Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

A record is a record


smokes

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, TOMapleLaughs said:

Besides, Kane's 'equivalent record' or whatever would have an asterisk beside it.  Highest point streak by a cabbie-beating rapist.

Really?!

Honestly why the hate on Kane? He's an amazing hockey player who has made some questionable decisions in his youth, like most of us do.

Also, there wasn't evidence to prove he raped anyone so why call him a rapist? I have just as much grounds to call you one but don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Delta76 said:

Really?!

Honestly why the hate on Kane? He's an amazing hockey player who has made some questionable decisions in his youth, like most of us do.

Also, there wasn't evidence to prove he raped anyone so why call him a rapist? I have just as much grounds to call you one but don't. 

I dont think this is an attack on Kane. This is a conversation about "records" and "records broken"..

until a record is broken, there is NO new record.  Anything less of the record standing is a "run", "streak", or puts a person in a staged numerical position that falls short of the "record held".

Didnt Henry the 8th say "First we kill all the lawyers, and then the analysts". ... Or something to that effect ;) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, smokes said:

A record is a record

Unless it's not really a record they're talking about, and rather a comparison of how scoring is different across eras.

No one is suggesting Kane getting to 35 games lets him ties Gretzky's record. Let's keep this in perspective here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

I dont think this is an attack on Kane. This is a conversation about "records" and "records broken"..

until a record is broken, there is NO new record.  Anything less of the record standing is a "run", "streak", or puts a person in a staged numerical position that falls short of the "record held".

Didnt Henry the 8th say "First we kill all the lawyers, and then the analysts". ... Or something to that effect ;) 

 

I was referring to the "cabbie beating rapist comment."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's one of the many great things about Gretzky?  Even he acknowledges that he wouldn't have put up the numbers that he put up if he were playing today.  Regardless of eras, Gretzky revolutionized the way the game was played as few other before him did (Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr and Patrick Roy may be the only others, at least that come to my mind), and he was hands down, the best ambassador the game has seen int he past 35 years.

You know who doesn't care about records?  Gretzky. He's got four rings, couple of Canada Cups, an Olympic gold as an exec, hundreds of millions that he earned from the game of hockey and the adoration of generations of hockey fans.  I'm thinking he's pretty happy right about now (except for the follies of his uber-hot daughter and his party boy son-in-law).

Kane is a great talent, but he doesn't hold a candle to the legacy that is known as Wayne Gretzky.  Lets see Kane do what he can over a sustained period of five consecutive years.  I'm guessing if Kane is a decent human being, he'd be embarrassed that he's being compared to Gretzky for the current streak he's on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Who was the one hit wonder of the day to benefit by playing with Gretzky; Bernie Nichols?

The closest modern day guy to make sooo many guys better, and its still not the same, is Joe Thornton. Hell, Cheechoo would have been a hall of famer on the old Oilers? (Would have been great buddies with Grant Fuhr I might add...)

No way Nichols is a one hit wonder 1127GP 1292 points. Sure Gretz makes guys climb past their ceiling. Gretz didnt get to LA until 88 and Nichols had already  scored 95, 100, 97 81, 78 points in the 5 yrs before he showed up with way less a talent around him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr.DirtyDangles said:

No way Nichols is a one hit wonder 1127GP 1292 points. Sure Gretz makes guys climb past their ceiling. Gretz didnt get to LA until 88 and Nichols had already  scored 95, 100, 97 81, 78 points in the 5 yrs before he showed up with way less a talent around him.

Good old Pumper-Nicholl.  Gifted and talented offensive player in his own right.  

Best (the only) story I know of Nicholls is that he was sent down to junior after receiving his signing bonus and when he got back to Kingston, he was so cold that he bought a full length mink fur coat and was nicknamed Pimper-Nicholl after that.  I can't remember where I heard the story, but even if it's not true, it's pretty funny.  Honest...I'm not making this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bigbadcanucks said:

You know what's one of the many great things about Gretzky?  Even he acknowledges that he wouldn't have put up the numbers that he put up if he were playing today.  Regardless of eras, Gretzky revolutionized the way the game was played as few other before him did (Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr and Patrick Roy may be the only others, at least that come to my mind), and he was hands down, the best ambassador the game has seen int he past 35 years.

You know who doesn't care about records?  Gretzky. He's got four rings, couple of Canada Cups, an Olympic gold as an exec, hundreds of millions that he earned from the game of hockey and the adoration of generations of hockey fans.  I'm thinking he's pretty happy right about now (except for the follies of his uber-hot daughter and his party boy son-in-law).

Kane is a great talent, but he doesn't hold a candle to the legacy that is known as Wayne Gretzky.  Lets see Kane do what he can over a sustained period of five consecutive years.  I'm guessing if Kane is a decent human being, he'd be embarrassed that he's being compared to Gretzky for the current streak he's on.

Who exactly compared Kane to Gretzky? We are talking about point streaks and what would be as impressive as Gretzky's streak in today's era. The only reason people are even talking about records breaking is because Kane just broke the record for point streaks for American players.

I swear as soon as the name Kane comes up people seem to start the mindless bashing. Not directed at you.

Also it is a reasonable discussion to find out what would be as impressive today as what Gretzky accomplished back then. This same discussion was made when Ovechkin was putting up insane goal totals. The fact of the matter is that one goal in today's era is more valuable than a goal in Gretzky's. So saying that Ovechkin has to equal Gretzky's goal totals for him to have as impressive a goal scoring season is well...stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Delta76 said:

I was referring to the "cabbie beating rapist comment."

Yes,. Not my comment, and i cant defend that.. I try not to engage into any kind of slagging here,. It is not needed... Having said that, Mr Kane might do well offering himself for more charitable work,. And be wiser chosing his circles of freinds.

It must be a privilege to play in the NHL.

 Maybe one day all owners and GM's in every sport will recognize that. And perhaps they will agree that if a player unlawfully or unruly disrespects the status that he has jointly created with the identity of the League he is employed in,. He is terminated from that league.

... After all, records are records.

sorry folks , a little off topic here, but maybe we have created one to take to another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't really understand how a goal in today's NHL is more valuable as the goals scored in the previous eras. A goal is a goal period. The game may have evolved but it's still the same game. Heck if fans and analysts truly believe this then they should scrap the records every few years and start all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smokes said:

I just don't really understand how a goal in today's NHL is more valuable as the goals scored in the previous eras. A goal is a goal period. The game may have evolved but it's still the same game. Heck if fans and analysts truly believe this then they should scrap the records every few years and start all over again.

Why do we need to scrap records? We are trying to compare scoring in different eras. It's natural to compare the difficulty of scoring a goal today as opposed to scoring one 30 years ago when games used to be a lot more high scoring. 

If you are willing to admit the game has evolved, then it has changed. Doesn't a player like Joe Sakic get credit for being one of the best players of all time despite the fact that his stats maybe much worse than an inferior player playing in the 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Toews said:

Why do we need to scrap records? We are trying to compare scoring in different eras. It's natural to compare the difficulty of scoring a goal today as opposed to scoring one 30 years ago when games used to be a lot more high scoring. 

If you are willing to admit the game has evolved, then it has changed. Doesn't a player like Joe Sakic get credit for being one of the best players of all time despite the fact that his stats maybe much worse than an inferior player playing in the 80s.

have you watched the games in the 80's. The clutching and grabbing made it near impossible to get a shot off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, smokes said:

have you watched the games in the 80's. The clutching and grabbing made it near impossible to get a shot off. 

And that wasn't there is the 90s? If scoring goals in the 80s was so difficult, it would not have been so high.

No I didn't watch hockey in the 80s but there is video footage available of the games back then. And it was very much firewagon hockey. The goaltenders back then we're absolutely terrible and there was no semblance of a proper system on defense. It was a much more entertaining game than what I grew up with.

I take it you might have become a fan in the 80s and you probably choose to look upon that era more fondly than younger fans. But you need to accept the facts about the game back then. Just like I accept the fact that I grew up in an era were the quality of hockey was downright awful.

When I started watching hockey, it was the peak of the dead puck era where teams clogged up the neural zone and stifled offense. Any player who played his prime in that era suffered statiscally. Do you dispute my assertion that a player like Forsberg would have put up god like numbers in the 80s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone that got a chance to actually watch the Great One play will realize how far ahead of other players he really was. 

It's hard to quantify unless you were there during some of those heart-breaking games where he completely dismantled the Canucks and achieved record after record.  I know its just optics but it seemed to me back in the day that he achieved a ton of milestones against Vancouver and when he went to St. Louis and New York I couldn't have been happier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Delta76 said:

Really?!

Honestly why the hate on Kane? He's an amazing hockey player who has made some questionable decisions in his youth, like most of us do.

Also, there wasn't evidence to prove he raped anyone so why call him a rapist? I have just as much grounds to call you one but don't. 

That's right. It's only acceptable to hate on Zack Kassian...

18 hours ago, SilentSam said:

I dont think this is an attack on Kane. This is a conversation about "records" and "records broken"..

until a record is broken, there is NO new record.  Anything less of the record standing is a "run", "streak", or puts a person in a staged numerical position that falls short of the "record held".

Didnt Henry the 8th say "First we kill all the lawyers, and then the analysts". ... Or something to that effect ;) 

 

It was Dick the butcher....but you're close. It's from Henry the VI.

As far as comparing the two streaks, I agree with the OP. A record is a record. Comparing eras is counterproductive. We all know that Hank Aaron would still have the home run record if not for Steroids, but he didn't have to face the kind of closers and set-up men we see in this day and age. Ditto Ruth, who wasn't subjected to specialty lefties who come in to face one batter.

Gretz has all the records because he was blessed with incredible vision that not only allowed him to see where everyone was, it allowed him to predict where everyone would be in a few seconds. Kane is a terrific player, with tremendous skill, but he's not Gretzky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Toews said:

And that wasn't there is the 90s? If scoring goals in the 80s was so difficult, it would not have been so high.

No I didn't watch hockey in the 80s but there is video footage available of the games back then. And it was very much firewagon hockey. The goaltenders back then we're absolutely terrible and there was no semblance of a proper system on defense. It was a much more entertaining game than what I grew up with.

I take it you might have become a fan in the 80s and you probably choose to look upon that era more fondly than younger fans. But you need to accept the facts about the game back then. Just like I accept the fact that I grew up in an era were the quality of hockey was downright awful.

When I started watching hockey, it was the peak of the dead puck era where teams clogged up the neural zone and stifled offense. Any player who played his prime in that era suffered statiscally. Do you dispute my assertion that a player like Forsberg would have put up god like numbers in the 80s?

I would not dispute that Sakic, Forsberg, Federov, or Bure would do well in the 80's, My thing is this, I don't believe the 80's players truly are getting the repect they deserve. Playing in today's NHL, I would still take Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier (before Vancouver) in thier prime over the likes of Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews and absolutely Kane. Sure the athletes are stronger, faster, and more skilled but the 80's had players who were nastier and tougher. Everyone likes to talk about the elite players but they never really looked at the accomplishments of lesser third or fourth line players. The elites back in those days were elites because they were counted upon night in and night out.They literally put teams on thier backs and said lets go. Gretzky didn't score those goals because of anything ele but the fact that Grant Fuhr sucked so bad that he had no choice. But he did it, how many current stars do that?

 My point is just that even in an era where scoring was easier, the fact that 35 is just as impressive as 51 is preposterous. 35 is amazing and without a doubt impressive but equal? When I started watching hockey, there was no "just as impressive" comparison. The 80's played a different style than the Howe era. But the Howe era was repected so as to say a record is the record. It's either beaten or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...