Thanks everyone for the input and thoughts... just a few comments on the most recent names to pop up for consideration:
Semenko: First off fair point on the TKO/KO as sometimes these headline fights get distorted after you haven't seen them in a while. The point, though, is that it was an impact win that really made you take notice of Playfair. The fact is that after that fight you couldn't legitimately put Semenko ahead of Playfair.
Quote:
|
The 79-80 season was the one year I think a case could be made for Semenko, Wilson ,Jonathan or Playfair to be considered champ since Fotiu only had 1 fight (which by most accounts he lost) and Giliies only had a couple until the Playoffs (losing 2x to O'Reilly).
|
Now this is an interesting continuation of the Semenko argument as this was the year before the Playfair TKO. Fotiu without a doubt lost his share of the title this year, but it wasn't immediate. No one knew he was going to have one measly fight in the fall and he was coming off what was probably his best year. Also Gillies did lose those pair to O'Reilly in the playoffs but I think those 5 fights were looked at as more of one big event, no? The overall impression was "wow, Gillies really handled Terry this series and helped the Islanders finally get over the hump of dealing with the pack mentality of the Bruins." Terry was game and won some but his face and the series outcome would tell a different tale and I think thats what is remembered more. So those were my reasons for leaving Semenko out.
Joey Kocur: To me he was always 2nd fiddle to
Bob Probert. I think thats fair to say for his entire career. In 89-90 with no Probert he just came off the awful TKO loss to Raglan at the end of the previous season so I think there were some cracks in the armor showing. If you want to say he was co-champ with Brown that time, I guess its fair to say. I was trying to trim it down to the bare essentials more or less.
Stu Grimson: Every year he seemed to have 1 or 2 bad losses and there was always someone who wasn't losing at all it seemed. Also he always seemed to lose to the key people he needed to beat for the throne IMO. I'd say he was #2 for a while but I couldn't find a place for him to be #1. 01-02 of course he got killed by Laraque and Mccarthy. In 00-01 he got TKOd by Parker and dropped yet again by Probert. Ditto in 99-00: He still couldn't solve
Bob Probert when all the new guys came in and made a name for themselves destroying him 5 years ago. In 98-99 he lost yet again to McCarthy, which keeps him away from the top spot again IMO. So I just can't justify putting him as co-champ in any given spot.
Lastly, 03-04 is not done for sure but I think in the end it will be written as another year of dominance for Brashear. If you read those "players choice for the champ" things, there's like one vote for Cairns, one or two for Johnson and the rest are split between Brash and Laraque. NO matter how much we are looking for a new champ, someone has to beat him I think...