Burning question: How would Penguins enforcer Georges Laraque have fared in a fight against Red Wings legend Bob Probert in his prime?
Breakdown: "I'd probably get killed," Laraque said. Really• "Yes," Laraque said. "He's the ultimate, the best fighter of all time." The two actually did fight a few times late in Probert's career, when Probert was with the Chicago Blackhawks and Laraque with the Edmonton Oilers. Neither bout was overly dramatic. Laraque scored a decision in one, for sure. He was glad for the experience. "He was not in his prime anymore, but every fighter wanted a chance to go with him, just so you could say you fought with the best fighter of all-time."
PuckSpeak: "Any one of those guys in their prime, Probert, Dave Brown, (Joey) Kocur - that guy could probably break a cement wall with his fist -- I wouldn't like to see in a fight. I'm glad I came along when their prime was over." -- Laraque.
Looking ahead: Laraque and Probert, who spent the first nine years of his NHL career with the Red Wings and retired in 2002, may renew acquaintances at Martin Brodeur's charity poker tournament this summer in Montreal. The two waged battle (at the card table) there last summer. "He took me out," Laraque said. Laraque would like to be regarded, like Probert, as an enforcer who also could play the game. These playoffs haven't hurt. Going into Game 1 on Saturday, he had been part of three important goals.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.