Talk:Wayne Gretzky/Greatest or One Of the Greatest 4
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 |
|---|
Ridiculous
First of all, the excuse that I have heard over and over from people who say that Orr and Howe were better than Gretzky is that we never got a chance to see them play.
V-I-D-E-O. I have been a fan of hockey since 1984 and grew up watching Lemieux and Gretzky compete. I did not watch Orr and Howe live, but there are videos of them. Neither would survive in today's NHL at the level they competed in their primes. The game is much rougher and faster now, Orr would have collapsed to injury much sooner. The game is much harder to score in, Howe would not have been as prolific even playing almost 30 years like he did.
Consider also that Gretzky, a small and non-physical player proved eveyrone wrong over and over again. He was too small; but he scored more points than anyone. He was too fragile; he was a money player that could up his game when the team needed it. If you want to see the single most amazing display of hockey prowess ever recored, watch the entire 1987 Canada Cup and you will see just how amazing Wayne Gretzky really is. 21 points in 9 games against the worlds greatest goaltenders, defencemen and coaches. Ask Mark Messier, he said the same thing. In a finale that required 6 goals to win in ALL three games, points meant EVERYTHING and Gretzky delivered.
However, I also agree that when all things are considered on the ice, the best player in the NHL is Mario Lemieux. He has the most talent of any player I have seen in the NHL ever. Players will tell you the same thing. After the 1996 World Cup, when asked how he felt about the win, Chris Chelios only said: "Thank God Mario wasn't playing." Gretzky was on that team, as was the case on the 98 losing team in Nagano (Lemieux was absent again here). Since Mario's return, Canada has easily won both the Olympics and World Cup tournaments.
- Not that Lemieux didn't contribute, but can you pin the success of Team Canada on him? He wasn't as valuable a Lecavalier, Brodeur, Sakic, Smyth, Brewer, or the entire DDT line in '04. Meanwhile in '96, Canada's no-shows were a story unto themselves, and not only were they without Lemieux, but without Patrick Roy, Kariya, Bourque, MacInnis. Going in to the series with the USA team Gretzky had strained his back and Messier had a pulled groin then got the flu, and Lindros had minor injuries as well. Canada was old, with Gretz and Mess making just 2 of the 7 players over 30. And, of course, Curtis Joseph imploded. Afterwards a 35 year old Gretzky said it would take a miracle for him to still be playing in '98. And, when he got to play the Czech team in '98, Kariya and Lemieux mised the tournament, and Sakic was missing too. He wasn't even in the shootout though he had just beaten Hasek in an NHL game weeks before.
-
- You fellows need to grow-up. Anyone who has spent time around Hockey accepts that the NHL was watered down (beyond the talent pool) all through the 1980's. WG WAS A GREAT PLAYER, but he would NOT have scored 90 goals in the 6 team league, or the 12 team league. He would not have lasted in that rougher era. TrulyTory 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It's amusing you think that era was rougher, which it was not, having seen it for myself. Gretzky played his entire career in a league where every team had one-dimensional goons whose sole job was assault, which wasn't the case in the Fifties and Sixties; with just a very few exceptions (Lou Fontinato comes to mind) policemen of the era were expected to be able to put points on the board and play defense -- the spectacle of cementheads with 3 points and 300 PIM on the season is a phenomenon of the past thirty years. That aside, why do you feel the need to characterize anyone who disagrees with you as immature? RGTraynor 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- No - what is amusing is the fact that someone makes an aboslute judgement because he has watched VIDEOS. That is what I what challenging here. I played high-level amateur Hockey in Canada for years, and have watched the game since the late 1960's. The 1980's and 1990's NHL had/has too many teams, and the game has suffered. There was time when a hockey player had to be able to have a range of skills to succeed in the NHL (like John Ferguson, and unlike Dave Schultz). WG was a great player, but you cannot make absolutist statements without abolute proof - which you, or anyone, cannot provide. You have a POV, and that is all. TrulyTory 16:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- if the league is so watered down, why aren't there other players putting up gretzky-like numbers? If it is so watered down, how come only Mario and Wayne are the only two players in the history of the modern NHL to average two points a game? Gretzky was so much better than everyone else that he won the scoring title on his assists alone 4 times. In an era that was offensive, gretzky still went above and beyond everyone else,and not just by a little bit. He blew away the competition. This season saw a huge number of rule changes to increase goal scoring. Even though goal scoring is up in this watered down leauge, no one is on pace to even approach gretzky's numbers. Image if there was no redline and imagine if they called every stick to the shoulder a penalty in Gretzky's era? Imagine gretzky in his prime playing with these new rules... Think about that. He might have had a hundred goals or more.
-
- Here's another point to ponder. In Orr's era, the league was probably even more watered down that it is now. In Orr's era, there were two leagues (NHL and WHA) splitting the players and there were very few European players to fill up the rosters like there is now. By the time Gretzky came, there were more europeans in the league and there were fewer teams as the WHA had folded so one could argue that the league was even less watered down in Gretzky's era than Orr's era. One could even argue that Orr's era was even more watered down that it is now. The late 60s and 70s were a time of massive expansion in the NHL and the formation of an entire new league. In the mid 70s there were almost as many professional teams as there are now with one huge glaring difference: the european invasion hadn't happened yet. Now THAT is watered down. Masterhatch 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Waste of time, Masterhatch. The fellow persists in shrieking POV at every opportunity, while losing none to express his own subjective views. For me, I apply the Gordie Howe test, whereby the test of Howe's greatness was in the wide margins of victory he had many seasons in the scoring race over lesser players. If this guy claims Gretzky was solely the product of expansion, surely there must be Eddie Shores and Gordie Howes and Maurice Richards and Toe Blakes today who are ever so much better, and can score 300 pts a season. Where are they, please? RGTraynor 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
