In case you missed it, I used that exact wording. I agree that statistically his peak season is right there with Mario's and Wayne's best. Where some reasonable doubt can be raised is:
(1) The dramatic jump from 49/50 to 50/51 and beyond was quite different from Wayne and Mario's more traditional rise in point totals as they moved from their teens to early 20's.
(2) The dramatic drop in Art Ross wins and placings after 53/54 where he went from blowing the competition away to playing 2nd fiddle to Belliveau and being beat by a handful of players, some of whom who put up point totals similar to Howe's peak. Wayne, Mario and Orr seemed to play at, or close to their peak for considerably longer while Howe became a player that, with his four peak seasons removed, would be battling with others for the #5 player rating.
(3) Not blowing away the competition in the playoffs to a degree that was close to Wayne's, Mario's and Orr's best.
What is the significance of this reasonable doubt? It doesn't remove from the Big 4 but maybe makes his claim for #2 or #3 a bit weaker depending on how much one's peak factors into a ranking.
In terms of the OP, it perhaps opens the door to a player who has a peak that is not on Howe's level but could put a player in the Big Four realm if they have, similar to Howe, other attributes that make up for a weaker peak.
I know you used that exact wording...and I'm disputing the notion. Howe's peak is
not unquestionably 4th-best. People have argued quite reasonably that it's better than or at least equal to Lemieux's peak.
1) Why does this matter, exactly? Unless you feel the dramatic jump was caused by some unknown circumstance that advantaged Howe specifically in relation to his peers. I don't see why Howe being a lesser player than Gretzky or Lemieux pre-peak should have any bearing on how we evaluate his peak itself.
2) Agree on Gretzky. Six years of absolute peak, several more within earshot that only Howe himself or Lemieux could rival. Orr, six consecutive peak seasons to Howe's four. But then of course, Orr was then finished, period. Howe had two more Ross/Hart/1st AST seasons ahead of him, just not quite at the previous level of dominance. "Considerably longer"? I think that's maybe pushing it. Lemieux...on a per-game basis, yes. Probably about 1988-1996. But so much time was missed that he really only has four, perhaps five peak seasons that stack up to Howe's anyway, and never more than two in a row.
3) I feel that once again, raw numbers are making Howe look worse here. In 1955 playoffs he had 50% more points than his nearest non-linemate. This stacks up pretty well against the best that Lemieux, Orr, and Gretzky had to offer. It simply wasn't possible for a player in the two-round era to lead the playoff scoring race by 10-15 points.
Bolded: What "reasonable doubt" have you raised? That Howe might only have the 4th-best peak of the Big 4? This is not an earth-shattering revelation. You seem to be supposing that Howe is part of the club
in spite of his supposedly weaker peak. I don't think any non-Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr player has any reasonable argument that their peak was better than Howe's. As I said, even if it's decided that Howe's peak ranks 4th all-time, surely it is closer to 3rd than it is to 5th. The "other attributes" are what allows Howe to build a case for #1-3. They are not what pushes him above #5.
From your perspective, an argument that a player who has a peak below Howe could break into the Big 4 seems untenable. You've taken the stance that Howe's peak lags behind Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr. So if a player comes along who has a peak that yet lags behind the guy you've identified as having the weakest one, what avenue does he have to make it a Big 5? Seemingly his longevity and playoff career would have to both exceed Howe's by some measure. The second one is not impossible, a few others have done it according to this board. The first one is unmatched, perhaps only one player (Ray Bourque) making a serious challenge. The odds of BOTH happening to a player that didn't match Howe's peak are beyond long.