Howe or Lemieux

[jiggs 10]

From 1946 to 1971, the Red Wings played 1744 games. Howe played in 1687 of them, or 96.7%. In terms of health, I'd say that's quite a difference from Lemieux who was never able to play a complete season.

Is that Howe's fault? What is your point? The thread is about who was better-Howe or Lemieux. Howe had the much better career, far more success, and was the better all-around player. Mario may have had better in-tight moves, but other than the 20 games he missed due to the radiation treatments, just plain missed games Howe would have played in. We've all had sore backs, but we go on. I've had back spasms that had me bed-ridden for a week, but managed to keep playing hockey. Granted, not at an NHL level, but it's all relative. A sore back would not have slowed down Howe, Yzerman, Richard, Gilmour, or others who had a little more "grit" than Mario. But it stopped Mario.

 

[Masao]

Is that Howe's fault? What is your point? The thread is about who was better-Howe or Lemieux. Howe had the much better career, far more success, and was the better all-around player. Mario may have had better in-tight moves, but other than the 20 games he missed due to the radiation treatments, just plain missed games Howe would have played in. We've all had sore backs, but we go on. I've had back spasms that had me bed-ridden for a week, but managed to keep playing hockey. Granted, not at an NHL level, but it's all relative. A sore back would not have slowed down Howe, Yzerman, Richard, Gilmour, or others who had a little more "grit" than Mario. But it stopped Mario.

And a back surgery in 1990, and another in 1993... that's a little more than a "sore back."

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

From 1946 to 1971, the Red Wings played 1744 games. Howe played in 1687 of them, or 96.7%. In terms of health, I'd say that's quite a difference from Lemieux who was never able to play a complete season.

I look at that and say, Wow! It is amazing that someone could play that well for that long while remaining healthy.

I don't look at that and say, hmm, he played in a lot of games, that's no good...

 

[Masao]

I look at that and say, Wow! It is amazing that someone could play that well for that long while remaining healthy.

I don't look at that and say, hmm, he played in a lot of games, that's no good...

That's not my point at all. I was just pointing out that Lemieux was bothered by injuries a lot more.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

That's not my point at all. I was just pointing out that Lemieux was bothered by injuries a lot more.

While true. That is essentially why Howe was better. Because Howe was the best for more than twice as long as Lemieux.

 

[Masao]

While true. That is essentially why Howe was better. Because Howe was the best for more than twice as long as Lemieux.

I'm not trying to argue who was best or what, because it really depents on the criteria you're using or what you think is more important. I was just pointing out that, whoever is better, it's not as clear as it's often made out to be, because there are a lot of very strong arguments for both of them (as well as Gretzky and Orr) to be the best, and all those arguments have some weight. IMO saying that Lemieux is "far" from the top 3 is overlooking the years he spent terrorizing goaltenders and defensemen alike with moves no one had ever seen before, and practically on a day to day basis.

When he was in his prime (23 to 30 years old) NO ONE has beaten him in the scoring race if he played even just 60 games. No one. Howe for instance didn't win the scoring title in 55-56 (28 years old) even if he played every game in the season, Gretzky didn't win it in 88-89 (27 years old) despite playing 78 out of 80 games. In 86-87, Lemieux was 22 and it was the last time before 2003 he didn't win the scoring title after playing more than 60 games (he played 63, missing 17). Every other year until his first retirement, if he was healthy enough to play 60 games, no one could match him in the scoring race. Does it mean he's better than Orr or Howe or Gretzky? No it doesn't, and that's not what I'm trying to say, because there's a lot more to scoring in hockey. What I'm trying to say is, I think it's a lot closer than lots of people think. He was too good to to be overlooked the way he often is.

Masao out.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

If, if if.

A players place in history isn't what they might have could have been.

Being the 4th best of all time out of the millions of people to play the sport is hardly a knock on Lemieux.

 

[Masao]

If, if if.

A players place in history isn't what they might have could have been.

Being the 4th best of all time out of the millions of people to play the sport is hardly a knock on Lemieux.

I don't understand the whole "if" thing. I only stated facts, I never said stuff like "he'd have scored 3000 points if he was never injured" or anything like that. I said that when he was in his prime and healthy no one ever passed him in the scoring race, and that's a fact, whereas both Gretzky and Howe were beaten in their prime and while playing all or almost all the games in the season.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I don't understand the whole "if" thing. I only stated facts, I never said stuff like "he'd have scored 3000 points if he was never injured" or anything like that. I said that when he was in his prime and healthy no one ever passed him in the scoring race, and that's a fact, whereas both Gretzky and Howe were beaten in their prime and while playing all or almost all the games in the season.

The problem is, that he wasn't healthy every year, so you can't say it never would have happened. "When healthy" is just another if. Lemieux won 6 scoring titles. Equal to Howe, 4 behind Gretzky.

 

[Masao]

The problem is, that he wasn't healthy every year, so you can't say it never would have happened. "When healthy" is just another if. Lemieux won 6 scoring titles. Equal to Howe, 4 behind Gretzky.

That's not a "what if." It's just a constatation of what happened in facts. That no one beat him when he was healthy during 87-97 is a fact. I have no idea how that can be considered a what if. A what if is saying something like, had he played every game in 1993-94 he would have won the scoring title, but I didn't say anything like that.

 

[Robo-Pope]

If, if if.

A players place in history isn't what they might have could have been.

Being the 4th best of all time out of the millions of people to play the sport is hardly a knock on Lemieux.

There is no "if" in what he did. 1.9 points per game and an absolute terror on the ice.
Using games played or total points or anything like that to determine the best is ridiculous. Was Vincent Damphousse better than Mario? He played more games. Was Lemieux worse than his backup, Ron Francis? Francis had more points.
Howe ranks at the top in raw statistics because he played such an absurd number of games. Not that he wasn't great, he certainly was. But was he REALLY better than Lemieux?

All-time goals per game. #1 Mike Bossy. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 26.
All-time points per game. #1 Wayne Gretzky. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 27.

Howe was clearly better? Really?

 

[Levizk]

There is no "if" in what he did. 1.9 points per game and an absolute terror on the ice.
Using games played or total points or anything like that to determine the best is ridiculous. Was Vincent Damphousse better than Mario? He played more games. Was Lemieux worse than his backup, Ron Francis? Francis had more points.
Howe ranks at the top in raw statistics because he played such an absurd number of games. Not that he wasn't great, he certainly was. But was he REALLY better than Lemieux?

All-time goals per game. #1 Mike Bossy. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 26.
All-time points per game. #1 Wayne Gretzky. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 27.

Howe was clearly better? Really?

Plus Lemieux was actually first in the all-time points per game category until he came out of his first retirement to try and save his investment. That stunt helped to ruin some of his stats.

 

[Ogopogo*]

There is no "if" in what he did. 1.9 points per game and an absolute terror on the ice.
Using games played or total points or anything like that to determine the best is ridiculous. Was Vincent Damphousse better than Mario? He played more games. Was Lemieux worse than his backup, Ron Francis? Francis had more points.
Howe ranks at the top in raw statistics because he played such an absurd number of games. Not that he wasn't great, he certainly was. But was he REALLY better than Lemieux?

All-time goals per game. #1 Mike Bossy. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 26.
All-time points per game. #1 Wayne Gretzky. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 27.

Howe was clearly better? Really?

Goals and points per game are completely irrelevant and ineffective ways to compare players across eras. Levels of offense are different every year so saying that Mario was better or had a better career than Howe based on that is like convicting someone for murder because they live on the same floor as the deceased. Not convincing evidence at all.

Look at the 1950-1953 scoring races. Lemieux never dominated the NHL like Howe did those four years.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Plus Lemieux was actually first in the all-time points per game category until he came out of his first retirement to try and save his investment. That stunt helped to ruin some of his stats.

You don't "ruin stats" by playing more games.

Lemieux's career PPG was skewed because he did not have a normal career where his play declined as he aged. Coming back helped to put his PPG into a little more realistic light.

But, as I have said, PPG is so skewed it is virtually worthless.

 

[PurpleShamrock]

Tough call, but I'm going to go with Howe on this one. I'd say Mario probably has the edge for pure offensive skill. That said, I'd still take Howe for his all-around game. Moreover, Howe was still a reasonably effective player at age 51, a factor which I find impossible to overlook (and no, that's not intended as a backhanded dismissal of Lemieux's battle with Hodgkin's).

All in all, I agree with the consensus that Orr, Howe and Gretzky are the Holy Trinity of Hockey. I would put Super Mario and the late Rocket Richard on the next tier -- a notch below the first three, and a notch above the likes of Jean Beliveau, Bobby Hull, Eddie Shore and Doug Harvey.

Edit: I tend to rate goaltenders separately because they (or should I say 'we'? ) are a completely different animal.

 

[Masao]

is like convicting someone for murder because they live on the same floor as the deceased. Not convincing evidence at all.

Woah

Honestly, I think the PPG stat can be very helpful.

Think about this, in one year the top scorer has 120 points in 75 games and the second has 115 in 55 games. Although the first has more points and won the 'Ross, his season is still a lot less impressive if you compare the PPG of 1.6 to the other one at 2.1.

Of course as you said it's useless to compare it across eras unless you rate it against, say, the top 10 PPGs in the NHL that year and the average goals/game in the league. Like Howe in the 50s in some years he had twice as many points as any player in the league except like 2 or 3.

There's another thing, though... before the 80s there were very few if any europeans in the NHL, and by now we know that they're just as good at hockey over there as here (think of all the olympic gold medals the USSR won). Would guys like Howe and Morenz have dominated as much if they were facing competition like Vsevolod Bobrov and others? Of course, it's pure speculation, but shows that it's almost impossible to compare NHL player across half a decade in time based off stats alone.

 

[slade]

We've all had sore backs, but we go on. I've had back spasms that had me bed-ridden for a week, but managed to keep playing hockey. Granted, not at an NHL level, but it's all relative. A sore back would not have slowed down Howe, Yzerman, Richard, Gilmour, or others who had a little more "grit" than Mario. But it stopped Mario.

his back "soreness" was a congenital narrowing of the spine-

please do not compare your back spams to this ailment- thats pretty ridiculous.

grit has nothing to do with this whatsoever. mario didnt need grit. he wasnt there to be a defensive forward. he was a magician and more offensively skilled then any player of all time. howe had a great career and his longevity is admirable- but in terms of skill- i dont think anyone is close to mario.

 

[Wetcoaster]

There is no "if" in what he did. 1.9 points per game and an absolute terror on the ice.
Using games played or total points or anything like that to determine the best is ridiculous. Was Vincent Damphousse better than Mario? He played more games. Was Lemieux worse than his backup, Ron Francis? Francis had more points.
Howe ranks at the top in raw statistics because he played such an absurd number of games. Not that he wasn't great, he certainly was. But was he REALLY better than Lemieux?

All-time goals per game. #1 Mike Bossy. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 26.
All-time points per game. #1 Wayne Gretzky. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 27.

Howe was clearly better? Really?

Yes, clearly.

Howe's prime was during a much lower scoring era. He won 6 Art Ross trophies and 6 Harts.

I began watching hockey in 1958 when Howe was in his prime. He is head and shoulders above Mario.

 

[pitseleh]

Yes, clearly.

Howe's prime was during a much lower scoring era. He won 6 Art Ross trophies and 6 Harts.

I began watching hockey in 1958 when Howe was in his prime. He is head and shoulders above Mario.

The scary thing is you may not have even seen Gordie at his best. His stretch of hockey from 1950-1954 was incredibly dominant - winning scoring titles by 25% and up.

 

[God Bless Canada]

There is no "if" in what he did. 1.9 points per game and an absolute terror on the ice.
Using games played or total points or anything like that to determine the best is ridiculous. Was Vincent Damphousse better than Mario? He played more games. Was Lemieux worse than his backup, Ron Francis? Francis had more points.
Howe ranks at the top in raw statistics because he played such an absurd number of games. Not that he wasn't great, he certainly was. But was he REALLY better than Lemieux?

All-time goals per game. #1 Mike Bossy. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 26.
All-time points per game. #1 Wayne Gretzky. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 27.

Howe was clearly better? Really?

I believe that during one of Howe's Art Ross seasons, he was the only NHL regular to average over a point-per-game. That's how tough the league was in the late 40s/early 50s. You had true all-time greats at all positions, but you'd have under five goals per game. That's why the NHL, in terms of the level of play, peaked in the Original 6.

Give Gordie Howe a chance to score against back-up goalies, and other goalies who shouldn't be No. 1's, and then give him a chance to work Red Kelly into the offence, and he's right up there in terms of career points-per-game. Howe in the 1980s is a gimmie for 150-plus points per season.

I think Mario Lemieux is the most physically gifted player of all-time. He had incredible quickness, skill and sense, and he put it all in a 6'4", 210-pound frame. We've seen other big forwards with "tell your grandkids about it skill" - Beliveau, Howe, Messier, Jagr, Conacher, Frank Mahovlich - but nobody like Lemieux.

I don't think the injuries were his downfall. I think his biggest problem was his commitment to the game early in his career. If he had Gretzky's work ethic and passion for the game, then I think Lemieux would be No. 2 on the all-time list behind only Bobby Orr. But Lemieux's commitment to the game early in his career wasn't always there.

I remember THN did a collection of lists for the 1989 Yearbook. One of them was "Headlines We'd Like to See." One of them was "I like Hockey more than I like Golf: Mario Lemieux." Yeah, it was done as a joke, but the bottom line is that Lemieux early in his career didn't always seem overly interested in the game.

I think winning that first Cup in 1991 helped changed his attitude, despite his "This is a garage league" comment the following year, and I think the cancer scare made a big difference, too. While you can question the circumstances for his comeback in 2000, you could tell that he had a much better outlook towards the game than he did 10 years earlier.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

PPG is worse than useless. It is an incidious stat that implies prediction rather than relying on that which actually occured. All that matters when judging a player is what actually happened.

That's not a "what if." It's just a constatation of what happened in facts. That no one beat him when he was healthy during 87-97 is a fact. I have no idea how that can be considered a what if. A what if is saying something like, had he played every game in 1993-94 he would have won the scoring title, but I didn't say anything like that.

But saying that no one beat him when healthy is a direct implication that he would have won those other years. You aren't outwardly saying he would have won in 93-94. But you are indirectly saying it.

Fact: Mario Lemieux won the scoring title in 87-88, 88-89, 91-92, 92-93, 95-96 & 96-97.

 

[Wetcoaster]

The scary thing is you may not have even seen Gordie at his best. His stretch of hockey from 1950-1954 was incredibly dominant - winning scoring titles by 25% and up.

He was remarkable and over a long period of time.

I have seen Howe, Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux play while at the top of their games.

The first three are in a whole different class.

The only player I can envisage joining them at that level at this point in time is Crosby but only time will tell.

 

[Stephen]

Lemieux had everything going for him except a wonky body that would fall apart on him, but I still take him and his minus 1000 game career over 26 years of Howe just because he was so dominant offensively. Sometimes I wonder how much more amazing he would have been if he had had a true mean streak and would actually punish guys.

 

[pappyline]

He was remarkable and over a long period of time.

I have seen Howe, Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux play while at the top of their games.

The first three are in a whole different class.

The only player I can envisage joining them at that level at this point in time is Crosby but only time will tell.

We are all entitled to our opinion. I too have seen all these players in their prime. I consider Orr to be in a whole different class. In the next tier are Howe, Lemieux & Gretzy (ny rank) and right behind them is Bobby Hull.

 

[DRWR]

I don't see how people under 40 can vote in some of these polls. If you never see a guy play, how can you judge.

I saw Howe play in 1997.
Alright, maybe not the best criteria to judge a player, but he still gets my vote.