Probert vs Brashear

[RetardedChimp]

Originally Posted by mikebflorida

Please feel free to post some really good Donald Brashear fights. I feel like I've done my homework on this and proved mine and just about everyone else's point that Brash has no business even being discussed as a top 5 all time fighter, much less number 1 and he couldn't carry Probie's jock in my opinion.

Do you want people to post some of Probie's losses or lackluster fights or something to counter your Brashear clips? I don't know what it is with you, mikebflorida, I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but you seem to start off with logical points and then get caught up in what you are saying and start spouting nonsense.

What to you is a 'good fight'? Brashear beating the breaks off someone? Dropping people? Pure dominance? T2T? One guy purposely shedding the jersey for an advantage?

Bottom line, if people are refusing to consider Brashear for top 5 all time then they aren't judging him by fighting ability. That, to me, is what the top 10 all time FIGHTERS list should primarily be about. While fight results, w/l, etc are subjective, they are for the most part much less subjective then things like 'heart' and whatever other non-fighting, not-able-to-measure-with-any-soft-of-consistancy attributes people are including in their ranks.

Most of the time when people are claiming someone has 'heart', it's used as a crutch to excuse the fact that they had a bad showing, or just got flat out beat. It's just like giving a guy points for being smaller. What fighter in their right mind wants pity points? It's cool if you rank 'heart' highly when you create your all time rankings, but I just don't agree with the importance some people put on it. Too subjective, with no realistic way to evenly measure it. It would be more honest to just say 'i like this guy better' and leave it at that. At least if you go that way you don't have to backtrack and reword everything when someone calls you out.

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by RetardedChimp

Do you want people to post some of Probie's losses or lackluster fights or something to counter your Brashear clips? I don't know what it is with you, mikebflorida, I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but you seem to start off with logical points and then get caught up in what you are saying and start spouting nonsense.

What to you is a 'good fight'? Brashear beating the breaks off someone? Dropping people? Pure dominance? T2T? One guy purposely shedding the jersey for an advantage?

Bottom line, if people are refusing to consider Brashear for top 5 all time then they aren't judging him by fighting ability. That, to me, is what the top 10 all time FIGHTERS list should primarily be about. While fight results, w/l, etc are subjective, they are for the most part much less subjective then things like 'heart' and whatever other non-fighting, not-able-to-measure-with-any-soft-of-consistancy attributes people are including in their ranks.

Most of the time when people are claiming someone has 'heart', it's used as a crutch to excuse the fact that they had a bad showing, or just got flat out beat. It's just like giving a guy points for being smaller. What fighter in their right mind wants pity points? It's cool if you rank 'heart' highly when you create your all time rankings, but I just don't agree with the importance some people put on it. Too subjective, with no realistic way to evenly measure it. It would be more honest to just say 'i like this guy better' and leave it at that. At least if you go that way you don't have to backtrack and reword everything when someone calls you out.

RC- i asked you this in the other thread-you might have missed it with all the commotion in there haha-but where do you rank brashear?

[RetardedChimp]

Originally Posted by srehm1

RC- i asked you this in the other thread-you might have missed it with all the commotion in there haha-but where do you rank brashear?

Probably around 3-4.

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by RetardedChimp

Probably around 3-4.

Thanks for the response, RC.

[mikebflorida]

I can get carried away but it's usually when I'm frustrated.

I simply asked him to show me some "great" fights Brash has had, I'm sure there has to be some.

Educate me as to why he should be number one and sorry, his win, loss record just isn't enough. The fact that Probert beat him in their series along with pretty much everyone else is fact enough not to rank him first.

[Bench Clearer]

You know what? How about we just settle it this way....I think Brashear is number one. Seriously, mike b, and this goes to all these new guys popping into the thread....COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT FUKKING ARGUMENT. For God's sake, it isn't that hard.

Here's a list of things that should be banned from now on when discussing the whole issue:

-"Heart" and "guts" (is often used to excuse a bad showing, and a weak crutch to stand on...basically echoing what RC said)
-How many "great fights" each guy had (as RC mentioned, it's all subjective....not everyone thinks of a great fight the same way....)
-"There's more to it than won loss record".....again, subjective. I think that's really what counts more than anything else at the end of the day...if you have to "seatbelt" people to win, so be it. And yes that goes for the jersey thing as well. It's one reason I don't consider a fighter like Rob Ray great...he may have had success doing the jersey trick but not nearly as much as Brash had with "seatbelting"....oh and he LOST their head to head series.
-"Brash's strategy was cowardly, wimpy, etc." All I got to say is this...not very many found a way around it for 13 years, whether you like or not. If something works why change it? To impress a bunch of a$$holes on a hockey fight site that you'll probably never meet?
-"But Probert didn't fight not to lose"....again, how a player fought doesn't matter to me. What happened? Did they win, yes or no? That's the bottom line with me. Sorry if you find it offensive.
-"Probert won their head to head series"....nope. I still disagree about the Round 9 bail, as far as I'm concerned that argument is really flimsy.
-"Brash bails too much..." Let me address this...McGrattan was undoubtedly a bail. Parker and Domi fights were also bails. Everything else that I've seen has been completely blown out of proportion and/or falsified. Yes that includes McCarthy.

EDIT: Mike b by the way, you claim Probert "pretty much beat everyone else including Brashear"...well, I got news for you, Brash also pretty much beat everyone in his career too. The only major fighter that I can see who's missing from his card is Twist.

[Bench Clearer]

Also srehm, did you ever consider that maybe Brashear never "found" Twist because Twist wasn't in the lineup? Remember, Brash could actually play a little...Twister couldn't play if his life depended on it. If he had been on the ice more often maybe they would have fought at some point. Just a thought.

[srehm1]

a rebuttal to my friend benchclearer,

yeah lets talk about fighters and not talk about heart and guts. What the hell is this board coming to?

yeah lets talk about fighters and not discuss their great fights. Are you actually serious about this?

Barry Beck never lost a fight-still not in my top50.

I wouldn't call his style cowardly or wimpy at all. it wasn't entertaining or fun to watch at times but he is top-10 for a reason and not because he was cowardly. was he guilty of cowardly behavior at times? yes. did he look wimpy with all that huggin early in his career? yes. was he a great fighter? yes.

probert's style was definitely more entertaining and gave us more epic fights and great wars, but it all depends on what you like. Some like brashear's, some like probert's.

I thought their overall series was even.

Brashear did bail and it doesn't help his image. unlike the guy in the other thread, bailing is frowned upon by the fighters themselves. this is an example of cowardly behavior. however even with these episodes, i still rank brashear in the top-10 all time.

bench-you can't say that we shouldn't discuss those aspects of the debate. just because they hurt brashear's cause and don't help your argument doesn't mean they can't be brought up. you should know this.

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by Bench Clearer

Also srehm, did you ever consider that maybe Brashear never "found" Twist because Twist wasn't in the lineup? Remember, Brash could actually play a little...Twister couldn't play if his life depended on it. If he had been on the ice more often maybe they would have fought at some point. Just a thought.

i'm sure that was part of it.

[Bench Clearer]

-Heart and guts cannot be objectively measured, so I don't consider them as important (neither does RC so go take a cheapshot at him too, quit singling me out for everything)
-Yes. A great fight can mean many things....depends on what you consider great. Some people don't want to see an even slugfest all the time. Some people just want to see a guy kick someone else's ass. I value the latter more than the former which is why I rank Brashear higher. Probert may have had more close fights, but Brashear had more completely one sided fights from what I've seen. And come on...I have Probert ranked at number 2. That's nothing to sneeze at either. Remember that.
-Good that you finally admit style isn't important since it is subject to opinion. No one's style is objectively the best since fighters go with what works for them. Also, if Brash's style was such bull****, then why did other fighters constantly conform to it when they fought him? They couldn't do what they wanted with him because he was too strong....says a lot about how smart of a fighter Brash was right there, he KNEW they couldn't get away from his "hugs' even if they tried. Also, Barry Beck didn't have enough fights to qualify for anything, but seriously, that dude was a moose and could manhandle just about anyone when healthy. Who knows how he would have done if he didn't have injury problems. But that's another issue altogether.
-The overall series was even....I'll give you credit for admitting that.
-With regards to Brash bailing...well, obviously your definition is different than mine because I've already admitted the clear bails (and no, I'm not proud of Brash for doing that). I still think people tend to blow a lot of things out of proportion here though.

[srehm1]

In Probert's first NHL fight, he fought Craig Coxe and the two got into a good brawl. part way through, coxe began to take over. probert was being beaten. coxe was in control. then probert battled back, began firing off punches of his own and began to land better. then coxe goes down out of exhaustion. probert showed a lot of heart in that fight. it isn't an excuse to build up a game fighter who loses a lot of fights, although I give credit to them for showing some. it is one of the traits of a great fighter.

when probert got decked by todd ewen, he took him on in the same game-that took guts. then he fought him again later that year.

i love how you say 'probert had more close fights'-he had more GREAT fights. there's a difference.

[Bench Clearer]

I agree with you, and that's all well and good that Probert had more GREAT fights. But if you ask me Brashear is living proof that you don't need a lot of great fights in order to be a great fighter. And don't say he didn't have guts because of the overblown bailing episodes.....let me just say this, you still have to have courage to be in 278 career fights against the other team's top tough guys. Hell, you could say he had to have guts to come back and dominate for 13 years after starting his career completely on the wrong foot. That takes a lot of pride as well...don't forget.

[mikebflorida]

Well, I guess I have to give up now since we're not allowed to talk about heart, guts, and great fights.

Your arguments are ridiculous not to mention just flat wrong.

Last time saying, we understand that you like and admire Brashear but he's not number 1, he's not better than Probert and never will be.

It's like telling a Christian that the Earth is millions of years old and we have the facts and fossils to back it up and the Christian says "no it's not, it's only 6,000 years old". Without one shred of fact to back it up.

I guess we just take this on faith too?

Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

[Bench Clearer]

I don't even want to hear any of your $hit at this point, it's the pot calling the kettle black. Every single argument on both sides has already been refuted and debated by more skilled debators than yourself. I don't appreciate the fact that you think you're the spirit of truth (you're not). You've already been punked out a couple times and you keep coming back and saying the same things over and over, yet you dare to criticize the way that anyone else has been handling anything in this thread? Weak.

At this point I'm willing to debate it with people who actually have some skill in this department. For you I'll say "durr Probert is better" just to get you to shut up.

[acdcrocksno1]

Originally Posted by mikebflorida

Well, I guess I have to give up now since we're not allowed to talk about heart, guts, and great fights.

Your arguments are ridiculous not to mention just flat wrong.

Last time saying, we understand that you like and admire Brashear but he's not number 1, he's not better than Probert and never will be.

It's like telling a Christian that the Earth is millions of years old and we have the facts and fossils to back it up and the Christian says "no it's not, it's only 6,000 years old". Without one shred of fact to back it up.

I guess we just take this on faith too?

Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

It's actually about 7000 and we too have evidence...