockey and put it on PBS? That'd gin up some support, too.

Hockey has one of the most fascinating histories of any sport and I hate seeing the older players always denigrated. Having bigger pads and better skates doesn't make you a better athlete.

 

[canucksfan]

i think the bigger thing is that, people in the united states have heard of babe ruth and jim brown. even if joe born-yesterday casual sports fan doesn't know anything about those guys, the familiarity itself encourages a kind of reverence. so it makes sense for MLB or the NFL to promote the history of those sports. to an extent, you could say the same about the NBA, though the degree to which the names russell and wilt are meaningful to the average american is debatable.

but very very few americans outside of original six cities have heard of gordie howe or bobby orr. so it is only natural that the NHL, with the marketing agenda it holds and the kind of fan that it orients this marketing to, downplay the history of the game as much as possible. if i'm some guy watching sports on tv somewhere in ohio and in the pregame show of a baseball game they do a piece on lou gehrig, i watch, feel inspired, and maybe learn something. if i'm that same guy watching the bluejackets and they do piece on jean beliveau between periods, i get annoyed and tune out. it's just someone trying to tell me about something i have no context for and it feels like school. this is why the olympic hockey coverage was and is always so miracle-heavy-- it's the only real memory mainstream america has of hockey existing beyond the absolute present.

i say this as someone who grew up in canada, who loved watching those heritage moments clips about jacques plante, but was always bored as hell when i saw the equivalent for baseball and football, about whose history i know nothing.

I can understand that regarding some American markets. However, in Canada hockey is very important. You would think the average Canadian would have a grasp on the history of the game. Additionally, you would think that these journalists would also have a understanding and respect for the history of hockey. Stating that Sidney Crosby is the best Penguin is just plain ignorant. There many other examples as well that come from Canadian media.

 

[Trottier]

I cannot speak to Canada, however American media, be it sports, gossip, celebrity, or politics, has for at least the last decade presented each story of the day as something that is a really important, defining event. And, of course, the many among the masses take their behavioral cues from the Idiot Tube. Hence the daily urge, as we see on the main board, to brand everything the bestest. I call it, with no intended derision, the "Born Yesterday, Everyday" Syndrome.

Ironically, this trend has had the effect on many of the feeling that nothing is important.

***

“There seems to be a redefinition of our idea of intelligence itself that is emerging. The emphasis is on how quickly you can find information, rather than what you do with it, how deeply you think about it, and how you weave it into the knowledge you already have.” - Author Nick Carr, "The Shallows"

In the environment ^^^ described by Carr (and I happen to agree entirely with his premise), the past has no currency and therefore there is worthy of no attention or curiosity, whatsoever.

Personally, I no longer get disgusted at such intentional disregard for perspective and context, however, it does make finding engaging, informed threads here (outside of the HOH board) an increasingly arduous task.

For better or worse, I, like many others, was raised to be ashamed of my ignorance (that word is often misused as a personal criticism, when in fact it describes the condition of being uninformed or unaware), and to try to do something about it, if at all possible. I carry that burden to this day - I don’t believe I have the right to an opinion about something I know nothing about. Such mentality puts one at odds with this medium, much as I love it.

 

[RandV]

The problem is that they can't. We've seen it over and over on the main boards here. We see it again and again in the media. We even hear it from the stars of yesterday, when people like Gretzky say that the league is so much better now, or that players are so much faster or stronger. Stronger? Yes, I'd agree to that. Faster? Maybe as a whole - certainly newer and better skates have helped with that. But people like Gartner were putting up times at the ASG which are better than most people today are doing. Guys like Coffey were just FAST - no matter how you look at it. Having better skates would only make him faster still.

I'm not sure how much the stars of yesterday even believe it - I think there's always a sense of awe and mystery to something when you are looking at it from the outside. But when you're there, in the moment, it just kinda happens, and you don't appreciate how special it is.

I remember playing in one ball hockey tournament, and I made 5 or 6 saves over the course of the tournament that my friends were talking about forever. But I hadn't really thought much about any of them. At the time I was like "wow, got lucky there," or "thank God he didn't go high when he had me down", or "woah, that was a pretty nice save I just made", but nothing really seemed legendary to me, like it did to my friends. I can't help but think though, that if I were to watch those games on video now, having no real memory of specifics of any of the games, that I'd think "wow, I was really good back then".

I think its the same a lot with players. Its easy for guys to see the new generation of stars and think "I could never keep up with these guys", but we've seen tons of players who've managed to go 20 year careers, and have been able to not just keep up with the newer generation of talent, but still dominate it. Hopefully yesterday's heroes actually realize just how special they were, and that being newer doesn't automatically make these players "better".

Personally, the problem I've always had is that it goes both ways. For the silly kid saying something stupid like Crosby or Ovechkin could score 300 points or whatever back in the 80's, there's a hockey history buff that'll say Crosby couldn't even hold Gretzky's jock strap and there were a number of players in the original 6 days as good or better.

Personally I'd sometimes like to have a better idea of hockey's history (I'm 30, been watching for 15 years), but I find it hard to get an accurate comparison of yesterday's players to today. I go by statistical logic, if there were 6 teams in one era and 30 teams today, with the size of the talent pool being roughly equal, then for every star player back then we should have 5 equivalent players today. Yet for many history buffs players get treated on a 1:1 basis with the preference going to yesterdays guys.

And I know full well what the problem is, it's this:

I think the reverse is just as common, if not more. Go to anything on youtube that's at least 10 years old (tv show, music video, etc..) and there's a very good chance that somebody will say "This is so much better than the crap we have today." It's often the highest rated comment too.

It's common in video games too, I'd rather play an old 16-bit Zelda or Mario game than the latest Call of Duty. It's called nostalgia. When you're at an impressionable age everything will leave a much larger impression on you. As you mature into an adult things can no longer leave the same sort of impression on you and you think the 'older days' were better. Usually this happens when you become an old man, but with the rate things are changing these days people my age have the distinction of talking like old men while we're still young.

The difference with hockey is that because it happens so soon now I know how to recognize and compensate for my nostalgia. I don't think I can say the same for an older hockey journalist/writer does. For them the days back when they were young with only 6 teams in the league and players went by colourful nicknames will be glued to their brains and viewed with rose coloured glasses in such a way that they can't look at the modern game in the same way.

Like Gustafsson rant above, despite only being 30 I'll sound the same way if I start talking to my young teenage Xbox 360 playing cousin about video games . Everything's relative though.

 

[Stray Wasp]

I think its important to remember that there's a distinction between harbouring nostalgia and keeping a healthy caution about the present. Whilst the former clouds one's judgment, the latter protects one against jumping in with both feet and declaring that the flavour of the month is an enduring great. The longer I watch any sport, the more I encounter players/competitors that flower for a limited time and fall away sharply, which encourages me to be reticent about prematurely elevating people to the pantheon.

It could be said that right now we're in the "post-lockout era". Except five and half seasons isn't long for drawing conclusions. Whereas we benefit from hindsight and a relatively stable context when discussing the period 49-67, when the league was always six teams playing seventy regular season games. Or 79-91, when the NHL had a constant 21-team, eighty game schedule. Time allows for perspective.

Anyone else remember when Lindros was in his pomp and some hysterical types told us small players were pretty much done for in the NHL? Perhaps St. Louis et al just weren't paying attention. Whilst speed is an important factor in the post-lockout league, some speak as if it is the be all and end all in the game. Meanwhile, despite being 35 years old when this new era began, Lidstrom plays on without opposing forwards hurtling past him at will. So we might deduce that some players transcend simplistic dogmas. Which might prompt questions about "today's NHL is stronger, faster, fitter, more skillful, better coached and deeper than ever before therefore statistical domination is impossible" mantra.

Most greats have long careers, which means that at some stage they must adapt because the sport's rules change or the league's nature changes. Or circumstances at their club change. If you have a retired player-be it someone from the twenties and thirties or the eighties and nineties-who adapted with consistent success to changes in their environment during their career, it seems curious to me to suggest that such a player would flounder in modern times-allowing that they'd enjoy the same access to physical conditioning etc.

For example, in a league where Henrik Sedin wins the Ross and Mike Green is a PPG defenseman, am I really nostalgic to entertain thoughts that Gretzky and Orr might cause mayhem?

 

[Retsmra2010*]

We can't even cure the ignorance of the majority of posters in the History section.

Doing so in the media is an impossibility.

That's a rather defeatist attitude. No offense to you personally. For a couple of years now, I've been studying, researching, and contributing to the world of Sabremetrics in baseball. It's been met with it's share of criticisms but the BBWAA have slowly begun to accept it and you are starting to see players win awards that wouldn't have 10, hell even 5 years ago.

You can't take the defeatist approach. If you are serious about having history taken seriously then you have to keep pounding on the door.


To this day, try and convince the mainstream that Carlton didn't deserve the Cy Young in 1982.

 

[livewell68]

I'm an 80's child and grew up watching hockey in the late 80's, and then the 90's and I personally think that players like Roy, Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, Sakic, Bourque.. will never come again.

Those players were special, nowadays players are like "robots" made to play a system, be in the right position at all times and well true creativity goes out the window.

Yes Stamkos, Crosby and Ovechkin are great players but they don't have that "something" that older players had.

Gone is the creativity, gone is fighting (without it being planned), gone is clean hitting, gone are the dramatics of a tight hockey game.

What we have now are 4th line players fighting (set-up), more hits to the head because players can't play with their heads up, and in abundance of penalties, especially in overtimes.

I mean come on, when did you see in the 80's or 90's a powerplay in overtime in the playoffs let alone the regular season?

Even shootouts I think have ruined the game for traditionalists, it's simply a gimmick by Bettman to try and run the NHL like an American professional sport business like the NBA and NFL.

You take away the grass roots of the NHL (which Bettman has done) and you take away the soul from the game.

 

[Boxscore]

I'm an 80's child and grew up watching hockey in the late 80's, and then the 90's and I personally think that players like Roy, Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, Sakic, Bourque.. will never come again.

Those players were special, nowadays players are like "robots" made to play a system, be in the right position at all times and well true creativity goes out the window.

Yes Stamkos, Crosby and Ovechkin are great players but they don't have that "something" that older players had.

Gone is the creativity, gone is fighting (without it being planned), gone is clean hitting, gone are the dramatics of a tight hockey game.

What we have now are 4th line players fighting (set-up), more hits to the head because players can't play with their heads up, and in abundance of penalties, especially in overtimes.

I mean come on, when did you see in the 80's or 90's a powerplay in overtime in the playoffs let alone the regular season?

Even shootouts I think have ruined the game for traditionalists, it's simply a gimmick by Bettman to try and run the NHL like an American professional sport business like the NBA and NFL.

You take away the grass roots of the NHL (which Bettman has done) and you take away the soul from the game.

Exactly right.

 

[livewell68]

Exactly right.

... and I haven't even started to scratch the surface.

I'd rather watch players ditacte the outcome of hockey game rather than politicians and refs.

Had players like Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr, Howe been given the same advantages players are given now and their scoring records accomplishments might have been magnified.

The game as a whole is faster now but is it really? It's faster because players just rush up and down the ice looking like zombies, they look like they are skating fast but in reality they are just simply playing a system. Dump the puck, chase it and make sure you at least pick up a point during the game.

In my mind I think the best hockey ever played was between 1985 and 1995.

Players were starting to get bigger and stronger, the goalies started to play the butterfly and were becoming more athletic and true game breakers but at least they had "soul", at least they played for the love of the game.

I think the first lockout hurt the league back in 1994-95 but even after that lockout things seemed fine, but the NHL decided that scoring was too high, so what did they do? They made all these changes that took away from the game.

What happened then is that they realized by the late 90's early 2000's that scoring had gone down way too much so then instead of trying to actually get to the problem, instead they completely changed the game.

Goalies don't fight anymore, star players don't fight their own battles, penalties are called like it is a joke now.

Players might be improving physically and the evolution of modern athletes is something to behold, but the result of this has actually made the sport regress.

The sad part is I don't see an improvement anytime soon.

Old time hockey is long gone and so is the fun of the sport.

I think the state of professional sports and hockey in particular is a very complex thing that involves athletics, economics, greed.

Players are content making the big bucks and being thrust into the spotlight but the sad part is now the NHL is being run like Boxing, players are the victims (they are brainwashed into thinking they are the *****) and the GM, owners and Bettman are the manipulators.

 

[RandV]

I'm an 80's child and grew up watching hockey in the late 80's, and then the 90's and I personally think that players like Roy, Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, Sakic, Bourque.. will never come again.

Those players were special, nowadays players are like "robots" made to play a system, be in the right position at all times and well true creativity goes out the window.

Yes Stamkos, Crosby and Ovechkin are great players but they don't have that "something" that older players had.

Gone is the creativity, gone is fighting (without it being planned), gone is clean hitting, gone are the dramatics of a tight hockey game.

What we have now are 4th line players fighting (set-up), more hits to the head because players can't play with their heads up, and in abundance of penalties, especially in overtimes.

I mean come on, when did you see in the 80's or 90's a powerplay in overtime in the playoffs let alone the regular season?

Even shootouts I think have ruined the game for traditionalists, it's simply a gimmick by Bettman to try and run the NHL like an American professional sport business like the NBA and NFL.

You take away the grass roots of the NHL (which Bettman has done) and you take away the soul from the game.

You say there won't be other players like not just Gretzky and Lemieux but also Jagr, Sakic, Bourque. But if older players can adjust and thrive from the 80's to the more modern NHL, wouldn't it work in reverse? That a player of Crosby's caliber taking out of this supposed 'robotic' current NHL and placed in the 80's would find that 'something' and thrive, easily placing himself behind Gretzky and Lemieux but ahead of Sakic and Jagr? Or if Lemieux was born two decades later, would he have that special unique spark or would he be the same sort of robotic player Crosby or Ovechkin is?

This is what I call classic definition of nostalgia. You're placing one generation of players ahead of another one based on the era they played in, with the preference going to the players you watched growing up. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion of course but this is why it's hard to get good discussions or comparisons for modern players to older. If I were to ask for say an 80's equivilent of Henrik Sedin (as I'm a Canuck fan), I'm worried I'd be given someone like Thomas Steen.

 

[Boxscore]

If I were to ask for say an 80's equivilent of Henrik Sedin (as I'm a Canuck fan), I'm worried I'd be given someone like Thomas Steen.

No, Sedin is dynamite. But I will say this, seeing the Sedins in the mid-80s would have been incredible, even moreso than today. Their give-and-go style would have been perfect for that era. Sedin is a better Craig Janney, but Janney is the 80s-90s player who he reminds me most of.

The point Jagr was making - and I agree with him 100% - is that the players and the game today is too robotic and systematic compared to the exciting years between 85-95.

This is more about the way the game is being played (and run) today than it is certain players. For example, there was a Sidney Crosby in the 80s - his name was Steve Yzerman. For those who remember the young Steve Yzerman, he was very similar to Crosby, but he was more exciting to watch because the game as a whole was more exciting.