| Author |
 Topic  |
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
 Posted - 03/20/2007 : 20:40:39
|
Poll Question:
Obviously the two most offensively talented forwards to play the game. Which one would you say was the better of the two. It's close, but who do you give the edge to and why? If your answer is going to be something like "just look at the stats" don't even bother commenting please. To eliminate ambiguity, i shall endeavor to clarify this further. There are two ways to evaluate players. Peak value and career value. Peak value means in their prime at their best. Career obviously gives consideration to the length played. In this poll I would like to know which of these players had the better peak value?
|
|
Edited by - willus3 on 03/21/2007 06:11:35
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 21:48:57
|
| Define 'better' |
 |
|
|
bablaboushka
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2417 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 22:21:30
|
| Yes, the ambiguity of the questions seems to always be the biggest problem in these types of discussions. |
Edited by - bablaboushka on 03/20/2007 22:22:04 |
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 00:07:20
|
Ok. Well allow me to be the first to answer this question in the way that I know. You don't want us using just stats. Thats fine. The stats speak for themselves. I believe that Gretzky saw the ice better. To ME that is VERY important when thinking about these two players. But, here is the thing. I believe that this question is going to come to a dead end. Here is the reason why. These two players were two different TYPES of players. For this reason, because you don't want stats involved, I think people will just base their opinions on the TYPE of player that they liked better.
Anyway, for me it is a close call, but I do believe that Gretzky is the greatest of all time so I obviously picked him. But again I say. They were both gifted offensivly, they were both GREAT playmakers, they both made players around them better, I just think that Gretzky did those things a tad better. Plus I think he saw the ice better as well.
It's the great one for me. (This discussion will last forever) |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 08:22:41
|
I have to reply to both sides of your questions, peak and career value. Firstly, Gretzky at his peak was head and shoulders above anyone who ever played an offensive role. I know that "just the stats" was not to be used, but to clearly show how amazing Gretzky was, he produced over 1000 points in 5 years not including the playoffs. If you include the playoffs, it is nearly 1200 points! Most players don't see that in their entire careers. Comparing their 5 best seasons, Gretzky out produced Lemiuex by more than 200 points! At the peak of their games, Gretzky takes it.
Career wise, I would have to give that to Gretzky as well. Based on longevity and consistency through the years. Gretzky played 70+ games a year for all but two of his 20 year career. One of them was the strike shortened season in which he played every game. We all know the struggles that Lemiuex had with his health, and he was a huge inspiration for many coming back from cancer and serious back problems.
In the end, both were rare talents that may never be seen again. I give the edge to Gretzky. He produced better for a longer period of time, produced better in the playoffs and won more Cups. Plus, the 5 year period between '81 and '86 is a display that will never again happen. Gretzky wins this. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/21/2007 08:24:02 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 09:10:31
|
For peak value, I'd give the slight edge to Lemieux. The thing that tipped it for me was this - '91 and '92, and in particular his semi-final playoff performances against a good Bruin team led by Bourque and Neely in their primes. As you now know, I love Bourque, BUT Lemieux vs. Bourque was a complete mismatch in those series (as it was actually in the very first shift of Lemieux's career by the way). But, it's a close vote because obviously Gretzky's peak is a very high standard.
Just an aside about the above series (and perhaps a potential new topic elsewhere), but the main thing that beat the Bruins in '91, aside from Lemieux, was the all-time dirty cheap-shot on Cam Neely by Ulf (I don't care if I spell the PRICK'S name wrong) Samuelson. Consider that Neely was well on his way to becoming a 20 goal playoff scorer when that crap occured. Anyway, getting upset just thinking about it, so off to lunch. |
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 09:34:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I have to reply to both sides of your questions, peak and career value. Firstly, Gretzky at his peak was head and shoulders above anyone who ever played an offensive role. I know that "just the stats" was not to be used, but to clearly show how amazing Gretzky was, he produced over 1000 points in 5 years not including the playoffs. If you include the playoffs, it is nearly 1200 points! Most players don't see that in their entire careers. Comparing their 5 best seasons, Gretzky out produced Lemiuex by more than 200 points! At the peak of their games, Gretzky takes it.
Career wise, I would have to give that to Gretzky as well. Based on longevity and consistency through the years. Gretzky played 70+ games a year for all but two of his 20 year career. One of them was the strike shortened season in which he played every game. We all know the struggles that Lemiuex had with his health, and he was a huge inspiration for many coming back from cancer and serious back problems.
In the end, both were rare talents that may never be seen again. I give the edge to Gretzky. He produced better for a longer period of time, produced better in the playoffs and won more Cups. Plus, the 5 year period between '81 and '86 is a display that will never again happen. Gretzky wins this.
Honestly beans that is GREAT insight. I agree with you %100. |
|
|
|
chooch
Top Prospect
Afghanistan
60 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 18:43:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I have to reply to both sides of your questions, peak and career value. Firstly, Gretzky at his peak was head and shoulders above anyone who ever played an offensive role. I know that "just the stats" was not to be used, but to clearly show how amazing Gretzky was, he produced over 1000 points in 5 years not including the playoffs. If you include the playoffs, it is nearly 1200 points! Most players don't see that in their entire careers. Comparing their 5 best seasons, Gretzky out produced Lemiuex by more than 200 points! At the peak of their games, Gretzky takes it.
Career wise, I would have to give that to Gretzky as well. Based on longevity and consistency through the years. Gretzky played 70+ games a year for all but two of his 20 year career. One of them was the strike shortened season in which he played every game. We all know the struggles that Lemiuex had with his health, and he was a huge inspiration for many coming back from cancer and serious back problems.
In the end, both were rare talents that may never be seen again. I give the edge to Gretzky. He produced better for a longer period of time, produced better in the playoffs and won more Cups. Plus, the 5 year period between '81 and '86 is a display that will never again happen. Gretzky wins this.
Youre a bunch of Ontario guys talking.
Gretzky couldnt hold Marios jock as a player. Mario was as the russians said born to play hockey. He was the most dominating player ever. And your stats "analysis" doesnt hold water.
Firstly Mario played in the tough checking hard hitting East. And in a vastly inferior team (did the Pens win the Cup without Mario - could they have??). I'm not a Gretzky hater - he is the 8th best player I saw. The skill level is like comparing a juniro player to a HoFer. Gretz benefitted heavily from the no touch rule whcih Mario or Orr or Lafleur or RIchard or Howe didnt have (I dont just mean bodyguards).
Peak value and career value dont mean squat if youre just looking at meaningless padded stats or ignoring the reasons why. (did I forget teh most evenstrength goals against ever - about a 1000 more than Mario??)
Things like the credit he gets for expanding hockey makes me laugh - virtually every sport, league etc in the world expanded greatly because of satellite and cable and better air travel in the 80's and 90's. You gonna give Gretz credit for that expansion too (Ummm...yes, Formula 1 expanded from 5 countries to 12 because of NUMBER NINTEYYYYYNINNNNE WAYNNEEE GRETTZKKKYY!!!)
The NHL expanded in 67 and is still expanding today.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 18:49:39
|
| I give the nod to Lemieux for peak value. For all intents and purposes their PPG is essentially equal. So ruling out stats, my reasoning for choosing Lemieux is that he was better at more. He had to endure far more from inferior players( hacking, slashing, clutching, grabbing) and still was able to put up amazing numbers. He never had the luxury of an enforcer. He could hit, and even on occasion fight (while not looking like a pansy). Lemieux was also a far superior skater and while Gretzky's hands were excellent, I have never seen anyone with softer hands than Mario. Oh, and he was better on breakaways. |
|
|
|
Guest8952
( )
|
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 21:12:00
|
| While Gretzky and Lemieux were obviously the best players in hockey, they had different strengths. In my opinion, Lemieux was the more skilled player. He had the skill to out-play Gretzky. However, Gretzky was much smarter on the ice. He could, pardon the saying, "See what players were going to do next." Gretzky knew what plays that players were more likely to make in certain areas. So, this topic has to be worded more accurately. However, overall, points and standings make a huge impact, as well as their +/-. So, I would have to say that Gretzky was the better player of the two, and the best player in organized hockey. |
|
|
|
1 Crosby fan
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1454 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 22:20:34
|
| I voted Lemieux Because he didn't even play 1000 games(did he i am not sure)and what is 5th or 6th on the all time points leaders what if he had played more games how much points would he have if he played each game in his career, well that's my 2 cents |
|
|
|
Canucks Man
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1547 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 22:31:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by 1 Crosby fan
I voted Lemieux Because he didn't even play 1000 games(did he i am not sure)and what is 5th or 6th on the all time points leaders what if he had played more games how much points would he have if he played each game in his career, well that's my 2 cents
Gretzky played 1487 games and had 2857 points
Lemieux played 915 games and had 1723 points (Funny I saw the #23 the movie yesterday and right there in lemieux points is 23 IM SEEING IT EVERYWHERE!!!)
CANUCKS RULE!!! |
|
|
|
1 Crosby fan
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1454 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 22:35:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Canucks Man
quote:
Originally posted by 1 Crosby fan
I voted Lemieux Because he didn't even play 1000 games(did he i am not sure)and what is 5th or 6th on the all time points leaders what if he had played more games how much points would he have if he played each game in his career, well that's my 2 cents
Gretzky played 1487 games and had 2857 points
Lemieux played 915 games and had 1723 points (Funny I saw the #23 the movie yesterday and right there in lemieux points is 23 IM SEEING IT EVERYWHERE!!!)
CANUCKS RULE!!!
lol is it a good movie( i knew he didn't play more than 1000 games) |
|
|
|
Canucks Man
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1547 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 23:48:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by 1 Crosby fan
quote:
Originally posted by Canucks Man
quote:
Originally posted by 1 Crosby fan
I voted Lemieux Because he didn't even play 1000 games(did he i am not sure)and what is 5th or 6th on the all time points leaders what if he had played more games how much points would he have if he played each game in his career, well that's my 2 cents
Gretzky played 1487 games and had 2857 points
Lemieux played 915 games and had 1723 points (Funny I saw the #23 the movie yesterday and right there in lemieux points is 23 IM SEEING IT EVERYWHERE!!!)
CANUCKS RULE!!!
lol is it a good movie( i knew he didn't play more than 1000 games)
God it was a bad movie, suggestion see 300
Now I will go on topic I personnally think The Great One was better, he definatly saw the ice better then possible any other player ever, Kudos to Super Mario though, what a great career overcoming cancer and a few other injures.
CANUCKS RULE!!! |
|
|
|
jbraiter
PickupHockey Pro
577 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 04:55:40
|
| they are both amazing |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 10:38:21
|
Getting off the movie subject for a second. I would like to reply to the fella who said Mario because he played less than 1000 games and is 5th or 6th all time. Your argument doesn't make sense as Gretzky would have been the #1 all time leading scorer after less than 900 games.
And again, I am hearing so many hypothetic reasons. It is so frustrating. Who cares where and when Gretzky played? Hundreds of other players played in the same time period that didn't even come close. During the period of time that Lemiuex and Gretzky were in the league at the same time, Gretzky had 1943 points to Lemiuex's 1723. Gretzky's team missed the play offs 5 times in that period while Mario missed 9 times. And you can not say conclusively that Lemieux received more clutches and grabs and slashes. Show me the information to prove that and I will agree. Harder hitting east blah blah blah. Don't fault Gretzky because Sather built a team to protect him and not put him in the position to get hurt. Don't fault Gretzky because of the teams he played against. Mario got more than his share of calls and favors in his career as well.
I do not oppose someone who says Lemieux is better. Wilius makes some good points that Lemieux was better on breakaways, better defensively, and had softer hands. If that means to him Lemiuex was better, I respect that. Andyhack talked about some play off performances. If that is the reason he believes Lemiuex is better, I can respect that too. But don't come with hypothetical arguements.
There are obviously two groups of people here. Pro Gretzky and Pro Lemiuex. With the exception of a few people, most people voting for Lemiuex are not giving reasons why he was the best, they give reasons my Gretzky had it easier and that his play was inflated.
And Chooch, I am far from an Ontario guy. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/22/2007 10:49:05 |
|
|
|
Saku Steen
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1102 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 11:14:43
|
| I think Gretzky had more talent then Lemuiex but thats only by looking at stats and reading about him. Im to young to remember seeing him play om T.V. (one game I remember watching though) |
|
|
|
1 Crosby fan
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1454 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 11:43:39
|
| Now look here beans what if Lemuiex played witout getting cancer or his injures what if Gretz got cancer or somthin i am not saying he was bad but he didn't get injures |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 05:12:52
|
I am an Ontario guy who picked Lemieux. I hope Chooch accepted my vote! I did live outside of Ontario (far far away actually) for seven years so maybe that explains it.
I am also a guy who doesn't mind the odd hypothetical when we are having these discussions. As Taitans says, it is difficult to compare across differents eras of the game. I agree. But we are having fun here and trying to comment on these polls. In doing so, hypotheticals would seem to be a very useful tool, at the very least in terms of trying to tackle the difficulties of comparing eras.
Anyway, another heartbreaking loss to Montreal! Bruin fans really should receive some sort of salary from God for their efforts (we ain't gonna get nothing from the Bruins!)
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 05:57:18
|
| sorry, was referring to tctitans there |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 07:20:00
|
I can understand that sometimes a hypothetical question is needed. But Gretzky and Lemieux are separated by 4 years in age and started 5 years apart. This isn't comparing different eras.
Now look here 1 Crosby Fan, what if Gretzky had physical talent?? What if he could skate like Orr, or strength like Howe or Messier, or great hand like Lemieux. What if, what if, what if.
It doesn't tell you anything. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 08:14:51
|
Yes, the point about using hypotheticals for comparing different eras obviously doesn't apply to Gretzky and Lemieux, who are of the same era.
But different players play under different circumstances and conditions, even if playing in the same era. To imagine how they would have done in other circumstances and conditions seems to me to be a logical part of this conversation. I agree that one perhaps shouldn't put too much weight on hypotheticals, but I have absolutely no problem with someone who raises, for example, the hypothetical of how Gretzky would have done in the east, or how Lemieux would have done in the west, in order to help support their arguments. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 09:27:42
|
I like hypotheticals from time to time. They make for interesting conversation. In fact, it isn't much different than entering data into a computer to get a prediction and people use those as gospel all the time. The human brain can do the same thing. (But one has to be objective, much like a computer).
Here's a hypothetical situation i like. Put Gretzky and Lemieux back in the original six and see how they make out. What do you think would happen? |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 09:41:10
|
I think the game would have adapted to them and them to the game differently. Put Gretzky on say the Canadians in the 50's or 60's and I guarantee that he would have had a protector on that team. Plus, with the equipment and style of the goalies in the 50’s and 60’s, Lemieux would have had a ton more goals and Gretzky a ton more assists.
Also, the travel would have actually been easier for Gretzky and Lemieux than it was in the early 80's. The original six had to travel a max of what, 500 km??? Probably less than that. Gretzky was traveling on a bus when the games were in West Canada and they traveled a hell of a lot more than 500 km. Plus, air travel in the 80’s wasn’t as good as it is now. There were times in the playoffs where a team from the West would be playing a 5 game series against a team in the east. Original 6 never saw anything like that kind of travel.
The playoffs were only two series back there as well. Gretzky and Lemieux had to go through 4 series to win the Cup. And only having to play 5 other teams. Lemieux and Gretzky both would have had field days with that.
Also, the seasons were shorter. This would have benefited Lemiuex and his health issues. He might have been able to play longer.
I guess what I am saying is that regardless of what era a great player was put in; they would still be a great player. Some stats might be different, but they would still be great.
It would be like putting Orr in the 90's. With all the clutch and grab stuff that was going on, I doubt he would have been as magical. However, still would have been the best defenseman ever. Or put him in the 80’s and how much higher would his stats have been??
Great Players are great regardless of what era they played in.
|
|
|
|
Guest7156
( )
|
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 18:40:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I think the game would have adapted to them and them to the game differently. Put Gretzky on say the Canadians in the 50's or 60's and I guarantee that he would have had a protector on that team. Plus, with the equipment and style of the goalies in the 50’s and 60’s, Lemieux would have had a ton more goals and Gretzky a ton more assists.
Also, the travel would have actually been easier for Gretzky and Lemieux than it was in the early 80's. The original six had to travel a max of what, 500 km??? Probably less than that. Gretzky was traveling on a bus when the games were in West Canada and they traveled a hell of a lot more than 500 km. Plus, air travel in the 80’s wasn’t as good as it is now. There were times in the playoffs where a team from the West would be playing a 5 game series against a team in the east. Original 6 never saw anything like that kind of travel.
The playoffs were only two series back there as well. Gretzky and Lemieux had to go through 4 series to win the Cup. And only having to play 5 other teams. Lemieux and Gretzky both would have had field days with that.
Also, the seasons were shorter. This would have benefited Lemiuex and his health issues. He might have been able to play longer.
I guess what I am saying is that regardless of what era a great player was put in; they would still be a great player. Some stats might be different, but they would still be great.
It would be like putting Orr in the 90's. With all the clutch and grab stuff that was going on, I doubt he would have been as magical. However, still would have been the best defenseman ever. Or put him in the 80’s and how much higher would his stats have been??
Great Players are great regardless of what era they played in.
Its just wrong to put Gretzky in the same sentence as Lemieux.
And by the way, The Rocket would have laughed in Gretzky's face if Wayne was on the 50's Habs and requested a bodyguard. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 15:43:27
|
Wow, nice contribution to the discussion. With your 35 words, you have proven what many other on here have take much more to prove.
I now have a list going
Chooch
Guest7156
I hope one day I can get on this list of Hockey Savants. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 15:03:46
|
Beans - I'm swinging our conversation from the Best Swede thread over here, as we don't want Babs to suspend us from the site for getting way off topic in the Best Swede thread. But it just shows you that you can only talk about Swedes for so long, right! I guess Don Cherry would be proud of us!
Anyway, just to respond to your reference there to my Lemieux comment here, all I was saying in my earlier post in this thread was that those playoff performances by Mario really left an impression on me, and when I was trying to judge the question here, Gretzky vs. Lemieux, that impression was an important factor for me. It's NOT just because he won the Cup in those years in and of itself, but rather it's just the dominant Mario performances. Of course I recognize the fact that those dominant performances helped his team win the Cup. BUT, if, and don't get an ulcer now Beans, IF, hypothetically (you okay?), the Penguins would have lost in the finals in '91 and '92 even with those Mario performances, my impression of them would still have been a key factor in determining the Gretzky vs. Lemieux question.
All this is not to say, by the way, that I wasn't very impressed with Gretzky, say, in '88 against the Bruins, but as said earlier, Lemieux's '91 and '92 performances, particularly against the Bruins in the semi-finals (will the Bruins ever be on the winning side of one of these clashes by the way?), were awesome and the stronger of the two impressions left on me
That being said, I do agree that if you win a Cup, the PERCEPTION of you as a "great" increases. BUT , to me the ACTUAL measure of a player's greatness shouldn't really change all that much based on whether he has or hasn't won the Cup (and I think the Bourque situation really points that out well as I mentioned). SORRY Babs, getting off topic here again!
|
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 16:44:46
|
I like to imagine the two of them playing pond hockey, one on one. I think Lemieux would dazzle Gretz with crazy moves and soft hands. Neither would really fight or play the body. It would be a great match but ultimately the outcome would be Mario.
Now put a team around them, any team will do. While I think Lemieux would still dazzle people and have amazing individual talents I think that Gretzky would use his team mates better and fight for every last piece of ice a little harder. The outcome; Wayne
Not that they each didn't have ample of both (and much more than anyone else too), but I've always felt that Lemieux had the physical gifts, and Gretzky had the smarts.
Take it for what it's worth; not a whole hell of a lot really. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 16:52:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
I like to imagine the two of them playing pond hockey, one on one. I think Lemieux would dazzle Gretz with crazy moves and soft hands. Neither would really fight or play the body. It would be a great match but ultimately the outcome would be Mario.
Now put a team around them, any team will do. While I think Lemieux would still dazzle people and have amazing individual talents I think that Gretzky would use his team mates better and fight for every last piece of ice a little harder. The outcome; Wayne
Not that they each didn't have ample of both (and much more than anyone else too), but I've always felt that Lemieux had the physical gifts, and Gretzky had the smarts.
Take it for what it's worth; not a whole hell of a lot really.
Actually Leigh, It might be a slight over simplification (but it needs that) but I completely agree with you statements above. This is how I personally feel about the two of them as well. One cant take anything away from either of their excellent, but this is a good analogy on how to put their strengths in perspective. |
|
|
|
Guest7031
( )
|
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 18:06:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
I like to imagine the two of them playing pond hockey, one on one. I think Lemieux would dazzle Gretz with crazy moves and soft hands. Neither would really fight or play the body. It would be a great match but ultimately the outcome would be Mario.
Now put a team around them, any team will do. While I think Lemieux would still dazzle people and have amazing individual talents I think that Gretzky would use his team mates better and fight for every last piece of ice a little harder. The outcome; Wayne
Not that they each didn't have ample of both (and much more than anyone else too), but I've always felt that Lemieux had the physical gifts, and Gretzky had the smarts.
Take it for what it's worth; not a whole hell of a lot really.
mUAHAHAHAH
The Grezky was smarter myth.
Yeah, right up there with the vision thing.
Hmmmm...Mario in the run and gun West playing Murray Bannerman every other night, no attention to D, and league wide protection....
Yeah 150 goals is about right. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 07:26:11
|
Andyhack, that is my point exactly. Isn't the perception of a player what many people base their opinions on?
And my point on what you said about Lemieux's play in the play offs. Put those same performances in the pre season and what do they mean in your arguement?
ANd I am not even going to bother with the "guest" responses. Not even going to waste my time. |
|
|
|
manninm
PickupHockey Pro
USA
347 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 08:53:39
|
| It's a tough question. Based on skill alone, I gave my vote to Lemieux. The guy made plays Gretz simly couldn't. However, the thing that made Gretz great was his vision. He saw things other players, including Lemieux, couldn't. He made plays from behind the net, passes that were unthinkable, and that's the reason why Gretz was a better player than Lemieux. When it comes down to it, understanding the game is much more important than having great skills (see example 1 - Maxim Afinogenov - kid could lead the league in scoring every year if he had half a brain). |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 12:19:01
|
Just out of curiosity, does anyone else in here think it is incredibly hard for a person under the age of 25 to have a reasonable opinion on this?? Even that is a stretch. I am 29 and I have vague memories of Gretzky in his prime that I actually watched then. Being the biggest Gretzky fan on here, I have tons of tapes of him that I still watch to this day.
But can someone born in say 1990 have a clue how good Gretzky or Lemieux really was in their prime??
I would have to say no. Not taking anything away from people's opinions. But it would be like me trying to have a good opinion of Richard. Never watched him play, so I don't have a clue other than stats. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 12:28:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Just out of curiosity, does anyone else in here think it is incredibly hard for a person under the age of 25 to have a reasonable opinion on this?? Even that is a stretch. I am 29 and I have vague memories of Gretzky in his prime that I actually watched then. Being the biggest Gretzky fan on here, I have tons of tapes of him that I still watch to this day.
But can someone born in say 1990 have a clue how good Gretzky or Lemieux really was in their prime??
I would have to say no. Not taking anything away from people's opinions. But it would be like me trying to have a good opinion of Richard. Never watched him play, so I don't have a clue other than stats.
It's a good point Beans and I agree with you. I'd say it's probably pretty tough for most people under 35 years old to give a good comparison - of course unless they are real fanatics and rewatch old games. :)
I'd say that as someone diverges from age 35 (younger and younger) the probability that they select Lemieux over Gretzky significantly increases. |
Edited by - tctitans on 03/30/2007 12:29:19 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 12:38:47
|
Exactly my point.
That point, as Willus would be happy to hear me admit, likely is the reason why I am so emphatic in my feelings of Gretzky over Orr. If I had a change to see more of Orr, my thoughts may be different. (I said may be different Willus, I have not conceded yet!)
I think this, more than any other reason, is why people can not compare a player from one generation to another. Few people can compare both unless then actually were of age to understand and appreciate both. And this doesn't include heroes growing up. No different than me and Gretzky, someone who grew up in the 60's is more than likely an Orr fan because he was the hero to so many kids in that era. Even fewer people on this site seem to fit the bill of someone who watched players from different eras play.
A Sakic vs. Yzerman might be a better poll with this group. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/30/2007 12:44:26 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:44:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Exactly my point.
That point, as Willus would be happy to hear me admit, likely is the reason why I am so emphatic in my feelings of Gretzky over Orr. If I had a change to see more of Orr, my thoughts may be different. (I said may be different Willus, I have not conceded yet!)
I think this, more than any other reason, is why people can not compare a player from one generation to another. Few people can compare both unless then actually were of age to understand and appreciate both. And this doesn't include heroes growing up. No different than me and Gretzky, someone who grew up in the 60's is more than likely an Orr fan because he was the hero to so many kids in that era. Even fewer people on this site seem to fit the bill of someone who watched players from different eras play.
A Sakic vs. Yzerman might be a better poll with this group.
More like Crosby vs. Ovechkin for this group.  No insult intended either. It's just an observation. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:12:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Exactly my point.
That point, as Willus would be happy to hear me admit, likely is the reason why I am so emphatic in my feelings of Gretzky over Orr. If I had a change to see more of Orr, my thoughts may be different. (I said may be different Willus, I have not conceded yet!)
I think this, more than any other reason, is why people can not compare a player from one generation to another. Few people can compare both unless then actually were of age to understand and appreciate both. And this doesn't include heroes growing up. No different than me and Gretzky, someone who grew up in the 60's is more than likely an Orr fan because he was the hero to so many kids in that era. Even fewer people on this site seem to fit the bill of someone who watched players from different eras play.
A Sakic vs. Yzerman might be a better poll with this group.
More like Crosby vs. Ovechkin for this group. No insult intended either. It's just an observation.
A very good observation Willus. But I've noticed us "older" guys are getting a little more representation lately. Patience. haha! |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:17:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Exactly my point.
That point, as Willus would be happy to hear me admit, likely is the reason why I am so emphatic in my feelings of Gretzky over Orr. If I had a change to see more of Orr, my thoughts may be different. (I said may be different Willus, I have not conceded yet!)
I think this, more than any other reason, is why people can not compare a player from one generation to another. Few people can compare both unless then actually were of age to understand and appreciate both. And this doesn't include heroes growing up. No different than me and Gretzky, someone who grew up in the 60's is more than likely an Orr fan because he was the hero to so many kids in that era. Even fewer people on this site seem to fit the bill of someone who watched players from different eras play.
A Sakic vs. Yzerman might be a better poll with this group.
More like Crosby vs. Ovechkin for this group. No insult intended either. It's just an observation.
A very good observation Willus. But I've noticed us "older" guys are getting a little more representation lately. Patience. haha!
Hey! Who you callin' older!? Say that again and I'll get my pal "The Hammer" to come have a chat with ya. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:41:14
|
| Ahhhh.... the Hammer, the original enforcer. |
|
|
|
PENSFAN8771
Rookie
USA
114 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 16:44:58
|
Well, I think everyone knows who I voted for, but I don't like this discussion. I've discussed it with people many times, but the fact of the matter is that the question cannot be answered completely because of the differences between their styles. Lemieux was always a more "complete" player, seeing as he could take and give hits. Gretzky never was hit. It was an unwritten rule of the era. He would have had a very prolific career and would still be worthy of being included in this question had people hit him, but he would not have as many points as he did. I think Gretzky is over rated in this way.
Lemieux had his faults too. He didn't see the ice as well (though he saw it much better than 95% of players). He was injury prone.
The best way to phrase this question, I think is "If you had the #1 pick and you had the choice between them and know what we know now, who would you take?"
I would take Lemieux. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 16:58:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Exactly my point.
That point, as Willus would be happy to hear me admit, likely is the reason why I am so emphatic in my feelings of Gretzky over Orr. If I had a change to see more of Orr, my thoughts may be different. (I said may be different Willus, I have not conceded yet!)
I think this, more than any other reason, is why people can not compare a player from one generation to another. Few people can compare both unless then actually were of age to understand and appreciate both. And this doesn't include heroes growing up. No different than me and Gretzky, someone who grew up in the 60's is more than likely an Orr fan because he was the hero to so many kids in that era. Even fewer people on this site seem to fit the bill of someone who watched players from different eras play.
A Sakic vs. Yzerman might be a better poll with this group.
More like Crosby vs. Ovechkin for this group. No insult intended either. It's just an observation.
A very good observation Willus. But I've noticed us "older" guys are getting a little more representation lately. Patience. haha!
Hey! Who you callin' older!? Say that again and I'll get my pal "The Hammer" to come have a chat with ya.
LOL! sorry TCT! It's all relative I suppose.  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Gretzky vs Lemieux 
