[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm not sure where you get that, because this is not at all what I was getting at. I recognise that there are trends in gameplay and "style", but this has less to do with my argument about quality as primarily a product of skill. Put simply: better players make for a better product. Players are better now than they were 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago. Players 10 years from now will likely be better than players today. So again, my point was twofold:

1. There is nothing really to miss from bygone NHL eras, since the game is a higher quality now.
2. It is puzzling to disturbing that a fan would miss the old days based on a collection of video clips that feature a potentially high number of head injuries. If this is indeed what Zarley means by his identification "the old NHL", then I really do have a problem with that.

I'm not basing it on video clips, I was there to watch it. There was far more respect in the game in the 50s and 60s.


I looked again at your post and more carefully read the final paragraph, which I find quite redeeming:


I completely agree, and should point out that it was quick and careless of me to characterise the "old NHL" as poor on the primary basis that it was low-scoring. Much like you, I also enjoy hockey from all eras, and appreciate the skill that was on display in the 80s and 90s—when I first became a hockey fan. However, that does nothing to alter the fact that today's game is played at a higher level, and requires a higher skill set than it once did.

I said the players are bigger, faster more skilled today so I don't know what you are going on about.