Why is Gretzky so underrated on HF?

GodPucker

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
7,092
3,689
People who try to prop up lemieux next to Gretzky remind me of all of the point per game or goals per game or g/60 Matthew's crowd.

Being durable is a plus.

That's why jordan played until he was 40
 
  • Like
Reactions: Midnight Judges

Butch 19

Go cart Mozart
May 12, 2006
16,526
2,831
Geographical Oddity
I just watched a highlight video of Gretzky.
He was clearly 8 steps ahead of everyone else. He knew how everyone else was going to react.
There was no wasted motion, there was no wasted motion.
There's a lot of subtlety, which isn't appreciated by people with short attention spans ie those seeking cool highlights.
.

This is so true. In EVERY game I watched Gretzky play at the Forum, he did something I had never seen before - be it a pass, and angle he took towards the puck, a head fake - there was always something.
 

Fogelhund

Registered User
Sep 15, 2007
21,054
23,159
If he would play today, his numbers would be easily beatable by someone from '80s, what argument you're going to use to make him better? 80's was a high scoring era? But it's an invalid argument according to many older people here.

Would they though? His best years, he scored 50% more than the next best in the league. It's not necessarily the raw points, which were great, but the margin that he'd outscore everyone else.

The best anyone has managed since 2010, is Malkin's 109 points. The comparison would be Gretzky scoring 150-160 points... which would still rank as an all-time great season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: generationalfan

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
13,491
10,045
Yeah I don't remember all the details there TBH but wasn't one of the HOFers Paul Coffey? Who do you think was better, the young Coffey who played with Gretzky or the older version who played with Lemieux?

Coffey played with Lemieux from age 26-30, so it's not some big handicap.
 

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
Because it's too long ago and most people who post here are under 30.

I'd also imagine many people 30-40 may be more familiar with Lemieux and have a preference for him. You set the mark at under 30 but someone who was born 1980 would be 39 years old this year yet only 6 years old the last time Gretzky scored over 200 points and likely wouldn't have any memory of his 4 year peak goal scoring years. To have peak Gretzky implanted in a persons memory you're probably talking more the 45-50 and up age range.

I'm just going rough age groups here but if people under 30 never saw Gretzky play then people 30-45 would have personally watched Lemieux be the better player, which he was moving forward after Gretzky joined the Kings.
 

Salsa Shark

Registered User
Sep 1, 2009
921
451
Jersey
When Gretzky left his stacked dynasty team he was only 27. For the first time in both of their careers they were both prime. Healthy... and on similar teams.... let the 89 season begin. One guy was obliterated by 31 points and after that the other was never healthy again.

What about the first 3 seasons of Gretzky's career when the Oilers were not a dynasty powerhouse and he put up numbers that demolish Lemieux's first 3 years?
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,399
10,412
There are numerous players who aren't that big and are among the most skilled and productive players in the League: Kane, Kucherov, Gaudreau, Marner, Pettersson etc. Even McDavid isn't exactly Lindros in terms of stature, nor does he need to be.

If anything, the current NHL game is more suited for Gretzky than the NHL of 1997 to 2017.

100%. I think without protection he would've been injured quite a bit during that time period until more recently. It's tough to say for sure, but the game was so physical and the league didn't protect their players enough.
 
Last edited:

shtorm2005

Registered User
Aug 9, 2015
6,493
6,506
Montreal, Canada
Would they though? His best years, he scored 50% more than the next best in the league. It's not necessarily the raw points, which were great, but the margin that he'd outscore everyone else.

The best anyone has managed since 2010, is Malkin's 109 points. The comparison would be Gretzky scoring 150-160 points... which would still rank as an all-time great season.
Cap era, means he won't play with elite linemates, better defense means no many points on the rush, worldwide competition means he will face elite 1st line every game. No protection from dirty plays against. 150-160 it's impossible to score today, especially when your every move is dissected to study and develop measures to shutdown.
 

nbwingsfan

Registered User
Dec 13, 2009
20,847
14,557
Lemieux was definitely on the same tier as Gretzky and many people think he was the best player ever. What's ridiculous is thinking that nobody has a case for challenging the great Gretzky.



I always get a chuckle when people say things like this and if you think there's no argument to be made for anyone else, then it's you who's understanding of hockey is severely lacking.

The only player who can come even close to an argument is Lemieux but that's based on a whole lot of "what if" scenarios and basically nothing else.
 

Beukeboom

Registered User
Apr 1, 2007
1,922
1,353
He's not underrated.

He's the Best player Ever but I will say Mario also was the best player ever. Gretzky pretty much did everything on the ice, creative, fantastic vision. But Mario the moment he stepped foot on the ice he was like in a completly different league and I'm not playing with words, NHL was pro A and he was pro AA where they could have created another league for him. He was a superior being on the ice like when you're a kid and you play with your slightly older brother, you cannot possibly best him. That was Mario in comparison to the other players. Mario was Superman, Gretzky was Iron Man/Tony Stark maybe as far natural talent vs thinking skills(Wayne was known for praticing his shot and new moves all the time).
You mean until he actually went head to head with Gretzky and nine out of ten disappeared and got his ass whopped? Lemieux lacked the killer instinct and the relentlessness Gretzky had. That was his biggest issue. He never worked anywhere near as hard as Wayne. Talent wise I'd say Mario is the most gifted ever.

Edit. The only way you could ever have a player better than Wayne, is if someone comes along with his competitiveness combined with a Mario talent.
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,399
10,412
He wasn't as dominant as Mario at his best.

But that doesn't mean he's not the greatest overall. Pete Sampras at the top of his game was the most dominant tennis player I ever saw but few call him the greatest tennis payer ever.

I would still put him against any other player in history when he was in his groove. Easily.

I think it's fair to say he was a better big game player than Lemieux but IMO Lemieux was the most talented of all time, maybe even more so than Bobby Orr.
 

StoneHands

Registered User
Feb 26, 2013
6,608
3,674
well, watch a few highlights. many if not most of the goals you see would not go in against modern goalies.
In '98 when Gretzky was "washed up" he put up 90 points in a league with goalies like Hasek, Brodeur, and Roy. Were those guys not modern enough? 10 years later Brodeur and Hasek were still two of the best goalies in the NHL while playing against many of the same superstars of today.
 

Gary Nylund

Registered User
Oct 10, 2013
29,786
21,962
Yeah. Look at how hyped Sundin is/was compared to his actual accomplishments.

I'm a Leaf fan and I don't think that's true at all. If anything, he doesn't get his due in Toronto because he's perceived to not have played with the passion of players like Gilmour and Clark and he never "put the team on his back" and led them to playoff success etc.

Would they though? His best years, he scored 50% more than the next best in the league. It's not necessarily the raw points, which were great, but the margin that he'd outscore everyone else.

The best anyone has managed since 2010, is Malkin's 109 points. The comparison would be Gretzky scoring 150-160 points... which would still rank as an all-time great season.

This seems so obvious, I'm always a little bit surprised when people don't get this. The goalies sucked blah blah blah, yeah well it was the same goalies in net for all the other players in those days, it wasn't like they jumped out of the way whenever Gretzky shot the puck.

Coffey played with Lemieux from age 26-30, so it's not some big handicap.

I'm just saying that Gretzky's supporting cast over the years was much better than Lemieux's, especially in those peak years. Someone mentioned the HOFers Lemieux played with and that's fine, do you really think they stack up against the HOFers Gretzky played with? I don't think it's close myself but I haven't done any analysis, if you think I'm wrong feel free to convince me.
 

Fogelhund

Registered User
Sep 15, 2007
21,054
23,159
Cap era, means he won't play with elite linemates, better defense means no many points on the rush, worldwide competition means he will face elite 1st line every game. No protection from dirty plays against. 150-160 it's impossible to score today, especially when your every move is dissected to study and develop measures to shutdown.

I gather your age is such, that you didn't see him play?
 
  • Like
Reactions: beukeboom and DanM

Gary Nylund

Registered User
Oct 10, 2013
29,786
21,962
Cap era, means he won't play with elite linemates, better defense means no many points on the rush, worldwide competition means he will face elite 1st line every game. No protection from dirty plays against. 150-160 it's impossible to score today, especially when your every move is dissected to study and develop measures to shutdown.

Yeah well, Gretzky did a lot of things that people thought were impossible before he did them. Then they said nobody would ever come close to what he did and then Mario came along.

The only player who can come even close to an argument is Lemieux but that's based on a whole lot of "what if" scenarios and basically nothing else.

Disagree. I have Orr as the best ever and it's tough to compare eras but there's a case to be made for Howe as well. And Lemieux's peak was on the same tier as Gretzky, because of injuries Gretzky has longevity on his side, Howe even more so.

I think it's fair to say he was a better big game player than Lemieux but IMO Lemieux was the most talented of all time, maybe even more so than Bobby Orr.

That's a hard one. I guess it depends on how you define talent, you're probably talking about physical talent but I'd argue that the way Gretzky thought the game required some talent in that regard as well.
 

Beukeboom

Registered User
Apr 1, 2007
1,922
1,353
Ok then, my age proves hockey isn't much harder today.
It is beyond me, and I mean BEYOND me, how anyone can use dirty play as an argument? Today's league is so soft that I cry myself to sleep, and not a single player today (bar Reaves) would be anywhere near being called tough during Gretzky's time.

There are no good hitters, no mean players. Sure, if you think Matheson is a bad ass for wrestling down Pettersson...

Gretzky was not hit because you could not catch him. Potvin called him "the shadow", because he was so evasive. And you could not find a Potvin level hitter in today's league.
 

nbwingsfan

Registered User
Dec 13, 2009
20,847
14,557
When Gretzky left his stacked dynasty team he was only 27. For the first time in both of their careers they were both prime. Healthy... and on similar teams.... let the 89 season begin. One guy was obliterated by 31 points and after that the other was never healthy again.

Uses one season where Gretzky was well out of his prime and also the best season of Lemieuxs life as proof hes better :laugh:

No bias here
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,399
10,412
Yeah well, Gretzky did a lot of things that people thought were impossible before he did them. Then they said nobody would ever come close to what he did and then Mario came along.



Disagree. I have Orr as the best ever and it's tough to compare eras but there's a case to be made for Howe as well. And Lemieux's peak was on the same tier as Gretzky, because of injuries Gretzky has longevity on his side, Howe even more so.



That's a hard one. I guess it depends on how you define talent, you're probably talking about physical talent but I'd argue that the way Gretzky thought the game required some talent in that regard as well.

No I'm talking about overall talent. Lemieux's brain was on Gretzky's level but not quite there, he just was injured far more, half assed it at the beginning of his career then played in a lower scoring era in the second half of his career. Lemieux was much better at 35-38 in a harder league after not playing for 3 1/2 years, that has a lot to do with his IQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gary Nylund

shtorm2005

Registered User
Aug 9, 2015
6,493
6,506
Montreal, Canada
I think his point is that if you didn't see Gretzky play, you can't possibly appreciate his greatness. It's a valid point IMO.
He was greatest because he was an inventor, pionner of the new age hockey, with nothing much left today to invent, I doubt he would dominate the same way. And I don't have to watch his whole career to come to this conclusion.
 

Video Nasty

Registered User
Mar 12, 2017
4,546
7,780
Uses one season where Gretzky was well out of his prime and also the best season of Lemieuxs life as proof hes better :laugh:

No bias here

Seriously lol. The amount of what ifs and shaping the argument that Gretzky isn’t better based off certain parameters says it all. If one has to cherry pick to such a degree to show why Gretzky isn’t the greatest, it’s pretty clear he’s the greatest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nbwingsfan

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->