Why would Gretzky still dominate today? Here's the secret about Gretzky...

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
116
Players born within the first 5 month's of the calender month is overrepresented in the NHL by a extremely high %.

Why is that? Ok sure, they should be able to be better during the junior years, but shouldn't the rest catch up when you stop growing? You "only" got a 5 month head start, or whatever. Its simple, they develop better because they have that head start. They get to dominate, while someone born in December has to be alot better to get to dominate and don't get to practise on doing just that as much.

Just like kids who is born in like January become better hockey players because they get to dominate early in their years, Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky became tremendous hockeyplayers because they got to dominate for over a handful of years while the NHL evolved (hockey grew and Europeans joined the leauge).

Yes, both 99 and 66 were as good as people say they were. In their prime. And while they were tremendous talents, that's far from the only reason for it. The biggest reason from my point of view was that they was at the top of a league that just wasn't that good in the early 80's, but then got a chance to grow with the league as the league developed in the 90's.
In theory, I can understand what you're trying to say regarding the level of play in the 80s..... But then how do you explain these two things:

1) Gretzky's domination against the best players in the world during every single international tournament he played in until his prime ended in 1991 (leading all 6 international tournaments in scoring). Check out the 1987 Canada Cup DVD sometime, and tell me the level of play in the final 3 games against Russia was not better than today's average NHL game. Gretzky had 5 points against Russia in game 2. He schooled the best of the best with the entire tournament on the line that game. And if you remove his goals during the 1987 Canada Cup, he would have still tied Mario Lemieux for the scoring title.

2) Almost doubling the point production of the 2nd leading scorer of the 80s during that time period. Why is it that the 2nd through the 10th leading scorers of the 80s (quite a few hall of famers in there!) could not come remotely close to him? I could see if Gretzky beat them out by a couple hundred points, but to beat them by double? That's just absurd, and definitely not a product of the era when you consider the great players he doubled.
 

redbull

Boss
Mar 24, 2008
12,593
654
In theory, I can understand what you're trying to say regarding the level of play in the 80s..... But then how do you explain these two things:

1) Gretzky's domination against the best players in the world during every single international tournament he played in until his prime ended in 1991 (leading all 6 international tournaments in scoring). Check out the 1987 Canada Cup DVD sometime, and tell me the level of play in the final 3 games against Russia was not better than today's average NHL game. Gretzky had 5 points against Russia in game 2. He schooled the best of the best with the entire tournament on the line that game. And if you remove his goals during the 1987 Canada Cup, he would have still tied Mario Lemieux for the scoring title.

been re-watching that series on ESPN Classic all week. It's pretty impressive how evenly matched those top teams are in that tournament, yet how much Gretzky and Lemieux stand out among the others. Hawerchuk, Goulet were pretty impressive hockey players, had stellar careers, but they almost look like role players out there.

Saw the CZECH game yesterday, against Hasek, who was outstanding. Mario took what seemed like a flick-shot to the top corner that seemed to have confused Hasek. He looked at his glove like "how did that get past me"? Mario will an outstanding move on the final goal by Propp.

Gretzky seemed out of sync that tournament, at times, with B.Sutter / Goulet as linemates but was all over the place. I think he scored 11 pts in the final four games.

I'd love to see ice-time for those games because I'd say Mario/Gretzky didn't play more than 20min/game but seemed to be so dangerous every shift.

Some really good players on the Czech team too. Great hockey.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,254
2,736
Gladwell's point does not apply to extreme outliers like Gretzky and Lemieux, though.

In fact Gladwell's point applies primarily to marginal NHL players. Star players have a fairly even birthday distribution.

been re-watching that series on ESPN Classic all week. It's pretty impressive how evenly matched those top teams are in that tournament, yet how much Gretzky and Lemieux stand out among the others. Hawerchuk, Goulet were pretty impressive hockey players, had stellar careers, but they almost look like role players out there.

Saw the CZECH game yesterday, against Hasek, who was outstanding. Mario took what seemed like a flick-shot to the top corner that seemed to have confused Hasek. He looked at his glove like "how did that get past me"? Mario will an outstanding move on the final goal by Propp.

Gretzky seemed out of sync that tournament, at times, with B.Sutter / Goulet as linemates but was all over the place. I think he scored 11 pts in the final four games.

I'd love to see ice-time for those games because I'd say Mario/Gretzky didn't play more than 20min/game but seemed to be so dangerous every shift.

Some really good players on the Czech team too. Great hockey.

Gretzky gets knocked for floating sometimes. And you can see him floating sometimes in, for example, regular season games from 1982 or so. But in the 1987 Canada Cup he looked like the hardest working player out there, in the middle of the play all the time.
 

redbull

Boss
Mar 24, 2008
12,593
654
Gretzky gets knocked for floating sometimes. And you can see him floating sometimes in, for example, regular season games from 1982 or so. But in the 1987 Canada Cup he looked like the hardest working player out there, in the middle of the play all the time.

I watched one of the games live at Copps in '87 and was blown away with the level of play. I watched Gretzky closely, his play away from the puck and his anticipation and quick first step to open ice was unreal. He seemed to have a step on every defender, one of the reasons why the game looked so easy.

But I remember watching him in the long regular seasons and he definitely floated (paced himself?) throughout the long season. The Oilers loved to score goals though, so they still put up points by trading chances with teams but in those Canada Cups (and the Cup years) it was a more focused, two-way effort from 99 and Mario for that matter. Lots of back-checking and in-zone play. Even Bob Johnson used to say that he didn't mind trading chances with teams while Mario was out there, knowing that his guy would out-score their guys every night. He was right.

Incredible how well 99 could play all over the ice and still put up incredible numbers. Mario too.

I know many people think you get more chances when you float around centre but the opposite is true. You might get more breakaways by hovering (like Bure) but taking that hard work to the boards, to the break-out, to breaking up rushes, that creates far more chances.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Gladwell's point does not apply to extreme outliers like Gretzky and Lemieux, though.

To suggest the league wasn't that good at the time is dead wrong.

Bryan Trottier, Peter Stastny, Mike Bossy, Dale Hawerchuk, Pat Lafontaine, Steve Yzerman -- these players were shamed, in the same league, at the same time. That separation is era-agnostic. Not to mention the evidence of 99&66 transitioning eras like how they dominated Jagr and Dionne.


The Isles & Oilers, from 80-87 were among the top teams ever, according to anyone in hockey.

Respectfully, you are wrong about the era. Too much is made about eras, I don't notice a higher level of play in this era vs any other. I watched a Bruins-Leafs game from 71, two players stood out above the rest. Orr and Esposito. It was obvious. And the rest of the players, the flow of the game, well, add some tv, board advertising, helmets and big equipment and you couldn't tell the difference.

Respectfully, if you can't tell the obvious differences in game play, flow, pace and all of the other differences then it really hurts your creditability IMO.

I mean most top OHL or WHL games have a better pace than games from 71.
 

redbull

Boss
Mar 24, 2008
12,593
654
Respectfully, if you can't tell the obvious differences in game play, flow, pace and all of the other differences then it really hurts your creditability IMO.

I mean most top OHL or WHL games have a better pace than games from 71.

I assume you're exaggerating with the junior comparisons.

I know players are bigger and for the most part, skate faster than the average player 40 years ago, but not significantly. Certainly not enough to suggest that the elite players of the 70s would have much trouble today.

And I wouldn't be so quick to assume that faster skating means a better game or more talented players or a higher level of play.

Either way, when watching old games, I don't see a significant difference in the level of play at the NHL level. And the 87 Canada Cup is among the best hockey I've ever seen, certainly as good, if not better, than the most recent Olympics.
 

ot92s

Registered User
Nov 5, 2011
741
3
Respectfully, if you can't tell the obvious differences in game play, flow, pace and all of the other differences then it really hurts your creditability IMO.

I mean most top OHL or WHL games have a better pace than games from 71.

Somebody is losing their credibility here, but it isn't redbull.

if you can't tell the effect of modern equipment on performance & modern video on your perception then you're missing out some of the most skilled players to ever take the ice. Maybe you you haven't personally experienced the transition from on era to another.

Man i wish they'd roll back the goalie equipment...
 

Morgoth Bauglir

Master Of The Fates Of Arda
Aug 31, 2012
3,776
7
Angband via Utumno
I assume you're exaggerating with the junior comparisons.

I know players are bigger and for the most part, skate faster than the average player 40 years ago, but not significantly. Certainly not enough to suggest that the elite players of the 70s would have much trouble today.

And I wouldn't be so quick to assume that faster skating means a better game or more talented players or a higher level of play.

Either way, when watching old games, I don't see a significant difference in the level of play at the NHL level. And the 87 Canada Cup is among the best hockey I've ever seen, certainly as good, if not better, than the most recent Olympics.

Of late I've been watching Montreal games from the '70s and I've found the quality of play to be extremely high. I certainly agree with you that whole idea of this era being somehow "better" is extremely overblown.

From an aesthetics standpoint I'd rather watch an '80s 5-4 game than the usual 2-1 (in a shootout) that seems to be the common fare of today.
 
Last edited:

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Somebody is losing their credibility here, but it isn't redbull.

if you can't tell the effect of modern equipment on performance & modern video on your perception then you're missing out some of the most skilled players to ever take the ice. Maybe you you haven't personally experienced the transition from on era to another.

Man i wish they'd roll back the goalie equipment...

sorry but I think you are misreading something here.

redBull was asserting that a 71 game he was watching was pretty much the same as any current NHL game and that era was over rated. He used the 71 game as an example.

"And the rest of the players, the flow of the game, well, add some tv, board advertising, helmets and big equipment and you couldn't tell the difference."

I strongly disagree even looking at guys in 71 doing drills compared to today minus the bright shiny lights and you will notice a considerable difference in speed, agility and lots of other stuff, some equipment treated and some not.

I have watched alot of hockey in the 70's until today and we can even go back to game clips and see the time and space that was available, which was much more the further we go back.

As for the junior games I attend quite a few and more players are flopping around in 71 games than in top junior games today.

I'm not sure if some people are too sensitive about the sticky or what but it's as plain as night and day in the difference.

Even that famous 75 game in the Montreal forum, with arguably the best two teams in the league Red army, Montreal), looks sluggish and slow today.

It was one of the highlight games that I had ever watched as a kid as well but I understand the differences in the game from then till now, not sure why people get so defensive about it, unless maybe it gets in their way of how they evaluate players from different eras, which undoubtedly is true for some opinions.

Just like in the other forums where people don't even bother looking at or evaluating past times and think that every player today is great and that none of the past players could play today, it is equal wrong IMO to disregard era and pretend that the game hasn't changed a whole ton in the past 40 years, equipment aside.

Throw in the equipment then it's pretty indisputable.
 
Last edited:

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
By better presumably you mean faster?

Yes that's the most notable difference and of course in some cases goaltending techniques (much of that is equipment aided to be sure) and the concept of team defense is much more advanced in the junior games that I'm talking about.

But to imply that it's hard to tell the difference from 71 to today is bordering on the absurd, unless Redbull meant something else which doesn't seem to be the case.
 

Everest

Registered User
Apr 19, 2005
10,411
0
Im old enough to have experienced the full gamut of the equipment revolution in hockey while also growing up on Gretzky.

There is no doubt in my mind the improvements in hockey equipment are exponential. Especially for the 2 most important items, the stick and the skates.

In fact...even a skate from 10 years ago is well below the standard of todays high(est) end skate.

Same thing can be said for sticks. And don't kid yourself...these improvements have made the game much, much faster, more presice and explosive as well.

That being said...If Gretz were playing today...I don't even know if he would use a composite stick. His preferred methods of stick handling and passing tended to benefit hugely from utilizing old school, time tested technique(s) of SWEEPING and/or CURLING through the release point onto the target which is why he was not only imaginitive...he was also computertastically accurate. So, its hard to say how much effect a composite stick would afford him...aside from the obvious decrease in energy spent carrying the old TITAN timber around. Mind you...unlike most of the kids today...99 had the common sense to at least drag his stick on the ice when he was "floating"...which gave him at least a 100 extra points in his career.


As for skates...thats a different story. Turn radius, starting strides, stopping power...all the jazz...has been greatly improved with the new re-enforced boots of today and Gretz would be twice the skater he was...with this technological advancement on his feet. Just like everyone else! Trust me. Ive still got a pair of Bauer 3000's from the late 90's...they were the best skate on the shelf in their day and I wouldn't be caught dead in something so flimsy and heavy today.

And finally...one thing I think gets unfairly forgotten about when we "compare" 99 and his "era" is...Gretzky DID "re-invent" the game. He, essentially, installed an entire new way of thinking about hockey and before his career was even complete...players all over the world were already delving into his once abstract approach and reaping the benefit.

So...when we watch the greats on tv right now...its important to remember the reason they don't NEED to re-invent the wheel.

Its already been done.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
15,716
4,975
sorry but I think you are misreading something here.

redBull was asserting that a 71 game he was watching was pretty much the same as any current NHL game and that era was over rated. He used the 71 game as an example.

"And the rest of the players, the flow of the game, well, add some tv, board advertising, helmets and big equipment and you couldn't tell the difference."

I strongly disagree even looking at guys in 71 doing drills compared to today minus the bright shiny lights and you will notice a considerable difference in speed, agility and lots of other stuff, some equipment treated and some not.

I have watched alot of hockey in the 70's until today and we can even go back to game clips and see the time and space that was available, which was much more the further we go back.

As for the junior games I attend quite a few and more players are flopping around in 71 games than in top junior games today.

I'm not sure if some people are too sensitive about the sticky or what but it's as plain as night and day in the difference.

Even that famous 75 game in the Montreal forum, with arguably the best two teams in the league Red army, Montreal), looks sluggish and slow today.

It was one of the highlight games that I had ever watched as a kid as well but I understand the differences in the game from then till now, not sure why people get so defensive about it, unless maybe it gets in their way of how they evaluate players from different eras, which undoubtedly is true for some opinions.

Just like in the other forums where people don't even bother looking at or evaluating past times and think that every player today is great and that none of the past players could play today, it is equal wrong IMO to disregard era and pretend that the game hasn't changed a whole ton in the past 40 years, equipment aside.

Throw in the equipment then it's pretty indisputable.

I think you can point to the closer parity today (salary cap) and highly-structured method of coaching (where teams have very nicely designed systems that can shut other players down; minimizing the talent gap).

But other than that and equipment.....yes, players do work out more. But how much of a gain is that going to get them? We obviously know that physical conditioning is only a small factor. Crosby wasn't even the best in his draft class...moreover, it is not like players today can bench twice their weight while players in the 70s couldn't lift 100 pounds...players today weigh a little more and are a little taller, but I don't think it makes that of a difference if Martin St.Louis can succeed today.
 

redbull

Boss
Mar 24, 2008
12,593
654
Yes that's the most notable difference and of course in some cases goaltending techniques (much of that is equipment aided to be sure) and the concept of team defense is much more advanced in the junior games that I'm talking about.

But to imply that it's hard to tell the difference from 71 to today is bordering on the absurd, unless Redbull meant something else which doesn't seem to be the case.

To clarify, I'm talking about the talent-gap, I don't see any talent gap of significance.

Granted, i didn't watch a series of games from the early 70s, besides the one-off video of a full game. Same for the 60s for that matter.

But here's my point. It's pretty obvious that Doug Harvey was the best player on the ice when I saw him. It's also obvious that everyone on the ice, and coaches, probably tried really hard against him. I think players "back then" wanted to win as much as players today.

Bobby Orr and Phil Espositio, in the 1971 game I referred to, they were the best players on the ice. They stood out, their talent level, their ability to impact a shift, a game, it clearly showed. I also saw a Leaf team that played tough against them, the talent level of an Orr, relative to that competition, would very likely be the same today, against NHL competition.

The players today are bigger, equipment is bigger, the game is played faster but I don't think it's significantly faster. Essentially, I'm saying the talent & speed factor is often overblown on these boards.

The context of my statement was in response to how 99 & 66 dominated players in their era and my point is that Orr and Espo did the same in their era. And it's NOT that the other players were somehow bad players.

Gretzky dominated Trottier, Stastny, Bossy, Dionne, Hawerchuk and the best international players at the time.

And I don't see any reason to suggest that talent gap wouldn't apply today, equally, against Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos (whom I see in the same ball-park, talent wise, as Trottier, Stastny, etc - of that era)

It's not like there were no "systems" back then, ever hear Scotty Bowman talk about his defensive system when coaching the Habs? I'd say the talent gap across the NHL, from the haves & have nots was higher, as it was pre-salary cap. As it was in '94 when the NYR had twice the payroll of the Canucks for example.

When Crosby played in the Olympics, it wasn't OBVIOUS that he was the best player on the ice. There were times when it was Towes, Nash. Small sample size, against the best competition in the world, it's a pretty even playing field these days at the elite level. Kessel was awful for USA, non-existant. Malkin was ordinary and Ovechkin terrible. That never happened with Gretzky, even at his worst he dominated international tournaments. The gap was large because he was that much better, it's NOT the ERA.



Somebody is losing their credibility here, but it isn't redbull.

if you can't tell the effect of modern equipment on performance & modern video on your perception then you're missing out some of the most skilled players to ever take the ice. Maybe you you haven't personally experienced the transition from on era to another.

Man i wish they'd roll back the goalie equipment...

I wish for smaller equipment, barely large enough to ensure protection from INJURY, NOT to cover the net. I think it'll mean better goaltending, more athleticism and a better game. I also think it would help scoring but not as drastically as one might think. The sticks today allow for a much faster shot and you could beat a goalie with a wrist shot from the circles, when that wasn't possible years ago.

I think smaller equipment, much smaller, even smaller than the 70s/80s, for both players and goalies would really help the game.

The materials are so much better (lighter/stronger) that I don't believe there's any argument around player protection for the most part, concussions and head-shots notwithstanding.



I think you can point to the closer parity today (salary cap) and highly-structured method of coaching (where teams have very nicely designed systems that can shut other players down; minimizing the talent gap).

But other than that and equipment.....yes, players do work out more. But how much of a gain is that going to get them? We obviously know that physical conditioning is only a small factor. Crosby wasn't even the best in his draft class...moreover, it is not like players today can bench twice their weight while players in the 70s couldn't lift 100 pounds...players today weigh a little more and are a little taller, but I don't think it makes that of a difference if Martin St.Louis can succeed today.

I think it's the parity over the systems. Teams/coaches always had systems and even if the systems are different today, I wouldn't think this is a significant change - but the parity definitely makes a difference.

It's not size or conditioning that makes for a great hockey player. It's largely talent, vision, hockey sense. These are what the elites possess above the rest. Reggie Leach could play drunk and out of shape because he could outright play, he had talent. Mario could dominate at half-speed with a bad back after cancer because he was better than everyone else.

Gary Roberts didn't really get "better" when his conditioning got better (after his neck injury). He was the same player, talent-wise, he probably extended his career a bit but he didn't suddenly start winning scoring championships.

Too much is said about conditioning, it's not a differentiator of significance, not then, not now.
 

Iain Fyffe

Hockey fact-checker
But to imply that it's hard to tell the difference from 71 to today is bordering on the absurd, unless Redbull meant something else which doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't know, maybe the point was just that by focusing only on differences rather than similarities, you get an inflated sense of how different things were. Difference is all relative.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
1987 Canada Cup game #2 is on TSN tonight at 7h30. Watch this, the best game ever played, and if you still think Gretzky would not dominate today, then there's no hope for your closed mind & heart.;)

Yep, I'm watching it right now and not only is the pace every bit as high as a modern NHL game but the skill level, creativity and especially passing on both sides is clearly higher.

Bourque in his prime is just an absolute pleasure to watch.
Gretz and Mario...so above everyone else.
And I don't care what anyone says, Messier, Coffey and Gartner would STILL be three of the fastest players in the league today.

The biggest differences I can see are;
A) Obviously goaltending but at the same time, not every shot is exploding off every players stick like we see today with the comp sticks.
B) The amount of hooking, holding, slashing and crosschecking that gets let go compared to today is night and day.
 
Last edited:

Morgoth Bauglir

Master Of The Fates Of Arda
Aug 31, 2012
3,776
7
Angband via Utumno
Yep, I'm watching it right now and not only is the pace every bit as high as a modern NHL game but the skill level, creativity and especially passing on both sides is clearly higher.

Bourque in his prime is just an absolute pleasure to watch.
Gretz and Mario...so above everyone else.
And I don't care what anyone says, Messier, Coffey and Gartner would STILL be three of the fastest players in the league today.

The biggest differences I can see are;
A) Obviously goaltending but at the same time, not every shot is exploding off every players stick like we see today with the comp sticks.
B) The amount of hooking, holding, slashing and crosschecking that gets let go compared to today is night and day.

If my memory serves me correctly, Gartner's skate time in the skills competition has yet to be beat.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->