Is Brashear #1 all-time?

[srehm1]

For all you fight fans that are into the ranking thing, is Brashear your number one guy? This is stemming from a bit of a tangent debate in the 'McCarthy' thread. Instead of hijacking that thread I'd like to move that debate here if possible. Civil debate is welcomed.

[Stevens Lindros]

No... but he is top-10 for sure, probably at number 10 for me.

[blockerpunch]

Donald Brashear is not number one all time. Bob Probert is number one all time. I would rank Brash somewhere in the top 10 but what he had in skill he lacked in heart on multiple occasions.

[battleship25]

LOL....HELL NO !!! #1 in hugging and wrestling ??? Yes, no one did it better. I have him in the top 10 ( under protest ). Musta got up on the wrong side of the bed... my apologies .

[Broons66]

Brash,#1 all-time? Let me think about it for a minute. Ummmm,fvck NO! Proberts on top,Donald would rank at the back half of my top ten,maybe even just outside top 10. I've never really thought about making my own definitive list,so i dont know honestly. Definately not #1 overall,i know that.

[pesadillamal]

If you like paper champions then make him a paper crown and have your fun. In reality he isn't even in the discussion.

I checked out the debate in the McCarthy thread and we might as well add Domi in the top ten as an equally insane thought.

[vindigidy]

I've been a fight fan since the 85-86 season and have never even tried to make a Top 10. Too much work involved. I'm too lazy for all that homework. I can do a Top 1 w/o doing anything though... BOB PROBERT.

[acdcrocksno1]

No, number 4 for me.

[Bench Clearer]

Yes, Brashear is not number one because people say so. What he accomplished has nothing to do with anything. Good Lord, fukking amateur hour around here.

[fcm]

Not #1 of all time... never. Definitly in the top 10 though.

He was the #1 of his time, over Laraque, Belak and those guys, but not #1 of all time.

[rbl2010]

No. Probert is.

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

Sincerity of effort, or not giving 100% all the time is Brashear's biggest deficit.
That is what seems to be stuck in everyone's craw about him....Is he a woulda - coulda - shoulda ?? Maybe, because when he wanted to go he was good. Who knows if you throw out the fights that he noogied, hugged, and gave a half-hearted effort you may still have enough of pure unchained Brash to make a case, the guy had an absolute boatload filled fight career.

Do not think the Donald makes for a good ambassador, as that is mantle that #1 guy has to have and represent, epitomizing just what it means to be #1 which is much more than his exhaustive fight card

[Bench Clearer]

Will someone please enlighten me as to what I'm doing wrong? My criteria is based on won loss record, how often the fighter was championship material (in the top 2 or 3 each year if not number 1), how dominant they were in fights, how they fared against similar opposition, how good their fight card was, and length of time in which they were at their peak.

As far as I'm concerned, with the exception of maybe fight cards (they're more or less on equal footing), Brashear has Probert beat in all of those categories. That's why I rank Brash number one.

[Habs # 1]

Originally Posted by rbl2010

No. Probert is.

Yep.

[nighthawk]

I personally never cared for Brashear's fighting style but can't deny it was one that worked well for him where he was a dominating force for quite some time. There are many who have made him out to be a Al Secord or Barry Beck over the years which I disagree with. While he did his fine share of hugging he did open up in a number of his fights and had quick hands and pummelled some of the better fighters of the NHL I also find it interesting how some call Darren Langdon, Tim Hunter, Lyndon Byers ect. "Smart Fighters" yet make Brashear out to be a *****. IMO the difference between Brashear and the others is that he made his unwillingness to get hit more obvious.

Getting to the question at hand, is Brashear #1 all-time.........no way. While Probert and Brashear were both dominating forces in their primes the major difference between the two IMO is how they fought. To me Probert is in a class by himself and can't be touched. Though I think there is an argument for Brashear in the #5 or #6 spot.

Again I have no love for Brashear but have to give the devil his due.