This one gave me a laugh

[Infinite Vision*]

Last season, there were 18 teams with a minimum of one 30+ goal scorer. There were 5 teams with a minimum of two 30+ goal scorers. In a 30 team league, that's hardly a rarity.

And it's not because the talent is decreasing!

 

[Wet Sprocket]

Then explain people between 35-40 keeping pace or being better than a lot of younger guys, does that mean they'd all dominate those guys if they were younger? No it doesn't. There's more and more people being able to keep pace at an older age today, but the undeniable fact is the league improves every year, and it gets harder to stand out statistically.

You might want to take a look at the statistical leaders board, there are very few players over the age of 30 in the top 20 of scoring (there are 4). This includes this year as well as years past. I believe Martin St. Louis is the only player over 35 currently in the top 20 in scoring, and there aren't any that are 35 and older in the top 20 in goals. Players today can stay around longer than those in years past, primarily due to a increased emphasis on conditioning, but that doesn't exactly allow them to explode to the net and score at will like they could when they were 25.

 

[Derick*]

His numbers would be even better than they were in his day. Hyperbole aside, I have no doubt he would break 200 points.

That's an overstatement. Your theory that, while scoring has gone down, the rule changes suit Mario's game, is interesting. But it's naive to say you have no doubt he would.

 

[lextune]

I know laugh worthy isn't a word you fool I forgot to space it, but when people start getting really defensive in fear of knowing they're wrong they'll point out minor things that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I know this. You know this.

Sentence structure, spelling, grammar and punctuation are relevant actually. They show basic intelligence.

You can get away with forgetting to space a few words, but unless English isn't your first language screwing up basics like "your" vs "you're" tells us a lot about you.

Quite relevant.

This I know.

And it is doubly relevant since the context you were attempting to use "you're" in, was to call into question my intelligence! .....

Are you familiar with the phrase "being hoisted with your own petard"?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's an overstatement. Your theory that, while scoring has gone down, the rule changes suit Mario's game, is interesting. But it's naive to say you have no doubt he would.

I agree. Mario is definitely helped by the fact that guys can't ride on his back. But he's still going to be shooting on today's goalies, playing behind teams loaded with forwards who are coached to help out the defenseman as much as they are out there to score.

 

[lextune]

I agree. Mario is definitely helped by the fact that guys can't ride on his back. But he's still going to be shooting on today's goalies, playing behind teams loaded with forwards who are coached to help out the defenseman as much as they are out there to score.

These are valid arguments, ones I disagree with, but certainly up for intelligent debate.
As opposed to the inanity of Mario only scoring the way he did at 35 because he was in "the best shape of his life".

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Sentence structure, spelling, grammar and punctuation are relevant actually. They show basic intelligence.

You can get away with forgetting to space a few words, but unless English isn't your first language screwing up basics like "your" vs "you're" tells us a lot about you.

Quite relevant.

This I know.

I honestly hope you're not implying I don't know the difference between the two. If you're not I'd like to know where you got that idea from smart guy. Lets say I didn't know how to spell, the better a person is at spelling, does not equal better knowledge of hockey. I'm sure if I went through your posts I could find some spelling mistakes, or are you too perfect for that? I was always one of the best spellers in any of my classes throughout my school life actually but go on you amuse me.

 

[lextune]

That's an overstatement. Your theory that, while scoring has gone down, the rule changes suit Mario's game, is interesting. But it's naive to say you have no doubt he would.

Fair enough; I certainly can be persuaded to change my diction to "I have little doubt."

 

[lextune]

I honestly hope you're not implying I don't know the difference between the two. If you're not I'd like to know where you got that idea from smart guy.

From here....

You're ignorance is stunning.

 

[lextune]

I'm sure if I went through your posts I could find some spelling mistakes

Actually I'm sure you couldn't.

And no, that fact alone doesn't give me more hockey knowledge, but being more intelligent than you does have it's bonuses.

Like realizing that no 35 year old elite level athlete is going to be better suited to his sport physically than that same athlete was at 25.

Doesn't take "hockey knowledge" to understand that basic tenet of human existence.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

From here....

You know what's funny about that, it's called a mechanical spelling error. It's not uncommon. I know the correct spelling is your and I didn't even bother to correct it because if you've read enough of my posts you'd know that I know the difference. I see posters here ones you agree with quite often use then in place of than, and would of and should of instead of would have and should have, but hey I'm smart enough to realize that because someone may not spell as well, it doesn't exactly mean they know less about hockey.

What do you have to say now smart guy, I think you're a little upset.

 

[lextune]

What do you have to say now smart guy, I think you're a little upset.

Not at all.

After all I'm not the one sending (feebly) insulting personal messages. Am I?

The fact that you went out of your way to send me a PM instead of speaking openly in the thread sort of shows that you are a little upset....don't you think?



Justify it all you want. Intelligent people know that their writing shows their intelligence level.

As for "hockey knowledge", I have more of that than you, just from being an intelligent observer of the game since before you were born.

 

[Scott1980]

Well, if it matters...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pn-sH5N9Qg

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Not at all.

After all I'm not the one sending (feebly) insulting personal messages. Am I?

The fact that you went out of your way to send me a PM instead of speaking openly in the thread sort of shows that you are a little upset....don't you think?



Justify it all you want. Intelligent people know that their writing shows their intelligence level.

As for "hockey knowledge", I have more of that than you, just from being an intelligent observer of the game since before you were born.

Ok, Don Cherry. It's funny how you had a spelling error in the message you sent back to me. Admit that was hilarious.

The guy who thinks it's possible that someone would get 200+ points today, not to mention thinks it's a guarantee for a guy who never cracked it in a way way higher scoring era almost 20 years ago knows more than hockey about me!

Jeez, I sure hope not.

 

[lextune]

Well, if it matters...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pn-sH5N9Qg

Everything Wayne says matters.

....although like any public figure, often his words must be parsed.

 

[lextune]

Ok, Don Cherry. It's funny how you had a spelling error in the message you sent back to me. Admit that was hilarious.

Actually there were no spelling errors.

But a typo did create a grammatical error; "a" into "an".

It was not particularly funny, but it was indeed ironic.

 

[lextune]

At this point I will just quote myself from the aforementioned PM, (after being told to "get real"):

"My opinion that he would rip the league a new one under today's rules is far more real than the idea that he was "in better shape at 35 than at 25".

Not only does that idea fly in the face of basic logic, but it fails the eyeball test.
I saw Mario with my own eyes. His entire career.
I was actually present at his first NHL game at the Garden, and literally saw him play live and/or on TV, hundreds and hundreds of times after that.

He could do things at 21, 22, 23, that he was quite simply not capable of in his 30's.
It is not debatable."

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Actually there were no spelling errors.

But a typo did create a grammatical error; "a" into "an".

It was not particularly funny, but it was indeed ironic.

Well yeah it was funny because you said I'd actually never find one, so you're not too perfect for mechanical error's grammar, spelling, or otherwise.

I admit however, equally ironic is the fact that I asked you if you were upset then proceeded to send you an uncalled for personal message.

I personally just did it because I happen to know for a fact you're wrong with what you're arguing and you're trying to make me look like an idiot in the process.

Honestly though we're obviously not going to come close to agreeing on anything, so I think I'm done here for the night.

 

[lextune]

Well yeah it was funny because you said I'd actually never find one, so you're not too perfect for mechanical error's grammar, spelling, or otherwise.

I stand by that. Search my thousands of posts, (and learn of my hatred for Claude Julien, lol), you won't find one.

I approach my public posting far differently than replying to a private, hateful, attack on my person.

The newness of such an affront left me, unsurprisingly, unwilling to bother proof reading my reply.


EDIT:

I would like to congratulation "Infinite Vision" for sending me the lamest n00b thing we ever see in the history section. Right out of the newbie thread:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=140503

"A reminder that this forum is not the place for "Evolution of Hockey" threads, where people who have experienced the "blinding flash of the obvious" come to the conclusion that all players today are better than any players in history"

...and his PM:

Just for the record I've received a personal message on this site from an older member of the boards who was involved in coaching and general managing at a high level of hockey for over 40 years, that admitted he knew everything I was saying was true but not to spout that stuff here because they won't have any of it. He was a guy I least expected to hear the message from, one of the older fairly known guys on this site, but it was basically admitting that he knew a top Junior A player today would outscore Gretzky if he went back in time to the 80's with everything he knows now.
Physical abilities hockey sense etc.

What more could I ask for? Lol.

 

[Lead Role in a Cage]

Think about this, Gretzky only got caught when another generational player (Lemieux) started to hit his prime. That and the combination of the fact he was in his 30s did he finally STOP dominating the NHL. That being said a 30 year old Gretzky in 1991 had a 25 game point streak and 163 points. He had 122 assists that year, the next best player in points was Hull at 131. 1991 was a close enough year to the 1980s that Gretzky had experienced and even then it still wasn't the same dominance. Think about that.

I really like this segment of yours.

I'd like to add that Gretzky is very underrated around here, as much I have read at least, concerning how much he influenced his teammates and team (-s). I think the impact he had on the Oilers should be more applauded as I believe- that as good as Kurri, Messier, Coffey, Anderson and Fuhr (etc.) were/are, and I will love and remember them always (leaving out a bunch of names from those winning squads)- they could have been anybodies. Instead they became/are winners, to the point it boiled over to the 90 cup and later the 94 cup (almost the 93 cup). I think that development should be greatly, and I mean greatly, aknowledged in the same sentences as his (Gretzky's) completely bizarre stastistical records.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I stand by that. Search my thousands of posts, (and learn of my hatred for Claude Julien, lol), you won't find one.

I approach my public posting far differently than replying to a private, hateful, attack on my person.

The newness of such an affront left me, unsurprisingly, unwilling to bother proof reading my reply.


EDIT:

I would like to congratulation "Infinite Vision" for sending me the lamest n00b thing we ever see in the history section. Right out of the newbie thread:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=140503

"A reminder that this forum is not the place for "Evolution of Hockey" threads, where people who have experienced the "blinding flash of the obvious" come to the conclusion that all players today are better than any players in history"

...and his PM:



What more could I ask for? Lol.

Well then if that's true then how the hell is it such a guarantee that Gretzky or Lemieux would crack 200+ points let alone even be the best players today?

...

Anyways none of you seem to care to investigate and properly rate players all you do is defend old ones.

 

[lextune]

Anyways none of you seem to care to investigate and properly rate players

You have it completely backwards.

You have so little understanding of what we have done in the history section, that you presented the absolute beginning point of our investigation as your final analysis.

Instead of attempting to talk with the grown ups here you should actually read and learn.

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. We are all ignorant of countless things. I am ignorant of brain surgery. Knowledge can cure ignorance. Stupidity however....

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=20665373&postcount=1

At the bottom of that post you will find 8 separate links to threads containing hundreds upon hundreds of posts, debating, discussing, informing, and dissecting. Investigating to a level that you have not even begun to contemplate.

It is stupid for you to attempt to judge what we are doing here with so little actual knowledge.

 

[Big Phil]

Well then if that's true then how the hell is it such a guarantee that Gretzky or Lemieux would crack 200+ points let alone even be the best players today?

...

Anyways none of you seem to care to investigate and properly rate players all you do is defend old ones.

There is no guarantee that Lemieux and Gretzky would crack 200 points. Do you know why? Because Lemieux never did it anyway. He hit 199, that was his best. Gretzky did it 4 times with his peak being 215. With less scoring in the game today it isn't out of the question to think he'd get less than 200. But both players would be getting 180 points for sure. The reasoning is simple in my opinion. Right now Crosby is playing the best hockey of his career (so far). He is on pace for a 140 point season right now and a 70 goal year.

My eyes tell me that he still hasn't hit the level that we saw Mario do at his best or Gretzky. You just have to fathom how incredible their offensive talents were. Mario was magnificent in his prime and could take over a game slightly better than Crosby has done so far. I say this because I saw both of them play, not because I am favouring the oldies.

But just wait. Sid is 23. In the beginning of the year I claimed I had yet to see Sid hit the level of Jagr in his prime (1999). I have now. If he keeps this pace up the rest of the year he will have surpassed Jagr at his best and to those that were around in 1999 and watching Sid today, you have to agree. There aren't many guys left after Jagr to match. Let's wait until Sid's career is done first.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

You have it completely backwards.

You have so little understanding of what we have done in the history section, that you presented the absolute beginning point of our investigation as your final analysis.

Instead of attempting to talk with the grown ups here you should actually read and learn.

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. We are all ignorant of countless things. I am ignorant of brain surgery. Knowledge can cure ignorance. Stupidity however....

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=20665373&postcount=1

At the bottom of that post you will find 8 separate links to threads containing hundreds upon hundreds of posts, debating, discussing, informing, and dissecting. Investigating to a level that you have not even begun to contemplate.

It is stupid for you to attempt to judge what we are doing here with so little actual knowledge.

Coming from the guy who has no doubt Lemieux would top 200 points today.

Get a clue. Stop dreaming.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Coming from the guy who has no doubt Lemieux would top 200 points today.

Get a clue. Stop dreaming.

You keep on making these "laughing and insulting" posts to people who take the extremist view of Mario or Gretzky being able to still produce 200 points today.

At the same time however, you take the opposite extremist view that they wouldn't even be the top players today.

The reality is that neither view is very accurate but can you please let up on the childish bull**** posts soon?

That crap might get you points on the main boards but it will only hurt your credibility here and I would be willing to bet a lot of frequent History section posters already can no longer see your posts, if you know what I mean.
I'm about 1 post away from joining them.