TheAngryHank
Expert
- May 28, 2008
- 18,011
- 6,667
Didn't know Stevie Wonder was a member here.I've seen people claim that Prime Forsberg and Prime Datsyuk were better than Gretzky, on this site.
Didn't know Stevie Wonder was a member here.I've seen people claim that Prime Forsberg and Prime Datsyuk were better than Gretzky, on this site.
You see, the thing is, that we don't have to imagine what Gretzky did to become the best. He actually did it. Any argument for Lemieux being better than him starts with what if's. In reality, Gretzky is the GOAT and it isn't close. It doesn't matter what may have happened in some made up fantasy world where Mario was an Oiler, or Gretzky played for Hartford, or any other hypothetical that really didn't happen.Let me know when he does that while fighting cancer. Imagine a 27 year old Lemieux in 84-85 on the oilers. Lmao the devastation...
The thing thou is that Gretzky always was the better player when they actually met head to head. He was just more competitive. Heck even in All Star games he gave it his all. That is why in the end he is the best of all times. Mario never had that killer instinct but an immense talent.I've always thought of Mario as Gretzky on roids, like what Mario did in 93 will forever be the most impressive season in all of sports in my opinion. 69 goals and 160 points in 60 games, while playing with a destroyed back and coming back from radiation treatment; winning the Hart, Art Ross, and Pearson/Lindsay. It doesn't even seem humanly possible.
I'll admit I have a bias in this discussion, I grew up idolizing Mario but I didn't witness Wayne's peak with the Oilers first hand and base my opinion of him on footage and discussions I've had with guys that were there for it. I mean no disrespect to Wayne, he has the greatest career of all time, you could even argue in sports history spanning the major North American sports. I just see Mario as the superior player head to head.
He was healthy in the 80's and he didn't crush Oilers. For some reason the what ifs for Mario has taken his 90's ailments and extrapolated them on the 80's.I would love to know how Lemieux unhindered by injuries in his prime would have done on the oilers in the early mid 80's. Something tells me 215 points would be smashed
27 year old Lemieux had a great team around him. 56-21-7. He had Stevens and Tocchet as wingers, with Francis and Jagr on the second line.Let me know when he does that while fighting cancer. Imagine a 27 year old Lemieux in 84-85 on the oilers. Lmao the devastation...
To be fair, I don't know if they had seen Gretzky play... either way, they could have been Stevie.Didn't know Stevie Wonder was a member here.
Except Lemieux did it after two months of intense chemotherapy. So no, it's not really the same thing at all.
Let me know when he does that while fighting cancer. Imagine a 27 year old Lemieux in 84-85 on the oilers. Lmao the devastation...
Hmmm... Literally Gretzky than post age 25 routinely out scored by his peers. Put it this way. For 16 straight years only Gretzky and Lemieux won the art Ross. Do the same for Howe.
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?
sGood for him for beating cancer and remaining elite. That doesn't make his season any more dominant. A 27 year old Lemieux would do great things on the 85 Oilers but would not score more than Gretz did.
Riiiiiiiight. So because Howe didn't win the scoring race every single year he is inferior to Lemieux (who never won more than two in a row and who has the same # of scoring titles as Howe). Sucks Howe couldn't beat those scrubs Richard, Geoffrion and Hull !!
*Even tho he won 4 in a row.....
Good for him for beating cancer and remaining elite. That doesn't make his season any more dominant. A 27 year old Lemieux would do great things on the 85 Oilers but would not score more than Gretz did.
Riiiiiiiight. So because Howe didn't win the scoring race every single year he is inferior to Lemieux (who never won more than two in a row and who has the same # of scoring titles as Howe). Sucks Howe couldn't beat those scrubs Richard, Geoffrion and Hull !!
*Even tho he won 4 in a row.....
Is Patrick kane can score 100+ points in this era....if Jamie Benn could win a scoring title....if PHIL KESSEL can be in the hunt for the Art Ross, then I’m pretty sure the greatest player of all time would be fine in this era. Because Kessel, Benn, and Kane are not even close to the level of Gretzky, yet they have found a lot of success.
Look at 1997 and 1998 for crying out loud. Why is that being pushed away? Why is that being ignored? Were those 2 years riddled with bad goalies, defenses, and higher scoring....no. They actually had a lot of talent that puts a majority of the players of today in the doghouse, yet Gretzky was right there with them. What’s the excuse for that? What do many of you have to speculate on that?
Your argument is all over the place.
I get that this is the History Board and it's common knowledge that the game of hockey has suffered some kind of pedigree collapse in the past three decades and the modern players are just robotic grinders who possess no skill, but I maintain the greats from any era would do pretty well in any other era, even if you put them in leather skates and made them play with lumber.
Gretzky did well in 1997 and 1998. No one is ignoring this. This is often the key point people use to suggest that prime Gretzky would easily be a 150 point player in today's NHL or whatever. But people never use the argument the other way. Cherry pick any season after 1986, compare any player you want and ask what Player X would have done to poor Don Edwards in 1982. What would a 25 year old Sergei Fedorov have done given his performance relative to Gretzky in 1994? Probably would have done okay.
My argument is actually pretty secure, thanks for your concern though.Your argument is all over the place.
I get that this is the History Board and it's common knowledge that the game of hockey has suffered some kind of pedigree collapse in the past three decades and the modern players are just robotic grinders who possess no skill, but I maintain the greats from any era would do pretty well in any other era, even if you put them in leather skates and made them play with lumber.
Gretzky did well in 1997 and 1998. No one is ignoring this. This is often the key point people use to suggest that prime Gretzky would easily be a 150 point player in today's NHL or whatever. But people never use the argument the other way. Cherry pick any season after 1986, compare any player you want and ask what Player X would have done to poor Don Edwards in 1982. What would a 25 year old Sergei Fedorov have done given his performance relative to Gretzky in 1994? Probably would have done okay.
The term “dominance” seems to be getting lost among a lot of you. How are you saying he wouldn’t dominate?Agreed. I personally think it would be extremely unlikely that Gretzky in his prime today would achieve the same type of dominance he had while playing for LA, nevermind his Edmonton years.
People always say "he wasn't that dominant, he just had a hockey IQ above everyone else's." Yes, he did, and he's also one of the top 5 most skilled players of all time, with one of the best wristers and maybe the best hands ever. That's how you score almost 3,000 points.
The term “dominance” seems to be getting lost among a lot of you. How are you saying he wouldn’t dominate?
You mean he wouldn’t be scoring 200 points? Because that’s fair, or that he wouldn’t be winning scoring titles by nearly 100 points? That’s fair too, but in terms of dominance, in what context?
Why wouldn’t a 37 year old Gretzky who scored 90 points in 82 games, leading the league in assists, competing with guys like Bure, Forsberg, Francis and Selanne.....not be able to compete with the top players of today given the same advances, and in his prime?
I agree, although it might not be the same percentage, I feel it still would be significant enough of a gap to distinguish himself from the rest of the pack.He would. I said he wouldn't achieve the same type of dominance, not that he wouldn't be dominant at all. What I meant by that is that he wouldn't have the same percentage gap in scoring over the rest of the top scorers, or anywhere close really. It goes without saying that he wouldn't score 200 points. He wouldn't score 200 points in the mid 90s.
Every player before the full season lockout is underrated here.
People also think that first season back which was an unending power play contest was good hockey.
I actually don't remember his wrister being anything special at all. He had the most accurate slap shot you'll ever see though.
I agree, although it might not be the same percentage, I feel it still would be significant enough of a gap to distinguish himself from the rest of the pack.