i think laraque because probert was a fast attacker and laraque is ripped and quick plus the long reach he uses to his advantage
2007-06-16 02:48:50 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Hockey
I've heard stories about laraque wishing guys good luck before he fights.
2007-06-16 03:25:53 · update #1
Probert. He was just flat out nasty. Especially when he was all coked up. Even when he wasn't, he was just amazing to watch.
Laraque is the best fighter today, though.
2007-06-16 04:11:40 · answer #1 · answered by stevis78 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Neither Laraque or Probert would have stood a chance against the great fighters of the game like Terry O'Reilly or Dave Schultz. Even Jimmy Mann in the early 80s was a great fighter.
Heck, both Probert and Laraque have lost fights to Tie Domi
2007-06-16 11:55:46 · answer #2 · answered by cyrenaica 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Different era's of hockey there. Probert was a fighter when he was playing and he made skaters go the other way. Laraque didn't do much. Heck in Pittsburgh he got into maybe 4 whole fights. That was it....he's not what he used to be.
2007-06-16 11:04:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probert was the best fighter.
I'm surprised that nobody noted the fact that Probert had the ability to keep the fight going until he wore the opponent down. And then he'd unleash the beast. He had great balance, stamina, a cast iron skull, and patience.
He would have killed Dave the Hammer et al, but that wouldn't have made Sculttz shy away from Probie. That marks the difference between the players of the 70's and today.
2007-06-16 20:09:56 · answer #4 · answered by jader et al 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Silly fools with the throwback era, Probert and Laraque would have killed Shultz or O'Reilly.
As far as the question Best fighter between these two is pretty even with Probert maybe getting the slight edge. Hard to say. The question is tainted though because IMO, the best fighter who would have beaten them all in most cases was Peter Worrell. While I consider all the guys mentioned heavyweights, Worrell was a super heavyweight.
2007-06-16 12:42:22 · answer #5 · answered by Bob Loblaw 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Tough question. Probert was very good at it during the time he was playing. Your assessment of Laraque is also a good one. Sure would make for an interesting match up today though.
2007-06-16 09:55:47 · answer #6 · answered by doctdon 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Between those two, Bob Probert wins. Probert wasn't just a fast attacker, he had a lot of stamina. A lot of fights he won because the other guy would run out of energy and Probert would still be throwing punches.
2007-06-16 20:44:02 · answer #7 · answered by dehfose 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Compared to Probert, Laraque is a wuss!!
I'm not saying Laraque is not tough, he's just not up there with Probert in my book.
2007-06-16 12:43:29 · answer #8 · answered by lidstromnumber1fan 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither of them would have a chance against 1970's tough guys like Dave Shultz, Terry O'Reilly and Tiger Williams. Probert and Laraque are from a much more gentle era of hockey.
2007-06-16 12:22:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Probert . Laraque came to Pittsburgh this year and proved he is
a bum and a lousy player too. Not worth the money or attention.
I pray he leaves.
2007-06-16 23:53:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The good old era of fighting? Those guys were all under 6 feet tall and weighed less than 200 pounds!! These guys today are 6-5 and 250.
They aren't even close in terms of punching power.
I played against O'Reilly, and he was tough alright, but he was the size of Toronto's Ian White, about 5-10 and 180 pounds.
Can you imagine 5-11 Schultz, a remedial skater at best (who used to get beaten up by everyone on the Islanders anyway) fighting 6-9 Chara?? Different divisions completely.
Wade Belak could probably destroy the Broad St. Bullies in a single night.
It's nice to have fond memories, but they seem to get better with time.
2007-06-16 21:30:41 · answer #11 · answered by Paul O 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋