Better group of players? Gretzky & younger or older than Gretzky?

[Elvis P]

Better group of players: Gretzky & younger or older than Gretzky?

Click to read more...

 

[Machinehead]

Like, ever?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Like, ever?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I think it’s every player that is older than Gretzky (Orr, Howe, Beliveau) and every player younger than him including Gretzky (Gretzky, Lemieux, Roy)

Weird poll indeed

 

[Machinehead]

I guess I would go with Gretzky and younger simply because that also includes Mario.

 

[Voight]

Older has the 2nd and 3rd best players ever.

 

[Future GOAT]

Gretzky and younger as that's where Lemieux is.

 

[SotasicA]

Players were harder and better back in the day.

 

[Thenameless]

This one's tough. Really tough. Start a team with Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr, or start a team with Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux.

Old: Nighbor, Morenz, Cyclone, Rocket, Shore, Harvey, Hull, Mikita, Sawchuk, Plante, Beliveau, Red Kelly, Potvin, Robinson, Bourque, Esposito, Bobby Clarke, Lafleur, Trottier, Bossy, Tretiak, KLM, Fetisov, and funnily enough Messier

Quality of defensemen really sticks out here.

New: Roy, Hasek, Lidstrom, Crosby, Jagr, Ovechkin, Malkin, McDavid, Kane/Toews, Lindros, Forsberg, Hawerchuk, Sakic, Yzerman, Robitaille, Chelios, Pronger, Iginla, St. Louis, Chara, Keith, Doughty, gotta have Fedorov/Mogilny/Bure, Kariya, Selanne, Joe Thornton, MacKinnon

The older team looks a lot deeper which makes sense, as they have more actual years to build from, and they have already finished their careers. Who knows which of today's players will finish in the all-time realm, as we certainly have potential with guys like Pettersson and Dahlin. The younger team would rely on Gretzky and Lemieux to do some heavy lifting, which they are certainly capable of doing, especially if surrounded with this kind of firepower. But, I think the d-men of the older team create too much of a gap to overcome. Names like Orr, Shore, Harvey, Bourque, Potvin, and Kelly are a bit much for the younger guys. Older guys by a solid, but not large margin if that makes sense.

 

[Jon Bonham]

Players were harder and better back in the day.

Is that needed to play hockey tho?

Younger. On the premise of evolution alone.

 

[SotasicA]

Is that needed to play hockey tho?

Yes.

Younger. On the premise of evolution alone.

100 years is not enough for human evolution.

 

[Plural]

Older has the 2nd and 3rd best players ever.

And younger has 1st and 4th. A tie.

 

[Plural]

Is that needed to play hockey tho?

Younger. On the premise of evolution alone.

What kind of evolutionary changes human species have gone through in the past 100 years?

 

[tony d]

Gretzky and younger. That team would have Roy and Hasek on it.

 

[Thenameless]

Gretzky and younger. That team would have Roy and Hasek on it.

Hasek's the best I've ever seen with my own two eyes, but mad respect to the earlier guys. I'm not sure how Roy and Hasek would feel about having to play goalie without a mask.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

What kind of evolutionary changes human species have gone through in the past 100 years?

Well, if you go back to the 1896-1912 Olympics, the men winners got times of 12.2 to 10.8 seconds, which wouldn't be enough today to either meet the entry standard on the men's side, or win the race on the women's side.

Edit: Up to 1960, the men winners wouldn't have met the entry standard for the 2016 Olympics.

I agree that "evolution" was a poor choice of word, but today's athletes are monsters compared to the old days. Better training, better nutrition, better knowledge of the game. Old school legends vs Gretzky and up? I predict a blowout, 12-0.

 

[DL44]

What kind of evolutionary changes human species have gone through in the past 100 years?

Man has apparently evolved more in the last 100 yrs than the totality of the rest of the course of homo sapien history. I know.. I didn't believe it either.

 

[Plural]

Well, if you go back to the 1896-1912 Olympics, the men winners got times of 12.2 to 10.8 seconds, which wouldn't be enough today to either meet the entry standard on the men's side, or win the race on the women's side.

Edit: Up to 1960, the men winners wouldn't have met the entry standard for the 2016 Olympics.

I agree that "evolution" was a poor choice of word, but today's athletes are monsters compared to the old days. Better training, better nutrition, better knowledge of the game. Old school legends vs Gretzky and up? I predict a blowout, 12-0.

That's not evolution. If you give a baby gorilla steroids and watch it grow stronger and bigger than it's natural counterparts, it's not evolution.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

That's not evolution. If you give a baby gorilla steroids and watch it grow stronger and bigger than it's natural counterparts, it's not evolution.

Read the entire post next time. I was never the one to use the word evolution.

 

[Plural]

Read the entire post next time. I was never the one to use the word evolution.

Oh I did. I didn't mean you used the word. Just that I didn't argue wether or not athletes today are stronger or faster (they are), but just pointed out that evolution is mot the reason for the development in the past decades.

 

[McVespa99]

What kind of evolutionary changes human species have gone through in the past 100 years?

Its not human evolution. Its the evolution of training, diet etc

 

[Plural]

Its not human evolution. Its the evolution of training, diet etc

Well, I guess you could use the wording "evolution of nutrition" but that's not really accurate. It's advance in training or nutrition. Not evolution per se.

Still though, the post I first quoted seemed to be talking about human evolution.

 

[SotasicA]

But assuming they play each other they will have to have the same nutrition and equipment. Right? So it's Hasek without his mask and Crosby with 70's nutrition and training. Old time rules with brawls etc.

Or you go the other way and give Bobby Hull today's training and equipment and create a legitimate beast.

Either way it doesn't look good for the younger team.

 

[Future GOAT]

The current poll results are indicative of what the score would probably be if Younger's best played a game against Older's best.

8-2 in Younger's favor. This poll is a runaway and rightly so, getting close to lock it up time.