Is Brashear #1 all-time?

[Broons66]

Good post shrem. One thing I think that gets overlooked is intimidation and reputation. I saw Probert a half dozen times or so in his prime, either at the Garden or at the Mall in Hartford. One thing Probert brought, besides the intimidation factor was he was a gate draw, especially Hartford. You knew he was in the building. You really can't say that about too many enforcers. It was always best to let Probie just take his shift, without pissing him off, because he was/could be a game changer. The same can't be said about Brash imo.

[acdcrocksno1]

Shrem I gotta disagree with you a wins a win a loss is a loss. If you've got heart and skill then you're likely to have more wins than losses and pull out a win when loosing.

A goals a goal no matter how highlight reel worthy it is take for example Dallas in the 99 finals they won it with a scramble in front of the net which was technically illegal but the goal still stood and they still won the cup. Heard makes you a better fighter and is usually reflected in wins/losses it shouldn't make someone drop down rankings because they didn't have as much heart as so and so otherwise you end up with people like Ian Lapperiere at number one all time cause that guy is all heart.

I try not to make a top 5/10 list because I don't like to put a definite rank on a fighter say for example I have someone ago number 8 on my list but he lost twice to whoever was at number 11 and never beat them then how can he deserve to be there? I find it a look easier to look at two fighters and say he would win a 10 fight series.

[RetardedChimp]

Originally Posted by srehm1

So many are so black and white about it "only wins and losses should count" well yeah-if that helps your argument, go with it.

It's not that it hurts or helps my argument, it's that it's one of the only consistent things you can measure when ranking a fighter. And while there are always people who go against the grain for a fight call, I also feel it is much less subjective then something like 'heart'. Other than fight card, Win/Loss results are perhaps the only 'black and white' thing there is.

Guys like Riley Cote and PJ Stock have a lot of heart, more than many you see in the top 10 lists, but you won't see people ranking them all time and for good reason. Factor in whatever else you want when ranking fighters, put as much weight as you want on the things you factor into your rankings as well...but results should trump anything else, IMO. And for good reason.

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by acdcrocksno1

Shrem I gotta disagree with you a wins a win a loss is a loss. If you've got heart and skill then you're likely to have more wins than losses and pull out a win when loosing.

A goals a goal no matter how highlight reel worthy it is take for example Dallas in the 99 finals they won it with a scramble in front of the net which was technically illegal but the goal still stood and they still won the cup. Heard makes you a better fighter and is usually reflected in wins/losses it shouldn't make someone drop down rankings because they didn't have as much heart as so and so otherwise you end up with people like Ian Lapperiere at number one all time cause that guy is all heart.

I try not to make a top 5/10 list because I don't like to put a definite rank on a fighter say for example I have someone ago number 8 on my list but he lost twice to whoever was at number 11 and never beat them then how can he deserve to be there? I find it a look easier to look at two fighters and say he would win a 10 fight series.

I think you might have missed the point I was trying to make. Brash is a great fighter. He is in my top-10 all time and deservedly so. However saying a win is a win is... just not right in my eyes. I'm not trying to stir the pot- i was actually giving Brash credit for showing true heart in that fight with laraque-but I'll take a win in a war over a tug and pull wrestling rabbit punch win any day of the week. If you are comparing two GREAT fighters and one has shown on many occasions true heart and desire, will to win and ability to come back if the deck is stacked against him-I will back that guy for sure. Obviously guys like stock and Cote showed heart but are not nearly in the same stratosphere as, say, Brash or Probert.

I'm not sure about your goal scoring comparison. You are correct that a goal is a goal no matter what BUT-I'm talking about great fighters, not goals so I'm not feeling that one.

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by RetardedChimp

It's not that it hurts or helps my argument, it's that it's one of the only consistent things you can measure when ranking a fighter. And while there are always people who go against the grain for a fight call, I also feel it is much less subjective then something like 'heart'. Other than fight card, Win/Loss results are perhaps the only 'black and white' thing there is.

Guys like Riley Cote and PJ Stock have a lot of heart, more than many you see in the top 10 lists, but you won't see people ranking them all time and for good reason. Factor in whatever else you want when ranking fighters, put as much weight as you want on the things you factor into your rankings as well...but results should trump anything else, IMO. And for good reason.

I wasn't actually trying to call you out on that at all. If that's how you interpreted that, then it's my fault for not being more clear. i was just trying to say that I was impressed with Brash and he really showed me something in that fight with laraque. Like I mentioned-he had some basically non All-time great moments in his career ie bailing, spot picking declining challenges etc but he really impressed me with that fight. I agree that cote and stock had a lot of heart, but if you are comparing two great fighters with alltime credentials, then I would say that certain other intangibles should come into play. It's too easy for one (not saying you) to look at dyg and say 'Brash has a higher win% than this guy. Well he should be ranked higher then... ' To me, that's lazy. We should aspire to watch as much footage as we can on every single one of our all-time candidates to come to a thorough conclusion. Is a quick mediocre win the same as a win in a huge slugfest? Does a win in a war count more than a win in a minor skirmish? It's not so much a win is a win is a win-but rather how they get those wins. At least to me. For the record, I rank Brash in the top5,6 all-time. He is one of the all-time greats. I would rank himhigher than laraque and Simon. AND ok. I'll admit it. I'd rank him higher than Janssens, too.




But he's no Don Jackson!

[acdcrocksno1]

Originally Posted by srehm1

I think you might have missed the point I was trying to make. Brash is a great fighter. He is in my top-10 all time and deservedly so. However saying a win is a win is... just not right in my eyes. I'm not trying to stir the pot- i was actually giving Brash credit for showing true heart in that fight with laraque-but I'll take a win in a war over a tug and pull wrestling rabbit punch win any day of the week. If you are comparing two GREAT fighters and one has shown on many occasions true heart and desire, will to win and ability to come back if the deck is stacked against him-I will back that guy for sure. Obviously guys like stock and Cote showed heart but are not nearly in the same stratosphere as, say, Brash or Probert.

I'm not sure about your goal scoring comparison. You are correct that a goal is a goal no matter what BUT-I'm talking about great fighters, not goals so I'm not feeling that one.

I think I get what you mean if it came down to placing two high tees both with similar cards similair wins and no definite decision between them then you start to look at the manner in which the fight was won

[ChiefJunior]

but I'll take a win in a war over a tug and pull wrestling rabbit punch win any day of the week.

That's great, but in the end, it matters little. There is only a winner or loser in a fight (exception being a draw). It doesn't matter how a fighter won, what matters (when ranking or judging) is how many fights he won. Plain & simple.

[ChiefJunior]

Originally Posted by mikebflorida

The difference is that Probert, Cochrane, Ray, and Odjick (4 notorious jersey shedders) fought to win while Brash fought not to lose.

Huge difference. How many times can you see Brashear grab onto a guy, throw a few noogies and then fall down or let the linesmen come in to stop it? Dozens and dozens. If he had a good advantage, he'd throw, if he didn't, he'd hug. That's fighting not to lose and it's lame and no one wants to watch that sh1t, it's boring.

Fighting to win shows heart, courage, and balls and while Brashear certainly had the balls, he didn't have the heart to take a good punch most of the time, he was afraid to get hit and avoided certain guys his whole career, guys with power like Twist. he only took on Chris Simon one time his whole career? Really? How is that even possible? Never found Twister in a game??

Seems fishy to me but it's not hard to figure out, Brash fought not to lose. curious that he found Probert 7 or 8 times in their career but never Twist? Simon and Shelley only once each? Couldn't ever locate Stu Grimson but found Tie Domi 7 times?

I don't know what all that means but it's very odd which describes Donald Brashear, ODD.

The guy is just an odd duck, he really is.

I respect a fighter who fights to win. No doubt he/she is a true warrior. However, the fact remains that Brashear did what he had to, to win the majority of his fights.

We don't give extra points to fighter based on style, otherwise some mediocre fighters may have a better "ranking" than some higher ranked guys. This is just how it is. It is pretty much black & white. Either they win or lose (with of course a draw being possible). Boring or not, Brashear tended to win the majority of his fights. That is a fact, and the only fact that should matter.

As far as missing a few guys on his fight card, I don't know what to say. I cannot speak for the guy. Do I think he avoided these guys, I would think not, however I cannot say for sure.

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by ChiefJunior

but I'll take a win in a war over a tug and pull wrestling rabbit punch win any day of the week.

That's great, but in the end, it matters little. There is only a winner or loser in a fight (exception being a draw). It doesn't matter how a fighter won, what matters (when ranking or judging) is how many fights he won. Plain & simple.

I'll take this a step further and say that I'd rather take a GREAT draw over 20 mediocre-non descript wins any day of the week month year. A great fight is easily more memorable/impactful than a sh!tty wrestling match. So to me there is a HUGE difference when it comes to wins, losses and draws when using them to judge a fighter's all-time worth.

This could be called a win for Brash:

Donald Brashear vs Shane Churla - YouTube

But there's is no way in hell anyone can compare it to, say, this:

Craig Coxe vs Bob Probert Nov 19, 1987 -...

I would say that Probert's win in that great fight is EASILY a better "win" than Brash's win in that fight with Churla. There is no way anyone can possibly say that they both count the same. At least i don't see how they can.

I would say that Brash's win over Sandy McCarthy-a big time dominating win-is easily a more meaningful fight than the above mentioned Churla fight.

I obviously will never change your mind but this is how I see it.

[srehm1]

Barry Beck may have never lost a fight in the NHL-according to many-but where would he rank? Is he #1 all-time because he won most of his fights and never lost? There's more than just wins and losses.

dyg lists John Kordic as 60-12-22 in 125 fights. That's a phenominal record. is he in the top-10 all-time with that? No.

Chris Simon 81-21-18 in 129 fights. Wins over probert AND Brown. Is he top-5 all-time? Does he rate higher than probert or brown-or brash?

Peter Worrell 85-17-31 in 152 fights. Why doesn't he garner top-10 all-time consideration?

This is why, I believe at least, there is more to rating/ranking fighters than wins and losses.

For you boxing buffs out there-I have never seen rocky MArciano listed as the greatest fighter all-time. He might crack the top-10 or top-5 -and he never lost a fight!

[FurnaceFace]

No. and i'll tell you why. Donald Brashear ducked fights.

[Shoryuken]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

No. and i'll tell you why. Donald Brashear ducked fights.

Sums it up for me. A good fighter, and his win/loss is very strong, but not a man who would take on all comers, at all times. Not something you can say about several other names in the upper echelons - Brash sits somewhere between 5th-10th for me?

[SyrCrunch11]

Probert hands down. Beast to fight, would take a punch to give a punch, pretty hard punches, won a lot, and had a loose cannon attitude. I would be 50x more scared of Bob Probert if I gave a dirty hit than Brashear knowing that Probert would go nuts IMO

[GOON 21]

Some of you guys are splitting hairs on these rankings (this happens in most ranking threads) follow me for a sec..

First of all rankings are not scientific and subjective (obviously) Whats the difference between a fighter ranked #9 and #19 all time? A edge or win in a 10 fight series? seriously? --- its not like #9 is going 8-1-1 against #19 in 10 fights, its going to be a close series for the most part


As i wrote earlier in the guy played in the fight crazed LNAH heyday (2005) when he was about 33 years old after playing the NHL some 11-12 years, how many other guys have done that or would have done that? I know its NHL rankings but Brash showed me something playing in that crazy league at that time, he knew he would be a targeted gunslinger but he still did it


Brash is in most peoples top 10 and from that point on its all subjective, i would take others head of him but dont insult me about Brashes fighting abilities -- like him, hate him the guy was a top 3 guy for almost 10 years (thats a long run, dare i say the longest) in the era of big heavies and thats worthy of consideration. He also hurt and hammered some guys along the way, lets not pretend all his fights were hugging noogie fests because they werent. The guy was clearly a force when he took the ice

[Boston Garden]

This is a bit off topic and I'm sure it has been brought up before....but when you make out your top 10 lists do you ever think about how Boogaard or MacIntyre could probably beat them all or win a 10 fight series against them?

Now, I'm not suggesting that they get top 10 consideration due to their limited body of work. But does that alone get them some sort of consideration higher than they normally would?

Or do you agree or disagree that they would probably handle those in the top 10 more often than not?

Just curious...