Is Wayne Gretzky Getting Underrated on This Board?

ManofSteel55

Registered User
Aug 15, 2013
31,864
11,992
Sylvan Lake, Alberta
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...
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.
 

Beukeboom

Registered User
Apr 1, 2007
1,922
1,353
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.
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.
 

Beukeboom

Registered User
Apr 1, 2007
1,922
1,353
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
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.

And if we are doing the "what ifs". What if players went a bit easier on Mario 92-93? Would you want to tackle someone just coming back from cancer. Probably not. You see, if you are going to do the what ifs we can go anywhere. Gretzky did things that is why he is the best.
 

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
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...
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.

What a silly argument. Lemieux had more than enough talent around him.
 

Asheville

Registered User
Feb 1, 2018
2,056
1,358
Talking Gretzky and Lemieux is like talking Federer and Nadal.

Clearly the #1 and #2 in their respective sport's history (IMO), but even more clear who #1 and #2 is for each pair.

I'm huge Nadal fan and completely OK with him being #2 all-time. #2 all-time at anything is pretty awesome. Why can't Orr and Lemieux fans also be OK with that?
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,373
16,653
Mulberry Street
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...

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.

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.

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.....
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
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 :cry:

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

He was absolutely the best in that "era". And he is still mostly likely the best offensive talent of any era (to date), though gaging exactly how much better a player he was compared to players in the modern era is rather more difficult to do. I mean, exactly how many points would the likes of Crosby or Ovechkin have put up if they had played in the 80s? Quite likely Gretzky would still be ahead of them, but perhaps the gap would be significantly closer. Who can know for certain, really.
 

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
Con
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.....
s
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.....

Considering he put prime Gretzky threw a neat shredder (31 points in 2 less games. Those players would be NOTHING to Lemieux. The fact that Lemieux despite all his health issues has the same amount of scoring titles as Howe says it all.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,850
51,520
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.
 

Eye of Ra

Grandmaster General of the International boards
Nov 15, 2008
17,966
4,454
Malmö, Sweden
No, but Lindros is.

NHL PPG beetween 1992 - 2001, only Jagr and Lemieux had higher PPG than Lindros during this timeframe. This mean that Lindros had better PPG than players such as Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Sundin, Selänne, Kariya, Messier, Gretzky, Hull, Fleury, Modano and many others. And outside of his points he also brough his massive size, great strength, insane speed, world class physical play, great defensive skills and could fight. People dont understrand how good Lindros was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joez86

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,409
10,436
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.

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.
 

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
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 using argument that I never made though, so who is all over the place now? I never said 150 points, nor did I ever say Fedorov wouldn’t do well...so what exactly is your point?

I never took anything away from the players of today, we are discussing the greatest player of all time, by a majority of hockey fans, experts, and players......and how he would do in this era. 1997 and 1998 are getting tossed aside because a majority are using the 80s and it’s style of play against him....because everyone was scoring 200 points back then, right?

Those two years are prime examples of Gretzky being able to “hang” with the players, style, and overall competitiveness of an era completely revolutionized compared to the 80s, and extremely similar to today.

Many like to make the players of today appear like they would be easily the best players if taken back in time. Any 4th liner of today would be a competitive scorer. Any star player would be breaking records in the 80s and maybe 90s, but who knows? The difference is Gretzky’s career spans through 3 different eras of hockey, where he remained competitive and near the top nearly the whole way through. Same with Lemieux.

Would Gretzky score 200 today? No, he wouldn’t. That’s pretty simple, right? 150? Maybe....at his peak perhaps? But that’s a tall order...but hey, this is Gretzky we are talking about. 120-130 sounds more reasonable for this era, and those numbers are amazing. Do I know this for sure? No, but it’s the most logical guess I can give you.

If we really look back, people didn’t ever think those numbers could be achieved. And he continued to achieve them at a level no one had ever seen. People doubted it, and were made believers. It didn’t matter how high scoring the 80s were, Gretzky still blew everyone’s mind.....he was branded to small, to weak, to slow. He was told he would get killed, that he wasn’t ready. Yet he shut everyone up by the time he was 20, breaking the all time single season scoring record his second season.

Why wouldn’t he be able to do that today given the same advances the players of today have? Because every other player of the 80s had the same opportunity to score that many points, but no one came close. That’s because he was a genius, and that goes with any and every era, a hockey genius will be able to adapt, dictate, and dominate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mbraunm and Voight

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
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.
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?
 

Passchendaele

Registered User
Dec 11, 2006
7,731
1,148
So who is it that Gretzky mooched off when he scored a record 92 goals and 212 points?

Gretzky -- 80 -- 92 -- 120 -- 212
Anderson -- 80 -- 38 -- 67 -- 105
Coffey -- 80 -- 29 -- 60 -- 89
Messier -- 78 -- 50 -- 38 -- 88
Kurri -- 71 -- 32 -- 54 -- 86

- More points than Anderson and Coffey combined.
- More goals than both Anderson and Messier combined.
- 7 less assists than Anderson and Coffey combined.
 

Sadekuuro

Registered User
Aug 23, 2005
6,766
1,172
Cascadia
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.

I actually don't remember his wrister being anything special at all. He had the most accurate slap shot you'll ever see though.
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,409
10,436
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?

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.
 

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
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.
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.
 

Daximus

Wow, what a terrific audience.
Sponsor
Oct 11, 2014
38,856
24,729
Five Hills
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'd like to point out that the 80's as a whole had the highest PP's of any other decade in league history and higher PP scoring as well as higher scoring overall because of that. The 80's was by far and away basically a PP fest. If 05/06 wasn't good hockey then neither was the 80's.
 

Passchendaele

Registered User
Dec 11, 2006
7,731
1,148
'05-'06 is probably the most exciting NHL season I've witnessed in my lifetime (albeit I'm not that old).

There was basically a story all around the league.

Crosby and Ovechkin having all-time outstanding rookie seasons (arguably both top-5) with 100+ points both
Jagr back to his dominant form
Thornton piling up the assists like no one since Gretzky
Hasek joins Ottawa at 40 (and is dominant)
Eric Staal comes out of nowhere with a 100 point season (47 of which were in his first 33 games)
Forsberg-Gagne were a threat to watch
 

Gunnersaurus Rex

Registered User
Jan 14, 2008
3,245
2,179
One other thing to remind everyone about how good Gretzky was. He finished tied for 3rd and only 1 pt behind Peter Forsberg for 2nd place in the 97/98 season and lead the league in assists at the age of 37.
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,409
10,436
I actually don't remember his wrister being anything special at all. He had the most accurate slap shot you'll ever see though.

His release was quick, deceptive and accurate. Nothing about his game was based around power, and that includes his shot, but he made a lot of goals look much easier than they were because of his great patience and anticipation. The way people talk about him it is kind of funny though, it's as if he was this skating brain. He was absolutely one of the most skilled players in the 80s in terms of passing, skating, stickhandling and shooting... you don't put up 2000 points in a decade just being in the right place at the right time.
 

psycat

Registered User
Oct 25, 2016
3,239
1,149
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.

Implying he would ever be a part of that pack to begin with? Because im pretty sure he wouldnt be. 140-160 points in todays league during his prime/peak(which is basically the same thing really), atleast.

Anyway it's all guesstimates so kinda pointless, fact is he did what he did. Dominated to a unheard of degree for quite a long time.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->