pretty sure Lemieux had the highest PPG in NHL stat leaders until 2002 or something like that
What's with the whole evolution theory? The human race is the same as it was 200 years ago, the idea that athletes magically evoled superpowers in the last 20 years is absurd.Except the game has evolved so much now that we are starting to hit a plateau.
Yes players are generally bigger, faster, smarter and more skilled than the players in the 1980's, but this evolution cannot continue at this rate because then what would happen?
Will the players in the future be 7'0 and skate like Bure? Will they be able to fly, will goalies have reflexes and vision that is fater than the speed of light?
I doubt it. Certain physical evolution can only go so far.
Very simple, put two 6'5 defenseman from each side and clog Gretzky's opening. What would he do then?
I watched some video tapes of both Lemieux and Gretzky and tried to compare them and I never saw a player get so much open ice, never get checked like Gretzky did.
My uncle has over 1000 video tapes taped of hockey games.
Watch all of Gretzky's highlights, he never ever got touched.
Was he that good that if you tried to check him he "would burn you"?
Burn you with what? His imposing size and strength? His superior stickhandling and speed?
This is a pointless argument. People that grew up with Gretzky and the amazing things that he did aren't willing to accept the evolution of a sport. Even before the NHL became as stacked as it is today he was losing his touch in his late 20s. People are talking about wear and tear and injuries...but it's not like Gretzky took a lot of punishment. There's no way he would have anywhere near the space or respect today if he played in the NHL that he did then.
Ultimately yes he probably would be one of the best players in the league right now, but there's no way he would put up the kinds of numbers that he did in that day's NHL. The game is just too different; there's been so much evolution.
he probably would be one of the best players in the league right now.
How come players like Selanne, Jagr, Sakic who had gotten older and have experienced injuries put up impressive numbers even in the their mid to late 30's?
Very simple, put two 6'5 defenseman from each side and clog Gretzky's opening. What would he do then?
I watched some video tapes of both Lemieux and Gretzky and tried to compare them and I never saw a player get so much open ice, never get checked like Gretzky did.
My uncle has over 1000 video tapes taped of hockey games.
Watch all of Gretzky's highlights, he never ever got touched.
Was he that good that if you tried to check him he "would burn you"?
Burn you with what? His imposing size and strength? His superior stickhandling and speed?
What's with the whole evolution theory? The human race is the same as it was 200 years ago, the idea that athletes magically evoled superpowers in the last 20 years is absurd.
As far as Gretzkty not getting hit, just ask Denis Potvin about that.
Potvin is on record saying he tried to hit him for years and couldn't.
He said mostly you got air but even if you did make contact, that's all it was, just a little contact. Connecting solid was all but impossible.
I needed a good chuckle today.
You pretty much summed it up in your last sentence why it wouldn't matter one bit today.
Gretzkty wasn't even at the top of the league in any of those area's in his own era heh.
It was what was between his ears, find weaknesses and think ahead of everyone else.
It was like he was playing Chess and he was 10 moves ahead of anyone else playing.
As far as Gretzkty not getting hit, just ask Denis Potvin about that.
Potvin is on record saying he tried to hit him for years and couldn't.
He said mostly you got air but even if you did make contact, that's all it was, just a little contact. Connecting solid was all but impossible.
At some point he just had to forget about it and try another day because it could become frustrating to the point that it would affect other parts of your game.
Also, in case you didn't know and judging by your posts so far you don't but Potvin was one of the nastiest hitters I have ever seen this side of Scott Stevens.
The "goons" Gretzky had were there to protect him from cheap shots, not from getting hit.
...and if anything shows your age, it's that you think it would be possible to "rough" Gretzky up by today's standards hahaha.
The toughest and roughest team in the league today would get their ***** handed to them by the meekest team in the 80's.
To add to this: You hear coaches who had to try to coach against Gretzky say that their entire strategy of games revolved around trying to stop Gretzky. We are talking about some of the smartest hockey minds in the world that couldn't do it.
Very simple, put two 6'5 defenseman from each side and clog Gretzky's opening. What would he do then?
The reason he scored 50 in 39 then only scored 1 in his last 8 is that Gretzky was a product of the high-scoring 1981 part of the season. He couldn't compete against the nutrition and fitness knowledge and evolutionary superiority of the modern 1982 part of the season players, they just blew right past him.
from main board thread about gretzky scoring 50 in 39 but failing to hit the 100 he was on pace for:
Again, those of you who blatanly proclaim that Gretzky would dominate the league today are making the same flawed assumptions that you routinely chastize others for making when they dont share your point.
Being condescending to newer fans or those that are deemed less educated is hilarious when some of the responses are of the "Gretzky was the smartest ever and would dominate in every era. No one would or could solve him. He did everything right, he was infallible as a player" variety. Sure, the man was a legend. His talent trascended the game.
I dont understand why there cant exist any compromise, like considering that most if not all elite players, Gretzky included, had variables that contributed to their success. This isnt to suggest that Gretzky wasnt a phenom completely on his own, but he benefitted from playing in the right era with the right team around him at the right time (speaking to the dominating years he had when in his prime). Its not a slight against him, the same can be said for those who's accomplishments pale in comparison to this but we stars (Sakic, Yzerman, Howe, Lemieux).
Gretzky is so idealised that newer fans or those who want to learn about the history of the game probably feel as though no one before or ever after him will be able to carve a career worth even half of what his was. He never made an errant pass, he never had a back game, he was never hit in the corner, and people left him alone because they could simply not stop him. This is all revisionism to a certain extent.
There is no middle ground it seems. Maybe some people are disgruntled by having to hear so many younger players being compared to or even proclaimed to be better than 99. The irony is that the same people who idolized Orr said the same kind of things about the pro Gretzky crowd. Stop the cycle.
Gretzky may be fantastic in the game today, who's to say? Maybe he looks out at the lanes behind the net, tries to move into the corner and gets drilled. Maybe he wins multiple pieces of hardware and Crosby and Malkin and Ovechkin and Datsyuk are afterthoughts, the Jari Kurris of their generation.
I just fail to see how seeing Gretzky play years ago qualifies one to say that he would dominate now. And if thats allowed, whats the issue with seeing a guy like Crosby play now, and saying he could dominate back in the day?
Again, those of you who blatanly proclaim that Gretzky would dominate the league today are making the same flawed assumptions that you routinely chastize others for making when they dont share your point.
Being condescending to newer fans or those that are deemed less educated is hilarious when some of the responses are of the "Gretzky was the smartest ever and would dominate in every era. No one would or could solve him. He did everything right, he was infallible as a player" variety. Sure, the man was a legend. His talent trascended the game.
I dont understand why there cant exist any compromise, like considering that most if not all elite players, Gretzky included, had variables that contributed to their success. This isnt to suggest that Gretzky wasnt a phenom completely on his own, but he benefitted from playing in the right era with the right team around him at the right time (speaking to the dominating years he had when in his prime). Its not a slight against him, the same can be said for those who's accomplishments pale in comparison to this but we stars (Sakic, Yzerman, Howe, Lemieux).
Gretzky is so idealised that newer fans or those who want to learn about the history of the game probably feel as though no one before or ever after him will be able to carve a career worth even half of what his was. He never made an errant pass, he never had a back game, he was never hit in the corner, and people left him alone because they could simply not stop him. This is all revisionism to a certain extent.
There is no middle ground it seems. Maybe some people are disgruntled by having to hear so many younger players being compared to or even proclaimed to be better than 99. The irony is that the same people who idolized Orr said the same kind of things about the pro Gretzky crowd. Stop the cycle.
Gretzky may be fantastic in the game today, who's to say? Maybe he looks out at the lanes behind the net, tries to move into the corner and gets drilled. Maybe he wins multiple pieces of hardware and Crosby and Malkin and Ovechkin and Datsyuk are afterthoughts, the Jari Kurris of their generation.
I just fail to see how seeing Gretzky play years ago qualifies one to say that he would dominate now. And if thats allowed, whats the issue with seeing a guy like Crosby play now, and saying he could dominate back in the day?
Because Jagr never got injured right? He did not dislocate his shoulder and require reconstructive surgery. He did not have numerous groin injuries due to his chronic groin, he did not miss time due to a knee injury; injuries that can all diminish a player's effectiveness.
Because Jagr never got a concussion at the 2005-06 Olympics when Ruutuu hit him from behind.
Selanne did not have 3 knee surgeries.
Sakic did not get injured.
I guess Gretzky is the only player who hurt is "poor back".
Lemieux didn't battle cancer and a chronic bad back and score 160 Pts in 1995-96, he did not score 76 Pts in 43 games in 2000-01 after being away from hockey for 4 years.
Gretzky is the only one that got old and got injured!!!
Not a lot of middle ground to be had with a title like "The Great One".
Besides, finding the middle ground should entail equal parts of acknowledging Gretzky's greatness and giving today's players their due.
Not by giving today's players their due and trying to make them look better by bashing Gretzky.
Middle ground will be found when the former happens and not the later.
Gretzky moves into a corner and gets drilled? That's why he hid behind the net in the first place.
As for the last point the guy who has
seen both is capable of making a comparison. The guy who hasn't is 12 years old and from Pittsburgh or Nova Scotia.
...
I did that cycle thing again, didn't I? Oh well. I also think Muhammad Ali could beat the Klitschko brothers (well, not at the same time), and Michael Jordan could could dominate the no hand check NBA like Gretzky could in the no obstruction new NHL.
Fair enough.
As blindingly fast as everyone says Bobby Orr was, is it really criminal to consider that even though he may have been far ahead of his peers, he may fall into the middle of the pack in this day and age? That takes nothing away from the guy, just that he may have not trained the same or enjoyed the same equipment advantages. Even if he had though, there is no proper way to say he would be faster than players of today.
And perhaps no one looks at it this way but I do:
_________________________________
Not criminal, just not true.