Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaine
Agree to disagree then. Both are generational talents,
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Iginla is not a "generational talent", at least not in the common sense of the term. Iginla has been ONE OF the best players of his generation, but that is entirely different matter, since generational talents tend to be special, dominant players that are clearly on another level compared to their peers. There is usually only one or two generational talents in any generation.
...
Sakic... was indisputably a generational talent.
|
Umm... I think it depends on how you define "generational talent". If you define it as merely a player who would be as effective or a star player in any era then both Iginla and Sakic are generational talents. But if you go by Textcritic's definition of a special, dominant player who is clearly on another level compared to his peers then I don't think neither Iginla nor Sakic are generational players because neither of them were the best player of his generation in the way Gretzky, Lemieux, and Crosby were/are. These guys were great players and Sakic is a very accomplished player, etc. but certainly not close to being the best player of their generations. I would rank Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr before Sakic.