| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 12:04:51
Leigh had suggested i start a thread awhile back about this. I was hesitant, but here goes anyway.
The single biggest issue I have with Gretzky is actually not entirely his fault. It is in large part due to the media creation that is Gretzky. They love to cram down peoples throats that he is so humble and is such a great ambassador to the sport. And people swallow it hook, line and sinker. Make up your own minds people. Listen to what is actually said and come to your own conclusions.
I believe the opposite to be true of Gretzky. I think he is actually quite arrogant. The humbleness he tries to project is nothing put a transparent facade which becomes apparent when you truly listen to what he is saying. I will cite some quotes as this progresses. Starting with this one. "Definitely, he saw the ice the same as me, passing the puck, hockey sense, probably as similar to me as any player who has played the game." - Wayne Gretzky speaking about Igor Larionov
Now upon first read it seems as though he is just complimenting Larionov. But think about what he just said about himself. He just insinuated that no one else but Larionov was as good as he was at those things. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter, because a truly humble person would never tout himself as great. Now before you say I'm reading too much in to it, I'm not. Things are seldom as they appear folks. A closer examination is always wise. These are just my thoughts and I'm only hoping to generate some discussion. |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest4462 |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 01:42:22
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I don't consider Bourque arrogant. I've always thought very highly of how Bourque carried himself.
I have to wonder how satisfying his cup win feels though.
I completely agree.
It's like an asterixed pity cup. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 19:06:49
I don't consider Bourque arrogant. I've always thought very highly of how Bourque carried himself.
I have to wonder how satisfying his cup win feels though. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 16:58:35
Willus3 - even if you disagree with Bourque requesting the trade (I never heard it was another player's idea by the way), would you not say that the word "arrogance" in Bourque's situation doesn't quite fit? I think you'll agree that it is a very very different situation from Lindros and Gretzky. In my mind, at most, Bourque was guilty of some selfishness, but even that word has to be put into context. He played very hard that final year with the Bs, as always, and my understanding is that until it was clear that they were not going anywhere, his intention was actually to stay in Boston. And again, at that very late stage, by him moving not only was he giving himself a chance to win the Cup, but he was also giving the Bruins a chance to get a quality player or two in exchange for him before he retired. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 15:09:48
I don't think it's wrong for a player with the contributions to the game that Gretzky or Bourque had to ASK to go to a contender. DEMANDING to go is a totally different story. Out of repect to the player, the GM has a obligation to do what's right. In the case of Bourque, I think that was a great move for everyone involved. It was classy. |
| Guest2897 |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 13:29:33
Hockey is about selling the game to the fans. If players are playing in cities where they will not give 100%, then what use are they to the NHL. The problem lies in the fact that fans want players to continue to enter the league with more and more talent. Good luck doing that if you don't let the players play where they want to play. I think the Salary cap is a great thing in the sense that it doesn't allow this to happen as much. The great players can only be afforded by the teams that they don't want to go to. I agree that I have a strong dislike for many players who want to determine their own hometown, but I do not have any type of an issue with the Ray Bourques in this world. He played 20 years for one organization. Loyalty was his virtue. It is no longer greed at that point. All player's unltimate goal is to win the cup. He wanted to do that with Boston. Unfortunately it was to no avail. So, he packed his bags and walked into Colorado where he got what he so very much deserved...his name on the toughest trophy to win in all of sport. I say good for him. He went out on top! |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 11:15:21
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
But where do you draw the line on this question? Was Bourque arrogant for letting Sinden know he wanted to go to a contender after 20 something years in Beantown, and only a couple of years left in his career? The Bruins were able to get a pretty good younger player for him in Rolston, so in a way he did them a favor one could argue.
I don't have an inside scoop on this but i had heard Bourque didn't actually request the trade. A team mate of his did because he felt he deserved it. I can't remember who it was now. If Bourque did in fact request the trade then yes i disagree with him doing that. Many many players have come before him who also had great careers and were unable to win a cup because of the poor teams they were unfortunate to be part of. Dems de breaks. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 09:22:07
But where do you draw the line on this question? Was Bourque arrogant for letting Sinden know he wanted to go to a contender after 20 something years in Beantown, and only a couple of years left in his career? The Bruins were able to get a pretty good younger player for him in Rolston, so in a way he did them a favor one could argue. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 09:12:07
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
It happens all the time today. Was it arrogant for Lindros to refuse to play for Quebec? Is it aggorant for players to demand no trade clauses to they can pick and choose where they go?
It's all relative. I personally think that it is crap that a player can dictate where he plays. In no other place except professional sports can some one dictate where they will and will not go.
I believe it was completely arrogant of Lindros. I agree that it's wrong that players dictate where they play. Those who do are arrogant enough to think that they have the right to play wherever they see fit. And every time GM's give in to players demands they are just perpetuating the situation. I believe the GM from Quebec should have played hardball with Lindros. You don't want to report to Les Nordiques? No problem, you can sit on your ass and collect dust because you aren't going to playing hockey in the NHL then.
I don't believe Gretzky should have been allowed to demand the trade he did either. He wanted to be traded to a cup contender. Yeah, well you and every other player in the league would like to be on a contender. Why should you get special treatment. Arrogance!! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 07:32:05
It happens all the time today. Was it arrogant for Lindros to refuse to play for Quebec? Is it aggorant for players to demand no trade clauses to they can pick and choose where they go?
It's all relative. I personally think that it is crap that a player can dictate where he plays. In no other place except professional sports can some one dictate where they will and will not go. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 18:29:27
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Is it arrogant that he forced a trade because the team he was on chose to rebuild and he didn't want to wait and help the team improve but rather wanted to go to an immediate cup contending team?
I'm reposting this one because no one addressed it. Is the above arrogant?
|
| Saku Steen |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 11:19:12
I'd say that Sean Avery is the most quiet and JR a close 2nd. I barely even heard about them in the last couple of years.
Actualy Lefleur and Lemuiex were great at what we are talking about. They are both great people off the ice. They take the time to talk or write to you and listen to what you have to say. I think that there needs to be more of this in the NHL.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 06:52:18
Is it arrogant that he forced a trade because the team he was on chose to rebuild and he didn't want to wait and help the team improve but rather wanted to go to an immediate cup contending team? |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 15:24:57
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Just looked at this thread quickly now. My immediate thought is that, relatively speaking, Gretzky was not too bad on the "scale of arrogance". Where he lost me as a fan though was with his habit of whining about this and that for what seemed like way too many times for a so-called "classy" guy.
Yes, I find it amusing that many call Crosby a whiner but these same people worship Gretzky. It's very well known that he was a whining brat the first part of his career. I used to refer to him as Whine Gretzky. He seriously was that bad people. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 15:21:19
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6101
What if the original question was "Does Larionov remind you, of you?" or "Do you think Larionov sees the ice the same way you do?"
The question, and timing of the answer can't be ignored. Without them, the whole discussion is moot.
Yes. I agreed earlier that things should always be taken in context. However, if the questions were what you had said above, it still doesn't discount that he inferred that no one really sees the ice as well as he does.
There are subtle nuances to anything that someone says. I'm just trying to draw peoples attention to this. If you all take everything at face value you're going to miss a lot in life. Obviously some don't care either way. I'll find some more quotes though. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 15:09:53
quote:
Originally posted by Mikhailova
Yeah, why is it OK with some people for Crosby to be cocky because he's famous but it's not OK for Gretzky?
I actually find Crosby to be quite humble. He doesn't come across as insincere in the least. And with today's attitudes that's quite something. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 15:15:21
I don't remember the details of any specific incidents if that's what you mean (at the moment anyway), but what I am referring to is the constant yapping that went on between him and the ref (about non-calls I guess). I know that to a certain extent that's part of a captain's job but I remember thinking that he did it excessively in a kind of brattish way.
But, hey, I was and am a Bruins fans, and we are scarred individuals! Anyone who has had a fair amount of success like Gretzky, some at our expense too, is gonna be looked at in a bad way by a Bruins fan. But even with that bias, I don't really think "classy" is as appropriate a word for Gretzky as it is for Laflleur (who I should be really biased against as he scarred Bruin fans BIGTIME!) |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 14:49:55
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Just looked at this thread quickly now. My immediate thought is that, relatively speaking, Gretzky was not too bad on the "scale of arrogance". Where he lost me as a fan though was with his habit of whining about this and that for what seemed like way too many times for a so-called "classy" guy.
Do you have some specific examples...
I would rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy…
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 14:44:26
Just looked at this thread quickly now. My immediate thought is that, relatively speaking, Gretzky was not too bad on the "scale of arrogance". Where he lost me as a fan though was with his habit of whining about this and that for what seemed like way too many times for a so-called "classy" guy. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 14:01:21
I didn't see Lafleur in his prime. I did see Gretkzy.
And of all the games I have watched involving Gretkzy, his play was far from "hanging out at centre."
|
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 09:20:18
quote:
Originally posted by chooch
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Lafleur never won a Cup after 1979. Nor did he break 85 points or 30 goals a year, through arguably the highest scoring period in NHL history. Lafleur won 5 Stanley Cups with Montreal in 7 years with virtually the same team and the best coach in the league at the time. Montreal won the Stanley Cup the year after Lafluer left.
Can you please explain to me how this is different than Gretzky?? He did very close to the same thing. Both played on amazing teams and didn't do much after they left those teams in regards to taking their team to the Cup. Both player’s former teams won the Cup the year after they left.
Can you explain to me, and everyone else, how these arguments prove that Lafleur was a better player than Gretzky??
Those who saw both play know that one dominated games, the other hung out at centre. (Did you see both in their primes ie 1977 and 1985, respectively?) Now, 20 years later on the Net you have those who only look at records like 9 Harts or something and say that is the superior player.
#10 had 7 years as the top player in the world playing in the tough east. Same as Orr,
#99 floated through the weak West with protection and a lousy style of play which had a major weakness in it.
That's an interesting opinion Chooch, but one I don't share. I watched both players in their primes, enjoyed both of their significant talents, but completely disagree with your personal conclusion. |
| chooch |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 08:21:42
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Lafleur never won a Cup after 1979. Nor did he break 85 points or 30 goals a year, through arguably the highest scoring period in NHL history. Lafleur won 5 Stanley Cups with Montreal in 7 years with virtually the same team and the best coach in the league at the time. Montreal won the Stanley Cup the year after Lafluer left.
Can you please explain to me how this is different than Gretzky?? He did very close to the same thing. Both played on amazing teams and didn't do much after they left those teams in regards to taking their team to the Cup. Both player’s former teams won the Cup the year after they left.
Can you explain to me, and everyone else, how these arguments prove that Lafleur was a better player than Gretzky??
Those who saw both play know that one dominated games, the other hung out at centre. (Did you see both in their primes ie 1977 and 1985, respectively?) Now, 20 years later on the Net you have those who only look at records like 9 Harts or something and say that is the superior player.
#10 had 7 years as the top player in the world playing in the tough east. Same as Orr,
#99 floated through the weak West with protection and a lousy style of play which had a major weakness in it. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 17:14:59
Lafleur never won a Cup after 1979. Nor did he break 85 points or 30 goals a year, through arguably the highest scoring period in NHL history. Lafleur won 5 Stanley Cups with Montreal in 7 years with virtually the same team and the best coach in the league at the time. Montreal won the Stanley Cup the year after Lafluer left.
Can you please explain to me how this is different than Gretzky?? He did very close to the same thing. Both played on amazing teams and didn't do much after they left those teams in regards to taking their team to the Cup. Both player’s former teams won the Cup the year after they left.
Can you explain to me, and everyone else, how these arguments prove that Lafleur was a better player than Gretzky??
|
| chooch |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 16:38:18
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Chooch, my answer it is possible. It could have happened. It is a hypothetical question, so it is impossible to answer correctly. No one will ever know.
I guess my question back is what does this question prove and how does it relate to Gretzky???
Gretzky's "records" arent nearly that impressive when you analyze things as above with Lafleur who never cared about records and when you see that 99 never won a cup without Mess or that Mess and the Oilers won the Cup after Gretz left you can see why I have him well down a Top players list and after the likes of Lafleur who truly dominated. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 12:26:01
Chooch, my answer it is possible. It could have happened. It is a hypothetical question, so it is impossible to answer correctly. No one will ever know.
I guess my question back is what does this question prove and how does it relate to Gretzky??? |
| Ripley |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 16:25:38
quote:
Originally posted by chooch
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by chooch
Just answer this: The 77 Habs gave up 180 GA; Lafleur had 56 goals 80 assists and was a + 80. What if Bowman had accepted that Lafleur was going to camp out at centre and be on the ice for 150 even strength goals against. Would Lafleur have scored 200+ points?
I'd say 100 goals 150 assists werent out of the question.
Apples and Oranges, it's impossible to tell. Who knows, perhaps he would have scored 80 goals and had 100 assist, perhaps he would have only scored 30 goals and 30 assists.
Your point is taken, but it's conclusion is not based on logic.
?
Are you saying its illogical just because you can't prove it historicaly?
Chooch, respectfully it's like saying what if Lafleur didn't smoke 3 packs a day and decided to work out. the argument is based in la la land. |
| chooch |
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 15:50:42
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by chooch
Just answer this: The 77 Habs gave up 180 GA; Lafleur had 56 goals 80 assists and was a + 80. What if Bowman had accepted that Lafleur was going to camp out at centre and be on the ice for 150 even strength goals against. Would Lafleur have scored 200+ points?
I'd say 100 goals 150 assists werent out of the question.
Apples and Oranges, it's impossible to tell. Who knows, perhaps he would have scored 80 goals and had 100 assist, perhaps he would have only scored 30 goals and 30 assists.
Your point is taken, but it's conclusion is not based on logic.
?
Are you saying its illogical just because you can't prove it historicaly? |
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 17:09:37
quote:
Originally posted by chooch
Just answer this: The 77 Habs gave up 180 GA; Lafleur had 56 goals 80 assists and was a + 80. What if Bowman had accepted that Lafleur was going to camp out at centre and be on the ice for 150 even strength goals against. Would Lafleur have scored 200+ points?
I'd say 100 goals 150 assists werent out of the question.
Apples and Oranges, it's impossible to tell. Who knows, perhaps he would have scored 80 goals and had 100 assist, perhaps he would have only scored 30 goals and 30 assists.
Your point is taken, but it's conclusion is not based on logic. |
| chooch |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 16:54:50
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Chooch, again your wisdom is beyond comprehension. I am a Wayne Gretzky Fan, along with droves of others, and that makes my hockey knowledge non-existent. Yet, your opinions of Gretzky being mediocre make you a supreme hockey intellect. I have done my best to keep an open mind and take other peoples point of view into consideration when thinking of the vast topic of hockey. You, however, have not. For example, you can see in Game 2 that is “appears” that Gretzky was not near Mario to celebrate the winning goal. The video to me doesn’t show much. It shows a winning goal, and an entire team celebrating. You are right in the fact that it does not show Gretzky celebrating with Lemieux. I acknowledge that. However, in game 3, it clearly shows Mario and Gretzky celebrating together. You did not acknowledge that. Only what you consider the “negativity” that Gretzky supposedly had shown in Game 2 by not fighting his way through the entire Canadian team to celebrate with Lemieux. Your argument contradicts itself in the matter of two games.
And your statement of, “Even you don't know, kid” was a stinging blow that I doubt my fragile psyche will ever recover from. There are many things I have not learned in my 29 years of life. However, there is one thing I have learned that it appears you have not. Ignorance is not bliss. It is just ignorant.
And finally, it has finally dawned on me why you were tossed out of the other forum site that you and Willis speak of. I know for certain, if this was my site, I would toss you out too. Not because of your opinions. I respect your opinions. It’s your ignorance of other people’s opinions.
Chooch, I did not intend on calling you a meatball. If that is the way you took it, I am sorry. I was stating that I have challenges dealing with people who I find ignorant. Wheather you are ignorant or not is my opinion, and that give me no right to slam you for it. Won't happen again.
What the hell are you babbling about?
Just answer this: The 77 Habs gave up 180 GA; Lafleur had 56 goals 80 assists and was a + 80. What if Bowman had accepted that Lafleur was going to camp out at centre and be on the ice for 150 even strength goals against. Would Lafleur have scored 200+ points?
I'd say 100 goals 150 assists werent out of the question. |
| Guest6101 |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 12:46:38
What if the original question was "Does Larionov remind you, of you?" or "Do you think Larionov sees the ice the same way you do?"
The question, and timing of the answer can't be ignored. Without them, the whole discussion is moot. |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 10:17:50
Guys, all of you, I have two things to say:
1) Stay on topic and give up the personal attacks.
2) The key to a good discussion is the ability to keep an open mind. Granted, it is easier said than done but make an effort, please.
Thanks. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 07:13:14
Chooch, again your wisdom is beyond comprehension. I am a Wayne Gretzky Fan, along with droves of others, and that makes my hockey knowledge non-existent. Yet, your opinions of Gretzky being mediocre make you a supreme hockey intellect. I have done my best to keep an open mind and take other peoples point of view into consideration when thinking of the vast topic of hockey. You, however, have not. For example, you can see in Game 2 that is “appears” that Gretzky was not near Mario to celebrate the winning goal. The video to me doesn’t show much. It shows a winning goal, and an entire team celebrating. You are right in the fact that it does not show Gretzky celebrating with Lemieux. I acknowledge that. However, in game 3, it clearly shows Mario and Gretzky celebrating together. You did not acknowledge that. Only what you consider the “negativity” that Gretzky supposedly had shown in Game 2 by not fighting his way through the entire Canadian team to celebrate with Lemieux. Your argument contradicts itself in the matter of two games.
And your statement of, “Even you don't know, kid” was a stinging blow that I doubt my fragile psyche will ever recover from. There are many things I have not learned in my 29 years of life. However, there is one thing I have learned that it appears you have not. Ignorance is not bliss. It is just ignorant.
And finally, it has finally dawned on me why you were tossed out of the other forum site that you and Willis speak of. I know for certain, if this was my site, I would toss you out too. Not because of your opinions. I respect your opinions. It’s your ignorance of other people’s opinions.
Chooch, I did not intend on calling you a meatball. If that is the way you took it, I am sorry. I was stating that I have challenges dealing with people who I find ignorant. Wheather you are ignorant or not is my opinion, and that give me no right to slam you for it. Won't happen again.
|
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 20:58:29
quote:
Originally posted by guinman
I just wanted to say that Bobby orr was a tough son of a bitch - the toughest guy/ superstar ever. I think he would've wiped the ice with even Gordie Howe. A lot of people don't realize this.
It's not about 'realizing' its about 'agreeing with you', which I for one, do not. ;) Gordie was as tough as they come - no slight to Bobby. |
| guinman |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 20:52:27
quote:
Originally posted by chooch
Here are the best NHL players I've seen in 35 years with an arrogance rating attached:
1.Mario - Arrogance rating 6/10
2.Hasek - 11/10
3.Orr - 1/10 (yes, one)
4.Lafleur - 0/10
5.Jagr - 7/10
6.Bourque - 0/10
7.Trottier - 9/10
8.Gretzky - 9/10
9.Esposito - 10/10 (make that 11/10 but in an endearing way)
10.Stastny - 0/10
While others were as arrogant if not more than 99, his Barnet/IMG image was created to be like Orr. He is not Orr. He was a wussy on the ice and cared only for his stats more than winning and he was not Humble in reality which was willus' point.
I mean: do you know Janet Jones Orr? Walter Orr? Paulina Orr?
No?
Orr is humble and keeps his family out of the spotlight. How many here know the names of the 2 sons of Bobby Orr?
Guy Lafleur was humble to the point of keeping the score down in the third period rather than get a hattrick and embarras someone.
Bobby Hull i hear was a top notch arrogant guy too.
I just wanted to say that Bobby orr was a tough son of a bitch - the toughest guy/ superstar ever. I think he would've wiped the ice with even Gordie Howe. A lot of people don't realize this. |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 17:31:24
Yeah, why is it OK with some people for Crosby to be cocky because he's famous but it's not OK for Gretzky? |
| Guest9872 |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 16:28:02
i dont get what the problem is here. if i had broke half the records in hockey, been deemed "the great one" had my number retired across the league, and lets not forget a couple hundred mil in the bank, i would be cocky as hell too. |
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 14:02:50
I gotta say chooch, the video shows Lemieux score then flashes off him then it flashes back and shows the whole team in the same spot as lemieux was standing before
CANUCKS RULE!! |
| chooch |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 13:57:59
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I agree with Tctitans. This proves nothing.
And please re-read my post. I do not call Chooch a meatball, I called people like Chooch a meatball. Not him directly.
It proves nothing?
It proves you know nothing about hockey or its history. I could have guessed by your heroworship of 99.
as for the meatball explanation its impossible to figure out what you are saying anyway.Even you dont know, kid. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 17:11:07
I agree with Tctitans. This proves nothing.
And please re-read my post. I do not call Chooch a meatball, I called people like Chooch a meatball. Not him directly. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 16:41:17
quote:
Originally posted by chooch
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I called no one anything personally. I don't know what you are talking about Chooch. I think you are ignorant. That's not calling you a name; it's describing one of your most endearing traits.
Sorry to burst your bubble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi7sRLrfJjg&mode=related&search=
I think perhaps that Beans was thinking of the final game of the series (Gretz->Lemieux)
in either case, i'm not sure that this video proves your point Chooch.. in fact, i'm pretty sure it doesnt prove anything. |
| chooch |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 16:28:10
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I called no one anything personally. I don't know what you are talking about Chooch. I think you are ignorant. That's not calling you a name; it's describing one of your most endearing traits.
Sorry to burst your bubble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi7sRLrfJjg&mode=related&search= |
