If Wayne Gretzky were a defenceman...

[Sens Rule]

You are missing the point.

A person who is a great athlete chooses their sport. They then become great at that sport, no matter what it is.

If Gretzky loved Tennis, he would have dominated it. If Pele was a baseball fanatic he would have been better than Willie Mays.

Don't get side tracked by "Gretzky was only 6'0" so he could NEVER have played basketball". That is not the point. The point is, great athletes dominate their sport of choice.

I agree to an extent. But different sports require different skills. Hockey is a sport that requires possibly the most different skills of any sport you could imagine. You need perfect co-ordination of your hands and feet at the same time and need to play a game at a speed that is not comparable to any other sport. And you need to accept ridiculous amounts of physical contact at all times.

Golf is a sport that does not require a team, and is all about being mentally strong, but it is more similar to darts or horseshoes or even poker than it is to a sport like hockey.

Baseball is a tough sport to master. It does not require you to be particularly overal athletic like Soccer or hockey or basketball but it does require you to have crazy hand eye co-ordination to hit the ball, or freakish cannyness in pitching a ball.

Michael Jordan even if he was always playing baseball as a kid and loved the sport may never have been a great baseball player. Maybe he would have made the major leagues but maybe he would not.

What I am saying is that sports are different, Gretzky might have turned out to be a great tennis, baseball, lacrosse, basketball, golf player. But more likely than not while he would excel at any sport and maybe get to the 99th percentile in it, that is a far stretch from being major league caliber in it or being the absoulute best in it.

Joe Thorpe the greatest athlete ever, was alot better track athlete and football player than he was at baseball. I mean take most players in the NBA, they could play centerfield easy defensively, maybe be gold glovers but could they hit a major league slider, or a Clemens fastball, or be able to figure out what the heck Greg Maddux was doing with his pitches and never get more than an infield out off him.

How many Olympic decathletes who it would seem are the perfect athletes every ended up playing a pro sport after? Even a position like a wide reciever, or DB in football which is a position of near pure athletics? Not very many have though you would think many would try since the $$$ would be so much better.

But the argument about Gretzky playing Defence and Centre is not apples to oranges, or apples to lettuce. It is red delicious apples vs yellow delicious apples.

Bobby Hull coulda played defence and Doug Harvey coulda played forward. Would they have had as much success, probably a bit less since they had their positions for a reason but surely any of the 50 or 100 greatest hockey players at forward or defence could have competantly played the other position at a high level if they need to or wanted to or if fate jsut dictated they did.

 

[85highlander]

I'm not sure everyone is working with the same definition of "athlete".

I was always amazed by Gretzky because of how much he accomplished without being a superior athlete, atleast if ranking "athletes" like they do at the NFL combine for example....measuring biceps and long jumps and bench presses...

Gretzky had intangibles that were off the charts, especially extraordinary awareness on the ice that was freakish....

Tom Brady is also this sort of athlete -- the traditional physical measurables aren't there, but he just has "it", and in Gretzky's case, he had a lot of "IT"...

And while I believe he could play adequate, and perhaps even excellent defence, I don't know that his skill set (lacking the physical play) would put him in the Norris category.

 

[Sens Rule]

I'm not sure everyone is working with the same definition of "athlete".

I was always amazed by Gretzky because of how much he accomplished without being a superior athlete, atleast if ranking "athletes" like they do at the NFL combine for example....measuring biceps and long jumps and bench presses...

Gretzky had intangibles that were off the charts, especially extraordinary awareness on the ice that was freakish....

Tom Brady is also this sort of athlete -- the traditional physical measurables aren't there, but he just has "it", and in Gretzky's case, he had a lot of "IT"...

And while I believe he could play adequate, and perhaps even excellent defence, I don't know that his skill set (lacking the physical play) would put him in the Norris category.

There is a difference between being athletic and freakishly strong. Gretzky is a fantastic athlete despite not being muscle bound.

Think of a marathon runner. He looks like a skinny guy but is running a marathon athletic? It certainly is. As is running the 100 meter dash.

 

[Snap Wilson]

You are missing the point.

A person who is a great athlete chooses their sport. They then become great at that sport, no matter what it is.

That's neither a provable or disprovable theory. I'm sure there's a technical term for that sort of thing, but saying it like it's a definitive statement can be qualified as *********.

 

[BNHL]

You are missing the point.

A person who is a great athlete chooses their sport. They then become great at that sport, no matter what it is.

If Gretzky loved Tennis, he would have dominated it. If Pele was a baseball fanatic he would have been better than Willie Mays.

Don't get side tracked by "Gretzky was only 6'0" so he could NEVER have played basketball". That is not the point. The point is, great athletes dominate their sport of choice.

Sorry but I gotta disagree. There are some crossover greats but I think in the case of Gretzky,Mays,Bird,Elway or countless others they found by pure luck exactly the gift they were given. There are no stats that follow the infinite number of growing athletes that failed at every conceivable level at one sport only to excel at another.

 

[Sens Rule]

Sorry but I gotta disagree. There are some crossover greats but I think in the case of Gretzky,Mays,Bird,Elway or countless others they found by pure luck exactly the gift they were given. There are no stats that follow the infinite number of growing athletes that failed at every conceivable level at one sport only to excel at another.

But like I said above. All those guys are great at sports and are superb athletes. Bird or Mays would have been phenomenal at almost any sport compared to average people or even average athletes. But being better than 99/100 or 999/1000 people that play a sport is different than being one of the greatest players ever to play a sport. Better than 999999/1000000 or whatever.

 

[BNHL]

My further point is that that Elway,Bird and some other greats were not even the best athletes on their respective teams though they were the best at that particular sport.

 

[Sens Rule]

My further point is that that Elway,Bird and some other greats were not even the best athletes on their respective teams though they were the best at that particular sport.

I depends how you define athlete. The way I think you are defining it Gretzky would probably be the worst athlete on the 1980's Oiler teams.

 

[DCHockeyFan]

If Gretzky was god, margaritas would be good for you and everyone would ride rollercoasters to work.

 

[Wooty]

But Gretzky was only 6'0'' ... and of the Anglo/Saxon variety...seriously, how good of a basketball player could he have been? You are saying he could dominate because he was a great athelete?

He was certainly the best in the world as a centerman in hockey, but you are saying not only would he have been the best as a defenceman, but he also would excel in the NBA as a barely 6' white dude? Allen Iverson he is not....

Am I hearing/processing this correctly?

Wayne Gretzky is bigger then Alan Iverson. You know he is skinny too.
Bobby Orr was 6' tall also. He was a bit heavier at 200. Paul Coffey was the same size as Orr. Ray Borque was also 6' but much thicker at 215 lbs.

 

[Wooty]

The greatest athlete I can think of is Bo Jackson. He was a all star in 2 sports + he probably could have won gold medals in the olympics.

I am pretty sure he would have blown up the NHL if he had that training.

 

[85highlander]

Wayne Gretzky is bigger then Alan Iverson. You know he is skinny too. Bobby Orr was 6' tall also. He was a bit heavier at 200. Paul Coffey was the same size as Orr. Ray Borque was also 6' but much thicker at 215 lbs.

Yes, and that's why their athletic giftings had them playing in the NHL and not the NBA!!

Bo Jackson, if he could skate, would have been a beast on the ice --- and would Gretzky the D-man just check him off the puck?

This is way too hypothetical, I know, but ultimately these arguments just become circular depending on one's starting assumptions.

 

[Wooty]

I am 5'8". I am not going to dunk a ball because I can not palm the ball, even if I could jump that high. (you know what palming the ball is?)

BUT

If I had the skills the Kobe Bryant had, I would be an NBA all star. I would be hitting jump shots all over the place and blowing around defenders. I would not be dunnking but my size gives me agility and speed he lacks.

 

[Masao]

If Wayne Gretzky was a communist revolutionary, la revoluciòn would have been all over north america an there would be a hammer and sickle on the US flag.

 

[DCHockeyFan]

If Wayne Gretzky was buddhist, he'd sit in a cross-legged position and during that time there would be world peace.

 

[BNHL]

I depends how you define athlete. The way I think you are defining it Gretzky would probably be the worst athlete on the 1980's Oiler teams.

Well let's see I'd say athleticism is based on speed,power, strength,agility,instinct,will,balance,coordination and execution. I'd say all humans possess some level of all these characteristics and great athletes have them all at a higher level but the instinct and execution varies with the event and is limited by the mind more than the physical attributes.

 

[sunb]

Wayne Gretzky would never have been a NHL defenseman. Partly because Gretzky didn't play defense but mostly because the first mentally-sane coach Gretzky would've had most certainly would've recognized Gretzky's offensive genius and converted him to a forward position.

 

[BNHL]

Wayne Gretzky would never have been a NHL defenseman. Partly because Gretzky didn't play defense but mostly because the first mentally-sane coach Gretzky would've had most certainly would've recognized Gretzky's offensive genius and converted him to a forward position.

"If"!

 

[BobbyAwe]

Gretzky would be incapable of playing the position because he wouldn't fight along the boards or even attempt to clear the crease.

 

[Wooty]

Gretzky would be incapable of playing the position because he wouldn't fight along the boards or even attempt to clear the crease.

How do you know this?

 

[arrbez]

How do you know this?

gotta admit, he was a bit of a weenie

 

[Wooty]

gotta admit, he was a bit of a weenie

Weenie means one of the greatest hockey players of all time?
I am not sure what this has to do with the poster above stating things as fact without any justification.

 

[arrbez]

Weenie means one of the greatest hockey players of all time?
I am not sure what this has to do with the poster above stating things as fact without any justification.

For the life of me, I can't see Gretzky holding his own in the corners (which even the defencemen in the Lidstrom mold have to do). He wouldn't have been as good a defenceman as he was a forward, his attributes just aren't geared to that position.

 

[BNHL]

For the life of me, I can't see Gretzky holding his own in the corners (which even the defencemen in the Lidstrom mold have to do). He wouldn't have been as good a defenceman as he was a forward, his attributes just aren't geared to that position.

I think Gretzky would admit that himself.

 

[BobbyAwe]

How do you know this?

How do I know this? Did you ever see him play?