Had to admit that I in that case have gotten this wrong all this time. Some meaning in that wording must be lost in translation, as english aint´my first language. But to me the wording seemed and till steem to indicate that you should be 26 and younger at the start off the season. But if Brunner wasn´t eliagable because of it, you are of course right. And as the third hit on google about it is this article, I guess I´m in the american company of misunderstanding it:
Red Wings' Damien Brunner makes smooth transition to NHL, giving club a much-needed offensive spark
But it still has nothing to do with Ovechkins and Crosbys Calder race. Age wasn´t a factor there, if the trophy was voted on as intended. They where both eliagble. Age in between the age restriction is not supposed to be a factor in the Calder voting. And you haven´t backtracked to that and other points at all, you´ve only continuesly moved the debate instead. And semmingly succesfully to a place where the opponent can be belittled in a way to nullify his other points.
And in this case it´s the bolded part, wich is quite concending and weird wording from how I see it. Why is it necessary? I´ve seen this tone around here more and more. Can´t remember it 5-10 years ago. When someone made an error, even if stubborn and from a long time misunderstanding like me this time (in this case and many others about something that doesn´t have anything to do with the debate...) , it wasn´t gloating and pushing that person down that was the first instinct. It´s getting tiring and honestley I see that I´m as well is affected and pushed father to an unpleasant tone when confronted with this kind of bullying and belittling attitude. And I don´t like it. And more often this kind of sidesteps from debates happens, here where the age limit of 26 or 27 yo somewhere was the assumption being made ment and somehow important in a discussion about a 18 and a 20 yo. Because the thing I wrote was:
And it´s not "despite being two years older". Age, if the Calder is voted one as worded, is not a factor. "To the player selected as the most proficient in his first year of competition in the National Hockey League (NHL)". Ovechkin got it because he was the better player that season. It was even feared that some would vote on Crosby just because he was younger and therefore not doing what the Calder is about justice.
Your answer:
Calder has been an age-limited trophy since Makarov, so again, you're wrong. Age is definitely a factor and it's absolutely right to heed it.
Me:
There is an upper limit at age 27 for the Calder, but we where talking about Ovechkins 2 more years... that plays no role. And that's a fact. If you are 18 or 20 plays no role. The voters are supposed to regard age if under 27...
You:
Since a player is only eligible if he's 26 or younger by September of their rookie season, they're definitely 26 when (if) they receive the Calder. Thus the upper limit is naturally 26.
You choose to answer 1-2 out of 4-5 points, the ones where the semantic or a misunderstanding of a rule that ain´t necessary to the point being debated. Somehow more important to attack or straighten out that then the point discussed it self. Other points beeing deemed to be over the others head or just misunderstood again. And this is a debating tactic of this age (well, it´s old - but one more often used today...) that I think is taking the fun out of debating, both on this site and elsewhere. It resembles an argument tactic we in Sweden call "fox trap", even if not completley fitting the describtion. Getting the opponent on a defensive side by a sidestep in the debate on the thing they are wrong on and like you throwing in a "so again, you´re wrong" to establish that the poster is continually wrong to make his other points seem less. Even when there hadn´t been an established point where he was wrong earlier.
May be time to step down from the keyboard from me to be honest. It´s turning into a negative place even here in the History department for me.
