Thunder101 wrote:

this board is nothing in the realm of things but of course some of you losseres think it helps you be feel more important then you really are.

Then why do you go out of your way to prove your points? And you call us high and mighty?

Your saying that Laredo and Col. were as tough or tougher then Wichita's back to back years? I think not.If they aren't then there is a difference in the time and hockey being played.

Would the Wichita team of TODAY be able to compete for a division title in the 90's. I don't think so. Can and are they TODAY in the tough but not as tough as it used to be CHL? Yes.

ThunderFan4Life wrote:

Thunder101 wrote: this board is nothing in the realm of things but of course some of you losseres think it helps you be feel more important then you really are. Then why do you go out of your way to prove your points? And you call us high and mighty?

I'm not here to change minds just talk hockey. Some people can't seem to seperate the 2 and just leave it at a discussion. They get bitter because someone else's views are different then theirs

If you think tf and bt are getting bitter over this whole thing, you make me laugh.

You missed the point. Laredo and Colorado are tough teams. Was not comparing them to the 93-95 Thunder teams. I said they were tough teams (lots of checking and gritty to the bone) and that is why they won.

Sometimes I wonder why bother.

Laredo and Colorado were only the toughess teams in the league the years that they won.

Did you come up with a team that had a lack of toughness that won the cup yet?

ThunderFan4Life wrote:

If you think tf and bt are getting bitter over this whole thing, you make me laugh. You missed the point. Laredo and Colorado are tough teams. Was not comparing them to the 93-95 Thunder teams. I said they were tough teams (lots of checking and gritty to the bone) and that is why they won. Sometimes I wonder why bother.

I'm not bitter, not even cose.

Just trying to show you that there is "different kind of hockey" being played by showing that Col. and laredo are tough by today's standards but not by the standards of 7-10 years ago.

Would Wichita be able to comepete against the chl 7-10 years ago when they had "tougher" teams? If the answer is no then the league isn't as tough today because according to you, you can't compete unlkess your tough but Wichita is today.

Thunderfan wrote:

Laredo and Colorado were only the toughess teams in the league the years that they won. Did you come up with a team that had a lack of toughness that won the cup yet?

That's your opinion. I think there were other tough teams thoses years but only one can win.Was Col "tough" two years ago when a "sissy" team beat them in the first round.According to you yes they were but we still beat them.

so... that is a no then?

Edmonton, all the teams in the 80's

Memphis 2002-03.

Thunder101 wrote:

Memphis 2002-03.

They were the 3rd most PIM'd team. Riley Cote, Derek Landmesser, Luch Nasato, Brian Tucker... no, this team was tough.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/chl19932003.html

I wouldn't say Memphis was a non-tough team in 2002-03. They were tougher than the previous year. Edmonton didn't exactly have a weak team either. There is a problem of having 'tough teams', but only if the toughness doesn't have skill. The Thunder teams of the early 90s were skilled and tough. Paul Jackson had 135 points and 200+ PIMs.

Quote:

Did you come up with a team that had a lack of toughness that won the cup yet?[

01-02 Riverkings, the softest team in Shedden's coaching history. Luch was not physical tough, he was tough in the sense that he played the whole playoffs with an injury that required surgery afterwards, and still was our top scoring Dman.

ThunderFan4Life wrote:

Thunder101 wrote: Memphis 2002-03. They were the 3rd most PIM'd team. Riley Cote, Derek Landmesser, Luch Nasato, Brian Tucker... no, this team was tough. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/chl19932003.html

PM's equal toughness?The Thunder trail only Col. and OKC in PM's this year but according to alot of people we are not tough. PM's don't equal toughness, sometimes it equals stupid penalties.

We also were the PM'd team last year by a land slide but I have heard comments that we haven't been tough for years. If toughness wins titles and pm's= tougness we should have won it last year hands down.According to the stats, Col. was a bunch of babies compared to our tough team, if you go by stats,1345 to 1784 in pm's.

Last edited by Thunder101 on Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:46 am; edited 1 time in total

"The Thunder trail only Col. and OKC in PM's this year but according to alot of people we are not tough."

101 have you been to a Thunder game this year ?

Quote:

PM's equal toughness?The Thunder trail only Col. and OKC in PM's this year but according to alot of people we are not tough. PM's don't equal toughness, sometimes it equals stupid penalties.

I do agree with you on this point. PIM's doesn't always tell the story of a player. Some of the toughest guys only had 150 PIM's.

But what they did have was respect, and not as many people willing to go.


But like last year, Joel would say the Thunder lead the league in majors so we ahd to be tough, well ok but once Parker was off the ice or scratched we had nothing. So there is another way stats can be twisted.

ThunderStruck wrote:

"The Thunder trail only Col. and OKC in PM's this year but according to alot of people we are not tough." 101 have you been to a Thunder game this year ?

All but 1, the Memphis game that was on a Sunday.I'm not saying we don't need help in the "toughness" department. TF4L seems to think that when Memphis won a few years ago that because they were 3rd in PM's they were a "tough" team and I'm disputing that the two are relavent to each other.We have alot of PM's but are we a tough team? not really in the sense that we are physical like alot of teams are. Are we tough in the sense that we stand up for each other MOST of the time, yes.

I was just pointing out they weren't soft. You AGAIN missed the point. I showed you Riley Cote, Luch Nasato and Derek Landmesser... who were not only big on PIMs, but from actually watching them play... know there were great checkers and they were gritty players. The PIMs was just to let you know that they weren't "soft". The players names were to show you why.

So... how long have you been watching hockey?

Forever really. Ten years in person, Lived in Chicago and went to alot of Blackhawks games and 5 years here. Missed only one game here in that time.

I'm not some little kid if that is what your thinking. I have 3 grandchildren(1 a month old), 3 adult children and I'm a manager at a big compamny here in Wichita.

Last edited by Thunder101 on Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:00 am; edited 1 time in total

Thunder101 wrote:

Forever really. Ten years in prison, Lived in Chicago and went to alot of Blackhawks games and 5 years here. Missed only one game here in that time.

When I first read it, that is what I thought it said, of course it didn't but it kind of sounds funny!

Actually it should have said prison.