Greatest Hockey Player of All Time?

Status
Not open for further replies.

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
ClassicHockey said:
He's not getting it either because he's just trying to be a disturber or he is just simply incapable of understanding rational thought.

Anyways, its not easy to decide who the greatest forward was. I've seen most of the greats play live since the 60's and most of the others before that on film.
If I want to see how Howie Morenz play, I just have to put in a tape and I can see that he was a superior skater and had greater acceleration than other players at the time. But I haven't seen enough of his whole career to include him.

Gordie Howe's record speaks for itself. Howe was dominant moreso in the 50's of course as those were his prime years. But in studying Howe's career, I find that he didn't elevate his play in the playoffs as Maurice Richard did. To me, greatness means the ability to go beyond the normal limits. Detroit was in the finals 4 out of 6 years in the 1960's and failed to win the Cup each time. Its not fair to single out one player for the failure as Howe probably played well, but he did not elevate his game enough to make a difference. Maurice Richard, though, did elevate his game in the playoffs - sometimes doing superhuman feats that were totally beyond the abilities or thoughts of most players. Richard had numerous playoff overtime goals, Gordie Howe had zero.

As an overall player during the regular season, Howe gets the nod over Richard because of his defensive play But in the playoffs, it was no contest as Richard was the superior player.

If you talk to some of the players who played in the 50's, a few will say that Jean Beliveau was much tougher to defend against over Gordie Howe. Beliveau in his prime was that good. And if you want to add intangibles, Beliveau was a superior leader.

Bobby Hull had more pure skill than any of those players if you talk about skating and shooting and scoring. If Hull had gotten the room that Gordie Howe got, he would have had greater numbers. Hull was the only player that could be as dynamic as Maurice Richard was.

Wayne Gretzky dominated his peers so much in his prime both in the regular season and playoffs that he has to get a lot of consideration as the top forward. Same with Mario Lemieux

So, I don't have an ranking order but my top 6 are Gretzky, Hull, Lemieux, Richard, Beliveau and Howe. I'm not comparing how good Richard was in comparison to Lemieux or Gretzky but rather against his peers.

And finally, as I've mentioned before, a few of the superstar players of the past, given their style of play and if they were given the advantages of the modern players, would still be stars today. Its ridiculous to say otherwise. Bobby Orr played in the 60's and received his early training in the 50's. Is someone going to say that Orr wouldn't make an all-star team if he played today while in his prime?
For those of you wondering why I consider ClassicHockey to be the best poster around (even though we don't always agree), you have your answer. A brilliant, thorough post, with strong analysis. Excellent work. Just wish you (and reckoning) posted more often.
 

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
DrMoses said:
It works both ways.

They also had to face superior competition.

And really, most of yuor stats are moot anyway. Gretzky at 38 with an arthritic back scored 91 pts. playing alongside Adam Graves and Niklas Sundstrom in the middle of the dead puck era.

The point is, great players will always be great irregardless of the extenuating circumstances.

Yes it does work both ways.

Great players often do help raise the level of the players around them. That goes with leadership.

I would also agree that we tend to place too much emphasis on regular season stats. The greatest players seem to be able to raise the level of their play when it means the most.

But it is a team game and the greatest seem to have all been fortunate to play with some outstanding teammates, which I would not discount from playing a part in their individual success.
 

RC51

Registered User
Dec 10, 2005
4,888
752
mtl
Many great players yes, a big debate sure.

But no hockey player has had more impact or meant more to the NHL or Canada since the invention of the game then,,,,,

Paul Henderson

You just had to be there in 72, more people exploded with joy then any Stanley Cup ever. It is the biggest Hockey event ever. A war on ice, us against them, cheating ref's, KGB spying, dirty tricks, a "win at all costs" event. Skate or die trying, skrew the rules, throw yourself on those granades, BUT WIN THAT GAME.

Henderson won the game.

So he gets my vote as the greatest hockey player ever.
 

LePoche69

Registered User
Jul 15, 2004
3,424
9
Montreal
I prefer answering this way :

The best I saw : Wayne Gretzky
The best, according of what I heard of : Bobby Orr
The most "impressive" player I saw : Mario Lemieux
The best goaltender I saw : equal = Vladislav Tretiak, Patrick Roy and Domenik Hasek
The best goaltending according of what I heard of : could be the same names.
If I have to pick one player to drive his team to the league championship : Wayne Gretzky
If I have to pick one to win all the playoffs : Henri Richard (the guy has 11 stanley cups; well, IMO, it has to mean something, isn't it?)
If I have to pick one to win a best of seven series : Mark Messier
If I have to pick one to win one game : Maurice Richard
If I have to pick one to win an overtime game : Maurice Richard and Patrick Roy


That's about it.
 

arrbez

bad chi
Jun 2, 2004
13,352
261
Toronto
LePoche69 said:
If I have to pick one to win all the playoffs : Henri Richard (the guy has 11 stanley cups; well, IMO, it has to mean something, isn't it?)

It means he was fortunate enough to straddle two dynasties, and retire during a 3rd... ;)

Good player, but hardly to the go-to guy on any of those teams. It was more good luck than anything else that has him above so many greater players in that category.

Then again, maybe he was a good luck charm? I wonder if they rubbed his hair before games...
 

B Boarding

Registered User
Feb 26, 2005
1,055
70
Stockholm, Sweden
Jonas Höglund....

...no wait, it's Mario Lemieux!

He was clearly better than Gretzky from late 80's when he had matured as a player. And you can't really say that Gretzky regressed when he was like 27. Nope, the other players caught up on him and Lemieux got past him. Lemieux's play between 1988 to 1997 is the best I've ever seen.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
God Bless Canada said:
There is far more than just pure skill to being an NHL player....There's only so much you can teach a player, the rest is God-given attributes/ingrained character traits.

Maurice Richard was a gifted goal scorer. But he was also a ferocious competitor and a born winner. That's what made him great, and that's why he would dominate any era. Gordie Howe had every necessary trait to be an all-time great. So did Jean Beliveau and Stan Mikita. Bobby Hull had the greatest shot in the history of the game, and the passion, determination and nose for the net to go with it.

From your keyboard to HF's eyes. I get (well, I used to) into debates with NYI fans over Alexei Yashin. The common complaint was: "Get him a winger, etc., and he'll score such and such amount of points". Which misses your point entirely. Skill - and offensive skill specifically, because that is the most obvious talent - alone does not make a hockey player. Nor does it make one a leader, a winner.

Very first time I saw Crosby and Ovechkin play this season, I posted how impressed I was with both of them. Why? One reason. They played hard...on every square inch of the ice. That, much moreso than the obvious elite skills they possess, caught my eye.
 
Last edited:

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
Thanks for the nice words. It is tough finding time to post as often as I would like.

God Bless Canada said:
For those of you wondering why I consider ClassicHockey to be the best poster around (even though we don't always agree), you have your answer. A brilliant, thorough post, with strong analysis. Excellent work. Just wish you (and reckoning) posted more often.
 

JCD

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
14,523
2
Visit site
B Boarding said:
Jonas Höglund....

...no wait, it's Mario Lemieux!

He was clearly better than Gretzky from late 80's when he had matured as a player. And you can't really say that Gretzky regressed when he was like 27. Nope, the other players caught up on him and Lemieux got past him. Lemieux's play between 1988 to 1997 is the best I've ever seen.

Might want to change those years. In 88, Wayne won the Stanley Cup (again) along with another Conn Smyth. Only reason he didn't win the Ross was due to injuries. In 89 he got the Hart back from Mario while carrying the sad-sack Kings back to respectability on his shoulders. IHe put his name back on the Art Ross in both 90 and 91 (Mario was hurt), though Mario did put his name on the Cup in 91 dominated both 92 and 93. It was the play-offs of 93' though that Gretzky put on a show for the ages when he carried the Kings all the way to the Stalney Cup finals.

It is only from 94 on that you can say "clearly" Mario was better with any degree fo legitimacy.
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
arrbez said:
It means he was fortunate enough to straddle two dynasties, and retire during a 3rd... ;)

Good player, but hardly to the go-to guy on any of those teams. It was more good luck than anything else that has him above so many greater players in that category.

Then again, maybe he was a good luck charm? I wonder if they rubbed his hair before games...
Outside of the records that Gretzky owns (career goals and points in the regular season and playoffs) there is no greater record for a player than Henri Richard's 11 Stanley Cups. In fact, if there's any record that I would want, it would be most career Stanley Cups.

I think it's a testament to Henri Richard's abilities that he was able to be around for 11 Stanley Cups. He never scored more than 80 points in a season, but he was a fabulous all-round player, and clutch in the post-season. If he's good enough to be on the best team in hockey 11 times, that's good enough for me. I'm not familiar with the Richards' parents, but they must have done something right, because they raised two of the greatest winners in the history of the game.

Interesting to note that on the THN top 100 list released in 1998, H. Richard finished ahead of Bryan Trottier. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a testament to just how good Henri was. H. Richard is a deserving HHOFer and one of the top 50 players ever.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
JCD said:
...though Mario did put his name on the Cup in 91 dominated both 92 and 93.

I'll never get into a Mario/Gretzky debate, I have my opinion and that is all it ever will be. (And I list #4 above both of them.)

Will say that anyone around hockey during those two seasons you cite above (1991-92) will never forget Mario during those times. Inconceivable to me that a hockey player could perform at a higher level. He dominated the playoffs, indeed.
 

arrbez

bad chi
Jun 2, 2004
13,352
261
Toronto
God Bless Canada said:
Outside of the records that Gretzky owns (career goals and points in the regular season and playoffs) there is no greater record for a player than Henri Richard's 11 Stanley Cups. In fact, if there's any record that I would want, it would be most career Stanley Cups.

I think it's a testament to Henri Richard's abilities that he was able to be around for 11 Stanley Cups. He never scored more than 80 points in a season, but he was a fabulous all-round player, and clutch in the post-season. If he's good enough to be on the best team in hockey 11 times, that's good enough for me. I'm not familiar with the Richards' parents, but they must have done something right, because they raised two of the greatest winners in the history of the game.

Interesting to note that on the THN top 100 list released in 1998, H. Richard finished ahead of Bryan Trottier. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a testament to just how good Henri was. H. Richard is a deserving HHOFer and one of the top 50 players ever.

:help:

I think top 50 is really pushing it. Basically, his career spanned the perfect amount of time for the Canadiens. I don't mean he was just "there" in the sense that he didn't do anything. He was a great player, but also very lucky to play on some of the best teams ever.

Stanley Cups are the ultimate achievment, but they can't be used to directly a measure a player's "greatness" because so much of it is out of their hands (it's a team game, after all). The way that player performs in the post-season should be the indicator, regardless of how good their team was
 

Roger's Pancreas*

Guest
I've read stories from Don Cherry on Bobby Orr, and it sounds too impressive to be true. From my understanding, the great Orr took over both ends of the ice; not just in the offensive zone, everywhere! He could score a magnificent goal by himself, or kill a penalty by skating around the net just holding onto the puck. For someone to dominate the game consistently, while playing on one leg, while never fully reaching his prime, translates to him being the best player ever. I would rank Bobby Orr ahead of Wayne Gretzky, ahead of Lemieux, ahead of Richard, and never look back.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
I think if you want to pick the greatest player of all time, I think you have to define what it means to be the greatest.

To me, it's simple.

Knowing everything we know about all the players (stats, successes, injuries, etc...), if you were able to select 1 player first overall in a draft featuring every player who has ever played, who would you pick, knowing how that their career would unfold the way it did?

Would you pick Gretzky and his 20 years?

Would you pick Howe and his 300 years?

Would you pick Mario and his on and off 14 years?

Would you pick Orr and his 12 years?

I personally would take Gretzky...
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
God Bless Canada said:
Chad Kilger would not have been a star in the 1940s. Arrbez, as much as I respect his inquizative nature, is wrong there. Kilger doesn't have the it qualities to be a star: the instincts, the drive, the ultra-competitive edge. If he had those, he'd be a star today.

There is far more than just pure skill to being an NHL player. If that's all it took, then Jason Bonsignore, Robert Dome and Alexander Volchkov would have had points under the Ogopogo system by now, because they have the talent to be stars. They don't have the drive, dedication, discipline, commitment to the team to be stars. There's only so much you can teach a player, the rest is God-given attributes/ingrained character traits. To say it's all just skill takes away the mental aspect and the intangibles that makes our game so great.

Maurice Richard was a gifted goal scorer. But he was also a ferocious competitor and a born winner. That's what made him great, and that's why he would dominate any era. Gordie Howe had every necessary trait to be an all-time great. So did Jean Beliveau and Stan Mikita. Bobby Hull had the greatest shot in the history of the game, and the passion, determination and nose for the net to go with it.

I think you are severely over-estimating how good the players back in the 50's were.

Between coaching, training, equipment, etc... there is a huge difference between hockey today and hockey in the 1950's.

The great players will always be great in respect to their peers... those things that you talked about play into effect when everyone has the same tools... not when one person has a decided physical (talking the training, coaching, etc...) advantage over an entire era of players.

You put Chad Kilger of now into an 1950's game and he lights it up, without question. He'd have no one who could match up physically, he'd have 50 years of better coaching strategies to help him, he'd be in significantly better physical condition (i.e. being specifically trained for hockey). It wouldn't even be close.

If he can score on an NHL goalie now, he'd absolutely light up those guys from the 50's.

You are severely underestimating the evolution and growth of the game. Now, if you want to say Gordie Howe, with modern training, coaching and equipment would have been a great player in today's age... I will agree with that.

When matched up with those with a similar opportunity, things like the will to win, desire, etc... will give guys the edge... but that outright physical superiority is huge... plus the evolution of coaching from then to now is a decided advantage.
 

hockeyfan125

Registered User
Jul 10, 2004
20,017
0
Imo, it comes down to what is a hockey player?

Hockey is fighting, hockey is scoring, hockey is hitting.

Wayne Gretzky might be the best NHL player ever, but the best HOCKEY player ever is Bobby Orr, he truely could do it all.

Hypothetically, if an alien came to earth and wanted to know what a hockey player looked/played like... you would show him a tape of Bobby Orr scoring/hitting/fighting/ragging the puck on the PK. I can't even imagine what it would have been like to be alive and in Boston during his prime years...
 

CJ17

Registered User
Oct 15, 2005
1,108
0
MA
Orr, Gretzky, Howe, Mario, Shore, Bourque...in that order...Best player in the last 15 years...very easy..Joe Sakic.
 

Lunatik*

Guest
Slick said:
I know this is a broad question that I'm sure has been covered many times on here, and for creating a new thread on this matter I apologize but I do not have the ability to search the forum for some reason.

Is Wayne Gretzky necessarily the greatest hockey player of all time? Due to his nickname being "The Great One", they are hard up on considering anyone else as a better player. What about Gordy Howe (though his records were broken by Gretzky), or Bobby Orr? Anyone else have an opinion, and can explain why they feel this? Thanks.

I already posted this same question in the Bruin's thread, however my friend believes that it is too biased. Here is the original thread
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=220748

Thanks for your input.
Kevin
I never saw Bobby Orr play... but I still believe he is the greatest player in History... my top 5 would be...

1. Bobby Orr
2. Wayne Gretzky
3. Ken Dryden
4. Gordie Howe
5. Patrick Roy
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
dawgbone said:
I think you are severely over-estimating how good the players back in the 50's were.

Between coaching, training, equipment, etc... there is a huge difference between hockey today and hockey in the 1950's.

The great players will always be great in respect to their peers... those things that you talked about play into effect when everyone has the same tools... not when one person has a decided physical (talking the training, coaching, etc...) advantage over an entire era of players.

You put Chad Kilger of now into an 1950's game and he lights it up, without question. He'd have no one who could match up physically, he'd have 50 years of better coaching strategies to help him, he'd be in significantly better physical condition (i.e. being specifically trained for hockey). It wouldn't even be close.

If he can score on an NHL goalie now, he'd absolutely light up those guys from the 50's.

You are severely underestimating the evolution and growth of the game. Now, if you want to say Gordie Howe, with modern training, coaching and equipment would have been a great player in today's age... I will agree with that.

When matched up with those with a similar opportunity, things like the will to win, desire, etc... will give guys the edge... but that outright physical superiority is huge... plus the evolution of coaching from then to now is a decided advantage.
And you're severely underestimating the mental side of the game. All-time great players are born to be all-time great players. They have that winners' mentality, that edge, that ability to elevate their game to the next level. They have the instincts. Kilger has none of these.

Keep in mind that Kilger was rated by a small number of scouts as the best player available in the 1995 draft. Yet in his first 11 years in the NHL, he has shown nothing to indicate he will be better than a third liner who may be better served as a fourth liner. Why? Because he's not good enough? No. He is blessed with excellent size, and pretty good skills for a big man. But he doesn't have the mentality or the instincts to be a star. Put him in any era, and your results are essentially the same: third or fourth liner.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
jtuzzi said:
Imo, it comes down to what is a hockey player?

Hockey is fighting, hockey is scoring, hockey is hitting.

Wayne Gretzky might be the best NHL player ever, but the best HOCKEY player ever is Bobby Orr, he truely could do it all.

Hypothetically, if an alien came to earth and wanted to know what a hockey player looked/played like... you would show him a tape of Bobby Orr scoring/hitting/fighting/ragging the puck on the PK. I can't even imagine what it would have been like to be alive and in Boston during his prime years...

I see hockey differently. Hockey is results.

You see hockey as a style thing and that is your right. But, if you get the results, who cares how you look doing it? Wayne Gretzky got more results than any player in NHL history (even when you adjust for era) so, the fact that he was not a big hitter, fighter or defensive stalwart is irrelevant. Gretzky got the job done, which is indicated by his 9 Hart Trophies, his runaway scoring titles and 4 Stanley Cups.

You may not have cared for how he did it but, the fact remains he DID it to a greater extent than anyone.

That is my view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->