What's a star?

Apparently there is too much surly narrowmindedness to discuss this on the main boards, so I'll ask you guys here.

Is a star defined by his talent, or by his public profile?

If a star is defined by his talent, then you would have say declining legends such as Robitaille, Oates, Yzerman, are not stars, while Daigle, Chistov, Luongo are.

Public profile is of course a fickle thing, but in general, one outstanding year or stretch could garner a player a pretty staunch following, or players who aren't what they once were but who remain popular, such as oh, say, Luc Robitaille, Oates, Yzerman, etc.

I think the second is true. Stars remain stars until they become obscure, whether they are talented or not.

If a star is defined by his talent, then you would have say declining legends such as Robitaille, Oates, Yzerman, are not stars, while Daigle, Chistov, Luongo are.

Daigle?

Okay, it's a question that can only be answered subjectively, although if you say that to be a "star" requires a certain level of performance, I'm not sure Chistov applies (and Daigle sure as hell doesn't).

The short answer is, a "star" is in the eye of the beholder.

Stars in the sky ;)

A star is someone you come to watch. Talent is a contributing factor to becoming a star but media hoopla and glitz IMO is the main reason. Someone like Keith Carney who is as talented a player there is in the league is not a star because he doesn't get the publicity.

Talent just a small part, perhapes the base or a part of the base, but just a small part. What is important to be a star is charisma, ambition and success. These are the things to gain media attention and the media makes you a star. No one is a star until some writer out there thinks he has a good story writing about him as a star...

But there's another type of star who doesn't have the media attention, but fans who know him know what he is worth. That's the quiet star, just like Carney is one.

Daigle?
Ayuh.