was hockey talent better in the 1970s-1990s or 2000-2020?

apollo18

Registered User
Oct 20, 2018
390
138
as we can see, mostly all of the nhl records are held by someone playing in the 70s to 90s era of hockey. gretzky seems to be called the GOAT, as he racked up points and points back in the day. Since the 2000s we have seen the likes of Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin etc but everyone still gives gretzky the throne for goat.

so what do you guys think? was the hockey talent produced back in the day just alot better? which is why we see hull, howe, lemeiux, gretzky, etc etc all holding some record? or it just that the competition back in the day was easier?


my thinking is that: sure, there was some good players however the supporting cast's were not very good. the 2nd 3rd 4th line skill/talent are nowhere near what we have playing today. if you look at defenseman and goalies, the skill now a day is remarkable compared to the 2nd pair/3rd pair defense back in the 70s. this is why we see so many records set back in the day and barely every any these days. in my opinion it is just way harder to be way better then your competition these days which is why we dont see people racking up the points or goals etc etc. what do you guys think? i would say this also greatly effects gretzky, i think if he played in this era, he would be a top 10 player for sure, but he wouldnt easily earn the GOAT #1 ranking like he had got from playing back in the 70s
 
  • Like
Reactions: probablywrongbut

Minar

Registered User
Aug 27, 2018
328
288
What your saying about Gretzky is exactly what they said about him when he came into the league in 1979. In fact they said he might not be able to cut it in the nhl at all. And he obliterated their expectations. From 1980 to 1988 if you take Gretzky out of the equation the competition was quite even just like today. And it's not like everyone in the 80s was breaking records. Only Gretzky. Gretzky was a outlier who was light years beyond his peers. Something we haven't seen from ovi, mcdavid, Crosby or anyone else since. If he played today he would still be an outlier with today's advantages in technology and training. It is hard for people today to understand Gretzky because there has never been the likes of him. (Lemieux came close but was limited by injurues.) Take Gretzky out if the equation from his first 8 yrs and you will see the league was quite even. Top scorers besides Gretzky usually got btw 100 and 140 pts. Not that much different than today.

And PS Gretzky didnt play in the nhl in the 70s except for 3 months his first year...
 
Last edited:

Tunapants

Registered User
May 24, 2012
164
62
PHX, AZ
What your saying about Gretzky is exactly what they said about him when he came into the league in 1979. In fact they said he might not be able to cut it in the nhl at all. And he obliterated their expectations. From 1980 to 1988 if you take Gretzky out of the equation the competition was quite even just like today. And it's not like everyone in the 80s was breaking records. Only Gretzky. Gretzky was a outlier who was light years beyond his peers. Something we haven't seen from ovi, mcdavid, Crosby or anyone else since. If he played today he would still be an outlier with today's advantages in technology and training. It is hard for people today to understand Gretzky because there has never been the likes of him. (Lemieux came close but was limited by injurues.) Take Gretzky out if the equation from his first 8 yrs and you will see the league was quite even. Top scorers usually got btw 100 and 120 pts. Not that much different than today.
I see this a lot and I've never really understood. If Gretzky needed "today's training and technology" to be an outlier, then he wouldn't be an outlier as the player he was right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: authentic

Weztex

Registered User
Feb 6, 2006
3,108
3,690
I see this a lot and I've never really understood. If Gretzky needed "today's training and technology" to be an outlier, then he wouldn't be an outlier as the player he was right?

And if Ovechkin played back then, he wouldn't be scoring 100 goals doing one timers and skating with Mike Bossy's gear. The talent level is not the issue here.

How can you be an outlier if players around you benefit of developments that make it easier for them to use their strengths. Two identically talented players won't play the same hockey if one is born in 1966 and the other in 1996, all due to technological advancement. So the player Gretzky was wouldn't play the same today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: authentic

Black Kevin

I don't work my ass off
Nov 19, 2019
764
2,436
Raleigh
This has been discussed a number of times already, but here are the few main points:

1. The game has changed. The original six era, the golden age of hockey, the dead puck era, and now the modern era. Each is different from other. There was a time, when it was relatively easier to score than today. And there was a time, when it was harder. Wich brings me to number two:

2. Adjusted statistics. Some guys came up with a way to adjust statistics and guess what amigos, Gretzky still destroys everyone.

3. Like you said, the supporting pieces of todays NHL-teams are far better than before. We had guys who literally couldn't skate. Now everyone is a star. Take your average 4th liner today and he's a thousand times better than his peers from the 70's or 80's. Coaches roll with 4 lines nowadays, no more goons.

4. Equipment, etc. Have you ever tried to skate with 70's skates? Or shoot the puck with a wooden stick? Some of the young guns have never even seen a wooden stick! Gretzky scored 894 goals with a solid wood stick.
 

Mathew Barzal

Walk It Like I Tocchet
Jun 5, 2011
5,054
1,545
Vancouver, BC
Incomparable. Hockey isn't like basketball or soccer where generations can simply be compared.

The sport has evolved tremendously between decades for the past 50 years. Between rule changes and equipment upgrades and training/coaching methodologies it's simply impossible. Hockey is also one of the most luck based sports so that throws another wrench into things.

If we're talking from a purely objective standpoint modern hockey players are much better than their historical counterparts, due in no small part to technological advancements that they're privy to
 

Minar

Registered User
Aug 27, 2018
328
288
This has been discussed a number of times already, but here are the few main points:

1. The game has changed. The original six era, the golden age of hockey, the dead puck era, and now the modern era. Each is different from other. There was a time, when it was relatively easier to score than today. And there was a time, when it was harder. Wich brings me to number two:

2. Adjusted statistics. Some guys came up with a way to adjust statistics and guess what amigos, Gretzky still destroys everyone.

3. Like you said, the supporting pieces of todays NHL-teams are far better than before. We had guys who literally couldn't skate. Now everyone is a star. Take your average 4th liner today and he's a thousand times better than his peers from the 70's or 80's. Coaches roll with 4 lines nowadays, no more goons.

4. Equipment, etc. Have you ever tried to skate with 70's skates? Or shoot the puck with a wooden stick? Some of the young guns have never even seen a wooden stick! Gretzky scored 894 goals with a solid wood stick.

Yes the game has changed. And yes the 3rd and 4th liners weren't as good in the those days. But everyone else in the league played that same game and against those same 4th liners and they weren't putting up 200pts. In fact at best they were putting up 130 pts. So Gretzky is an unusually gifted player compared to his peers which we haven't seen since. There are no Gretzkys of today. If there were there would be a guy that had like 170 pts this season and the next guy has 130.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Like you said, the supporting pieces of todays NHL-teams are far better than before. We had guys who literally couldn't skate. Now everyone is a star. Take your average 4th liner today and he's a thousand times better than his peers from the 70's or 80's. Coaches roll with 4 lines nowadays, no more goons.

This clinches it for me.

Players before 2000 be like:

giphy.gif
 

Minar

Registered User
Aug 27, 2018
328
288
With this kind of thinking you would think that players who played in the 90s wouldn't have been able to keep up in the 2000s. But players like Jagr, Lemieux and others even as older players did very well in the 2000s against these 'superior athletes'
Jagr even up until 2016.
 

7even

Offered and lost
Feb 1, 2012
18,570
14,127
North Carolina
So much talk about technology when the lion's share of the difference is year-round training, diet, and not picking up smokes.

Professional athlete is a much more established, lucrative, populated, and hyper-specialized career than it was half a century ago. This creates more extreme athletes -- or maybe, modern athletes have the recent luxury of being able to spend all of their time just maintaining their athleticism and enjoy the significant benefits of extremely convenient facilities and dedicated support staff. So I guess the league's financial success is the root difference.

Talent is a very wispy word that's hard to close your fingers around. I would say today's players are more able.
 
Last edited:

libertarian

Registered User
Jul 27, 2017
3,389
3,891
Middle Earth
1970 to 2000 was the greatest era of elite offensive talent the league has ever seen. Goalies were not as good as they are today but they were much better then most young people think they were. Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr would all be much better then any of todays best players. That said the worst players in the NHL today are much better then the average NHL player of the 1980-2000 era. What I mean by this is while the 1980-2000's era had the greatest elite talent of all time today's borderline NHL players are much better then your average NHL player of the 1980-2000 era.
 

604

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
7,279
1,486
The example to bridge the gap between the high scoring 80s and now is Mario Lemieux.

A retired, 35 year-old, Lemieux came back to the league, in mid-season, after not playing for 3 years. He had lost all of his speed but still put up 76 points in 43 games...in 2000-01. He was on pace for 145 points. So despite being far far far from his prime, Lemieux scored at a pace that would put him 25 points better than Crosby's best season.

Crosby has been around for a while and it is clear that the "improved quality" of the league since he entered hasn't really affected his scoring in a major way.

To wrap this all up, Gretzky was better than Lemieux, pre-injury (Gary Suter 1991, thanks asshole!). Lemieux was better than Jagr. Jagr was more prolific than Crosby and Crosby still scores almost the same today as he did when he was younger. Therefore Gretzky would put up a billion points today.
 

Merrrlin

Grab the 9 iron, Barry!
Jul 2, 2019
6,768
6,925
Incomparable. Hockey isn't like basketball or soccer where generations can simply be compared.

The sport has evolved tremendously between decades for the past 50 years. Between rule changes and equipment upgrades and training/coaching methodologies it's simply impossible. Hockey is also one of the most luck based sports so that throws another wrench into things.

If we're talking from a purely objective standpoint modern hockey players are much better than their historical counterparts, due in no small part to technological advancements that they're privy to

Agreed. Give Mario/Gretzky composite sticks, kevlar equipment, 24/7 nutrition and training programs...who's to say they wouldn't be just as dominant?

Flip side throw Ovechkin back 30 years and maybe he gets a (larger) beer belly, and maybe the wood 1 pc slows down his clapper...he likely still gets the goals and points, but he would be objectively worse than his current self.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,985
137,359
Bojangles Parking Lot
Having had this debate many times over hundreds of posts with several deep-dives on the data, here’s my perspective:

“Hockey talent” at the NHL level consists of three major factors.
1. The total number of young hockey players — the number of “gifted” players is a function of raw population
2. Quality of training to unlock natural gifts — basically, the efficiency of the development system where they live
3. Access to the NHL pipeline — it does no good for a gifted and well trained player to peak in high school and then go work in a car dealership

In my opinion, the pro hockey talent level gained steadily from 1900 to 1980, with occasional random spikes and dips.

From 1980-2000, we saw a “golden era” because all three of the factors above were juiced:
1. Baby Boom created the largest generation in history
2. Canada and the USSR invested very heavily in sports training, and especially for hockey, and several other countries came online as world powers
3. The fall of the USSR made the NHL pipeline the most-wide-open it has ever been

Post-2000, each of these factors has receded:
1. Generations are much smaller
2. Public investment in rinks and leagues has dropped off, and the development system has become un-democratized (elite training is excellent, and inaccessible for most children)
3. The rise of viable KHL and Euro-league options has cut into the NHL talent pool. While gains in the USA have somewhat offset the impact, most “new market” hockey playing children are not actually in the NHL pipeline on a practical basis because there is no elite-level hockey infrastructure where they live.

Conclusion: the level of actual talent in the NHL rose steadily 1900-1980, peaked sharply 1980-2000, and fell off to its prior level 2000-2020. It is debatable whether it is has inclined or simply flatlined since about 2010.
 

JasonRoseEh

Registered User
Oct 23, 2018
2,933
2,346
as we can see, mostly all of the nhl records are held by someone playing in the 70s to 90s era of hockey. gretzky seems to be called the GOAT, as he racked up points and points back in the day. Since the 2000s we have seen the likes of Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin etc but everyone still gives gretzky the throne for goat.

so what do you guys think? was the hockey talent produced back in the day just alot better? which is why we see hull, howe, lemeiux, gretzky, etc etc all holding some record? or it just that the competition back in the day was easier?


my thinking is that: sure, there was some good players however the supporting cast's were not very good. the 2nd 3rd 4th line skill/talent are nowhere near what we have playing today. if you look at defenseman and goalies, the skill now a day is remarkable compared to the 2nd pair/3rd pair defense back in the 70s. this is why we see so many records set back in the day and barely every any these days. in my opinion it is just way harder to be way better then your competition these days which is why we dont see people racking up the points or goals etc etc. what do you guys think? i would say this also greatly effects gretzky, i think if he played in this era, he would be a top 10 player for sure, but he wouldnt easily earn the GOAT #1 ranking like he had got from playing back in the 70s
Absolutely not. Less teams, little to no global talent initially and only slightly moreso later. Goalies were mostly terrible, dmen nearly as bad overall which led to absurd scoring numbers that are almost impossible to touch, some will never be sniffed.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
as we can see, mostly all of the nhl records are held by someone playing in the 70s to 90s era of hockey. gretzky seems to be called the GOAT, as he racked up points and points back in the day. Since the 2000s we have seen the likes of Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin etc but everyone still gives gretzky the throne for goat.

so what do you guys think? was the hockey talent produced back in the day just alot better? which is why we see hull, howe, lemeiux, gretzky, etc etc all holding some record? or it just that the competition back in the day was easier?


my thinking is that: sure, there was some good players however the supporting cast's were not very good. the 2nd 3rd 4th line skill/talent are nowhere near what we have playing today. if you look at defenseman and goalies, the skill now a day is remarkable compared to the 2nd pair/3rd pair defense back in the 70s. this is why we see so many records set back in the day and barely every any these days. in my opinion it is just way harder to be way better then your competition these days which is why we dont see people racking up the points or goals etc etc. what do you guys think? i would say this also greatly effects gretzky, i think if he played in this era, he would be a top 10 player for sure, but he wouldnt easily earn the GOAT #1 ranking like he had got from playing back in the 70s

Can you name one player who clearly showed they were a different player in the 2000s than they were on the '90s?
 
  • Like
Reactions: barbu

AD1066

Registered User
Sep 30, 2011
7,597
3,865
What your saying about Gretzky is exactly what they said about him when he came into the league in 1979. In fact they said he might not be able to cut it in the nhl at all. And he obliterated their expectations. From 1980 to 1988 if you take Gretzky out of the equation the competition was quite even just like today. And it's not like everyone in the 80s was breaking records. Only Gretzky. Gretzky was a outlier who was light years beyond his peers. Something we haven't seen from ovi, mcdavid, Crosby or anyone else since. If he played today he would still be an outlier with today's advantages in technology and training. It is hard for people today to understand Gretzky because there has never been the likes of him. (Lemieux came close but was limited by injurues.) Take Gretzky out if the equation from his first 8 yrs and you will see the league was quite even. Top scorers besides Gretzky usually got btw 100 and 140 pts. Not that much different than today.

And PS Gretzky didnt play in the nhl in the 70s except for 3 months his first year...

Remove Gretzky and Lemieux from the league entirely, and it was still a much higher-scoring environment, both in terms of goals per game and the number of players scoring 100+ points in any given season. In the 80s we had seasons like:

Yzerman155
Nichols150
Bossy147
Stastny139
Coffey138
Maruk136
Dionne135
Kurri135
Nilsson131
Savard130
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Hawerchuk130
Messier129
Trottier129
Goulet122
Pederson116
Rob Brown115
Bobby Smith114
Brett Hull113
Dave Taylor112
Robitaille111
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There were 118 instances of a player in the 1980s scoring more than 100 points. Names like Rick Middleton, Mike Bullard, Charlie Simmer, Neal Broten. Not exactly world-beaters.

It's only happened 22 times in the past 10 years, and it's not because players have gotten worse.
 

alko

Registered User
Oct 20, 2004
9,348
3,064
Slovakia
www.slovakhockey.sk
I would say, back in the time, the athletes weren't so focused to one sport. Especially, juniors.

Now, they do almost only ice-hockey (soccer, basketball...). One coach said, his players could skate. But throw a ball into their group, and you will see little kids without any skills.

And also ice-hockey players. Peter Stastny once said, when he looked to videos of his times (70s, 80s also in NHL) and compare it to this times, the gap is very big.
 
  • Like
Reactions: authentic

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,373
16,657
Mulberry Street
Having had this debate many times over hundreds of posts with several deep-dives on the data, here’s my perspective:

“Hockey talent” at the NHL level consists of three major factors.
1. The total number of young hockey players — the number of “gifted” players is a function of raw population
2. Quality of training to unlock natural gifts — basically, the efficiency of the development system where they live
3. Access to the NHL pipeline — it does no good for a gifted and well trained player to peak in high school and then go work in a car dealership

In my opinion, the pro hockey talent level gained steadily from 1900 to 1980, with occasional random spikes and dips.

From 1980-2000, we saw a “golden era” because all three of the factors above were juiced:
1. Baby Boom created the largest generation in history
2. Canada and the USSR invested very heavily in sports training, and especially for hockey, and several other countries came online as world powers
3. The fall of the USSR made the NHL pipeline the most-wide-open it has ever been

Post-2000, each of these factors has receded:
1. Generations are much smaller
2. Public investment in rinks and leagues has dropped off, and the development system has become un-democratized (elite training is excellent, and inaccessible for most children)
3. The rise of viable KHL and Euro-league options has cut into the NHL talent pool. While gains in the USA have somewhat offset the impact, most “new market” hockey playing children are not actually in the NHL pipeline on a practical basis because there is no elite-level hockey infrastructure where they live.

Conclusion: the level of actual talent in the NHL rose steadily 1900-1980, peaked sharply 1980-2000, and fell off to its prior level 2000-2020. It is debatable whether it is has inclined or simply flatlined since about 2010.

/thread :clap:
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->