Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Okay, none of this pound for pound stuff. None of this "best of his era" stuff. I am talking about the most notorious, scary, toughest fighter in hockey history. The best one should be a player who can cross generations and still beat up all of that era's best fighters.
Now the obvious thing here is no fighter ever won all of his fights. Probert lost some mainly because the only ones willing to fight him were other fighters..........and even then it was only the best ones.
So imagine a best of 7 if you will. Who would be the Stanley Cup winner out of everyone? If you want to include someone like Stan Jonathan (often considered best "pound for pound" fighter) then that's fine, but keep in mind he is going against the field of everyone else in hockey history, not just his weight class. This has to be a guy who could win against all comers.
Who is the most prolific fighter in NHL history? Probert? Howe? Lindros? Chara? Ferguson? Gillies? Robinson? Laraque? McSorley? Clark? Ray?
Now the obvious thing here is no fighter ever won all of his fights. Probert lost some mainly because the only ones willing to fight him were other fighters..........and even then it was only the best ones.
So imagine a best of 7 if you will. Who would be the Stanley Cup winner out of everyone? If you want to include someone like Stan Jonathan (often considered best "pound for pound" fighter) then that's fine, but keep in mind he is going against the field of everyone else in hockey history, not just his weight class. This has to be a guy who could win against all comers.
Who is the most prolific fighter in NHL history? Probert? Howe? Lindros? Chara? Ferguson? Gillies? Robinson? Laraque? McSorley? Clark? Ray?