We're not even sure Crosby and Ovi are generational yet. Right now, they are ALMOST in the class of a Jagr, which is just teatering below generational IMO. Of course, they could easily vault their way up to Jagr's level, but they have a ways to go still and have shown nothing to be in Gretzky or Lemieux's type of dominant class. For instance, Gretzky and Lemieux simply never gave up the MVP or Art Ross, unless health got in the way. Same for Jagr, although to a lesser degree.
Right now, Crosby and Ovi have only won a single Art Ross trophy each, with Crosby seemingly on track to get a 2nd.
Gretzky won 10, includiung 7 straight.
Lemieux won 6, with only Gretzky ever beating him when he was healthy.
Jagr won 5, including 4 in a row.
At the same age, Gretzky and Lemieux were well ahead of Crosby and Ovi. Jagr, was probably tracking in a similar way, although he remained in Lemieux's shadow until Lemieux was forced out with health issues.
Think about it - the league went 21 years without anyone else winning an Art Ross other than these three guys. For 8 straight years since, a different player has won it without repeating. There were no Iginla's or H Sedin's or Forsberg's or St. Louis' winning a one-off Art Ross in these guys day. All of these past 8 winners are greatly talented, but they would have lost the scoring race by 40-50 points against the generational guys Lemieux and Gretzky (like Yzerman and others did). I'm not even sure they'd challenge Jagr in his day, at least not yet. Crosby this year is really the first time I've looked at either as someone who might just be separating themselves from the other top elite talents.
When it comes to the Hart Trophy, there was a BIT more of a mix in there (although Gretzky still won 9 straight), but I think part of that was the voting fatigue of giving it to the same guys. One any player got onto a debatable level with Gretzky or Lemieux (or even Jagr) the voters tended to vote for change just because it was so amazing to see someone capture lighting in a bottle to challenge them.
As to someone coming down the pipe, you don't really have an idea until they are17 or so to see their development curve continue to track upwards. And even then, it so easy for them to plateau and get caught by their peers...really, there is no one separating themselves right now in any major way.
I agree with most of what you are saying. But I think it is safe to say that Crosby and OV will both be considered "generational" talents by the end of their careers (assuming they don't end their careers prematurely due to injury). They are already the best players of their generation, but they have to continue being the best players for the next decade at least before we can truly call them generational.
In my life-time, I have seen Gretzky and Lemieux, as you mention. Then there was Bobby Orr. And I would also consider Lidstrom to be a generational talent. He was, no question in my mind, the best dman of his generation. I'd also consider Brodeur to be a generational talent.
But to be generational, in my mind, you really have to be truly the best at your position. A lot of great players have played this game, including Jagr, Sakic, Yzerman, Bourque, Messier, and Howe, but I wouldn't call any of them generational. When you look at career numbers, one might think that I am being disrespectful to Messier and Howe. However, their numbers were mostly the result of playing consistent hockey longer than almost anyone else (especially Howe, obviously). They were both great leaders and all-around players, but not necessarily the best players playing the game year after year for as long as they played.
All those players I've mentioned are close to generational, but not quite there, imo.
I agree with most of what you are saying. But I think it is safe to say that Crosby and OV will both be considered "generational" talents by the end of their careers (assuming they don't end their careers prematurely due to injury). They are already the best players of their generation, but they have to continue being the best players for the next decade at least before we can truly call them generational.
In my life-time, I have seen Gretzky and Lemieux, as you mention. Then there was Bobby Orr. And I would also consider Lidstrom to be a generational talent. He was, no question in my mind, the best dman of his generation. I'd also consider Brodeur to be a generational talent.
But to be generational, in my mind, you really have to be truly the best at your position. A lot of great players have played this game, including Jagr, Sakic, Yzerman, Bourque, Messier, and Howe, but I wouldn't call any of them generational. When you look at career numbers, one might think that I am being disrespectful to Messier and Howe. However, their numbers were mostly the result of playing consistent hockey longer than almost anyone else (especially Howe, obviously). They were both great leaders and all-around players, but not necessarily the best players playing the game year after year for as long as they played.
All those players I've mentioned are close to generational, but not quite there, imo.
Wait, Lidstrom is a generational talent to you but Bourque and Howe aren't?
well, perhaps it is a bit subjective, but I do consider Lidstrom the second best dman to ever play the game, after Orr.
Bourque's numbers are better, but I've always thoguht Lidstrom was the better defenseman. There is a reason Detroit won so many Cups and has always been so competitive.
What is your argument against Mr. Hockey not being a generational talent?
well, and again this is a very subjective thing, but to me Howe is similar to Messier. Despite their incredible career numbers, they weren't necessarily the "best" players in the game for an extended period of time. They have awesome career numbers largely because of their longevity.
I certainly would not argue with anyone who does consider Howe or Messier (or Bourque) a generational talent. I believe a case can certainly be made for all of them.