Is Gordie Howe Overrated?

Gordie Howe. By far!

His greatness lies in his seemingly never-ending career. If he retired 15 years earlier nobody would even mention him in any top list. Not to mention he peaked in the 50s when nobody could even play hockey (or any sport really).

The true big 4 is:

Gretzky
Orr
Lemieux
Hasek

I know Canadian extremists will get mad but yes, there are non Canadians in the top 10.

I hope you don't ban me because I am not trolling, this post is dead serious.

 

Gordie Howe is still a top 4 player all time whether he retires at 36 or 51.

 

“In the 50’s when nobody could even play hockey.”

Now that’s an ignorant statement that shows a complete lack of knowledge and respect for the history of the game.

I don’t want to come across as too harsh here, but I seriously suggest you do some proper research before you make statements such as this. We’re all entitled to our own opinions but this just seems baseless and it’s as if you’re trying to get a rise out of people.

And I suppose you succeeded with me at least, so good job.

 

>played in a non-international league with 6 teams when hockey was 10 times less competitive
>still didn't get higher PPG during his peak years than many many players who played in way more competitive eras
Lmao!

 

Sports weren't taken very seriously back then. Come on! All of us played some sport when we were kids. Do you think people born in the 20s/30s had the same opportunities? All sports have their legends, it is the same with Pele. He on the other hand at least had insane stats for his time. He is still quite overrated tbh.

Look at Bobrov. Outscored Kharlamov by a mile while playing 'pro' football. Sports were a joke back then. One thing I have to give huge props to Howe for is that he kept improving and had amazing genetics which allowed him to play at such age.

 

Strictly out of curiosity, OP..how old are you?

 

If you'd like to be taken seriously, please try to post in a more serious fashion.

Ignoring the content, your posts "read" as trolling. "Canadian extremists", "Lmao!", "I am not trolling"...they don't read like a serious poster.

No offense.

 

I am in my mid 20s. It does not matter though to be honest. Even Jagr said that the game has gotten a lot harder since the 90s and the 90s were extremely competitive! All the top Eastern Bloc talents came in, not to mention Swedish/Finnish/American all got quite good by then.

 

Well I have been browsing this site for a while now and kept seeing things like:

Makarov is top 60
Jagr isn't in the top 25
Naming 5 goaltenders better than Hasek
Saying Tretiak would not even make the top 10 most legendary goaltenders
etc.

I think 'Canadian extremist' is an appropriate term here.

 

Alright, we have your thesis. Now what is the argument and evidence to back it up?

I'll entertain your assertion if there's data behind it (i.e. his production relative to his peers, or something indicating his last decade was just compiling, etc). Upon what do you rest your case?

 

And I think it's not. Don't use it.

Provide conversation if you'd like to. Don't provide bombast, and don't give us hot takes.

 

I already did. His scoring wasn't top4, not to mention he played in an era where creating a substantial gap in skill was way easier due to poor training. Look at Gretzky. Even in the 80s training was sub-par (compared to today), so he stood out even more so due to his super talent.

Why do you think I don't think he belongs there? It is obviously the stats! Howe never truly stood out, not even in the noncompetitive 50s.

 

The use of greentext on any place other than 4chan may be the biggest red flag in internet history.

 

Howe never truly stood out in the 50’s?

5 Hart’s, 5 Art Ross trophies, and 4x leading the NHL in goals says otherwise. Also 7x a first team All-Star.

Gordie Howe more or less WAS the 50’s along with Maurice Richard and Jean Beliveau.

 

How exactly does one quantify a sport’s competitiveness, and it’s multipliers?

 

And if we assume that all competitive levels are non-negative, then how can something be "10 times less" than another thing?

 

These trophies don't mean that much today. There were 6 teams for god's sake. No international players. How can these guys compare to the modern day stars? By standing out I meant having a significant gap between him and the rest of the field. Nobody got even close to Gretzky besides Lemieux in the 80s.

 

You shouldn't take everything literally. But really, can anyone look up the number of registered Canadian players for the 50s(or 60s/70s)? Obviously a sport gets more competitive the more people compete in it. A child needs to train a lot more today than in the 40s to make it into the NHL.

 

Here, we've reached an interesting topic (and it seems like the crux of your thesis is the competition level for Howe versus other stars). Can we proceed along these lines?

 

So scoring 1.24 points-per-game for 4 seasons from 1951-1954 when the next best player is at 0.94 isn't a significant gap?

 

I thought people putting 66 ahead of Howe was bad.... now he's apparently not even top 4 because 1950s?

 

In the early 50's Howe's gap over the field was 2nd only to Gretzky's in the history of the game.

 

Sure it is a decent gap, though 1.24 isn't that extremely impressive (for a top4 ever).

1970-71 (1st and 2nd statistically best defense)
Orr - 1.78 PPG (+124)
Tremblay - 0.82 PPG (+16)

1981-82
Gretzky - 2.75
Coffey - 1.58

These are really insane differences.

How is Howe better than Hasek?


Gyazo - be1d45abe003e7a9029f36a8ab60c4cb.png

 

Come on, nobody can be this ignorant about the game.

 

I do agree with you to an extent. Back then in the 1950's and 1960's, there weren't any elite hockey players from BC, the Maritimes and the United States, let alone foreign europeans. 85% of the overall talent pool back then was simply Ontario and Quebec. The overall talent pool of registered hockey players was minuscule. If Gordie Howe was playing today I have doubts he would be considered a notch above Crosby, Ovechkin and Mcdavid.