Is Brashear #1 all-time?

[RayzorEdge]

Originally Posted by kam

I find it amazing that there is a thread this long about Brashear.

That's because BC can't accept any criticism of his boyfriend.

[ProbieRules]

Originally Posted by Bench Clearer

Oh man, now srehm's got a dual account? The fun never ends....

No, just someone with a different opinion than yours. I've been an avid fight fan for almost 30 years and I've seen plenty of Brash. Any way you want to spin it, he is not #1 alltime. Probert was the "champ" from 87-94, with one loss to Crowder-which he avenged in dominating fashion later in the 90-91 season. He also destroyed Domi in a rematch that was probably the most hyped hockey fight of all time in MSG in the 92-93 season. Lets just agree to disagree and move on...

[ProbieRules]

Originally Posted by djaye

Srehm1.. I'm not saying this to start anything between anyone but.. heres teh Congregation's Choir singing..



' Period '. Theres no discussion once that point is reached.

There are so many posts where all you have to do is insert a members name and paste it up like a ' form ' thats been printed out.

Can I get an ' Amen '?

Really djaye? No congregation here, and IMO there really is no debate, but again that's my opinion. thanks for the insult. I'll try and be less predictable in the future for you.

[Bench Clearer]

Dude, we've already been over everything you just said. And Probert hardly even played two years out of that time span--he missed significant portions of 88-89 and 89-90 so how could he have been champ then?

[mikebflorida]

It's getting a little thick in here.

The comparison between today's guts and 20+ years ago are really kind of dumb.

Tocchet, Clark, Miller, Wilson, Playfair,mand others would be just fine in today's NHL and lord knows we could use them. Size? Doesn't mean dick. Stan Jonathan didn't worry about size! He'd corn hole just about any MW of today, would anyone agree with that?

No one was invincible. Booger lost fights, Brash did, Laraque did, even Probert.

Probert spanned 2 eras or really 3 and did well in all of them, that's a fact. Brash likely would have been ok too, we will never know and since Probie won the series with Brash, then Brash can't be number 1, sorry.

[djaye]

Originally Posted by ProbieRules

Really djaye? No congregation here, and IMO there really is no debate, but again that's my opinion. thanks for the insult. I'll try and be less predictable in the future for you.

I offer an apology.

I wasnt trying to be insultive, but the post you presented was exactly just ' how it is '. Your reply was as well. ' there really is no debate '.. then why have a conversation at all? Why have these forums?

Thats what it appears to have boiled down to. Theres 2 groups. The establishment that Probert will forever be #1, and the dissenters.

[2,5,10GameMatch]

Shawn Thornton is a modern day example of a "70's sized enforcer" who fought all the modern guys and handled himself well...so this "Boogard is huge, he broke Fedoruk's face" stuff is meaningless really.

Had Probie not been busted, he easily would have went over 1000 games.

Thornton is basically Bob Nystrom size with 10 extra pounds and yea those guys were the "son's of soldiers", the level of toughness and hardship's they endured is incomparable, in today's age, you have to be moderately wealthy to put your kid in hockey, it wasnt like that in the 50's and 60's, these guys got their asses kicked by dad if they didnt score or fight.

[BENNETTWOLF]

Thanks button is getting weird on me so don't be insulted if i didn't salute some good efforts.

I will say two things about probert that seperate him from brashear IMO (and mind you, i might have been the first guy to put him as high as #4 here that i'm aware of..........a good while back).

Probert's card probably was unsurpassed. Srehm did a good job mentioning some highlights. He does have older "legends" like cochrane, wilson, semenko, rarities like gaetz or richter who tantalize us with what could have been along with minor circuit notables like mad mel anglestad..............and virtually every notable HW, most multiple times. It would be interesting to calculate just how many fights he had against anyones bunch of top 40 alltime types. Y'know, the guys you use to pare down to a top 25.

I have long defended brash for a truly unusually effective style. Hey, what works, works. BUT, there is some credence to be given to probert's style. He fought on ALL terms (), wide open, willing to go until the better man was found. It does deserve respect. Remember how casual he looked about dropping the gloves towards the end of his career?

I'm personally not sold on the theory of newer super-monsters being too big and bad for the slightly older guys. Yes, possibly strategy has evolved to avoid concussion causing punches but fighting comes from the heart. As the US navy seal motto goes; "a warrior is hard from within" I think Bob Nystrom wouldn't have shied away or changed for example.

It crossed my mind that most of the "technical fighters" we note, i.e., langdon, hunter, nilan, baumgartner etc did a lot of tying up to create advantage and confusion. I do think brashear gets bashed a bit for utilizing his style. It wasn't like he avoided fighting, even occasionally getting hit.......just avoided getting hit without need and maximized his chances to win. Probert's style was more likeable, maybe even more honorable but no less effective. There is a seperation between the two greats on this issue.

[bruiser11]

Top 10.

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by djaye

I'm using Boogaard as a ' measuring stick ' and by all the numbers, no speculation, he puts Probert down.

isn't this speculation on your part?

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by djaye

Srehm1.. I'm not saying this to start anything between anyone but.. heres teh Congregation's Choir singing..



' Period '. Theres no discussion once that point is reached.

There are so many posts where all you have to do is insert a members name and paste it up like a ' form ' thats been printed out.

Can I get an ' Amen '?

he stated why he is the best all time. what's wrong with that? he also gave a reason why. it's the same as benchclearer saying that brash is #1 all-time period. it's a subjective business we're in. the sooner you realize that, the better man. like i mentioned, there is no grand high council of hockey fighting that we can use to guide us through the all time ranking process. all we can do is take what we think is true and go with it, form our own opinions and then come to a conclusion. for me -it's not the guys who post one liners like "probie ruled!" or "Brash's noogies were dominating!" that get me. it's the guys who put forth the effort to break down a fighters career through video, see the rise and fall of a fighter and then be able to come to a conclusion on where he ranks.

I mean benchie is watching 3 inch videos on dyg and making a claim that brashear is number one. he is not involved in the tape trade hobby and watches youtube clips as the basis of his argument.

Some of the posters on this site-some here in this very thread have watched fighters throughout the ages. some of them have seen fights live that are not on video, some of them have seen thousands of hours of video tape to come to their own conclusions. so what are we goning to do? just toss their opinions out the window for a guy who watches clips on dyg?? is that what we're reduced to now?

I understand that some don't like the probert SS and the sort of group that likes him-but do you think that some or most of it may be because-they're right? sure there are those who follow the popular vote-but sometimes it's the truth man. and for some in this thread, it hurts. it really hurts.

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by Bench Clearer

Dude, we've already been over everything you just said. And Probert hardly even played two years out of that time span--he missed significant portions of 88-89 and 89-90 so how could he have been champ then?

What are you talking about-you said Brashear was champ from 97-2007! That's complete BS and you know it. You're forgetting guys during brash's own time that were champs in that same span-grimson, twist, cairns, laraque.

I do agree that probert sort of vacated the belt when he had his off ice issues in 88-89 and 89-90, but look at the year he had in 90-91. had he been playing in those two years he would have still been great and most likely champ.

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by bruiser11

Top 10.

top-10 what, bruiser? Brash is top-10? Probert is top-10? what is it man?

[srehm1]

can anyone recall a time when Probert ducked a teams tough guy and on the same shift fought a smaller game fighter-only to bail when he began to get hit? Didn't Brashear completely decline a challenge from mcgrattan-where mcgrattan was basically following him all over the ice-only to fight Chris neil on the next faceoff? then he starts hammering Neil and then hits the deck when neil begins firing back. oh, i know, he... slipped.

Don Cherry even called him out for it on HNIC.

Just one of the differences between the two.

[Bench Clearer]

Brash was robbed during 07-08, Merlin claims Laraque is champ which is complete crap if you compare what they did during that season. In fact, Brash was also better than Matt Johnson in 03-04, and better than Boogard in 05-06. I would argue that he deserved to be ranked higher than 3 and 4 in each of those years. And let's not forget the kickass season he had in the LNAH during the lockout.

In other words, NONE of that time was missed due to Brashear having off ice issues unlike Saint Probert.

Oh, and in response to the Neil fight, this is another false case of Brash "bailing" to support the "we hate him because he seatbelts people" agenda. Did Brash win that fight or did he not? He did. Thank you.