Presentation for School

[cameltaur 0]

I'm doing a presentation in my weird Theory of Knowledge class about why we can never know who the greatest hockey player of all time is. My questions for you guys are this: Why do you think we can never know? What is more important, the skill of a player or the time in which he played? What should be valued more, stats or individual awards? Are stanley cups as important as MVP awards and scoring titles (IE 10 cups for beliveau to 4 for gretz)? How can we TRULY know how good a player was if all we know about him is his statistics? Thanks a lot for all of your help in advance...

EDIT: if a mod sees this, can you please move it into general hockey discussions. Thanks a lot.

[Eazy_b97 1]

Why do you think we can never know?

Because each generation gets more talented. I think an NHL player now is more skilled, talented and conditioned than the best of any past time.

What is more important, the skill of a player or the time in which he played?

The time he played has much more impact, like I said earlier, a fringe player now, would be a 100 goal scorer in 1930

What should be valued more, stats or individual awards?

These two are closely related, generally when people have good stats they are rewarded with individual awards. If I had to pick, I'd say stats

Are stanley cups as important as MVP awards and scoring titles (IE 10 cups for beliveau to 4 for gretz)?

I think the impact the player has on the team is most important, if you can bring a team from last place to 8th, but lose in the first round, it is much better than going to a stanley cup winning team and repeating. There are alot of great players without cups, who were the backbone of their team.

How can we TRULY know how good a player was if all we know about him is his statistics?

We can only know what we are told. At least now we can see video's and such, but on stats alone we can only know what the numbers tell us and not what effect he has on the team. The only way anything can TRULY be known is to be in the room and on the ice with the player, but it is easier to experience things when it is happening rather than looking at the stats. Darcy Tucker was a good example of this, I remember there was a little debate on it.

Hope this helps.

[this guy 0]

there was an article on here a while ago saying gretzky wasn't the greatest goal scorer (they compared him to lemieux) I remember the article saying "how can a man with a concave chest dominate the game of hockey" or something along those lines. I think it has alot to do with the time period you live in and your teamates. He played with the explosive oilers in the 80's and put up huge numbers. Even in his (gretzky's)dvd, he said it has to be a perfect era and have the right team for someone to break his records. Why do you think we will never know? Because there has been so many greats with different styles in different time periods.

[mseguin 0]

I agree that conditioning is better, but talent level is impossible to compare, the game has changed so much, the equipment, etc. Who knows how many goals Rocket Richard would have scored if he had all the benefits moidern players do?

[Briggy 0]

Also, before Ray Bourque went to the Colorado Avalanche people knew him as a great defenseman, even if he didnt win a Stanley Cup people would've remembered him for his defensive play.

[kosydar 0]

I don't think you'll ever be able to know because the game changes so much and there are so many varyings circumstances. Look at how the game has changed since the 80s, a little over a decade ago. Think about how different things were 50 years ago. I don't think you can really compare the game then to the game today. What if Gretzky played in todays era? Sure he'd be the best player, but he wouldn't be getting 200+ points a year.

[mack 44]

Hell, you don't even have to go back to the 80s. In the 10 years since hockey was on the verge of becoming more popular than ever, it's declined into...well, whatever you want to call it now.