What does Lidstrom have to do to be considered better than Bourque?

[danincanada]

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=864660

Do not see anyone asking for evidence about Lidstrom being "burned" in the seminal post.

Another poster started a prime Lidstrom getting burned type thread previously.

Instead of presuming and falsely accusing others about the hockey they watch your time would be better spent taking a remedial reading course.

That was uncalled for. I wrote "that thread", not "this thread" so it appears you should take your own advice.

I'm sorry that I said you were someone that hadn't seen much of Lidstrom this season if it's not true. To me it seemed like most the stuff you were coming up with was completely unfounded and wrong. It would only take watching a couple of Red Wings games with a small focus on Lidstrom to realize he plays in all the key situations for Babcock and shouldn't be compared to Subban becaue of the role both play. Even at 40 Lidstrom is their key shutdown dman and plays on both special teams. The QualityComp stats back this up.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't think anyone is really (knowingly) accusing anyone else of racism in this thread.
I'd call it being biased based on your nationality, which is a perfectly normal thing. So I don't know why it's so hard for some canadiens to admit that they might prefer Bourque over Lidstrom because he is their fellow countryman. Or at least that the fact that he is canadien is the tiebreaker for them.

I'll be the first to admit, that anytime there is a discussion about any Slovak's claim for Hall of Fame, whether it is Bondra, Chara or Hossa, I am biased.

I don't really think the situation with a Canadian fan and a Slovakian fan (or any fan of non Canadian nationality) are comparable. Canada has more elite players historically than all of the other nations combined. Canada's hockey history is not compromised at all by Lidstrom passing Bourque to become the consensus #4 defencemen of all time, considering Canadians dominate the position historically and have the remaining spots above Lidstrom. This is true even if you rank Lidstrom #2 all time, which would not be a huge stretch. If the argument was Lidstrom over Orr then I can see Canadian fans actually having an agenda as the argument would be over who was the greatest defenceman ever of all time.

Sure Canadian fans are going to be biased as all fans are, but I believe that other biases (team played for, era they played in etc.) are probably stronger in the Lidstrom-Bourque discussion. It is not as if Bourque is particularly revered in Canada for a player of his ability either.

 

[danincanada]

I don't really think the situation with a Canadian fan and a Slovakian fan (or any fan of non Canadian nationality) are comparable. Canada has more elite players historically than all of the other nations combined. Canada's hockey history is not compromised at all by Lidstrom passing Bourque to become the consensus #4 defencemen of all time, considering Canadians dominate the position historically and have the remaining spots above Lidstrom. This is true even if you rank Lidstrom #2 all time, which would not be a huge stretch. If the argument was Lidstrom over Orr then I can see Canadian fans actually having an agenda as the argument would be over who was the greatest defenceman ever of all time.

Sure Canadian fans are going to be biased as all fans are, but I believe that other biases (team played for, era they played in etc.) are probably stronger in the Lidstrom-Bourque discussion. It is not as if Bourque is particularly revered in Canada for a player of his ability either.

I am Canadian and I have brought up the bias factor at times against Lidstrom. I admit I may be wrong about that but to me it looks like it's apparent when some people list the all-time defenseman. I have a hard time accepting Shore so high on that list because he played so long ago and only against fellow Canadians. I think we need to accept that todays game is a lot more competitive due to so many other countries producing great players, too.

This is off topic but how many people even played hockey back in Shore's days compared to now? I don't think it's even comparable and dominating the way Lidstrom has for so long is a much bigger feat than what Shore accomplished IMO. It's not meant to disrespect Shore because he was obviously a great athlete - that's just the way I see it.

The other bias people mention against Lidstrom has nothing to do with nationality and that's his playing style. To me he's basically the Gretzky of defenseman. He thinks on a higher level than other players and rarely gets hit, yet doesn't play physical or have jaw dropping physical attributes. It was obviously hard for people who didn't watch him every game to see this at first and many labelled him a soft offensive dman when it was cleary not true.

I don't see why placing Lidstrom #2 all-time is a huge stretch at all. He's got the indvidual and team accomplishments, the longevity and many intangibles that others don't have such as not taking penalties and avoiding injury which makes his career value worth even more.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I am Canadian and I have brought up the bias factor at times against Lidstrom. I admit I may be wrong about that but to me it looks like it's apparent when some people list the all-time defenseman. I have a hard time accepting Shore so high on that list because he played so long ago and only against fellow Canadians. I think we need to accept that todays game is a lot more competitive due to so many other countries producing great players, too.

Obviously some people still have a bit of a bias, but it was more apparent in the 90's I'd say. The fact is there are legit reasons Lidstrom could not be ranked in the top 5 all time, and there's legit reasons he could be ranked number 2 regardless of nationality. Also regarding Shore, and people who defend others of that era to be better than the best of more recent eras would more than likely have an old time hockey bias rather than a Canadian one.

This is off topic but how many people even played hockey back in Shore's days compared to now? I don't think it's even comparable and dominating the way Lidstrom has for so long is a much bigger feat than what Shore accomplished IMO. It's not meant to disrespect Shore because he was obviously a great athlete - that's just the way I see it.

I am of the belief that hockey pre WW2 should be compared seperately with the rest of history, the game really changed too much IMO.

The other bias people mention against Lidstrom has nothing to do with nationality and that's his playing style. To me he's basically the Gretzky of defenseman. He thinks on a higher level than other players and rarely gets hit, yet doesn't play physical or have jaw dropping physical attributes. It was obviously hard for people who didn't watch him every game to see this at first and many labelled him a soft offensive dman when it was cleary not true.

That's basically how I've always seen it, this was probably just as much of a factor in him not getting the respect he deserved earlier on, if not more so than his nationality.

I don't see why placing Lidstrom #2 all-time is a huge stretch at all. He's got the indvidual and team accomplishments, the longevity and many intangibles that others don't have such as not taking penalties and avoiding injury which makes his career value worth even more.

The way I have it is

1. Orr
2. Harvey
3. Bourque
4. Lidstrom

It's certainly close enough between 2, 3 and 4 that placing them in whichever order would be far from outrageous.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

We're done. Clearly this can't be discussed without violating site rules.