Is Gretzky the most dominant athlete ever in any major sport?

BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Registered User
Feb 15, 2010
1,570
3
kareem's career scoring record is breakable. kobe almost certainly won't, but you could see that before he tore his achilles he had a shot. does lebron have a shot? 8 more years of 2,000 points a season (roughly 25 points/game) and he tops it. he'd be 37. durant could conceivably pass it before he's 35.

no, wilt's single season record is almost 100% unbreakable barring major major rule changes. but i don't think gretzky's 215 or 2,857 are any more breakable than wilt's without fundamentally changing the game. relative to their peers, i think they were about as staggeringly dominant statistically.

but just to think about this logically, it would take one crazy day to top wilt's 100. things happen, things line up. kobe hit 82. it could much more easily happen than topping wilt's 50 over 82 games, or topping gretzky's 215 over 82 games. but by the same token, you could make the argument that someone could catch lightning in a bottle for 82 games and average 50, or score 215, a lot more easily than somebody could put up 2,857 over an entire career. that's 142 points/20 years. first of all, how many guys play 20 years? second, there have only been 23 seasons in NHL history of 142 or more points, and 11 of those were gretzky himself. you'd have to average 142 points a season, and putting up 142 has only been done 12 times by guys who are not gretzky. if you add up the 20 highest scoring seasons by players who aren't gretzky, you just barely top his career total (2,979).

Great points about Gretzky vadim. Averaging 142 points a year for 20 years is truly mind boggling! It's why Gretzky is the most dominant team sport athlete ever!

But Gretzky said ssomething very important and very true. He said "everything in life is timing". He was on the PERFECT team at the PERFECT TIME! Be honest, if Gretzky played today he'd be lucky to get 120 points a season instead of those 200 point seasons he had! The stars aligned perfectly for Gretz to play with just the right team at just the right time!
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,758
4,588
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
The arrogance of some "soccer experts" here is truly mind-boggling. We are not talking polls. We are talking SHEER NUMBERS.

If scoring in the Pele era was so high, why didn't everybody score as much as he did (the "Bossy / Gretzky Argument"). This is ridiculous.

I'm only taking international game, because the playing field is much more even, and we don't have to account for the differences in national championships.

Again:

Maradona scored 34 goals in 91 matches, 1 World Cup gold + 1 silver
Eisebio: 41 goals in 64 matches, zero World Cup golds.
Messi: 42 goals in 93 games for national team, zero World Cup golds
Cruyff: 33 goals in 48 games for national team, zero World Cup golds

Pele: 77 goals in 92 games for national team, THREE World Cup golds. Pele DESTROYS everybody, and not by small margins either.

The only person who scored at a higher rate was Muller with 68 goals in 62 appearances + 1 gold. But he had other issues

Bring me the FACTS! Cite Maradona's assists if you want to. Until then, you can argue until cows come home. You have no ground to stand upon.
 

Sprague Cleghorn

User Registered
Aug 14, 2013
3,515
502
Edmonton, KY
Great points about Gretzky vadim. Averaging 142 points a year for 20 years is truly mind boggling! It's why Gretzky is the most dominant team sport athlete ever!

But Gretzky said ssomething very important and very true. He said "everything in life is timing". He was on the PERFECT team at the PERFECT TIME! Be honest, if Gretzky played today he'd be lucky to get 120 points a season instead of those 200 point seasons he had! The stars aligned perfectly for Gretz to play with just the right team at just the right time!

Gretzky's second last season (37 years old) in 1997-98, in the heart of the DPE, he scored 90 points and tied for third in scoring. Not to mention he also played on a terrible NY Rangers team. The GPG in 1997-98 was 5.28 compared to 5.49 last year, 0.21 lower. Also, 37 year old Gretzky only finished 12% less than prime Jagr in scoring.

Sorry but I have trouble believing that if Gretzky was in his prime, healthy and playing on a better team that he'd have trouble adding 30+ points to his stats.
 

Fish on The Sand

Untouchable
Feb 28, 2002
60,203
1,904
Canada
Gretzky's second last season (37 years old) in 1997-98, in the heart of the DPE, he scored 90 points and tied for third in scoring. Not to mention he also played on a terrible NY Rangers team. The GPG in 1997-98 was 5.28 compared to 5.49 last year, 0.21 lower. Also, 37 year old Gretzky only finished 12% less than prime Jagr in scoring.

Sorry but I have trouble believing that if Gretzky was in his prime, healthy and playing on a better team that he'd have trouble adding 30+ points to his stats.

1998 was not the "heart of the DPE". The DPE didn't really begin until the new millennium.
 

bambamcam4ever

107 and counting
Feb 16, 2012
14,301
6,344
Gretzky's second last season (37 years old) in 1997-98, in the heart of the DPE, he scored 90 points and tied for third in scoring. Not to mention he also played on a terrible NY Rangers team. The GPG in 1997-98 was 5.28 compared to 5.49 last year, 0.21 lower. Also, 37 year old Gretzky only finished 12% less than prime Jagr in scoring.

Sorry but I have trouble believing that if Gretzky was in his prime, healthy and playing on a better team that he'd have trouble adding 30+ points to his stats.

Scoring was actually at 5.34 last year but I agree that Gretzky would probably get more than 120.
 

Anton13

Registered User
Sep 3, 2012
264
109
Finland
The arrogance of some "soccer experts" here is truly mind-boggling. We are not talking polls. We are talking SHEER NUMBERS.

If scoring in the Pele era was so high, why didn't everybody score as much as he did (the "Bossy / Gretzky Argument"). This is ridiculous.

I'm only taking international game, because the playing field is much more even, and we don't have to account for the differences in national championships.

Again:

Maradona scored 34 goals in 91 matches, 1 World Cup gold + 1 silver
Eisebio: 41 goals in 64 matches, zero World Cup golds.
Messi: 42 goals in 93 games for national team, zero World Cup golds
Cruyff: 33 goals in 48 games for national team, zero World Cup golds

Pele: 77 goals in 92 games for national team, THREE World Cup golds. Pele DESTROYS everybody, and not by small margins either.

The only person who scored at a higher rate was Muller with 68 goals in 62 appearances + 1 gold. But he had other issues

Bring me the FACTS! Cite Maradona's assists if you want to. Until then, you can argue until cows come home. You have no ground to stand upon.

Looking at raw numbers like that in soccer is ridiculous but since you are so keen on them let's take a closer look. Pele scored 12 world cup goals which gives him the 5th spot on all time list and his goals per game average is 0.86 which is 25th best among players who have scored at least 5 world cup goals. It seems that Pele was only good at scoring in less important international games and Sandor Kocsis is the GOAT. :sarcasm:

Seriously, I don't think Pele belongs in this thread. He has a case for the greatest off all time but it's very debatable. Maradona is an equally good choice and Messi might be some day.
 

jekoh

Registered User
Jun 8, 2004
4,416
4
As a matter of fact, Maradona spent 6 seasons from 1978 until mid 1984 with Argentinos Juniors/Boca/Barcelona. During these 6 seasons, he averaged .79 goals per game and a ridiculous amount of assists that are not recorded but all posted on youtube. During this 6 year stretch, no one from the argentinian/spain/german/france/italy/english league had better numbers than maradona. Only zico had a higher goals per game and it was in the brazilian regional domestic league.
During the same 6 seasons, Zico's 0.81 gpg was in Brazil's national league (not Rio's state league), and then one season in the Italian league. Outside of 1979, his numbers from the state league during that period were in fact very similar, as was his Copa Libertadores' gpg.

If he stayed in argentina/spain, he would have continued to put up monstrous numbers, that wouldnt make him any better as a player.
Indeed, I don't get the obsession with numbers.

From 1988-1991: Higher stats than both ruud guulit & lothar matthaus.
Are you seriously comparing Maradona's numbers to Matthäus, a defensive midfielder? :laugh:
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,076
14,579
i've always felt more like mario was wilt. insane statistically peak, physical gifts that were flat out unfair, liked to publicly whine, threatened to/did quit because defenses got too rough with him, won twice but probably should have won more, had a giant chip on his shoulder about his closest natural rival (russell/gretzky).

i don't know that anybody else is comparable to anybody else, but i feel good about mario and wilt. i also like shaq as lindros, if things had gone differently for the big E.

You could be right about Lemieux more like Wilt - i'm hardly an expert of Basketball.

My point was though - there is no Gretzky to the Wilt/Kareem/Jordan trio. All three somewhat have cases for best ever (some stronger than others). Similar in hockey, all three of Lemieux, Howe, and Orr would have cases for best ever, but Gretzky trumps them all.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
During the same 6 seasons, Zico's 0.81 gpg was in Brazil's national league (not Rio's state league), and then one season in the Italian league. Outside of 1979, his numbers from the state league during that period were in fact very similar, as was his Copa Libertadores' gpg.


Indeed, I don't get the obsession with numbers.


Are you seriously comparing Maradona's numbers to Matthäus, a defensive midfielder? :laugh:

Mathaus became a defensive midfielder later on in his career. Did you watch him play from 1985-1991? You think he was putting up all those big numbers at defensive midfield? When mathhaus won his ballon d'or, he was much further up the pitch. When mathaus played for internazionale, he was clearly much further up the field than where a defensive midfielder is supposed to be, i have tapes of his games.

Zico only played 81 games in Brazil's national league during that 6 year stretch, so his sample size is puny. Regardless, throughout his career, he scored far fewer goals in brazil' national league.

Zico had that one big seasons in italy, but he played center forward and only recorded 2 assists because of that. The next season he switched to attacking midfield and put up much fewer numbers. Zico's numbers in the national league from 1973-79 were way lower, I am more than confident he switched positions from 1980-82 and played center forward in the national league. I'll try and find more footage of him in those years to confirm it.
 
Last edited:

jekoh

Registered User
Jun 8, 2004
4,416
4
Mathaus became a defensive midfielder later on in his career. Did you watch him play from 1985-1991? You think he was putting up all those big numbers at defensive midfield? When mathhaus won his ballon d'or, he was much further up the pitch. When mathaus played for internazionale, he was clearly much further up the field than where a defensive midfielder is supposed to be, i have tapes of his games.
Ok, central midfielder of box-to-box midfielder if you like, but by the mid-80s Matthäus wasn't an offensive midfielder like Maradona or Zico by any stretch of the imagination.
He scored more goals than you expect from a player playing his position because of his lethal long-range shot.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
Ok, central midfielder of box-to-box midfielder if you like, but by the mid-80s Matthäus wasn't an offensive midfielder like Maradona or Zico by any stretch of the imagination.
He scored more goals than you expect from a player playing his position because of his lethal long-range shot.

In the 1990 world cup, he was box to box. In the 1990-91 season for fc internazionale, he was an attacking midfielder playing far up the field. I have seen the games. I also highly doubt he was a box to box midfielder when he scored 17 goals in 26 games for bayern munich in 1988. Soccer isnt simple like that, players switch positions based on formations all the time.

Regardless of the position, its how you are used on the team. For example, zico has alot of international goals because of the formation of Brazil. They had two wingers on the side, with no center forward playing in the middle. Thats why Zico was scoring lots of goals for his national team, he was spear heading the attacks up the middle, while socrates was the playmaker getting the assists.

Its not about the position on paper, its how you are used by your team. Zidane is an attacking midfielder, but he plays nothing like platini or maradona.
 

FrozenJagrt

Registered User
Dec 16, 2009
10,446
4,488
I don't know that looking at career numbers is the only way to explain how dominant an athlete was. A lot of it is how they went about doing it.

Take boxing for example. Mike Tyson's career numbers take him out of discussion for greatest of all time, and they should. But when you look at what he was doing early on, the way he was beating his opponents, that stretch to me was one of the most dominant performances by any athlete in my lifetime. That is how I view dominance in the end, and it's why I take Hasek over Brodeur and Lemieux over Messier every day of the week.

It's also why I believe guys like Wilt and Jordan are right there with Gretzky. Gretzky had, in my opinion, the better overall career. But at their most dominant, Wilt and Jordan were right there with him.
 

crobro

Registered User
Aug 8, 2008
3,873
720
For 8 years during his rein Larry Holmes took on ALL challengers and utterly destroyed them.the boxing hierarchy took away his titles because of his Marciano jockstrap comment.joe Louis fought bums most of his reign.
 

Brooklanders*

Registered User
Feb 26, 2012
6,818
2
Its truly amazing how underrated Super Mario is.
That being said I take Ruth over Wayne.
I know nothing about cricket or soccer.
 

Uncle Rotter

Registered User
May 11, 2010
5,974
1,037
Kelowna, B.C.

shazariahl

Registered User
Apr 7, 2009
2,030
59
Great points about Gretzky vadim. Averaging 142 points a year for 20 years is truly mind boggling! It's why Gretzky is the most dominant team sport athlete ever!

But Gretzky said ssomething very important and very true. He said "everything in life is timing". He was on the PERFECT team at the PERFECT TIME! Be honest, if Gretzky played today he'd be lucky to get 120 points a season instead of those 200 point seasons he had! The stars aligned perfectly for Gretz to play with just the right team at just the right time!

Maybe so, but the same could be said of many athletes (Ruth playing when he did, for example). Fact is, Gretzky was so dominant they had to make rule changes to slow his team down. He holds every major record there is for his sport in his position. He has more assists than anyone else has points. It's pretty crazy, when you really think about it.
 

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,796
754
Helsinki, Finland
For 8 years during his rein Larry Holmes took on ALL challengers and utterly destroyed them.the boxing hierarchy took away his titles because of his Marciano jockstrap comment.joe Louis fought bums most of his reign.

Too bad that those challengers were not usually very good. I mean, if Joe Louis mostly fought bums, then what did Larry Holmes do?

And please don't even try to say that "he beat Muhammad Ali". It's no wonder that the arrival of Mike Tyson was seen as a huge 'shot in the arm', since the heavyweight division was in such a sorry state during the first part of the 1980s.

I agree that Holmes is underrated, though.

Take boxing for example. Mike Tyson's career numbers take him out of discussion for greatest of all time, and they should. But when you look at what he was doing early on, the way he was beating his opponents, that stretch to me was one of the most dominant performances by any athlete in my lifetime. That is how I view dominance in the end, and it's why I take Hasek over Brodeur and Lemieux over Messier every day of the week.

A fair comment. Tyson was certainly an awesome destroyer in 1986-89. If he had a stronger character... who knows?

Hypothetically speaking, I would've loved to see Tyson vs. 1970s George Foreman or Tyson vs. Joe Frazier. But I think that Muhammad Ali would have always beaten him. Even though Ali had problems with certain fighters (Frazier, Norton), he always defeated 'destroyers' à la Foreman and Sonny Liston. Having said that, Tyson was much faster and more skilled than either of them.

--

Another dominant boxer who deserves a mention: Ricardo López (minimumweight/light flyweight champion) - 51 wins, 1 draw (later "avenged"), 0 losses. Was quite a knockout artist too (38 KO's). Undefeated for about 16 years (1985-2001) until he retired!
Unfortunately, as it is often in boxing, the lower the weightclass, the lesser the interest.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->