Is Wayne Gretzky Getting Underrated on This Board?

[bigbuffalo313]

I'm saying that a player born in 1961 could get a bigger edge by living and training professionally than one born 1981 or even more so 1991.

So because he was in an era with worse technology, even though he had no advantage over anyone else in that era, he wouldn't be able to tear it up if he had today's advantages, which would give him the same advantage that everyone else today has? He would be in the same position, why wouldn't he be able to dominate?

 

[authentic]

Whenever someone tells me that Wayne Gretzky was simply a product of a high scoring environment I hit em with one of these.

Check it out.. My favorite example:

86-87 Scoring leaders:
1. Wayne Gretzky-EDM 183
2. Jari Kurri-EDM 108
3. Mario Lemieux-PIT 107
Mark Messier-EDM 107
5. Doug Gilmour-STL 105


But.. But..anyone could dominate that era

Then why did Gretzky score 75pts+ more than #2 and the rest of the field scored at today's scoring rate?

Lol...not quite...

He absolutely was the best of his time, and I think people get the impression that people don't realize how great he was when they say he wouldn't be the best today as he was back then, like myself. It's not hard to tell and he has even admitted as much himself, the fact of the matter is no athlete has ever been better in terms of actual skill and ability than the best athlete 30 years later... he is the most statistically dominant athlete of all time though and the way he managed to dominate despite his physical stature combined with the fact that he didn't have any overwhelming physical skill even compared to guys of his own time is absolutely unbelievable and a testament to the genius he was.

 

[Ms Maggie]

And he also put up those points wearing cinder blocks for skates and using a redwood branch for a stick. I often see "Put him in today's NHL". Yes put him in today's NHL with all the new training/diets etc and give him all the new equipment and he would tear it up just like he did back then.

I don't disagree but that's not the whole story. Gretzky played against players who were his contemporaries and had the same equipment, training, diet etc as he did.

We can only hypothesize how any of those guys would do today. Gretzky is great because he was so much better than his peers. That's enough. The rest is speculation.

 

[dr robbie]

If anyone ever underrates the Great One, thepanther will be there to help remind them :p

 

[mrhockey193195]

I don't disagree but that's not the whole story. Gretzky played against players who were his contemporaries and had the same equipment, training, diet etc as he did.

We can only hypothesize how any of those guys would do today. Gretzky is great because he was so much better than his peers. That's enough. The rest is speculation.

Gretzky, at 37 years old, on a horrible team with a washed up John MacLean as his best forward teammate, with a beat up back, in the height of the dead puck era, scored 90 points - leading the league in a assists, tied for 3rd in points (1 behind prime Forsberg for second, 12 behind prime Jagr for first).

It's ludicrous to think he wouldn't dominate in this era.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Pretty sure this is in response to a couple people saying Gretzky was underwhelming.

 

[authentic]

Gretzky, at 37 years old, on a horrible team with a washed up John MacLean as his best forward teammate, with a beat up back, in the height of the dead puck era, scored 90 points - leading the league in a assists, tied for 3rd in points (1 behind prime Forsberg for second, 12 behind prime Jagr for first).

It's ludicrous to think he wouldn't dominate in this era.

Depends what you consider dominating. I personally think at best he would top out around the same amount of points today's best do, and that's if he grew up and trained in this era. Gretzky in the 80s was 6 feet tall and 165 pounds, physically weak and not overly fast compared to the elite smaller guys today. There is no way a guy with the physical stature, strength, and lack of speed he had could dominate the way the game is played today. Also though, the game today is very lopsided towards the physical aspect and hockey sense doesn't shine as much as it once did, which is a shame. I think it may be headed in a better direction.

 

[LeafFever]

Depends what you consider dominating. I personally think at best he would top out around the same amount of points today's best do, and that's if he grew up and trained in this era. Gretzky in the 80s was 6 feet tall and 165 pounds, physically weak and not overly fast compared to the elite smaller guys today. There is no way a guy with the physical stature, strength, and lack of speed he had could dominate the way the game is played today. Also though, the game today is very lopsided towards the physical aspect and hockey sense doesn't shine as much as it once did, which is a shame. I think it may be headed in a better direction.

Gretzky had the best hockey IQ in history. He was the smartest player ever. He'd be fine.
If anything, smaller guys are starting again to have success in the NHL.

 

[Statto]

Depends what you consider dominating. I personally think at best he would top out around the same amount of points today's best do, and that's if he grew up and trained in this era. Gretzky in the 80s was 6 feet tall and 165 pounds, physically weak and not overly fast compared to the elite smaller guys today. There is no way a guy with the physical stature, strength, and lack of speed he had could dominate the way the game is played today. Also though, the game today is very lopsided towards the physical aspect and hockey sense doesn't shine as much as it once did, which is a shame. I think it may be headed in a better direction.

But with modern training he'd be 15lbs heavier with more explosive skating. He wouldn't have followed the same physical development. A modern diet would almost certainly have made him a couple of inches taller, at least. If you don't believe me look at how quickly average heights have changed so quickly in countries adopting a modern western diet.

Hockey sense doesn't shine in the modern game as hockey sense doesn't develop in the modern game. Players are slaves to the systems coaches want them to play.

Gretzky is a long way ahead of any current player.

 

[Albatros]

So because he was in an era with worse technology, even though he had no advantage over anyone else in that era, he wouldn't be able to tear it up if he had today's advantages, which would give him the same advantage that everyone else today has? He would be in the same position, why wouldn't he be able to dominate?

No, his era still had a lot of players that didn't live like professional athletes.

 

[DitchMarner]

Depends what you consider dominating. I personally think at best he would top out around the same amount of points today's best do, and that's if he grew up and trained in this era. Gretzky in the 80s was 6 feet tall and 165 pounds, physically weak and not overly fast compared to the elite smaller guys today. There is no way a guy with the physical stature, strength, and lack of speed he had could dominate the way the game is played today. Also though, the game today is very lopsided towards the physical aspect and hockey sense doesn't shine as much as it once did, which is a shame. I think it may be headed in a better direction.

Who cares?


The measure of greatness is transcendence. Benefiting from technological advantages and being a byproduct of the evolution of a sport or thing aren't things that make someone greater than one who was more transcendent during his own time.


Is Bill Nye the Sciene Guy a "greater" intellectual than someone like Plato? He probably knows more about the natural world and whatnot, but that's because science has advanced so much since ancient times and he's been able to absorb knowledge that has been discovered. If it hadn't been for thinkers like Plato and Socrates, though, we might not be where we are now scientifically.

Similarly, Gretzky had no technological advantages during his own than anyone else and he simply dominated in a way players today don't relative to their peers. Therefore, he is to be considered greater than any current player.

You can say guys are faster, they skate better, they train harder etc, but if it hadn't been for previous generations, the sport wouldn't be at the point it's at now.

Gretzky may or not be as dominant as if he was playing now, but if it hadn't been for the driving forward of the evolution of hockey that he and other previous greats caused, modern players wouldn't be what they are now.

Therefore, if you eliminate him and other 80s and pre-80s greats from the equation, we don't get to the point we're at now to begin with.

You don't give someone more credit than someone from an older generation because of the extent to which they benefit indirectly from evolution.

 

[Tofveve]

I agree, I think he's vastly underrated on here

 

[DitchMarner]

No, his era still had a lot of players that didn't live like professional athletes.

That's their own fault. They could have.

If it hadn't been for the ones who did, not as many would now, either.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Depends what you consider dominating. I personally think at best he would top out around the same amount of points today's best do, and that's if he grew up and trained in this era. Gretzky in the 80s was 6 feet tall and 165 pounds, physically weak and not overly fast compared to the elite smaller guys today. There is no way a guy with the physical stature, strength, and lack of speed he had could dominate the way the game is played today. Also though, the game today is very lopsided towards the physical aspect and hockey sense doesn't shine as much as it once did, which is a shame. I think it may be headed in a better direction.

Where are you getting this idea Gretzky wasn't fast? He wasn't Pavel Bure, but his skating (comparatively speaking) was about on par with a guy like Patrick Kane today.

I question how much you watched him play if you think his skating speed was a weakness. Just because his skating stride looked ugly didn't mean his actual speed/quickness was bad.

Actually, I question whether anyone who says Gretzky wouldn't dominate today had seen him play, period. And no, Youtube clips or the dulled rememberings of a 5 year old at the time don't count.

 

[KidLine93]

So you're saying that if he was born 20 years later, he wouldn't have the same advantages as players today?

No he's saying the gap between the best players 30 years ago and the fringe players is much wider than the gap between todays superstars and todays fringe players. The worst players in the league today are still pretty incredible athletes.

Now that everyone takes the off-season much more serious it has improved the bottom line and closed the gap on the superstars who would be doing that anyways. the guys back in the day who used to act like professionals year round got to stomp on out of shape chainsmokers at the beginning of the year

 

[Oneiro]

For all the training, conditioning and the video sessions that players do these days, there is a cerebral gap that just doesn't ever get crossed when it comes to why Gretzky, Crosby, etc. are the way they are and why lesser players are who they are. It's not just true in sports but in all pursuits of life.

Gretzky would still dominate today. The talk about training and nutrition is a smokescreen from the real debate, which is how a player develops and embodies his perspective on the game.

 

[karnige]

I agree, I think he's vastly underrated on here

I think so. Seems like some of the younger gen assume it was an era of ****** goalies and no defense so his numbers are inflated.

 

[authentic]

But with modern training he'd be 15lbs heavier with more explosive skating. He wouldn't have followed the same physical development. A modern diet would almost certainly have made him a couple of inches taller, at least. If you don't believe me look at how quickly average heights have changed so quickly in countries adopting a modern western diet.

Hockey sense doesn't shine in the modern game as hockey sense doesn't develop in the modern game. Players are slaves to the systems coaches want them to play.

Gretzky is a long way ahead of any current player.

Well if the bolded is true (which it isn't, it develops it just isn't as much of a factor as it used to be in comparison to physical skills and attributes, IMO) then Gretzky wouldn't be better in some ways then? No, he would still have that sense, the greats of all eras have it including today (see Crosby, McDavid, Kane, Karlsson, etc.) and I agree he would be heavier (he reached 185 by the end of his career) and whether or not he would be taller wouldn't matter, 6'0 is basically perfect hockey height. He would be a better more powerful skater with a more powerful shot, and he would be stronger, how much more is all speculation though, and I still think with his natural build he would be in tough to dominate guys like Crosby, Ovechkin and McDavid, etc. (no way would he have their skating ability or strength).

 

[TheAngryHank]

There is a thread in the history segment of this forum that should be manditory reading about Wayne.

The argument that everyone is bigger/ stronger/ faster now is kind of funny. When Wayne was playing guess what? Everyone was bigger/stronger/faster than he was.

 

[authentic]

Where are you getting this idea Gretzky wasn't fast? He wasn't Pavel Bure, but his skating (comparatively speaking) was about on par with a guy like Patrick Kane today.

I question how much you watched him play if you think his skating speed was a weakness. Just because his skating stride looked ugly didn't mean his actual speed/quickness was bad.

Actually, I question whether anyone who says Gretzky wouldn't dominate today had seen him play, period. And no, Youtube clips or the dulled rememberings of a 5 year old at the time don't count.

How old are you? If you're not older than 50 and don't watch classic full length games religiously than I've probably easily watched more full length Gretzky games than you have. I never said he was slow in his era, I said compared to the best skaters today, and how much quicker he would be today is all speculation. My whole point is there are number of people who believe Gretzky as he was would absolutely dominate Crosby and whoever else today with a few weeks getting used to the new league, and that is complete nonsense.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Depends what you consider dominating. I personally think at best he would top out around the same amount of points today's best do, and that's if he grew up and trained in this era. Gretzky in the 80s was 6 feet tall and 165 pounds, physically weak and not overly fast compared to the elite smaller guys today. There is no way a guy with the physical stature, strength, and lack of speed he had could dominate the way the game is played today. Also though, the game today is very lopsided towards the physical aspect and hockey sense doesn't shine as much as it once did, which is a shame. I think it may be headed in a better direction.

Gretzky is listed by hockey reference as 6 feet, 185 points. Slightly larger than Patrick Kane and quite a bit larger than Martin St. Louis. Somehow, I don't think he'd have a problem dominating in today's league...

 

[scrubadam]

And he also put up those points wearing cinder blocks for skates and using a redwood branch for a stick. I often see "Put him in today's NHL". Yes put him in today's NHL with all the new training/diets etc and give him all the new equipment and he would tear it up just like he did back then.

wonder what he would look like.

probably have legs as thick as trees. i doubt he would be that lanky skinny kid we saw in the 80s with all of todays training techniques.

lets not forget how much of the game was built on his shoulders. take him out of the 80s and maybe there is still a full 2 minute PP. maybe the wrap around doesnt exsist etc...

 

[Albatros]

That's their own fault. They could have.

Sure, but it means that the NHL is more competitive and the margins smaller today.

 

[TeeTee]

People underrate Gretzky because he wasnt flashy. He didnt have the moves of Mario or the speed of McDavid. As a kid, I remember reading the papers and always looking for the box scores to see how many points he scored the night before. It was remarkable to see him accumulate points at the pace he did.

I do remember hearing that Edmonton was very liberal with handing out assists. I know nothing about that, though. Curious if others know more?

 

[authentic]

Gretzky is listed by hockey reference as 6 feet, 185 points. Slightly larger than Patrick Kane and quite a bit larger than Martin St. Louis. Somehow, I don't think he'd have a problem dominating in today's league...

Yes, as I mentioned he was that weight when he retired. In the 80s he was under 170 pounds, pretty clear to tell by watching him he didn't weigh that much then. Also St. Louis' legs are bigger than your body and he's a physical freak in terms of strength, he's just short. Even Kane today is above 180 and he's 5'10, don't try to convince yourself he doesn't have much better overall body and especially leg strength than Gretzky did.