| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
 Posted - 03/30/2007 : 17:16:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by PENSFAN8771
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.
Lemieux did take and dish out more hits than Gretzky for sure. But we can't compare Lemieux and his 6'4" 220+ poundness against Gretzky's 6'0' 185 pounds. Yes, Lemieux had size as an advantage over Gretzky, but there are lots who would argue that Mario didnt use his size enough. He never dominated physically like his size could dictate. But realistically, he didnt have to. His skill was enough.
|
 |
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 17:18:15
|
quote:
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.
I don't think is such a simple answer either. You can't go wrong choosing either of them. I think the only way that I could make a decision of who I would select would be to evalute the rest of my team and support cast, and see what type of player would be better for my team. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 17:46:53
|
I personally didn't think Lemieux used his size as he could have. Compare him to a young Lindros, who wasn't as gifted as Lemieux, but used his size very well. If Lemieux did use size to his advantage he may have been more productive and more highly regarded than Gretzky.
On the other hand, could one not also argue that Gretzky was a smarter player for not using his body, therefore maintaining his health for longer and giving him the chance to play much more than Lemieux? I know the Hodgkin's thing still would have happened, but how many games did Lemieux lose because of his back??? |
|
|
|
PENSFAN8771
Rookie
USA
114 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 22:33:26
|
Well Beans, if he used his body more, he would have probably been injured more too. So which is wise? And I don't think Gretzky's not playing physical was as much a function of him "playing smart", but rather the reverence of people not hitting him, especially in his later years.
And TCT, you're absolutely right that it isn't a simple answer to my question about who would you draft, but I think it crystallizes the original question better. If you talk about supporting cast, then we could argue about whether Lemieux had a better supporting cast with Jagr or Gretzky did with the boatload of talented guys Edmonton had.
Also, I would argue that there is a falacy to the whole concept of playing longer making you better. Lemieux had the ability to dominate a game, even in his last comeback. In Gretzky's last couple seasons he lacked that edge. Lemieux went out on top, while Gretzky over stayed. Also, Lemieux stayed in Pittsburgh for the entirety of his career and didn't bring about the controversies Gretzky did about wanting trades and such, which is invaluable. It doesn't go at talent so much as it does character, which has to be important. |
|
|
|
PENSFAN8771
Rookie
USA
114 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 22:36:04
|
Just clarifying before anyone gets back at me about it:
When I say Lemieux went out on top, I know he didn't go out with the Cup, but he went out still playing well. |
|
|
|
Guest4462
( )
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 23:53:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by PENSFAN8771
Just clarifying before anyone gets back at me about it:
When I say Lemieux went out on top, I know he didn't go out with the Cup, but he went out still playing well.
Yeah, he was playing pretty well, but I'd say it was a far cry from 'going out on top'. In his last 4 seasons, he only got to game 30, once. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 23:57:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by PENSFAN8771
.....In Gretzky's last couple seasons he lacked that edge. Lemieux went out on top, while Gretzky over stayed. Also, Lemieux stayed in Pittsburgh for the entirety of his career and didn't bring about the controversies Gretzky did about wanting trades and such, which is invaluable. It doesn't go at talent so much as it does character, which has to be important.
Gretzky overstayed? In his last 3 seasons he got 249 points!!! He went out on top. Period.
As for your "trades" comment, it is entirely irrelevant. But I'll comment on it anyway. Are you saying that Ray Bourque had bad character? He was traded. How about Mark Messier? Let's not forget Patrick Roy (oh wait...he might have actually had bad character) Or Lanny McDonald, or Paul Kariya. C'mon, trades are the nature of the beast. Very few ever stay on the same team for their entire career, especially one as long as Gretzky's. He only played for 4 teams in 22 years. You only think of it as controversy because his trade to LA was the biggest trade in hockey history. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 23:57:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
Originally posted by PENSFAN8771
Just clarifying before anyone gets back at me about it:
When I say Lemieux went out on top, I know he didn't go out with the Cup, but he went out still playing well.
Yeah, he was playing pretty well, but I'd say it was a far cry from 'going out on top'. In his last 4 seasons, he only got to game 30, once.
Great insight Guest4462!! Wait a second... that was me.  |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 00:01:37
|
As for 'supporting cast' discussions. These can be looked at many different ways.
- Mario certainly had talent around him
- Mario didnt have has much talent as Wayne did in Edmonton, but perhaps equal or more than Gretzky did in L.A. or NYR.
How do you analyze that thou? Is it better to be on a team with loads of talented stars? or a team with only a few stars? The merits of the first are obvious, the merits of the second may be you are played in more circumstances and get more ice time. The debate can go on. I think as long as you have 'some' really good talent around you, how many there actually are can be debated how helpful it is.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 12:43:12
|
Hey Pensfan, no disrespect intended, but if your profile is true, you were not even born when Gretzky was at his best. You could not have seen that much of Gretzky in Edmonton or LA for that matter. How can you firmly say that he NEVER got hit? Sure, there was a code, but it wasn't like he never got touched. I believe it was Wendel Clark who was once asked about hitting Gretzky and his response was that players often tried, but he was a hard person to line up. I believe that to be half of him not getting hit often.
And I agree with Leigh 100%, Gretzky did leave before his game got weak. He was still one of the top 10 players in the league when he said good night. As was Mario, so that point is moot.
And don't think for one second that Mario didn't get a certain amount of "respect" from other players. He didn't get what Gretzky got, I will admit that. But it wasn't like Mario got laid on his ass every game. Far from it.
And how can you measure the character of Lemieux and Gretzky?? Both were arrogant. Both knew how good they were. And the fact that Lemiuex stayed in Pittsburgh is one I have to argue. Was it not during his first retirement that he purchased part of the team?? He had a vested interest to stay in Pittsburgh because of the career after his playing career. Without that you can not say he would not have been traded, or would have asked for a trade.
|
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 21:44:35
|
| Wow guys, this is a never ending discussion and everyone knows it. They were two different types of players. I'm reading all of these posts and it is coming down to one thing. THEY WERE BOTH GREAT! Unfortunately, one of them was injury prone and one wasn't. And speculating on "how it might have turned out if Lemieux wasn't injury prone" is a dead end discussion. |
Edited by - ED11 on 04/03/2007 21:46:25 |
|
|
|
Blubberboy
Rookie
155 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 11:19:55
|
Lemieux.
Gretzky was pretty good.
Go Canucks. |
|
|
|
Guest9907
( )
|
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 15:30:19
|
Peak Value:
Sure, Gretzky's 47 points (and 17 goals) in only 18 games in the 1985 playoffs blows away anything anyone else has ever done, including Lemieux, but it isn't the stats that support his better peak value. It's his clutch performance in those playoffs that does. And his record 13 points in only 4 and a half games in the Stanley Cup final in the 1988 playoffs are also not the true testiment of his peak value. It was his clutch performance in that series.
Perhaps the best example of how Gretzky had a better peak value than Lemieux is watching the 1987 Canada Cup, when they not only played on the same team, but often on the same line. Pick any game, it doesn't matter. Yes, Gretzky outscored Lemieux in the tournament, but that's neither here nor there. It's the fact that Gretzky was all over the ice, every single shift, against the best players in the world, while Lemieux never actually dominated. Statistics are not to be considered, but even if they were, Lemieux's 3 goals in game 2 were all results of direct setups from Gretzky. I've never seen Lemieux ever dominate a meaningful game (NHL playoffs or international) like Gretzky did against the Russians in game 2. He was all over the ice, playing with and against the best players in the world. His 5 assists have nothing to do with it. Again, it is his clutch performance in that game that has me convinced. Gretzky's overall clutch abilities were always higher than Lemieux's at their respective peaks. The stats may prove this, but that's neither here nor there. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 16:58:22
|
Peak value:
I don't really like throwing out stats but just in response to Guest 9907's comment:
Lemieux's 44 points in 23 games in '91 playoffs - NOT BAD! I'd say it's far from being "blown away" by Gretzky's admittedly amazing '85 performance.
But as a fan of the Bruins who were victims to both the '88 Oilers (finals which Guest 9907 mentioned) and '91 Penguins (semi-finals - but essentially like the finals that year), I gotta restate my opinion that Lemieux's performance was more impressive, in those series anyway.
The '88 Bruins felt like they had won the Stanley cup after FINALLY beating the Habs in the playoffs after decades and decades of heartbreak against them. By the time they got to the finals, aside from being TOTALLY outmatched by a WAY better Oilers team in that series, they were also physically and emotionally spent from the earlier Montreal series and a seven game semi-final series against the Devils. Gretzky's amazing point production in that easy finals victory against the Bruins, sure, it was very impressive, but you gotta look at it in that light.
The '91 Bruins-Penguins semis was a whole different story. A very competitive Bruins team with Bourque and Neely at their peaks and a much better supporting cast than '88, and unlike '88, they believed they could win, and legitimately could have won that tough long series which they were leading in but for two things, Mario and the famous cheap-shot on Neely by Ulf "I hope you are proud of cutting down a great player you PRICK OF ALL PRICKS!" Samuelson. Sorry, I always get a little pissed about that. Back to the point though, which is simply that the performance by Lemieux was more impressive than the performance by Gretzky given the context of those series. |
Edited by - andyhack on 04/08/2007 04:43:36 |
|
|
|
guinman
Top Prospect
Canada
52 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 22:11:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
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.
Beans, I respect your opinion but I beg to differ on your "don't post hypotheticals", and "who care's where Wayne played" - That's a stereotypical debating position for someone who prefers Gretzky to Lemieux because everything is hypothetical when comparing 2 different players and their very different circumstances. To claim that time and place and teamates are not relevant to the debate between Gretzky and Lemieux's greatness is totally invalid. It has a HELL of a lot to do with the respective outcomes of their careers as does injuries. Claiming that Mario didn't take way more physical abuse than Wayne simply has no basis in reality. It is virtually unanimous amongst NHL personnel who were around in this era that Mario was beat like a drum compared to Wayne. This is a given. Gretzky's statistics are fantastic and likely unattainable because of the nature of the game today, but nevertheless doesn't make him in reality a superior player to Mario.
Fact is Beans that Gretzky broke in with several hall of fame teamates like Coffey, Messier, Anderson, Kurri etc., who undoubtibly benefited from Wayne - but to say that Wayne didn't also benefit from them would be wrong. Wayne played in the weakest division and conference in hockey. He also broke into the highest scoring era in NHL history. Wayne feasted against woefully weak teams. Hell the only good teams in the whole conference was Calgary and a lesser Jet team. He still took 5 seasons to win a cup.
Let's look at Mario's first 5 seasons. Mario played in the toughest division in hockey (the Patrick) and in a much tougher defensively and all around Wales conference featuring: Flyers, Rangers, Islanders,Bruins, Canadiens,Nordiques and by the late eighties, teams like the Caps, Devils and Sabres also became a force. Mario's first five seasons featured such non hall of fame teamates like Warren Young, Randy Cunneyworth, Dan Quinn and Rob Brown. Looking at Mario's numbers through these years, especially his 199 point effort with nothing but this sad lot, save for Coffey really shows Mario's true greatness. To claim that Wayne and Mario's circumstances are irrelevant here is just not reality. Clinging to statistics alone would lead me to discuss the "effectiveness by era" formula which you remember from a previous post where all greats of the past are ridiculousy close to each other with Mario rating 1st and Wayne 2nd.
I have always been a fan of Gretzky and truthfully, when Mario broke in I scoffed at the comparison to Wayne - I thought it was ridiculous. I have to say that Mario's ability won me over and I became a penguin fan by 1987. I trust my eyes and hockey knowledge enough to know that Lemieux was a better player than Gretzky. I watched every Oiler cup run as well as the pens and frankly, as d*** Irvin, Scotty Bowman and many others have stated that nobody singlehandedly dominated in a cup run like Mario did on his two. I would whole heartedly agree, comparing runs it isn't even remotely close regardless of statistics. Put the career playoff highlite reels of Mario vs Wayne and it's not even close. One of Wayne's biggest highlites was the slapshot over vernon's glove to win the series. Then there's Marios countless huge individual efforts like the Bourque undressing while 2 man down, etc. etc. etc. all while playing a complete team game in both ends. I'm still waiting for somebody to put up something close to Mario's performance - it was surreal!
Mario scored 300 goals in his career that Wayne wouldn't even be capable of scoring. How many highlites of Mario beeing literally tackled by sometimes 2 players and still burying it!
I hate to be mean, because I am a fan of Gretzky but truthfully, in their respective peak prime condition, Wayne really couldn't carry Mario's jock strap. It really isn't close. I think the real kicker is the fact that we all saw how good the Oilers really were without Wayne, winning another cup and Messier being able to do it with the Rangers. Wayne couldn't win a cup once he left Edmonton. We don't even have to discuss the "hypothetical" of health in regards to Mario finally getting some great teamates, but being unable to physically push Gretzky's records because of cronic injuries.
If anybody watched both careers to a great extent, and they still wanted to claim Gretzky's better than Mario, Frankly, statistics are about the ONLY damn thing you can cling too.
|
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 22:27:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by guinman
It has a HELL of a lot to do with the respective outcomes of their careers as does injuries. Claiming that Mario didn't take way more physical abuse than Wayne simply has no basis in reality. It is virtually unanimous amongst NHL personnel who were around in this era that Mario was beat like a drum compared to Wayne. This is a given.
I stopped reading at this point. It's 'unanimous amongst NHL personnel'? 'a given'? Sorry, I don't see the survey results or footnote where you got your data from? Please post that, that would be an interesting read. I hate it when people try to pan their opinion off as fact without basis. I know it's a natural thing to do (I even catch myself on the odd occasion) but it bugs the hell out of me. I see no facts. This is YOUR opinion - state it as such.
|
|
|
|
Guest4943
( )
|
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 00:36:09
|
I realise when you look at these two great players you want to think that they are very close in talent but their not. The great one is heads above any one else who ever played the game. Mario played all his career with the same team, what do you think the great one would have did if he stayed with the oilers. This man went to LA who had funs that were homeless sleeping in the stands and single handedly took out the oilers in the playoffs. Mario is a great hockey player that is for sure but comparing him to Wayne is just ridiculous. Mario was a great player gretzky makes anyone look great. Dave cement head 20 goal season know that is unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 01:16:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4943
I realise when you look at these two great players you want to think that they are very close in talent but their not. The great one is heads above any one else who ever played the game. Mario played all his career with the same team, what do you think the great one would have did if he stayed with the oilers. This man went to LA who had funs that were homeless sleeping in the stands and single handedly took out the oilers in the playoffs. Mario is a great hockey player that is for sure but comparing him to Wayne is just ridiculous. Mario was a great player gretzky makes anyone look great. Dave cement head 20 goal season know that is unbelievable.
This is too extreme too. They were both the top 2 offensively dominant forwards of all time, and they were very close. The opinions in this thread show how close they were, and they really were both head and shoulders above the competition, but not each other. I have given the edge to Gretzky over Lemieux for my reasons, but to say the gap between the two was large (either way) is ridiculous in my books. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 05:01:53
|
Tctitans - I know where you are coming from - I mean we are talking about different levels and types of GREATNESS here. Unless people are purely joking around and just having fun with words, and just doing some fun ribbing, I think we all know that Gretzky and Lemieux could "carry each other's jock straps" pretty well. Not sure if they would want to, mind you.
BUT,
In his LONG post (I thought I made long ones!), Guinman makes an
EXCELLENT point which is dead on target for this particular question, which was about PEAK VALUE. And that was this quote,
"I watched every Oiler cup run as well as the pens and frankly, as d*** Irvin, Scotty Bowman and many others have stated that nobody singlehandedly dominated in a cup run like Mario did on his two."
Dirk Irvin and Scotty Bowman! That's important on this site I think as there are a LOT of guys younger than me, and younger than you too, who are reading this stuff (if the young guys have the patience to read our posts that is). But if they do, I couldn't really blame them for responding, for example, to my claims that Lemieux's playoff performances in the Cup years were more impressive than Gretzky by saying, "Ok, who really cares what AndyHack thinks!" But this is Dirk Irvin (been around hockey forever!) and Scotty Bowman (arguably the best coach ever!). That to me says A LOT on this particular question about peak value.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 04/08/2007 05:42:35 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 05:39:24
|
Tctitans, I know, you are going to ask for the source or footnote for the info again. It's a good point.
I may be wrong, but I do believe I heard this too somewhere (the Bowman/Irvin comments that is) Legends of Hockey series maybe? Perhaps Guinman has the source. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 07:56:59
|
| Personally I think the best point Quinmann made, and he made many, was saying he knows what he saw. This is exactly how i feel when judging players. I trust my eyes. I don't need to see stats to help me decide who I think is better. I quite clearly saw what both were capable of doing. From what I saw, Lemieux is more impressive. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 14:15:14
|
Just a couple of points.
1) You say that Mario scored 300 goals that Gretzky never could have. Wonder how many assists Gretzky had that Mario never would have seen??
2) I was going to reply to your entire post but your comment about Gretzky couldn't hold Mario's jock is a joke. A total joke. To say that make you lose all credibility with me and I will not waste my time with someone who has that ignorant of view. You say that you are a Gretzky fan?? You don't have to be a fan to know that comment is ridiculous.
And Willus, you have become very interesting. You start a post talking about comparing adjusted stats comparing Crosby to Lemieux and Gretzky. Yet, on here you say that you don't need stats to prove who is better. Just your eyes. Which one is it??
|
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 14:21:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Tctitans, I know, you are going to ask for the source or footnote for the info again. It's a good point.
I may be wrong, but I do believe I heard this too somewhere (the Bowman/Irvin comments that is) Legends of Hockey series maybe? Perhaps Guinman has the source.
You are bang on Andyhack... :) I do require source material. Problem is, I'd bet you dollars to donuts that contracting source material can be found too. Contradicting material may even be found from the same source. Ie. whether or not Scotty is being interviewed for a Lemieux piece, or a Gretzky piece. He may not use the same phrase, but he will certainly say similar things.
Still waiting source material.. :)
But your opinions are always valid... :) |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 14:23:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Personally I think the best point Quinmann made, and he made many, was saying he knows what he saw. This is exactly how i feel when judging players. I trust my eyes. I don't need to see stats to help me decide who I think is better. I quite clearly saw what both were capable of doing. From what I saw, Lemieux is more impressive.
Excellent point, and my point exactly. You favor Lemieux with your eyes, and I favor Gretzky with mine. I doubt anyone has watch more games by these two in their prime than me (perhaps this is wrong, but it's not an easy feat) and I make my judgement based on my observations and absolutely nothing else. |
|
|
|
Guest9974
( )
|
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 15:18:18
|
EDIT:
The 1987 Canada Cup...
My eyes saw a 99, but no one on the ice seemed to. He was all over the ice. I know what I saw, and what I saw was pure domination.
When I looked at 66, I saw him being checked off the puck most of the time, and finish off some amazing plays by 99. Not pure domination.
This is what my eyes saw during the 1987 Canada Cup - during every single game. Therefore, in my opinion, Wayne Gretzky was the better hockey player playing with and against the top players in the world. You may argue that Lemieux had not yet entered his peak...but here's the key: even during his peak, Lemieux never quite reached that level of domination as Gretzky did during the 1987 Canada Cup, be it international hockey or NHL playoffs. Lemieux was 21 at the time. At that age, Gretzky had 92 goals and 212 points in the NHL.
People talk about hands, skating, passing, and shooting. But above all of this is vision and hockey sense. Though Lemieux may have had the 2nd best vision of all time (or was it Bobby Orr?), Gretzky saw the game on a higher plane than Lemieux during their respective peaks. And this, along with a few intangables, is what elevates him over Lemieux.
This is what my eyes saw. |
|
|
|
guinman
Top Prospect
Canada
52 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 23:31:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Just a couple of points.
1) You say that Mario scored 300 goals that Gretzky never could have. Wonder how many assists Gretzky had that Mario never would have seen??
2) I was going to reply to your entire post but your comment about Gretzky couldn't hold Mario's jock is a joke. A total joke. To say that make you lose all credibility with me and I will not waste my time with someone who has that ignorant of view. You say that you are a Gretzky fan?? You don't have to be a fan to know that comment is ridiculous.
And Willus, you have become very interesting. You start a post talking about comparing adjusted stats comparing Crosby to Lemieux and Gretzky. Yet, on here you say that you don't need stats to prove who is better. Just your eyes. Which one is it??
This is how you can interpret the 'jock' saying:.
If you took Wayne in his prime and Mario in his prime and put Roy in goal for some 1/2 ice 1on1, having to take the puck over the blue line upon possesion, Mario would eat Wayne. Pure physical talent, plain and simple. That's where the unable to carry the jock saying applies.
I think saying that Wayne has superior vision and playmaking to Mario is splitting hairs - but the comparison on goal scoring sure as hell isn't. What don't you understand about this?
Your eyes don't lie to you beans but pride and bias often does. I will go on record as saying that Wayne came into about the most perfect time and situation in NHL history to post the staggering numbers that he did. This doesn't neccessarily make him the best player. Mario sure as hell didn't come into an ideal situation for assaulting the record books. That is undeniable. |
|
|
|
guinman
Top Prospect
Canada
52 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2007 : 23:36:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9974
EDIT:
The 1987 Canada Cup...
My eyes saw a 99, but no one on the ice seemed to. He was all over the ice. I know what I saw, and what I saw was pure domination.
When I looked at 66, I saw him being checked off the puck most of the time, and finish off some amazing plays by 99. Not pure domination.
This is what my eyes saw during the 1987 Canada Cup - during every single game. Therefore, in my opinion, Wayne Gretzky was the better hockey player playing with and against the top players in the world. You may argue that Lemieux had not yet entered his peak...but here's the key: even during his peak, Lemieux never quite reached that level of domination as Gretzky did during the 1987 Canada Cup, be it international hockey or NHL playoffs. Lemieux was 21 at the time. At that age, Gretzky had 92 goals and 212 points in the NHL.
People talk about hands, skating, passing, and shooting. But above all of this is vision and hockey sense. Though Lemieux may have had the 2nd best vision of all time (or was it Bobby Orr?), Gretzky saw the game on a higher plane than Lemieux during their respective peaks. And this, along with a few intangables, is what elevates him over Lemieux.
This is what my eyes saw.
I watched every game in that tournament and I'm flying the BS flag on this post. Buddy, Mario wasn't checked off the puck every where - where out of your but did you pull that?
Gretzky was the playmaker and Mario the finisher. Both Mario and Wayne have said this, and that was the plan, especially on the pp. Just because Wayne was the designated QB doesn't make Mario any lesser. Your post is assinine and totally devoid of reality of what happened in that series. Did you happen to know that hockey players have different roles on a team? Judging by your post I'd say your ignorant of this.
Even if what you claim is correct, This was ONE small tournament. It was a defining moment of greatness for both but not a conclusive snap shot of each others complete careers.
All and all a pretty weak attempt guest. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 08:44:15
|
Beans, I just started that thread to generate some discussion. Stats are interesting but i don't use them to decide who i think is better in a certain situation. For example a few years back I was at a Calgary game. That's when i saw Marc Savard for the first time. I was completely impressed with his abilities. It seemed every time he was on the ice something positive happened for Calgary. At the time I had no idea who he was or what his stats were, but i knew he was a great playmaker after watching that game. Turns out a few years later he is one of the premier set up men in the league. My eyes weren't lying to me.
|
|
|
|
guinman
Top Prospect
Canada
52 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 09:46:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Beans, I just started that thread to generate some discussion. Stats are interesting but i don't use them to decide who i think is better in a certain situation. For example a few years back I was at a Calgary game. That's when i saw Marc Savard for the first time. I was completely impressed with his abilities. It seemed every time he was on the ice something positive happened for Calgary. At the time I had no idea who he was or what his stats were, but i knew he was a great playmaker after watching that game. Turns out a few years later he is one of the premier set up men in the league. My eyes weren't lying to me.
This kind of insight is how I've drafted many up and coming players in late rounds of pools, with huge upside and many times hit these guys on their break out seasons. If you understand the game somewhat and can recognize talent it makes for a lot of fun proving yourself right in your prognosis. Too bad no amount of insight stops one or more of your suppossed 'proven' early round picks from $hitting the bed or getting banged up. I guess that's why pools are essentially gambling. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 09:54:53
|
I actually have watched a fair bit of old clips of that Canada Cup series (including parts of a friend's copy) the last day or so to try to get a feel for whether there is some merit to the fairly extreme way Guest 9974 expresses the differences between Gretzky's contribution and Lemieux's contribution.
He says, "When I looked at 66, I saw him being checked off the puck most of the time, and finish off some amazing plays by 99. Not pure domination."
Yeah, sometimes he was checked off the puck. Yeah, sometimes he finished off some nice plays by Gretzky. And yeah, it's fair to say he didn't "dominate" in that series.
BUT, I didn't see such a DRASTIC difference in the OVERALL value of their contributions there. The contributions were of a different type, yes, with Gretzky in the playmaking role, and you have no argument with me that Gretzky did that very very well in that series, and yes, played particularly well in that series, but to kind of just dismiss Lemieux's contribution as some guy who was just there to finish off the great work of Gretzky and otherwise spent most of time getting checked off the puck, well, that is not what I saw.
In any case, my understanding of the general public reaction (at the time and maybe now too) to that series is not that Lemieux "dominated", but that he played at a level that was at least getting close to that of Gretzky.
Then he says,
"Lemieux never quite reached that level of domination as Gretzky did during the 1987 Canada Cup"
Okay, we agree to disagree on this I guess, because in my eyes, the way Lemieux led the Penguins in the Penguin's Stanley Cup years did indeed at the very least meet this level of domination.
Gretzky diehards, you gotta understand this point. There are guys out there that actually do think Gretzky was an unbelievable player, but nevertheless think that maybe he wasn't the best, and have problems with the sort of dismissive comments like those of Guest 9974 when it comes to anyone else.
Personally, I said right from my very first post on this site I think, that how to rank one of these guys over the other is a particularly interesting question. I said it because, neither Gretzky or Lemieux really bring significant defensive abilities to the table (other than based on the theory of a great offence being a great defence) and so in my mind, though very different players, they are ultimately of the same category. And as you know by now, personally, I prefer a different category and would want Orr and Messier more on my team. Some of you may find the Messier pick strange, but for me personally, that is actually an easier call than this Gretzky-Lemieux debate.
Anyway, final note as a Bruins HOMER! Watch the overtime goal in Game 2 of the '87 series. A quiet humble guy made a kind of standard rush for him (great for many others) to start it off. No fanfare, no assist and generally no part of discussions about '87, but without that very nice rush, there is no overtime goal and maybe no victory in '87. You can guess at who the guy was. |
Edited by - andyhack on 04/09/2007 10:01:02 |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 10:23:12
|
Please everyone realize that there will never be a definitive correct answer to this debate. It will always end up in a personal opinion, and there are lots of knowledgeable, hockey-smart people on both sides of this debate. Everyone will have their opinion based on what they saw and that will certainly have a lot of external factors that influence them (Did they like Wayne? Mario? Oilers? Pens? How old they are - when they watched these two. What type of player they prefer. How much does longevity count for? Their definition of domination? and a zillion other factors...).
Noone can tell me that my opinion is wrong, and I can't tell you that yours is wrong (I may know your wrong myself, but I won't tell you that ;) ).
|
|
|
|
Guest7418
( )
|
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 14:08:17
|
| Magnificent Mario may be been Magnificent, but Wayne was the Great ONE. And noone, and I repeat NOONE can change my mind on that fact. |
|
|
|
guinman
Top Prospect
Canada
52 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 23:34:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Peak value:
I don't really like throwing out stats but just in response to Guest 9907's comment:
Lemieux's 44 points in 23 games in '91 playoffs - NOT BAD! I'd say it's far from being "blown away" by Gretzky's admittedly amazing '85 performance.
But as a fan of the Bruins who were victims to both the '88 Oilers (finals which Guest 9907 mentioned) and '91 Penguins (semi-finals - but essentially like the finals that year), I gotta restate my opinion that Lemieux's performance was more impressive, in those series anyway.
The '88 Bruins felt like they had won the Stanley cup after FINALLY beating the Habs in the playoffs after decades and decades of heartbreak against them. By the time they got to the finals, aside from being TOTALLY outmatched by a WAY better Oilers team in that series, they were also physically and emotionally spent from the earlier Montreal series and a seven game semi-final series against the Devils. Gretzky's amazing point production in that easy finals victory against the Bruins, sure, it was very impressive, but you gotta look at it in that light.
The '91 Bruins-Penguins semis was a whole different story. A very competitive Bruins team with Bourque and Neely at their peaks and a much better supporting cast than '88, and unlike '88, they believed they could win, and legitimately could have won that tough long series which they were leading in but for two things, Mario and the famous cheap-shot on Neely by Ulf "I hope you are proud of cutting down a great player you PRICK OF ALL PRICKS!" Samuelson. Sorry, I always get a little pissed about that. Back to the point though, which is simply that the performance by Lemieux was more impressive than the performance by Gretzky given the context of those series.
Regarding the Samuelsson hit on Neely, the interpretation of the suppossed cheap shot here is cleary made with 'canadians loving a great canadian kid neely' glasses on, or with 'Bruins' glasses on.
I've taped the entire penguins playoff runs and have watched that hit about 100 times. Ulfie liked to load both his legs up in a squat like fashion to make hundreds of hits like this in his career. I know many people are bitter about the unfortunate injury Neely received but c'mon, look at the video. Ulfie gets into his 'form' squat position with both legs evenly distributing his weight 20 feet before Neely gets there. Neely has the puck and figuring that he is undestructable (which he had good reason too as he was a beast) he skates directly between ULfie's legs as they engage each other. Look at the video a million times if that's what it takes. When did Ulfie stick a leg out, or change any position of his body from 20ft. before the check, right through to the contact? He didn't, and that's why there was no penalty. Neely should have considered what he was skating into and realized his own mortality a little more. That hit was clean all the way. Ulfie never changed his position like I said at any time when the hit was made - why the crying? Neely took Ulfie on and lost because he allowed himself to be vunerable by thinking he's going to skate through Ulfie as he's skated through many opponents in the past. Neely should take responsibility for this. I cannot believe the fuss made over that hit. Ulfie did what he always does. When a stout 220lb d-man who can hit is coming at you with in a squating postion (legs loaded) what do you think happens when you skate into the guy with your legs apart, exposing your self? Look at the collision, Neely never had a chance, Ulfie doesn't know how the hit ultimately's gonna turn out and his positioning on the video and the fact that Ulfie NEVER stuck his leg out, makes it an unfortunate play for Neely but defintely not kneeing by definition. You know that injurys occur when legs lock or collide in vunerable positions, it doesn't make it dirty because of injury. Ulfies knee definitely hit Cam's leg but that check wasn't kneeing by definition. I've sat down with a couple of buddies with my VCR and watched the hit 10 times with them asking them to show me where Ulfie stuck his knee out? They couldn't refute me because he didn't stick it out. Sometimes players are kneed by hits cheaply even when the inflicter didn't stick his knee out in the classic Marchment fashion, but in this case the players where basically heading north south into each other so saying that Ulfie tried to do what he did is ridiculous. A kneeing cheap hit by a player not sticking his leg out is only as such when he catches a guy changing direction, skating east to west upon contact, that's when the hitter has to pull up. Neely should have protected himself and been in a ready postion for contact head on, instead of trying to brush by Ulfie obviously with some contact in full stride with the puck. Neely thought he could skate by with the puck and absorb the hit. Obviously Cam made the wrong decision.
Look at the video and you'll see that Ulfie's position never changed like I said. What did he really do wrong? Like no defensmen hits from a leg loaded squat like position when taking on the strongest power forwards in the league in open ice or the boards?
For the record I love Cam Neely and I was sad that he had cronic problems from that hit. The possibility certainly exists that somebody, whether Cam himself or the Bruins medical staff dropped the ball on the timing of the treatment of his deep thigh contusion. These kinds of injuries have happened many times in many sports and when the bruise is deep in the tissue, a calcification problem can be quite common. Many players have had this injury and have recovered. I'm not a doctor, but I think that maybe that Cam wasn't diagnosed fast enough with the calcification, because from what I understand, it can be dealt with if caught quickly. I don't believe that the initial injury should have morphed into what it did if Cam was treated sooner perhaps. I could be wrong because I'm not an expert of course, but something doesn't add up on how things ended up, with that calcified contusion cutting his career so short. Was it more the knee than the calcification perhaps? I thought it was the bad calcification that f'ed Cam up. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 04:41:28
|
Maybe we should start another thread on that topic. But let's wait a few days as I'll be out of commission doing some work. Also, it will take some time to ply the Bruin glasses off my head.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 12:31:02
|
quote:
This is how you can interpret the 'jock' saying:.
If you took Wayne in his prime and Mario in his prime and put Roy in goal for some 1/2 ice 1on1, having to take the puck over the blue line upon possesion, Mario would eat Wayne. Pure physical talent, plain and simple. That's where the unable to carry the jock saying applies.
I think saying that Wayne has superior vision and playmaking to Mario is splitting hairs - but the comparison on goal scoring sure as hell isn't. What don't you understand about this?
Your eyes don't lie to you beans but pride and bias often does. I will go on record as saying that Wayne came into about the most perfect time and situation in NHL history to post the staggering numbers that he did. This doesn't neccessarily make him the best player. Mario sure as hell didn't come into an ideal situation for assaulting the record books. That is undeniable.
Your starting point would hold true if hockey was a game where one player went against another player and a goalie. I never argued that Mario was a better pure scorer that Gretzky. His hands were made of gold and he did score a ton of goals with a guy on his back. But does this prove that he is a better player?? Not in my opinion. You said it yourself, Mario has pure physical talent over Gretzky. Gretzky had nothing above average physically going for him yet he still did what he did. I personally believe that if Gretzky had Lemieux's physical gifts, he would have had way more points than he did. If Lemieux had Gretzky's physical talents, he would have done less than he did.
Using a similar hypothetical, which I don't like doing but will for the sake of argument. If you put Mario and Wayne on the ice with the same players against another team, my opinion is that Wayne may not score as many goals as Lemiuex. However, my opinion is that the team would be better with Wayne than Mario. He was the best, absolute best ever, at seeing the ice and making plays.
And my whole point about the couldn't hold his jock statement being ridiculous was said best by Andyhack. There is nothing so DRASTIC between the two that warrants a statement like that. They were both amazing. Speaking purely about forwards, they were the two most gifted offensive players in history. What I found appalling is that there is no way that one can think Mario was SIGNIFICANTLY better than Gretzky or visa versa. To say that one player could not hold another's jock indicates that.
All of this in my opinion of course. My eyes do not lie, nor do yours. But you can not say that Bias and pride effect me but not you??
Simply put, you think Lemieux, I think Gretzky. Neither of us can say that one was THAT superior to the other. The differences between the two are not that great. One a better scorer, one a better passer and playmaker. Both amazing. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 04/10/2007 17:16:19 |
|
|
|
Guest9987
( )
|
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 16:49:59
|
| Beautiful post, Bean15. I find it amusing how people seem to forget that one little detail when comparing Gretzky and Lemieux -- that hockey is 5 on 5 (minus the goalie), and not a game of 1 on 1. There was no player in the history of the NHL that dominated hockey as much as Gretzky did 5 on 5 (or 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 for that matter). The Stanley Cup was never won during a skills competition relay the last time I checked! |
|
|
|
manninm
PickupHockey Pro
USA
347 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 05:54:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by guinman
If you took Wayne in his prime and Mario in his prime and put Roy in goal for some 1/2 ice 1on1, having to take the puck over the blue line upon possesion, Mario would eat Wayne. Pure physical talent, plain and simple. That's where the unable to carry the jock saying applies.
I think saying that Wayne has superior vision and playmaking to Mario is splitting hairs - but the comparison on goal scoring sure as hell isn't. What don't you understand about this?
This is exactly why Wayne's vision is so important...and he has 8 billion career assists...and why he was able to keep putting up solid numbers through the latter part of his career. Granted, I do think you're right. One on one, Lemieux would have Gretz. But hockey is a team game, 6 on 6. And nobody understood that better than Gretz. While Lemieux may have made some plays Gretz couldn't by virtue of his skill, Gretz made twice as many plays by virtue of his vision, and lasted a lot longer while doing
Don't get me wrong, I think you can make some strong arguments for Lemieux being the best, but in my opinion Gretz's longevity, his vision, his skill set (which was still pretty darn good) made him a better player than Lemieux. |
|
|
|
leafsfan1
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
338 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 06:27:13
|
they are both amazing but gretzkys better
Sens Suck
Habs Suck
Leafs Rule
|
|
|
|
B-rett10
Rookie
Canada
186 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 05:53:12
|
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)
This is very well said. Looking at the stays of one another u would have to give it to Gretzky, but we all know Lemieux played a bit games short and was still up there for ponits. Talent wise it is hard to pick. Yah i saw that to in the movie "#23"  |
|
|
|
SJSharks
Top Prospect
USA
46 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 19:28:43
|
| Despite both of them being fantastic hockey players my vote goes to, and probally always will go to, Gretzsky. However I have been getting a little bit fonder of Lemieux especially after recently hearing that he scored on his first ever shot. But, as I said before Gretzky will still probally always get it. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Gretzky vs Lemieux 
