The Ignorance of History In Mainstream

[Hardyvan123]

Roenick's not even a top-200 player.

Hockey history is 100+ years long, and a top-200 list should feature roughly 90 defensemen and goalies in total, so about 110 forwards. Each era should be fairly represented and there should only be room for about a dozen forwards from Roenick's era. With Oates, Sakic, Jagr, Gilmour, Yzerman, Francis, Lemieux, Fedorov, Bure, and Selanne clearly better than him, and likely a handful more that I just haven't mentioned, he's pretty in tough to make a serious top-200 list.

Not in the top 200?

Well i guess if you punish him for playing in the time period he played in then yes.

He had 8 years of being an excellent 2 way forward (a top 15 player in the league in those years for all around play 91-94 and 99-02) and another 6 seasons were he produced at a very good rate.

Add in a line of 154-53-69-122 and a decent international record then he is in my top 200 easily and maybe even the top 120 but I would have to sit down and take a better look at it.

 

[Derick*]

A big FAIL to Adams for not defending the integrity of the game's history. Krystal's arguments had more holes than Steve Buzinski and I would have had a field day taking apart his DeLorean logic.

As for Roenick, Apps can't hear Jeremy 'cuz he was buried with his Stanley Cup rings in his ears.

ROFL

 

[NeedleInTheHay]

I don't think it's so outlandish, he didn't say he was the better player... most people agree kovalev is one of the most talented players of all time, but he's no where near one of the best players of all time.

 

[seventieslord]

Not in the top 200?

Well i guess if you punish him for playing in the time period he played in then yes.

He had 8 years of being an excellent 2 way forward (a top 15 player in the league in those years for all around play 91-94 and 99-02) and another 6 seasons were he produced at a very good rate.

Add in a line of 154-53-69-122 and a decent international record then he is in my top 200 easily and maybe even the top 120 but I would have to sit down and take a better look at it.

Go for it then. You would have ALL KINDS of trouble finding room for Roenick in a top-120 once you actually get down to putting the rubber to the road. Talking about it, on the other hand....

 

[chcl]

Well, that's just stupid. I hope people can recognize the fallacy here.

Yes, but people have a hard time with that.

It is like people does not understand that Carl Lewis at 9.85s is better than Usain Bolt at 9.58s in the mens 100 meter sprint.

 

[Big Phil]

As for Roenick, Apps can't hear Jeremy 'cuz he was buried with his Stanley Cup rings in his ears.

Haha, got to love that comment. What would Roenick say to that one? He couldn't even say he had an Olympic Gold medal to carry around.

Apps was much more revered in his time. 5 times Apps was a 1st or 2nd all-star at center. None for Roenick for those that are counting. Apps missed two years in his prime to fight in WWII and still won 3 Cups.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't think it's so outlandish, he didn't say he was the better player... most people agree kovalev is one of the most talented players of all time, but he's no where near one of the best players of all time.

Actually he made a comment along the lines of "Who is Syl Apps?" Roenick should know better. It's bad enough Andrew Krystal makes a living doing what he does and knows jack about anything pre-lockout but Roenick is a former player, you'd expect him to have more respect than that.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes, but people have a hard time with that.

It is like people does not understand that Carl Lewis at 9.85s is better than Usain Bolt at 9.58s in the mens 100 meter sprint.

Is it like that?

Please explain because, for some reason, I don't know enough about track even though I am here on a hockey site.

 

[Sens Rule]

Is it like that?

Please explain because, for some reason, I don't know enough about track even though I am here on a hockey site.

It isn't like that. Bolt's run was the best ever in the Olympics. The second best was IMO Ben Johnson in Seoul. Johnson destroyed Lewis and ran 9.83 a record that stood for years and he put up his arm or it would have been like 9.79. (of course Roids erased the record!)

Bolt absolutely destroyed the rest of the pack at the Olympics. He had his freaking shoe untied, sort of buggered up his start, and slowed down at the end of the race to celebrate all while absolutely destroying the rest of the sprinters in a world record time.

Anyway not hockey but I can't see putting Lewis better than Bolt for a single run. Yes for career length and other events but in the 100 Bolt is the best ever IMO.

 

[unknown33]

It is like people does not understand that Carl Lewis at 9.85s is better than Usain Bolt at 9.58s in the mens 100 meter sprint.

Disagree. If someone would tell me in 2007 that the world record in 2009 will be 9.58 I'd think he is completely nuts.
A fitting hockey comparison would be scoring 100 goals in a season.

Usain Bolt's WR is otherworldly. It's the biggest progression for 100 metres in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_100_metres_world_record_progression