Talk:Wayne Gretzky/Greatest or One Of the Greatest 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives |
|---|
Contents |
"Considered by many to be the greatest Canadian player", please.
I beg to disagree even with the statement "considered by most the greatest...". Let's see. 30 mil Canadians or so, plus about 20 mil Americans who know what hockey means, say 5 mil people in Western Europe. Say 60 mil. I am counting infants and all of that for simplicity. 140 mil Russians+about 20 mil Ukrainians who care+10 mil Belorusian, which makes about 170 mil. That number would be probably split between Kharlamov, Mihailov i Tretyak. Probably something like 50%-20%-30%. Than 15 mil of Czechs and Slovaks would go with Hashek, but that's too little to count.
So in my "estimate" Kharlamov's claim to greatness would be backed up by 85 mil votes.
The intro has to say the "greatest Canadian player". Gaidash
- In international play, Gretzky has come out on top virtually every time against the best players from around the world. I have travelled around parts of Eastern Europe, and being Canadian, people i meet love to talk hockey. I never push my views (being in a foreign country), but they all want to talk about "Gretzky" the greatest player. The fact that "Gretzky" as a name is clearly from Eastern Europe, Eastern Europeans seem to have no problem labelling him as the greatest. Of course, this is coming from personal experience and I have no facts or websites to back this up. Masterhatch July 6th, 2005
-
- I don't argue here who is better, when, where, why. I am just saying that Kharlamov would be considered the best "by most people". Whether he was, or he was not - irrelevent. Just because of simple national preferences "most Russians, Ukrainians, Belorusians" would call him "the best". Which immidiately means "by most people" since there are simply more Russians, Ukrainians and Belorusians. Full stop. Has to be changed into "Canadian" or "considered by most Canadians". Gaidash 6 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't see what your gripe is. The opening paragraph simply says, "considered by many to be the best player of all time." It doesn't say most, it says many. It is fine the way it is. Masterhatch july 6th, 2005
-
-
-
-
- Agreed. I was reading the begining of this talk page and there the words were "by most". I should have read the article better. "By many" is perfectly fine. Gaidash 6 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)
-
-
some vs most vs many
been watching this little disagreement for a couple of days. All party's have a decent arguement to support their own case. I took my own stab at it which is as general and informative as I can think of.(without any POV I might add) Hopefully it will end all the back and forth on this. Speaking a former player(from long ago) I find it pointless to argue over who's best, who's bigger. Today's NHL is a different game from what it was 35 years ago. And it was a different game then from what it was 35 years before that. Just pick a line a go with it people. It's not that big of a deal.
experts
sorry Danny Grant, i should have been clearer. the "experts" i was referring to are the 50 experts from hockey news who voted him #1 all time, not just the past 25 years. Masterhatch 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
experts????
I have the book you're referring to and I'll ask the same question he did. Number 1 Stan Fischler was one of panel so that immediately narrows your number down to 49.(his hockey opinions are, for th most part, better left unsaid) Number 2, there were a couple of guys from the CTV SportsNet Hockey panel in there too and their hockey knowledge combined wouldn't fill a specimen cup. All those so called 'experts' said they had second thoughts about who they voted for(regardless of who it was) because they had such a hard time debating the skills of a player from 1 era against the skills of a player from another.
One magazine does NOT a deity make. If they were to vote again I expect you'd see a drastically altered Top 50 from the one in the first publcation. ~Mr Pyles
- The whole point of NPOV is to keep the frothing at the mouth screaming down, and that's what we're seeing here. The obvious fact that you don't like the fairly overwhelming majority opinion amongst hockey experts and commentators on Gretzky's stature is apparent, but the fact is that they hold to that view. Without commenting on our personal views, it is a verifiable fact that the majority of hockey authorities rate Gretzky at the top. But I'll tell you what; find us verifiable, current references backing your own views up, and you might get a consensus around them. RGTraynor 12:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mr. Pyles, are you also forgetting that he was voted as the 5th greatest athlete as well? Take note that the next "greatest" athlete that's a hockey player is sitting at the 66th spot. Masterhatch 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Besides which, let's take a look at some of those experts you disparage: Steve Dryden, Ernie Fitzsimmons, Eric Zweig, Roger Godin, Paul Kitchen, Bob McKenzie, Harry Sinden, Glen Sather, Karl-Eric Reif, Lou Nanne, Gordie Howe ... we're talking some of the most respected hockey men and researchers out there, and I would be deeply hesitant to call them all idiots and scoundrels because they didn't pick the fellow I wanted for the top of the poll, or imply they're unqualified because I didn't get a say in their selection. (As to that, they picked Orr #2. If they're unqualified, what does that say about Orr?) RGTraynor 16:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
