So, at what point did this transition from weak competition to strong competition occur, in your opinion? And did you actually watch Gretzky and Lemieux play during their prime years? Or are you too young?
Jaromir Jagr won FIVE scoring titles. In 2005-06, at age 36 he still finished second in both goals and points, only two points behind Joe Thornton and 17 points ahead of third-placed Ovechkin. Jagr takes a back seat to no one as an offensive forward-- except Gretzky and Lemieux. And it's not even close. In 2000-01 Jagr won his final scoring title. That was also the year when 35-year-old Lemieux came out of his 3.5-year retirement in midseason, with the dead-puck era fully entrenched, and scored 76 points in 43 games, easily outpacing Jagr on a per-game basis and also outscoring Jagr in the playoffs.
It happened over time.
I'm tired of hearing the age argument.. It's not like all players at an old age automatically become bad. Most great players can play well into their later years. Think of it, how many great players suck at a later age? A majority of them have great seasons in their mid 30s. People try so hard to discredit the talent today by bringing up how an "old" X or Y scored so many points. So what if Jagr was 36 or if Lemieux was 35. They were still great players. I've even seen posts saying that Jagr was at his best in 2006. Crosby will most likely be capable of putting up 85-90+ pts at age 36. Ovechkin could still be a goal scoring machine at age 36. Who cares!
You can fantasize about Lemieux's 76pts in 43 games all you want, but Jagr scored 77pts in his final 43 games of the same season. Last time I checked, 77 was greater than 76. Done with less PP goals and less ice time too. And from the time Lemieux returned, Jagr had a higher points/game rate by a good margin (1.87 to 1.77)
. So how are you gonna come and make it seem like "old" Lemieux was so much better?
It's possible the gap between them closed, yes most likely due to age. But it is also possible that a fully healthy, younger, "prime" Lemieux wouldn't be as dominant as you think.
I don't like it when people come in and say "Lemieux was old and had no back!!", because it implies that the injuries severely hindered Lemieux.. No they didn't. There is no way that a player can be so injured but still put up 1.77 pts a game
. Nobody can be that good. Sure Lemieux was not 100%, but it's definitely overplayed. He was operating somewhere in the 90% range during his 2001 season. It's like claiming Usain Bolt had a broken right leg and a busted torn left ACL at the 2016 Olympics. Not believable when you actually look at what he accomplished.
In the end, Jagr really outpaced Lemieux (over a 43 game stretch), and a very good, arguably best Jagr lost the Art Ross to Joe Thornton
It's fine though. The posters you have of Lemieux and Gretzky on your wall will always be there.
