100 Greatest NHL players

[JCD]

Its obvious to anyone who saw Edmonton games in the 80's - Gretzky has more assist than Mario because 99 wasnt allowed to be hit. You know why. He'd park behind the net and only Billy Smith would take a swipe at him. Mario, Neely, Espo, Orr, Guy were all getting hammered. But they also drew a lot of penalties. Orr and Guy would routinely draw a bunch of penalities from players trying to slow him and slash him etc. On the oilers Glenn Anderson was good at that.

Kovvy10 is the only one who gets it - I mean Mike Gartner!

I think stats are just that and anyone who compares Tiger or Jordan or Senna or god sakes Ruth to 99 is stretching badly.

Actually, I think it is obvious to anybody with a shred of objectivity that Wayne had more goals, assists, points, trophies and Cups than Mario because Wayne was a better player who had a better career.

But like i said, it takes a shred of objectivity to see that, it comes as no surprise you and K10 are blind to it.

 

[mcphee]

One more thing. Lafleur actually was a winger and from the top 20 players with more assists, only 2 are right wingers. 1 is Gordie Howe and the other one is Lafleur. Lafleur actually was getting 75-80 assists a year playing with a semi defensive center in Lemaire. Shutt was nothing but a 30 goal scorer and Guy turned him into a 60 goal one. And to prove it was no fluke he made Shutt score 49 goals the next year. 45 the year before that. I mean Guy is like the only right winger to make his teammates score a lot more goals then they are capable of. Only 1 winger has a higher assists per game and thats Mike Bossy and by a very little difference and that's because he played only 9 years. Aint that impressive?

Kovy, I think you oversimplify when you assume that all was due to Guy. Maybe #10's stats suffer if he doesn't benefit from the 3 of the best puck moving d men of all time. If Shutt played with Jarvis, yeah, his numbers suffer. If he plays with Dionne, voila, he gets 60. Also, Lemaire's offense can't be ignored simply because he developed a sound positional game. Shutt was a master of taking a position along the boards in his own zone and chipping out clearing attemts along the boards,[much like Brett Hull]. That allowed Lafleur to free lance and leave the zone at will. You can turn this in circles as much as you want, you're trying to prove the unprovable. What if Bowman decided Gainey had to play with Lafleur to give the line balance, never would BG get 40, no matter how well he was set up, thereby lowering Guy's assist total. Yeah, Shutt benefited from Lafleur's play,but it was Shutt's ability that got the goals.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Kovy, I think you oversimplify when you assume that all was due to Guy. Maybe #10's stats suffer if he doesn't benefit from the 3 of the best puck moving d men of all time. If Shutt played with Jarvis, yeah, his numbers suffer. If he plays with Dionne, voila, he gets 60. Also, Lemaire's offense can't be ignored simply because he developed a sound positional game. Shutt was a master of taking a position along the boards in his own zone and chipping out clearing attemts along the boards,[much like Brett Hull]. That allowed Lafleur to free lance and leave the zone at will. You can turn this in circles as much as you want, you're trying to prove the unprovable. What if Bowman decided Gainey had to play with Lafleur to give the line balance, never would BG get 40, no matter how well he was set up, thereby lowering Guy's assist total. Yeah, Shutt benefited from Lafleur's play,but it was Shutt's ability that got the goals.

So Shutt was a 60 goal scorer? By the way Shutt started playing with Guy in 77 yet Lafleur had had 2 120 or more point seasons. Shutt didnt help Lafleur, Lafleur helped Shutt. Oh and Lafleur would retreat a lot in his zone and start from behind his own net its not like he waited at the red line for passes from Shutt.

 

[mcphee]

You know, I agree with that statement. And the extent to which numbers are relied upon by many of today's modern sports fan's is unnerving. For example, evaluating a HOF candidate strictly on his numbers. Very superficial (and lazy, for that matter).

That said, on infrequent occasions, numbers do help tell a story about an individual. As in, when his numbers are so ridiculously above and beyond that of his peers.

Babe Ruth hitting 60 home runs in a time in baseball when guys weren't hitting 20 in a season is one example. Tiger Woods winning the '97 Masters by 12 strokes(!) told us something about that player's special ability, which has since been validated repeatedly.

Gretzky essentially lapped the field with regard to virtually all modern offensive records. Was he the most natural goal scorer of his time? No, Mike Bossy was and #99 will tell you so himself. Was he the single most skilled player of his time? You'll get a good argument (including from me) that Robert Orr and #66 surpass him.

But there is no questioning his utter dominance. None whatsoever. For a single decade (the 1980s) he transcended his sport unlike any other athlete in any professional sports league ever, IMO. And 10 years is a long time in professional sports. So what if he was a mere mortal the second half of his career? Had he retired in 1990 he would still be legendary. As is, his output in the '90s was nothing to be ashamed of; a vast majority of NHLers would take it in a nanosecond.

And, to be honest, the "what ifs" sound silly, at least here. What if Guy Lafluer didn't smoke two packs a day? What if Bossy's career didn't end after 10 seasons? Same with Bobby Orr. And Mario, for that matter. Ultimately, all one can go by is reality, what has actually transpired.

The truly "great" ones are so few. ("Great" being the most overused and abused word in sports lexicon.) Ruth, Jordan and Montana in other sports come to mind. And in hockey over the last three decades, #99, #66 and #4 tower above all others, by a considerable margin. It is futile to attempt to diminish any of their accomplishments in any way whatsoever, IMO.

Wayne was able to score 8,000,000 points because he played in a weaker conference?

C'mon!

Probably the best analysis of the whole thing. By accomplishment, to me Gretzky can't be questioned. There are lots of yardsticks though and to me that's where Orr overtakes him. Artsitry and charisma are separate but important aspects, and personally that's where I'd choose Lafleur. If I was 16 years old in the mid 80's and brought up in Alberta, I'd think a lot of you guys were lunatics. When you saw a player and the effect he had, has to color the arguement, you wouldn't be a fan if it didn't. It's the old Howe vs. Rocket arguement. Which was the better player against which would fill your arena.

 

[mcphee]

So Shutt was a 60 goal scorer? By the way Shutt started playing with Guy in 77 yet Lafleur had had 2 120 or more point seasons. Shutt didnt help Lafleur, Lafleur helped Shutt. Oh and Lafleur would retreat a lot in his zone and start from behind his own net its not like he waited at the red line for passes from Shutt.

Team game Kovy, they helped each other. If my beloved Mike Mcphee played on the line, Guy's 80 assists drop to 60. Sure Guy Lafleur has lots of end to end rushes in his highlight reel, but like anyone else, he had to be in a team situation to succeed. Lafleur was the best receiver of passes I've ever seen, he had an uncanny ability to gather a pass on his backhand, he loved getting the puck in flight and beating d men with speed. He was clearly the best player, but he didn't make Steve Shutt.He helped him and Shutt got places he wouldn't have with Craig Darby beside him, but it wasn't a Mario/Warren Young or Gretz/Blair MacDonald situation.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

So Shutt was a 60 goal scorer? By the way Shutt started playing with Guy in 77 yet Lafleur had had 2 120 or more point seasons. Shutt didnt help Lafleur, Lafleur helped Shutt. Oh and Lafleur would retreat a lot in his zone and start from behind his own net its not like he waited at the red line for passes from Shutt.

I, for one, would throw my support behind you having your own Guy Lafleur forum if it were put to a vote.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Guys, let's get it together here.

Each and every one of us knows that Steve Shutt is not actually a person... He's a parking cone the Lafleur would routinely kick up and down the ice, position in front of the net and bank the puck off of for goals...

 

[God Bless Canada]

Funny, isn't this supposed to be a discussion on the 100 greatest players in NHL history? When did a couple yahoos (who don't represent the generally knowledgable fans of Quebec) hijack this thread to continue with their opinions that were part of a couple previous threads that were shut down?

Let's keep this on topic. If you want to talk about Ogopogo's list on the 100 greatest players ever (as flawed as it may be, the guy put a commendable amount of work into it). If you don't (which some people clearly don't), go away.

 

[chooch*]

One more thing. Lafleur actually was a winger and from the top 20 players with more assists, only 2 are right wingers. 1 is Gordie Howe and the other one is Lafleur. Lafleur actually was getting 75-80 assists a year playing with a semi defensive center in Lemaire. Shutt was nothing but a 30 goal scorer and Guy turned him into a 60 goal one. And to prove it was no fluke he made Shutt score 49 goals the next year. 45 the year before that. I mean Guy is like the only right winger to make his teammates score a lot more goals then they are capable of. Only 1 winger has a higher assists per game and thats Mike Bossy and by a very little difference and that's because he played only 9 years. Aint that impressive?

Thats a fantastic post - I agree that Guy' s 80 assist season for a winger tells you everything and he is acknowledged one of the finest playmakers ever. If you watched the Lafleur line you wouldnt believe how often Lemaire or Shutt would screw up a beautiful play or make a bad decision (in Lemaires case usually shooting instead of passing). Guy could do more at speed than anyone.

oh and here's Keith Actons stats the one year he played on the Guy line:78 36 52 88 ; over 50% better than any other season he had in a long career. there's your BJ Macdonald/Warren Young and with stats too!

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Thats a fantastic post - I agree that Guy' s 80 assist season for a winger tells you everything and he is acknowledged one of the finest playmakers ever. If you watched the Lafleur line you wouldnt believe how often Lemaire or Shutt would screw up a beautiful play or make a bad decision (in Lemaires case usually shooting instead of passing). Guy could do more at speed than anyone.

oh and here's Keith Actons stats the one year he played on the Guy line:78 36 52 88 ; over 50% better than any other season he had in a long career. there's your BJ Macdonald/Warren Young and with stats too!

Another thing about Shutt and Lafleur. Lafleur had 119 points (in 70 games) and 125 points playing with Pete Mahovlich (who was at the end of his career) and made him score 117 points! The year before that when he wasnt playing with Guy he had 73 points! Shutt was scoring 30 goals when he played with Guy he scored 45 to 60. Acton as you said really benefited from Lafleur. If you dont agree with Lafleur being a great playmaker then go watch some tapes. Go watch the Philly/Habs 1976 game where Lafleur made a blind back pass right on the tape of a slow/at the end of his career Mahovlich who backhanded one home. See Lafleur scored on the same pace no matter who he was playing with. Whether it was a guy who was at the end of his career in Mahovlich, whether it was the semi defensive Lemaire, whether it was the guy who's highest assists total is 45 Shutt, whether it was an average played in Acton, Lafleur always scored on the same pace. What does that tell you? Tells you Shutt didnt help Lafleur, Lafleur helped Shutt.

What if Lafleur had Kurri on his left wing? The guy who had the best one timer ever, and who could actually make great plays. (60 or more assists many times in his career) I shudder to think how many more goals or assists Guy wouldve had playing with Kurri instead of Shutt. Again not looking for an argument just had to get it out. Please dont anyone take it personally.

 

[reckoning]

Another thing about Shutt and Lafleur. Lafleur had 119 points (in 70 games) and 125 points playing with Pete Mahovlich (who was at the end of his career) and made him score 117 points! The year before that when he wasnt playing with Guy he had 73 points!

Another way of looking at that is that Lafleur had 56 points the year before without Mahovlich then had 119 with him, so maybe Mahovlich made him score those points. The fact is they both helped each other. Lafleur`s skills helped Mahovlich and Mahovlich`s experience helped Lafleur.

Also, Steve Shutt was a lot better than you guys are giving him credit for.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Another way of looking at that is that Lafleur had 56 points the year before without Mahovlich then had 119 with him, so maybe Mahovlich made him score those points. The fact is they both helped each other. Lafleur`s skills helped Mahovlich and Mahovlich`s experience helped Lafleur.

Also, Steve Shutt was a lot better than you guys are giving him credit for.

Not to sound like an ass but Lafleur was still young and had difficulty in his first couple seasons. Because he didnt get enough ice time. Players used to say Lafleur was the best scorer in practice... yet he was scoring 55-65 points. He was still a sophomore though and blossoming by 63 points has less to do with Mahovlich (who was great in his prime but dont tell me he was great at the end of his career) and more to do with him finally putting it together.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Not to sound like an ass but Lafleur was still young and had difficulty in his first couple seasons. Because he didnt get enough ice time. Players used to say Lafleur was the best scorer in practice... yet he was scoring 55-65 points. He was still a sophomore though and blossoming by 63 points has less to do with Mahovlich (who was great in his prime but dont tell me he was great at the end of his career) and more to do with him finally putting it together.

Yes.. of course. That entire team was composed of Guy Lafleur and several pilons who somehow accidentally toppled over into the hall of fame. We get it..

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Yes.. of course. That entire team was composed of Guy Lafleur and several pilons who somehow accidentally toppled over into the hall of fame. We get it..

Why does every single one of your points end with a shakehead thing or filled with something to piss people off? WHO SAID HABS WERE A PILON TEAM? THEY WERE AND ARE MY FAVORITE TEAM FOR GODS SAKE AND NO THEY WERE NO PILONS. Our goalie was great and we had an incredible defense core and shut the opisition so well. But when you looked for your goals Guy was the go to guy. Guy was the one scoring those clutch or cup wining goals or setting them up. Shutt was no pilon but he wasnt a 50-60 goal scorer either. Lemaire was a semi defensive forward. Pete was at the end of his career. What part of my statement is wrong?

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Why does every single one of your points end with a shakehead thing or filled with something to piss people off? WHO SAID HABS WERE A PILON TEAM? THEY WERE AND ARE MY FAVORITE TEAM FOR GODS SAKE AND NO THEY WERE NO PILONS. Our goalie was great and we had an incredible defense core and shut the opisition so well. But when you looked for your goals Guy was the go to guy. Guy was the one scoring those clutch or cup wining goals or setting them up. Shutt was no pilon but he wasnt a 50-60 goal scorer either. Lemaire was a semi defensive forward. Pete was at the end of his career. What part of my statement is wrong?

I only do that because in all honesty, the things you say are often leaving me speechless...

I mean you make Steve Shutt sound like he was a pilon if not for Guy Lafleur. You honestly do. Then you come along calling him a 30 goal scorer until Lafleur turned him into a 60 goal man? The guy scored 60 once and never again even hit 50... Of course you have no basis for comparism anyway since he never played without Guy until his last year in L.A. That being said, you give the man no credit for being a consistently excellent hall of fame goal scorer who definitely helped Lafleur as much as Kurri "helped" Gretzky..

Then you speak of Lemaire as if he did nothing but play defense and when people cite his brilliant offensive years it automatically becomes a product of GUy Lafleur when the man obviously also had some skills and ability.

I'm not the one making the Habs sound like a team of blind, deaf and mute children being carried on the back of Guy Lafleur...

 

[KOVALEV10*]

I only do that because in all honesty, the things you say are often leaving me speechless...

I mean you make Steve Shutt sound like he was a pilon if not for Guy Lafleur. You honestly do. Then you come along calling him a 30 goal scorer until Lafleur turned him into a 60 goal man? The guy scored 60 once and never again even hit 50... Of course you have no basis for comparism anyway since he never played without Guy until his last year in L.A. That being said, you give the man no credit for being a consistently excellent hall of fame goal scorer who definitely helped Lafleur as much as Kurri "helped" Gretzky..

Then you speak of Lemaire as if he did nothing but play defense and when people cite his brilliant offensive years it automatically becomes a product of GUy Lafleur when the man obviously also had some skills and ability.

I'm not the one making the Habs sound like a team of blind, deaf and mute children being carried on the back of Guy Lafleur...

Shutt was a 30 goal man. And a 30 goal man is something. But are you telling me that Shutt was a 60 goal man? It's like saying Kurri is a 70 goal man and that Gretz never really helped him. But Kurri was obviously the much better player but lets not get into that.

His brilliant offensive years were over when he was playing with Guy. He was aging and defensive minded rather then offensive. Lemaire in his prime was great in the late 60-s early 70-s but he wasnt great offensively in the late 70-s which is when he played with Guy. Habs were no pilon team but Guy made the team's offense so much better. Defensively and goalie wise we were the best team. But offensively we werent as great.

 

[mcphee]

Kovy, with all due respect, and I do respect your hockey knowledge, and applaud your passion for the subject, I trhink you are bending a lot for the sake of arguement. Tracing Mahovlich's and Lemaire's career in the way that you do just isn't the way I saw it. Certain players have great chemistry and that becomes part of the legend. Shutt called it the Donut line. {no center} Lemaire played the best hockey of his career after Peter left. The 3 were great players who obviously benefited from playing with a great player. Great players succeed when they are put into position to succeed. BTW, as to Guy's icetime in his first few years, with the CH, you earn your icetime. In year 4, I remember Dick Irvin saying in camp how it was a different Lafleur. He carried himself with confidence and seemed ready to explode. Frankly, I don't know how this got started, I'm only posting this because I don't agree with the way you're minimizing his linemates. Further,I don't think you believe it either, your blood pressure goes up when #10 somehow gets to be the topic. Shutt used to go up to Lafleur before games and stare at him for fun and then announce,'he's ready guys, good there'll be rebounds tonight'. Shutt was pretty damn good at those rebounds wasn't he ?

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Kovy, with all due respect, and I do respect your hockey knowledge, and applaud your passion for the subject, I trhink you are bending a lot for the sake of arguement. Tracing Mahovlich's and Lemaire's career in the way that you do just isn't the way I saw it. Certain players have great chemistry and that becomes part of the legend. Shutt called it the Donut line. {no center} Lemaire played the best hockey of his career after Peter left. The 3 were great players who obviously benefited from playing with a great player. Great players succeed when they are put into position to succeed. BTW, as to Guy's icetime in his first few years, with the CH, you earn your icetime. In year 4, I remember Dick Irvin saying in camp how it was a different Lafleur. He carried himself with confidence and seemed ready to explode. Frankly, I don't know how this got started, I'm only posting this because I don't agree with the way you're minimizing his linemates. Further,I don't think you believe it either, your blood pressure goes up when #10 somehow gets to be the topic. Shutt used to go up to Lafleur before games and stare at him for fun and then announce,'he's ready guys, good there'll be rebounds tonight'. Shutt was pretty damn good at those rebounds wasn't he ?

Yeah he was. I liked Shutt to be honest with you. I like little guys who can score goals. I never liked Lemaire because of what he did to Guy in 84 but thats a different story. Anyways I dont believe Shutt was a 49 or 60 goal scorer and that was made possible due to Lafleur. If you gave Kurri to Lafleur instead of Shutt, Lafleur would've made Kurri score 70 too like Gretzky did. Mahovlich had chemistry with Guy but lets be honest was Mahovlich a 117 point scorer at the end of his career? Hell no... and that was also made possible because of Guy. If Guy actually had a great playmaker playing on his line instead of a guy whos only gotten 2 seasons of 40 assists and a defensive minded center in Lemaire who wasnt much of a passer either, Guy would've scored 10 more goals a year and I'm pretty sure of that.

 

[chooch*]

Yeah he was. I liked Shutt to be honest with you. I like little guys who can score goals. I never liked Lemaire because of what he did to Guy in 84 but thats a different story. Anyways I dont believe Shutt was a 49 or 60 goal scorer and that was made possible due to Lafleur. If you gave Kurri to Lafleur instead of Shutt, Lafleur would've made Kurri score 70 too like Gretzky did. Mahovlich had chemistry with Guy but lets be honest was Mahovlich a 117 point scorer at the end of his career? Hell no... and that was also made possible because of Guy. If Guy actually had a great playmaker playing on his line instead of a guy whos only gotten 2 seasons of 40 assists and a defensive minded center in Lemaire who wasnt much of a passer either, Guy would've scored 10 more goals a year and I'm pretty sure of that.

Guy NEVER played in the third period of a blowout. I know in another thread someone said the 77 Habs had more blowouts than the Oilers to try and prove something about Guy and in any case the poster didnt followup and state the goals/points of 99 v. Guy in those blowout games.

And Guy NEVER whooped it up after he scored - he was like Yzerman or Orr or Lemieux - Guy NEVER raised his stick and whooped it up and Guy never scored late in the game with a lead to rub salt unless they needed a goal. He was a classy player.

You can take all the 61 records and theyre meaningless when you need a bodyguard and youre a minus player winning Art Ross'.

As for Shutt, he was a good player who was dangerous and without Guy might have had a couple of 40 goal seasons. No HoF though or AllStar selections. Hard to compare to Kurri as they were 2 different players (Shutt had great hands/ Kurri skating ability and both had great shots) and Kurri changed his style also. Shutt was a very small guy.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Guy NEVER played in the third period of a blowout. I know in another thread someone said the 77 Habs had more blowouts than the Oilers to try and prove something about Guy and in any case the poster didnt followup and state the goals/points of 99 v. Guy in those blowout games.

And Guy NEVER whooped it up after he scored - he was like Yzerman or Orr or Lemieux - Guy NEVER raised his stick and whooped it up and Guy never scored late in the game with a lead to rub salt unless they needed a goal. He was a classy player.

You can take all the 61 records and theyre meaningless when you need a bodyguard and youre a minus player winning Art Ross'.

As for Shutt, he was a good player who was dangerous and without Guy might have had a couple of 40 goal seasons. No HoF though or AllStar selections. Hard to compare to Kurri as they were 2 different players (Shutt had great hands/ Kurri skating ability and both had great shots) and Kurri changed his style also. Shutt was a very small guy.

That's so true!! Scotty would rarely play him when habs had the lead in the third period. Sather on the other hand would encourage Gretz to go out and score goals and would double or triple shift him for it. Thats just not Guy's style.

 

[chooch*]

That's so true!! Scotty would rarely play him when habs had the lead in the third period. Sather on the other hand would encourage Gretz to go out and score goals and would double or triple shift him for it. Thats just not Guy's style.

Guy never danced around arms pumping whooping it up after scoring a goal like he was playing in the womens hockey league.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

You are both entirely unreasonable...

You can continue to believe what you want about Guy but he is clearly not even close to the player Wayne was.

Chooch can continue to believe Mario "the accesory to ****" was the classiest man alive if he wants too.

Fact is most people here who actually watched hockey throughout the 80s without colored goggles can appreciate what Wayne did.

 

[Quiet Robert]

You can take all the 61 records and theyre meaningless when you need a bodyguard and youre a minus player winning Art Ross'.

No, the fact is they are not meaningless. How many times do we have to go over this? You might think because he was in the 80's his numbers are inflated, in which case you probably have a valid point. But if he was as average as you make him out to be, don't you think more people would be close to his totals? Nobody comes close to him, no matter what era you compare him to. (Again, we're not talking who looked good on the ice, we're talking about production, and nobody is even close to Gretzky.)

As for the bodyguard argument, how does protecting your asset make him less of a 'man.' Pretty much every star has had a bodyguard for their players, it's pretty dumb not to have one. Where would you rather have your best scorer, in the box for 5 mins, or on the ice scoring?

Guess how many fights Mario has been in his whole NHL career? 6! Yup, that's right, 6 fights in 889 games. Does that make Mario less of a man, or player? Of course not, so why should Gretzky's accomplishments be dimished. Because he only fought once? I guess those 5 extra fights turned Mario into a real man.

My main point is that you can't diminish what a player did because he didn't fight.

Guy never danced around arms pumping whooping it up after scoring a goal like he was playing in the womens hockey league.

I guess you're trying to be funny here, and although I shouldn't, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume your not saying women don't play with any class.

Either way, your statement means nor does it add anything. You're either trying to say Gretzky is a woman, in which case the best player ever is a woman, and your buddy Guy got schooled by a girl, or you're saying the women's game is full of showboating.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

No, the fact is they are not meaningless. How many times do we have to go over this? You might think because he was in the 80's his numbers are inflated, in which case you probably have a valid point. But if he was as average as you make him out to be, don't you think more people would be close to his totals? Nobody comes close to him, no matter what era you compare him to. (Again, we're not talking who looked good on the ice, we're talking about production, and nobody is even close to Gretzky.)

As for the bodyguard argument, how does protecting your asset make him less of a 'man.' Pretty much every star has had a bodyguard for their players, it's pretty dumb not to have one. Where would you rather have your best scorer, in the box for 5 mins, or on the ice scoring?

Guess how many fights Mario has been in his whole NHL career? 6! Yup, that's right, 6 fights in 889 games. Does that make Mario less of a man, or player? Of course not, so why should Gretzky's accomplishments be dimished. Because he only fought once? I guess those 5 extra fights turned Mario into a real man.

My main point is that you can't diminish what a player did because he didn't fight.



I guess you're trying to be funny here, and although I shouldn't, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume your not saying women don't play with any class.

Either way, your statement means nor does it add anything. You're either trying to say Gretzky is a woman, in which case the best player ever is a woman, and your buddy Guy got schooled by a girl, or you're saying the women's game is full of showboating.

Pretty much every star has had a bodyguard? Who did Orr have? Or Espo? Or Howe? Or Rocket? Or Beliveau? Or Hull? Orr Lafleur? Or Lemieux?

 

[mcphee]

John Ferguson was gainfully employed because mgmt. didn't want their best players settling scores the way the Rocket had to. Orr played on one of the toughest teams in NHL history,though he fought his own battles all too often. During the exhibition season of 74-75, Mtl. sent the message against the Flyers that they weren't going to be pushed around. I'm sure a Pens fan can list the tough guys they've had over the years. The most greatly exagerrated stat in hockey was the number of shifts Semenko actually played with #99. Revisionist history. I will concede that the 70's Habs often were matter of fact after goals as they seemed to want to send a message that they could score at will. I can't say that the 80's Isles or Oilers were any different. There were a lot of stories of some of the Oilers guys being pretty arrogant, laughing on the bench,having the trainer contact women in the crowd, the stories didn't usually involve Gretzky though. I guess he was too busy perfecting his female 8th point of the night celebration. Does anyone remember the point we're arguing here ?