Is Brashear #1 all-time?

[BENNETTWOLF]

Originally Posted by srehm1

I've noticed a real drop off of 70's/early 80's fighters in my all time lists lately. whenever i make one, i see certain legends fall out of favor and it becomes harder and harder to rank them as top-10 all timers-even top-25 all timers. One of the criteria I like to use when ranking fighters is 'what kind of all time resume do they have?' What kind of wins do they have against them? How did they fare against them overall? With probert, brown, mcsorley brashear kocur etc-they have fought a number of all time caliber fighters-top-10 or top-20-25 types. they have good won-loss records against them and it helps theire overall status as all time candidates.

Now the conundrum we find ourselves in is this: What to do with behn wilson? If gillies isn't in the top-10, guess what? wilson has ZERO wins against top-10 quality opposition. he does have a few fights with probert and a young mcsorley (if you have him as a top-10er) but that's it. Now going further, if guys like O'reilly, jonathan and semenko are now somehow questionalbe as top-20-25 candidates, then big behn is taking a hit and his ranking must suffer as a result.

wilson was a great fighter. he had a good card for his era, fought all the great bruins and rangers fought guys like plett, semenko, howatt, williams, nilan, fotiu beck wensink o'reilly jonathan etc. bit how many of those guys are still able to keep their grip on the top-25 all time? wilson wasn't even the best fighter of his individual era-he was part of a triumverant of great fighters at that time alongside playfair and semenko with guys like fotiu and fraser just behind them (my opinion, please people don't begin to flame me for it). He didn't have a long stretch as a champ and he was done for fairly quickly. By 86 or so he was fading as a top fighter-although he was still not losing fights, just not able to keep up with the pace and actvity of the newer gen fighters.

So what do we do with wilson? what do we do with jonathan, wensink o'reilly? semenko? fraser? do they get squeezed out by fighters from a better, more competitve era?

points to ponder.

Yeah, it really pains me because i idolized the guy as my initial hockey prototype but bob nystrom comes to mind. He had one HUGE win vs larry playfair and several other big ones (wensink, the "not much" vs fotiu). After you sort out his flyer epics (cochrane, bridgman, hoyda), it dosen't take long for his card to thin out.

I've done a few detailed, year by year posts noting names on his card and he'd need credit for splitting with jay wells and that "holy grail" vs fraser to bolster his argument. He took on a lot of competent fighters, even good ones but cards like his are a different thing compared to guys in the later eras where teams stocked multiple tough guys in an arms race and every night they basically fought each other.

A glance at any card of an enforcer in the late 80's-mid 90's will make my point. Guys like Paul Laus, especially before worrell fought more big names in a two year span.

Nystrom does pose an interesting quandary especially because, IMO, contemporaries b wilson and playfair had superior cards. He had a great winning % (only about 8-12 losses) but it dosen't take long to get through the meat of his card and into making the argument with good fighters like snepsts, schoenfeld, korn, holt, mcgill and stevens etc.

[BENNETTWOLF]

Maybe trying to compare across eras is just another hard to decipher angle like comparing oranges to apples. It is a valid point but the opposite is true as well. Certain "older" guys had exceptional cards. Terry O, holmgren and plett come to mind. Chris Nilan as well.

Almost all of our beloved late 70's-early 80's icons have most of the other top names missing, i.e, wilson never met playfair or nystrom, nystrom never fought semenko, gillies never matched up with fotiu, semenko, playfair or beck and so forth.

Nystrom fought, and beat the great playfair. Nilan fought him what, 7 times along with so many feared names like brown and semenko. Playfair, at least fought series with both terry and nilan etc along with a smattering of later notables with LA.

The truth is that era isn't totally different from the current one to a degree except all players were expected to hold their own but there were only a few handfuls of big names to take on. Plus we might not have great insight into some of the names or their worth (Bert Wilson?) and have devalued others like willi plett for one.

It is awful tough to compare across eras. What if nystrom had fought playfair as many times as probert-domi or brashear-mccarthy? That's the thing, looking at a typical top 35 guy from later eras have ridiculous, almost mind numbing effects.

Fighter a x4
fighter b x3 and so on

It's almost funny doing research for a top 20 in a day. Try looking over grimson, langdon, domi and berube in a long morning and trying to keep it straight. You basically recall a gist. Like i can easily cite highlights for berube quickly (series with probert, did well vs mcsorley, baumgartner and domi etc)

BUT

are my recollections correct? Did baumgartner actually take a 3-2-2 advantage and i'm focusing on the fight berube stunned him? Guys with 160-300 career fights are exceedingly hard to filter.

[mikebflorida]

Bennetwolf, I agree, it is really tough to figure it all out, I guess that when ranking fighters I am a bit more generic about it just going more by how good they were than factoring in all the data.

I think it's safe to say that Gillies, Nystrom, Schultz, Playfair, Maloney, and Fotiu would be good in any era, they were outstanding in the fight game, they simply didn't get to fight as much as say, Brashear, Probert, and a lot of the 90's guys.

Men like Schultz, Gillies, Taz, Holmgren, Cochrane, and Nystrom, just to name a few, were good players! They weren't designated, 4 minutes per game goons like so many of the 90's guys. A guy like Twist would get his 1 or 2 shifts per game and make the most of it!

The others would play a regular shift and fights were much more spontaneous back then where in the 90's, guys would chat even before the game about fighting if they were on the ice at the same time and thus many of the 90's guys built massive fight cards because it's all they could do and if they didn't do it regularly, they'd get sent down.

70's fighters were just different in that regard.mthere were goons, sure, but not like later on in the 80's onward.

I love all eras of hockey fighting, I just don't have the patience to decide where to put Berube, Domi, or Bomber. LOL

[cookie monster]

I think some of you guys are missing some key facts in this Probert-Brashear debate.

#1 They are almost 7 years apart in age. Probert started his career in 86-87 when there was no instigator and the code really didn't exsist. Guys headbutted, pulled hair, hit guys already on the ice amd for the most part, fights were real. None of this "hey wanna go, ok , good luck buddy" silliness we have today. Guys were meaner and had no problems hurting other players. Probert thrived in that time and was the king. Almost every team had a few "loose cannons" on their team and Probert beat them all,. If someone beat Probert, you could damn well bet, he wanted a chance to redeem himself next time those players met. Probert was a protector of his teammates and a pretty skilled player to boot. An All-star with a 29 goal season.

#2 Brashear started his career in 94-95, 8 years after Probert and 2 years after the instigator rule was put in. Because of this rule, teams carried one, two or maybe three guys who would fight, where in Proberts day, there were most likely 7-8 on each team. It was still a tough league, but no as much as the 80's. Brashear to me was the opposite of Probert as most of his fights were for himself and he was more of the "bully" type who intimidated players as they never knew when he would snap.

#3 The McSorely incident comes up big here for me. The entire incident happened because Brashear beat Marty earlier and REFUSED to give him a re-match (something I don't think Probert would have done as he seemed to give guys the chance to take his belt whenever the call has made) and Brashear took out Byron DaFoe with a cheapshot and again REFUSED to answer for it (again not something I see Probert ever doing). As much as people think that momment was McSoerlys defining momment, to me it was much more Brashears career in a nut shell.

#4 Last but not least, if I was starting a team and had the choice between Probert and Brashear, it would honestly be a real tough choice. If I wanted a guy who I knew would protect my stars, take a regular shift, score a few goals, accept any challenge and beat the other teams toughest player, I'd go with Probert.

If I wanted a loose cannon to scare the crap out of the other teams skilled players and tough guys, a guy capable of beating anyone when he felt like it, a guy who would go after any player he damn well felt like and just be an effective bully on the ice, there isnt a guy in history (except maybe the original Schultz, lol) better than Brashear.

Also a little side note ...

"In the January 2010 issue of The Hockey News, Brashear was named enforcer of the decade, noting that although he did not lead the NHL in number of fights, during the decade, he would have been involved in more if "he wasn't so feared". Hockey analyst Bill Clement states that "Brashear has a great sense of when his fighting skills are necessary and he picks his spots before dropping the gloves. He’s excellent at understanding when a bit of pugilism might well provide the push or nudge to get some momentum going for his team." The Hockey News also assessed his skills by saying he possessed one of the most intimidating packages in the league, had a decent skating stride and was one of the best pugilists in the NHL."


Two guys who played in different era's with different styles, but both ruled thier respective times, so its a tough call either way. Me? I'd rather have my tough guy a loose cannon like Brashear, but I can't argue someone picking Probert for sure.

[pesadillamal]

If the debate was about best enforcer of alltime, I would have no problem with someone putting Brashear at number 1. He was great at protecting teammates and forcing his will on the other team.

[Boston Garden]

Originally Posted by cookie monster

I think some of you guys are missing some key facts in this Probert-Brashear debate.

#1 They are almost 7 years apart in age. Probert started his career in 86-87 when there was no instigator and the code really didn't exsist. Guys headbutted, pulled hair, hit guys already on the ice amd for the most part, fights were real. None of this "hey wanna go, ok , good luck buddy" silliness we have today. Guys were meaner and had no problems hurting other players. Probert thrived in that time and was the king. Almost every team had a few "loose cannons" on their team and Probert beat them all,. If someone beat Probert, you could damn well bet, he wanted a chance to redeem himself next time those players met. Probert was a protector of his teammates and a pretty skilled player to boot. An All-star with a 29 goal season.

#2 Brashear started his career in 94-95, 8 years after Probert and 2 years after the instigator rule was put in. Because of this rule, teams carried one, two or maybe three guys who would fight, where in Proberts day, there were most likely 7-8 on each team. It was still a tough league, but no as much as the 80's. Brashear to me was the opposite of Probert as most of his fights were for himself and he was more of the "bully" type who intimidated players as they never knew when he would snap.

#3 The McSorely incident comes up big here for me. The entire incident happened because Brashear beat Marty earlier and REFUSED to give him a re-match (something I don't think Probert would have done as he seemed to give guys the chance to take his belt whenever the call has made) and Brashear took out Byron DaFoe with a cheapshot and again REFUSED to answer for it (again not something I see Probert ever doing). As much as people think that momment was McSoerlys defining momment, to me it was much more Brashears career in a nut shell.

#4 Last but not least, if I was starting a team and had the choice between Probert and Brashear, it would honestly be a real tough choice. If I wanted a guy who I knew would protect my stars, take a regular shift, score a few goals, accept any challenge and beat the other teams toughest player, I'd go with Probert.

If I wanted a loose cannon to scare the crap out of the other teams skilled players and tough guys, a guy capable of beating anyone when he felt like it, a guy who would go after any player he damn well felt like and just be an effective bully on the ice, there isnt a guy in history (except maybe the original Schultz, lol) better than Brashear.

Also a little side note ...

"In the January 2010 issue of The Hockey News, Brashear was named enforcer of the decade, noting that although he did not lead the NHL in number of fights, during the decade, he would have been involved in more if "he wasn't so feared". Hockey analyst Bill Clement states that "Brashear has a great sense of when his fighting skills are necessary and he picks his spots before dropping the gloves. He’s excellent at understanding when a bit of pugilism might well provide the push or nudge to get some momentum going for his team." The Hockey News also assessed his skills by saying he possessed one of the most intimidating packages in the league, had a decent skating stride and was one of the best pugilists in the NHL."


Two guys who played in different era's with different styles, but both ruled thier respective times, so its a tough call either way. Me? I'd rather have my tough guy a loose cannon like Brashear, but I can't argue someone picking Probert for sure.

Agree 100%. I'd have to put more thought into who I'd rather have though, while I respect and believe Probert was a better fighter. I liked Brashear's goon mentality..I'd maybe forgo fighting ability and just take whoever would get payback at any cost.

[FistofFury]

Short and sweet.
No way Jose.

[BullyFan]

Is Brashear #1 all time?

Fck No...I would barely put him top 25 all-time.

I have a life and did't read all the back and forth nonsense, but how anybody could put Brash above 15 is beyond me.

****, he never beat Simon, DB, Wilson OR Kocur, how could he even be mentioned in the RW forum?, right BBBB?

[RetardedChimp]

Originally Posted by BullyFan

Fck No...I would barely put him top 25 all-time.

I have a life and did't read all the back and forth nonsense, but how anybody could put Brash above 15 is beyond me.

Not sure if serious, but check the link in my signature if you are. If you are objective and base it on results it is almost impossible NOT to have him in the top 10 all time. If you base it on more subjective things, sure, stick him down there in the 30s, just know you are doing one of the best fighters the game has ever seen a huge disservice.

[flex_buff_chest]

This list bullsh*t has to stop. You can never quantify this type of information.


Donald Brashear is one of the all time greats, do doubt.

[V12_Bi-Turbo]

Brashear is no. 1 alltime













If by Brashear you mean Probert

[mikebflorida]

I currently have Brash at number 7 and I don't think that will ever change unless a new league is formed that encourages fighting.

I don't think there is anyone that will have a chance to bump him down and I think the 6 ahead of him won't ever change either, Gary Buttman has made sure of that.

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

Seems that this topic is a two-header, meaning, we seem to be mixing oil and water. I see it like this:

1. Results Based, solely.

2. Who was the better ambassador for the game

IMO these are wo different debates.

Just this point: As Probert seems to be the sentimental favorite then the following must be applied: Since most are willing to overlook Probert’s indiscretions then equal justice must be applied to Brash. Probert’s selfish behavior for whatever reason was a detriment to his team/organization, no question. Same for Brashear, whatever annoying traits he possessed that inhibited him from being the best for his team should be tossed as with Probie. If you want to have the argument who was the better ambassador for the game, well we can have that debate. I really think the focus of this particular debate should be results based.

[mikebflorida]

Originally Posted by BaddaBing Badda Boom

Seems that this topic is a two-header, meaning, we seem to be mixing oil and water. I see it like this:

1. Results Based, solely.

2. Who was the better ambassador for the game

IMO these are wo different debates.

Just this point: As Probert seems to be the sentimental favorite then the following must be applied: Since most are willing to overlook Probert’s indiscretions then equal justice must be applied to Brash. Probert’s selfish behavior for whatever reason was a detriment to his team/organization, no question. Same for Brashear, whatever annoying traits he possessed that inhibited him from being the best for his team should be tossed as with Probie. If you want to have the argument who was the better ambassador for the game, well we can have that debate. I really think the focus of this particular debate should be results based.

I agree. If you base it on performance, heart, willingness, fairness, etc, Probert is easily number 1 all time while Brashear is number 7 for me. I don't think he was as good as the 6 I have ahead of him, head to head record not withstanding.

Probert had his problems with drugs and apparently so did Brashear(steroids) so I throw those 2 out the window.

Probert had some instances on the ice where the code wasn't followed and so did Brashear but Probie never showboated and 99% of the time, he stopped fighting and went to the box to serve his time while Brashear did his stupid hand washing gestures, his goofy piano playing during the squareoff, and his trash talking. Edge Probert.

Probert fought wars on the ice. Coxe, Crowder, Domi, Grimson, just to name a few. He avenged losses like no one else. He never ducked anyone, he didn't bail and he rarely wouldn't fight unless it was to draw a penalty and that was even rare.

Brashear has hardly ANY memorable fights. The fights I remember him the most for were the one with Laraque where he gets floored a couple of times, gets back up and lands a lucky helmet shot to knock down Laraque, THEN the linesmen jump in with BGL still ready to go after popping right back up, and then I remember him getting floored by Wade Belak. That's it! It's not because I don't like Brashear, it's that his style was not conducive to being memorable. Hug, noogie, noogie, hug, bail is what I will always remember him for because that is the majority of his fights and while he does have many dominating wins, he has no KO's, very few TKO's even. Definite edge to Probert.

Intimidation? No one was more intimidating than Bob Probert. It would start with a menacing glare followed by him running the goalie, smashing a forward into the boards, having a dman take a few feeble swipes at him and then putting in a junk goal in front of the net. No one would want to get near him, much less fight him at that point.

Brashear coasted around the ice, he might throw a hit, he might not, he certainly wasn't above taking whole shifts off, and while he could certainly scare smaller players with his mouth, elbows, and stick, he wasn't anywhere in the same league as Probert in that regard. Edge Probie.

While neither ever won a cup, Probert was 100x the player that Brashear was. A better goal scorer, skater, fighter, hitter, and better team guy. Guys loved and respected Probert, they admired him for beating his addiction to drugs and they admired him because he was a genuine nice guy. I've never heard Brashear described like that but maybe I've missed it somewhere. Edge Probert.

As far as intangibles, Probert beats Brashear by a country mile.

As far as skills go, he also beats him by a country mile. Both are equal in size and strength, both have great balance, both could throw with either hand but I give that edge to Probie as well as willingness and fairness, and Probie gets the edge in punch power as well. Longevity is fairly equal, Brash played one more season I believe but had less fights and Probie lost at least 2 seasons to injury and legal problems.

Fight cards are similar quality, Probert fought all the greats of his eras and so did Brashear, for the most part. Brash never fought Tony Twist? Hmmmm......I would have LOVED to have seen that.

Probert scores higher because he simply was better in almost every aspect, skills and intangibles.

Case closed.

[Broons66]

I really don't have a problem with Brash's enforcing, just his style. I can definitely see ranking him between 7-10 given his lengthy career and fight card. I just can't place him ahead of Kocur, Twist, BGL, etc.