| Author |
 Topic  |
|
samson868
Top Prospect
Canada
1 Posts |
 Posted - 03/30/2008 : 17:28:39
|
Lemeiux was a greater impact player because he was a greater threat one on one or one on two, as well as playmaking...he played with less talent... he was tackled by defensemen, but still was strong enough to fight thru the check, abd score with one hand on the stick....he was scary good...I cheered against him, but was usually left in awe....Gretzkey was great too, but I think it was Lemeuix's sniper ability that puts him ahead at peak or prime...points per game were better too...and he played in a more defensive era...where refs let more clutching go to even the playing field...Keith
shoot |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2008 : 18:00:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by samson868
Lemeiux was a greater impact player because he was a greater threat one on one or one on two, as well as playmaking...he played with less talent... he was tackled by defensemen, but still was strong enough to fight thru the check, abd score with one hand on the stick....he was scary good...I cheered against him, but was usually left in awe....Gretzkey was great too, but I think it was Lemeuix's sniper ability that puts him ahead at peak or prime...points per game were better too...and he played in a more defensive era...where refs let more clutching go to even the playing field...Keith
shoot
I just can't seem to understand this.
1) Lemieux was a better playmaker?? Even Lemeiux fans would disagree with this. Gretzky and his nearly 2000 assists was the better playmaker. This one is hands down.
2) Lemieux was a better sniper?? I would agree with that. Gretzky had a pathetic 0.60 goals/game average compared to Lemieux astronomical 0.75.
3) How many times does it have to be posted in here in regards to PPG. Lemieux was never ahead of Gretzky in PPG. Not at any time through their careers.
4) Gretzky played though those same clutch and grab times as Lemieux did.
I have no issue with people who prefer Lemieux over Gretzky, just make sure you don't quote facts that are not true.
|
|
|
|
Guest9929
( )
|
Posted - 03/30/2008 : 23:13:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by samson868
Lemeiux was a greater impact player because he was a greater threat one on one or one on two, as well as playmaking...he played with less talent... he was tackled by defensemen, but still was strong enough to fight thru the check, abd score with one hand on the stick....he was scary good...I cheered against him, but was usually left in awe....Gretzkey was great too, but I think it was Lemeuix's sniper ability that puts him ahead at peak or prime...points per game were better too...and he played in a more defensive era...where refs let more clutching go to even the playing field...Keith
shoot
Gretzky had the higher points per game average. Lemieux's best PPG average over a season was 2.67. Gretzky's best was 2.77. The year Lemieux scored 160 points in 60 games still falls shy of Gretzky's best 50-60 game output, such as the time Gretzky scored 153 points in 51 straight games. Gretzky averaged over 3 points per game during the streak. Lemieux, as dominant as he was, never approached that level of scariness.
Lemieux may have appeared more scary because of his physical talent, but Gretzky would end up somehow beating you more often. In a way, that was even more scary, because you never saw him coming. He would disappear, unnoticed, then reappear. But by then it was usually too late for the opposition.
|
|
|
|
Guest4523
( )
|
Posted - 03/31/2008 : 07:54:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9929
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4523
Huge ranger fan....but please
Lemieux is better than gretzky and i think that gretzky is too overshadowed about being the best all time because of the numbers. its all a number game. it gets annoying after a while. but if you wanna talk about numbers?
Gretzky played a full 20 seasons and Super Mario played his 13 year career and started after gretzky. Mario even played in the era of the rule changes and the tighter defensive tactics. So, with mario having cancer and missing out the 7 years, are you still gonna bullsXXX and say that he couldnt notch 2-300 goals in that span and hit 1k opposed to gretzkys almost 900? you cant. he really would have hit the mark. so yeah, if 66 wouldnt have hit 1k, he wouldve passed gretzky and been over 900, definitely. no matter who he played with, opposed to who gretzky played with. mess, anderson and coffey like some other guy said in the topic.
Mario has 7 seasons in hand to catch up on like 200 goals and god knows how many assists, but then again god knows how much he wouldve notched. lol.
Bottom line, mario isnt the best player of all time im saying, hes TECHNICALLY the best player of all time, meaning, in my book hes the best skater to ever step onto the rink.
Mario Lemieux, #66, in pittsburgh uniform, the best skater of all time
Again, forget about the totals. Look at the points per game average. Gretzky has the higher points per game average, season and career...and most importanly, the playoffs, season and career. Every way you slice it. You really shouldn't use stats to argue against Gretzky.
As for the dead puck argument, Gretzky played longer in the dead puck era than Lemieux did...and played 7 more seasons...and STILL managed to pull out a higher points per game average...how about that!
how about not? 7 years isnt 1995-1999 and lemieux played after the millenium until 06. like i said, judging on career stats? pretty dumb when mario couldnt play the 1997-1999 seasons and the other breaks when he had cancer, otherwise id be guessing 250 goals and 700 assists somewhere in that realm, not even. gretzkys goals, those are the only ones ive seen but i havent really seen him score a mario type goal. bottom line, that isnt the point. everyone thinks gretzky is better because of the stats, and me im pointing out that they havent played an equivalent amount of seasons.
hank aaron played extra seasons than babe, you think babe couldnt notch another 50-60 at least.
anyway, this is hockey. and speaking of HOCKEY, lemieux is better. who gives a XXXX about shot accuracy and all that other useless garbage. both were phenoms, but i think that mario is over by an edge. seen as he had the skill to defend himself as well and even pick fights. and im judging by playmaking and goal scoring |
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/31/2008 15:35:49 |
|
|
|
Guest4416
( )
|
Posted - 04/01/2008 : 00:36:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4523
. both were phenoms, but i think that mario is over by an edge. seen as he had the skill to defend himself as well and even pick fights. and im judging by playmaking and goal scoring
Puleesee.... Don't even go there. Lemieux did get in a couple of fights in his career, but he was a certainly *not* a fighter. For a big (huge) man, he was down right embarassing in the fisticuffs department. He got beat up by guys 1/2 his size.
Get back on topic where you certainly do have an argument for him being the best and most dominant player ever, but stay focused.
:) |
|
|
|
Guest4523
( )
|
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 19:00:56
|
| mario playing for like half the time wayne did pretty much says it all lol |
|
|
|
Guest9929
( )
|
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 20:46:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4523
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9929
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4523
Huge ranger fan....but please
Lemieux is better than gretzky and i think that gretzky is too overshadowed about being the best all time because of the numbers. its all a number game. it gets annoying after a while. but if you wanna talk about numbers?
Gretzky played a full 20 seasons and Super Mario played his 13 year career and started after gretzky. Mario even played in the era of the rule changes and the tighter defensive tactics. So, with mario having cancer and missing out the 7 years, are you still gonna bullsXXX and say that he couldnt notch 2-300 goals in that span and hit 1k opposed to gretzkys almost 900? you cant. he really would have hit the mark. so yeah, if 66 wouldnt have hit 1k, he wouldve passed gretzky and been over 900, definitely. no matter who he played with, opposed to who gretzky played with. mess, anderson and coffey like some other guy said in the topic.
Mario has 7 seasons in hand to catch up on like 200 goals and god knows how many assists, but then again god knows how much he wouldve notched. lol.
Bottom line, mario isnt the best player of all time im saying, hes TECHNICALLY the best player of all time, meaning, in my book hes the best skater to ever step onto the rink.
Mario Lemieux, #66, in pittsburgh uniform, the best skater of all time
Again, forget about the totals. Look at the points per game average. Gretzky has the higher points per game average, season and career...and most importanly, the playoffs, season and career. Every way you slice it. You really shouldn't use stats to argue against Gretzky.
As for the dead puck argument, Gretzky played longer in the dead puck era than Lemieux did...and played 7 more seasons...and STILL managed to pull out a higher points per game average...how about that!
how about not? 7 years isnt 1995-1999 and lemieux played after the millenium until 06. like i said, judging on career stats? pretty dumb when mario couldnt play the 1997-1999 seasons and the other breaks when he had cancer, otherwise id be guessing 250 goals and 700 assists somewhere in that realm, not even. gretzkys goals, those are the only ones ive seen but i havent really seen him score a mario type goal. bottom line, that isnt the point. everyone thinks gretzky is better because of the stats, and me im pointing out that they havent played an equivalent amount of seasons.
hank aaron played extra seasons than babe, you think babe couldnt notch another 50-60 at least.
anyway, this is hockey. and speaking of HOCKEY, lemieux is better. who gives a XXXX about shot accuracy and all that other useless garbage. both were phenoms, but i think that mario is over by an edge. seen as he had the skill to defend himself as well and even pick fights. and im judging by playmaking and goal scoring
You do know Gretzky started before Lemieux did, right? He did play 7 years longer, trust me. Check the internet. Secondly, you also know it is harder to maintain a high points per game average over more seasons, right? Gretzky beat Lemieux over a 20 season career, while Lemieux only played 13 seasons, and far, far fewer games. This should have been a huge advantage for Lemieux in PPG average. If you take Gretzky's first 13 years, he beats Lemieux by quite a margin.
|
|
|
|
Guest9929
( )
|
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 20:49:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4523
mario playing for like half the time wayne did pretty much says it all lol
Your right. If Wayne had retired after 13 seasons, he would have still been the all time leading scorer, and retired with 10 scoring titles and 9 Hart Trophies in only 13 years....and gone down in perhaps even more legendary fashion. |
|
|
|
Guest9929
( )
|
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 20:54:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4523
how about not? 7 years isnt 1995-1999 and lemieux played after the millenium until 06. [/quote]
I think I know the confusion. I thought you meant when Lemieux retired the first time...since that's the argument everyone uses in favour of Lemieux. His points PPG average was higher than Gretzky's when he retired the first time after his 13th season. But compare that to Gretzky's first 13 seasons. |
|
|
|
Guest9929
( )
|
Posted - 04/02/2008 : 20:57:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4523
how about not? 7 years isnt 1995-1999 and lemieux played after the millenium until 06.
I think I know the confusion. I thought you meant when Lemieux retired the first time...since that's the argument everyone uses in favour of Lemieux. His points PPG average was higher than Gretzky's when he retired the first time after his 13th season. But compare that to Gretzky's first 13 seasons. |
|
|
|
Guest2761
( )
|
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 16:06:07
|
| 3years and a half gone and came back for 35 goals 41 assist. Greatzky had a hard time to do it in 82 games Both in there last strech.So me it`s lemieux. Nuff said. |
|
|
|
Guest2761
( )
|
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 16:32:05
|
| If you juge gretsky for a better player then lemieux just because of the records and the points.....it`s your way of thinking it... I think it this way.Is Jagr a better player then lemieux? i don`t think so...Will jagr finish his career with more points yes.Like i said jagr won`t ever be a better player then lemieux or gretsky even if he ever beat one of those two. What about records??OH my god. records are good but hey look at selane he beated gretsky`s record.Is he a better player? nope.It all come to this. I have seen gretsky, lemieux and crosby play. gretsky was the best in his days with the oilers. then came lemieux. he was better. then Crosby is the best. It`s like the human is going better and better each years or so...I just imagine crosby in the oilers in the 79`S would be ouff not imaginable. I don`t know if u guys understand what i am saying here. But it`s like an evolution. So yes lemieux was better then gretsky but crosby is better then both of them. Too bad it`s hard these days to put it in the net cause the goalies are so big and good. I just can`t imagine if crosby would play in the 80`s or so.I have said anough. I am just tired of saying my point of view and i know i am right. But in the end they were all good hehe.See ya! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 11:22:41
|
Thank goodness most of you are a little more eloquent than guest 2761 
My vote went to Gretzky.
In summary of my personal scorekeeping:
1. Gretzky had better points per game, more goals per game, more assists per game. Gretzky ahead of Lemieux here.
2. Both made their teams immeasurably better, but Gretzky more so. He was the embodiement of a superstar elevating everyone else's game. Lemieux was no slouch; but edge to Gretzky.
3. Stanley Cups, team wins and game winning prowess - Gretzky.
3. Pure skill/talent and ability to wow . . . well, hats off to both, but I have to give the slight slight edge to Lemieux, although I want to call it a tie out of respect. Gretzky's no-look, pinpoint passes were just as miracle, to me, as Lemieux's lone-ranger rushes while fighting off two defenders. Slight edge to Lemieux.
4. Lemieux had better defensive skills, while Gretzky's defence was suspect until later on in his career. Lemieux ahead of Gretzky here.
5. As a leader/captain - it took a while for Lemieux to mature, so edge to Gretz.
6. Ambassador of the game - Gretz was way in the lead at one point, but with Lemieux singlehandedly saving the Pittsburgh franchise and becoming an inspiration due to fighting Hodgkins, I'll call it a draw.
I think it's close, but not that close. "Statistics aren't everything" is a phrase that was invented to also take into account the intangibles that a player brought to the game . . . intangibles like grit, determination, pure skill, leadership, ability to amaze. But that is not to say that statistics should be disregarded; rather, the "non-statistical attributes" should be added alongside the statistics, and be appropriately weighted as secondary points of consideration.
That being said, "facts" cannot win an argument over "faith" - thus, those who know that they are MEASUREABLY wrong will continue to put forth intangibles as weighty evidence in their favour . . . I'll close with this: what is the ultimate goal in hockey, and who did it best, measurably? Between Gretzky and Lemieux, for me, the choice is clear . . .
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 11:37:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
That being said, "facts" cannot win an argument over "faith" - thus, those who know that they are MEASUREABLY wrong will continue to put forth intangibles as weighty evidence in their favour . . . I'll close with this: what is the ultimate goal in hockey, and who did it best, measurably? Between Gretzky and Lemieux, for me, the choice is clear . . .
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Well I know what the ultimate goal in hockey is. Can you tell me what you think it is so we're on the same page?
|
|
|
|
rross
Top Prospect
Canada
58 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 15:10:38
|
Why don't you try this. Put Lemieux in his prime and Gretzky in his prime on the ice. Just the two of them. Nets are turned around so you can't just shoot the puck in the net. Who wins on the scoreboard? One on one I give the edge to Lemieux. But this is player on player.
I still believe Gretzky is the best hockey player ever since hockey is a team sport and this one on one scenario would not be correct in answering the question "who was the best hockey player".
In summation, pure hockey skills, Mario.
Pure hockey player, Gretzky.
Go Habs Go!! |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 15:22:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by rross
Why don't you try this. Put Lemieux in his prime and Gretzky in his prime on the ice. Just the two of them. Nets are turned around so you can't just shoot the puck in the net. Who wins on the scoreboard? One on one I give the edge to Lemieux. But this is player on player.
I still believe Gretzky is the best hockey player ever since hockey is a team sport and this one on one scenario would not be correct in answering the question "who was the best hockey player".
In summation, pure hockey skills, Mario.
Pure hockey player, Gretzky.
Hi rross, it's tough to use this situational anology as a reference really. Since you could put dozens of players in the same ring with these two guys and neither Wayne nor Mario would come out on top. You have to look at it in the context of the team game.
Having said that, I think I agree with the results of your analysis. |
|
|
|
Guest2761
( )
|
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 17:56:32
|
| Hey slozo... i want to tell u this.. when gretsky left the oilers won the stanley cup the next year so yes he is good but not has good as lemieux. I have a video to show you and everyone on here should go see it.. It`s caled feerless mario lemieux when u finish looking at this you`ll see what lemieux whent thru.And will make your mind change. guess 2761 is right all the way.good thinking. It's all about the revelution of players. |
|
|
|
Guest1069
( )
|
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 19:04:21
|
| i think tht lemuiex was better because if he would of stayed healthy i think he would of defenitly broken gretzkys records |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 19:09:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2761
Hey slozo... i want to tell u this.. when gretsky left the oilers won the stanley cup the next year so yes he is good but not has good as lemieux. I have a video to show you and everyone on here should go see it.. It`s caled feerless mario lemieux when u finish looking at this you`ll see what lemieux whent thru.And will make your mind change. guess 2761 is right all the way.good thinking. It's all about the revelution of players.
First of all, please watch your spelling and your grammer. It is part of the forum rules.
Wayne Gretzky is not spelled with an S and I am not exactly sure what a revelution is. Are you refering to Revolution?? Or are you talking about Evolution??
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2160
Now, in regards to a couple of comments.
1) HOCKEY IS A TEAM GAME!! Getting Gretzky and Lemiuex on the ice at the same time playing against each other is not even close to any kind of measure as to who is a better player. Put Ray Bourque one on one against them and he more than likely beats them as he is a superior defensive player. Does that mean that Ray Bourque is the best hockey player ever?? One of the best but not THE best.
2) Willus, I think you are I are in line with what the goal is in Hockey. To win. Both players did that very well. Gretzky was more successful. That is pretty hard to argue. But, it's also pretty hard to argue that Gretzky's support crew was amazing. Lemieux had some pretty good teams, but Gretzky played on an amazing team for longer.
3) Back to this latest Guest Post. The Gretzky-less Oilers did with the Cup the next year. Let's not forget that team still had Anderson, Kurri, and Messier. Among other very good hockey players. Besides that, what does that say for Mario?? Lemieux did not win the Cup until Pittsburgh assembled a team including Jagr, Francis, Recchi, and Coffey among other very good hockey players. All that says is that to be successful in hockey it takes more than one amazing player. That holds true all through the history of the game.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 04/04/2008 19:20:04 |
|
|
|
Guest9913
( )
|
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 19:49:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest1069
i think tht lemuiex was better because if he would of stayed healthy i think he would of defenitly broken gretzkys records
I'm curious...which records would Lemieux have broken if he had stayed healthy? |
|
|
|
Guest2761
( )
|
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 08:23:00
|
| Put them both in a team today. Mario would have more points at the end of the season then gretzky. Look all the games they played togeter, lemieux was the guy who had more points. Canada 87 for exemple. What i think of all this, is people are just selfish. Just because mario was french,people will take gretzky. I am from toronto and i know what both can do. And yes it`s team game every hockey fan should know that.But lemieux still is better then gretzky.gretzky was better then orr.mario was better then both. and crosby is better then all of them. Even if he don`t have all those records or points. People u need to accepte the fact that there is like a evolution here. I don`t know if u see this thru the game but impact players gets better and better each year. I mean the young players who gets drafted .Of course we don`t get a gifted player each year in the nhl. Like the lemieux and the gretzky`s. I would say that players like that come in around every 10 to 15 years. Do you imagine who is gonna be better then crosby? It`s gonna be a robot lol. Well this is my message and please stop beeing selfish and accepte the fact that lemieux was a better player. And hey,,,crosby is english hehe... see ya guys. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 08:34:55
|
2761 - Even if your evolution theory is true, when comparing players from different generations shouldn't we try to imagine how the player from the earlier generation would have played in the later generation? And in doing so, shouldn't we also try to imagine the player of the earlier generation growing up in the same generation as the later guy, with the same equipment, same rules, same type of coaching, same fitness level, etc. If we do that, the question not only becomes more difficult, it becomes a lot more interesting. Bobby Orr born in 1987 for example? Are you so sure that Crosby would be a better player than him? In any case, is it not a far more interetsing way of looking at it than just saying "players are continually getting better".
|
|
|
|
Guest2761
( )
|
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 08:47:10
|
| Hi andy... you may be right if orr or gretzky or even lemieux would be born in those days. Yes they would be better. Cause the trainers are good these days. And for players like that whose gifted they sure would be better in these generation but they won`t ever beat all the records. Yes gretzky did it. He had the best team in hockey right in the begining. I am not saying that lemieux wouldn`t done it if he had passed the same team and players in the beginning and if he would not have cancer and back pain. Even orr would`ve done it.But the true fact is the years are going forwards not back. Good thinking tho. |
|
|
|
Guest2761
( )
|
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 08:55:23
|
| I play amateur hockey and when i play with other player that are in a real hockey league i am putting more points on my record. Cause i can do more thing on the ice. But when i play with people like me who`s normal i can`t do much points. So yes it helps a lot. People who say no to that don`t know or don`t play hockey at all. |
|
|
|
rross
Top Prospect
Canada
58 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 17:17:53
|
I believe there needs to be clarification or separate polls for this topic. If you want to find out who the better player was, take both players in their prime, throw just the two of them on the ice, turn the nets around(so you can't just shoot) and see who wins on the scoreboard. Lemieux would win hands down. Orr and Howe would beat Gretzky too.
However, the topic is best hockey player, and hockey is a team sport. Gretzky was not the most talented player, but he was the best at seeing the ice and making teammates around him play to their full potential. Therefore, the greatest hockey player of all time is...Gretzky. Oh, did I mention his stats? Well they speak for themselves.
Go Habs Go!! |
|
|
|
rross
Top Prospect
Canada
58 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 17:22:39
|
Beans, read my last post. I clarified the intent of my situational theory to mean that hockey is a team game. I put Gretzky and Lemieux on the ice together instead of Bourque, because the thread is between Gretzky and Lemieux. Not Bourque.
Go Habs Go!! |
|
|
|
Guest9920
( )
|
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 18:34:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2761
Put them both in a team today. Mario would have more points at the end of the season then gretzky. Look all the games they played togeter, lemieux was the guy who had more points. Canada 87 for exemple. What i think of all this, is people are just selfish. Just because mario was french,people will take gretzky. I am from toronto and i know what both can do. And yes it`s team game every hockey fan should know that.But lemieux still is better then gretzky.gretzky was better then orr.mario was better then both. and crosby is better then all of them. Even if he don`t have all those records or points. People u need to accepte the fact that there is like a evolution here. I don`t know if u see this thru the game but impact players gets better and better each year. I mean the young players who gets drafted .Of course we don`t get a gifted player each year in the nhl. Like the lemieux and the gretzky`s. I would say that players like that come in around every 10 to 15 years. Do you imagine who is gonna be better then crosby? It`s gonna be a robot lol. Well this is my message and please stop beeing selfish and accepte the fact that lemieux was a better player. And hey,,,crosby is english hehe... see ya guys.
You need to check your facts. Gretzky had 21 points to Lemieux's 18 points when they played together in the 1987 Canada Cup. Gretzky has led almost every international tournament in scoring he has played in. I seriously doubt if you took Gretzky in his prime and Lemieux in his prime that Lemieux would beat him in scoring. History doesn't side with it. Lemieux would likely score more goals, but not more points. Lemieux has never beaten Gretzky's best seasonal PPG average...not even when Lemieux scored 160 points in 60 games. |
|
|
|
Guest2761
( )
|
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 19:24:51
|
| yeah sorry i was wrong about that... but it doesn`t make gretzky the better player. Give him a chance here it was his first canada cup. But what ever... my thing about the evolution of players still stands and always wins. But u guys may only see that i am right in 10 to 15 more years when there will be the next one. In todays game the best is crosby and he his better then both of them.last generation was lemieux and the one before that was gretzky. Take it as u want. I am not beeing selfish here. Just telling a true fact. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 09:37:54
|
A player coming along in the next generation that is better than a player in a previous generation has nothing to with evolution of players. It has to do with the evolution of training, coaching, scouting, and equipment.
There is not a scientific study in the world that will support the evolution of the human species in one generation.
|
|
|
|
Guest2761
( )
|
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 10:06:40
|
| Yes so the players are getting better and better right? SO has the goalies. |
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 12:17:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
A player coming along in the next generation that is better than a player in a previous generation has nothing to with evolution of players. It has to do with the evolution of training, coaching, scouting, and equipment.
There is not a scientific study in the world that will support the evolution of the human species in one generation.
Interesting you should mention this. My father, after having spoken to Ken Dryden, explained to me the phenomenon, or at least a small part of it. A lot of the evolution of training is deeply rooted in the '72 Summit Series.
You see, Canadians undoubtedly had the best talent. Thing was, once hockey season was over, they would head straight to the golf course, and not train for three months a year. When they did train, it was skills not stamina. They were the best, but they did not train like the best.
Meanwhile, the Russians trained all year around the clock. They played an aggresive, hard hitting, fast paced game with nothing fancy. They took the Canadians by surprise because they were in such tip-top shape as opposed to their North American counterparts. A lot of it had to do with the mentality of the culture in the east. They were in general very conforming, obedient people. Training was like boot camp. Whereas the Canadian athletes went out for nights at the bar and such, the Russians had a curfew, a diet ... why, a full out regime.
The Summit Series, according to my father based on the insight given to him by Dryden, was an eye-opener. Since than, Canadians have put more and more emphasis on the physical aspects of the game. Since then, players coming up through the ranks have been taught that they needed to be big, strong and fast.
Many hockey clinics, schools, and programs adopted a completely new style of training. It was ready in a couple years, and was experimented on with the little kids at first. If you were under the old program, you basically stayed in it.
That is why after the scoring frenzy of the eighties, the game significantly became more defesive minded, and the kids who went through the revised training program are now taught to be gritty, big, team players who get garbage goals rather than individualistic, talent-first players.
It is all very logical if you think about it.
Now, that is not to say that all goals are garbage goals, all guys are goons -- of course not. But the game is evolving, and you can see it.
Don Cherry talked about the reason Canada beat the Finish team. He showed highlights of the Canadian team crossing the blue line and the Finns. Whereas the Canadians cross with speed and crash the net, the Finnish puck carrier will stop, turn back, and try to pass it to a streaking winger.
Don Cherry said they are basically afraid to get hit and lost because of it.
It is people who make statements like that that evolve the game, for better or for worse. All it takes is for those words to appeal to a person high enough in the ranks of Finnish hockey, and all of a sudden Finland (well, I would assume all of Scandanavia for that matter) will undergo the same metamorphisis we did 20 years ago.
You can see it happening, and it makes a lot of sense. For better or for worse, it is happening.
Take two minutes to join the PickUpHockey Cyber Cup!
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3820#51395
|
Edited by - Alex on 04/06/2008 12:19:51 |
|
|
|
Guest9947
( )
|
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 12:52:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2761
yeah sorry i was wrong about that... but it doesn`t make gretzky the better player. Give him a chance here it was his first canada cup. But what ever... my thing about the evolution of players still stands and always wins. But u guys may only see that i am right in 10 to 15 more years when there will be the next one. In todays game the best is crosby and he his better then both of them.last generation was lemieux and the one before that was gretzky. Take it as u want. I am not beeing selfish here. Just telling a true fact.
No worries, but you cannot say it is a fact. It is an opinion. It's just that I feel a lot of people who were too young to see Gretzky play in his prime have a distorted perspective because the Gretzky they remember was the Gretzky in his mid to late 30s. That isn't the same Gretzky. I have never seen either Crosby or Lemieux make the kind of plays Gretzky made. I have never seen that kind of vision...and I only hope I will get to see it again.
What made Gretzky the best (in my opinion) wasn't his stats or his PPG average (these were merely symptoms of what made him great). Just to illustrate, I will use an example... In the 1991 Canada Cup, there was a game against Sweden where Gretzky had just scored 3 assists in spectacular fasion (two of them short handed)...but that wasn't the the thing that wowed me the most. The thing that wowed me didn't even result in a goal. He was killing another penalty, and he intercepted the puck at the offensive blue line. Instead of going in, he curled back to the red line, and proceeded to dance AROUND the permimeter of the play, and did about three circles back and forth between the offensive blue line and back to the red line. No one was touching him, not because he was beating each player one on one, but because he was reading the patterns of the players so effectively that he didn't even have to beat one player one on one to hold the puck on a string amongst a group of 9 skaters while being shorthanded. It was amazing.
Later during another penaltry kill (may have been the same one), he appeared behind the net as the puck came to him. For the next 10 or 11 seconds he was behind the net in his office, creating havoc for the Swedish defenders. Finally an embarrassed defender dislodged the net. But for about 10 seconds one man was holding an entire arena -- players, fans, a nation -- on a string. I'd never seen anything like it, and I'd be suprised if I see it again. |
|
|
|
Guest5452
( )
|
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 13:47:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2761
Of course we don`t get a gifted player each year in the nhl. Like the lemieux and the gretzky`s. I would say that players like that come in around every 10 to 15 years.
Let's suppose this theory is true. I'm going to use Gretzky's stats as a discussion point and as somebody pointed out that his stats is only a symptom of his abilities.
Of all the players ever to play the game, how many has scored 150+ points? Maybe 10 (sorry haven't done the complete reasearch). I know of 3. That's pretty exclusive club. Now how many have done it more than once? I can only think of 2. Mario and Gretz.
Here is the thing that kills me. If a player scores 150 points a season, two years in a row, would you consider them great? What if this player did it for 10 years in a row? One of the greatest of all time?
This point getting machine must then do it for another 9 years after their 10 consecutive 150 season for a total of 19 seasons to have a chance to eclipse Gretz's all time record in their 20th season. Oh the insanity to even think of 19 seasons of 150 points.
Depends how you would define great. A very fast burning flame? Mario, Neely, Orr. IMHO, a player who is not only great for a short period of time, but great consistently for a very long time to me in my eyes is greater than the short-lived but extremely awesome career. |
|
|
|
Guest2761
( )
|
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 13:56:23
|
| Well if it`s not a fact it isn`t only my opinion lol tsn says it too whatever you say i am right when i am saying that players come better and better.I am just listening to what the pro says. And they can`t be wrong.Cause they live it everyday.By the way someone replyed to me in the one i have said that if u put crosby in the old days exemple the gretzky days with the oilers he would be better cause he is more trained and knows better skils and all other facts that comes in mind. (equipment, goalies ect ect) but a player who could, let say come tru time and play in our days he couln`t be has good has he was in the old times.Cause the game changed so much and players can`t do much point now cause of all the rules and sh?%. I am telling ya mario was better then gretzy but crosby is better then both of them. Even if he don`t get all the gretsky or lemieux`s points. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 14:06:19
|
To answer this question, there have been 5 players to get 150 points or more in a season.
Bernie Nichols
Steve Yzerman
Phil Esposito
Mario Lemieux
Wayne Gretzky.
How many of these guys have done this more than once??
Mario Lemieux
and
Wayne Gretzky
Mario Lemieux did this 4 times, (87-88, 88-89, 92-93, and 95-96)
Gretzky did this 9 times (80-81 through 86-87, 88-89, and 90-91)
And I really liked the way Guest 9947 expressed his views of Gretzky. Far too many people lean only on stats as a measure. I have said it countless times that the stats are a symptom of how good Gretzky was. This is exactly what I am talking about. |
|
|
|
Guest9929
( )
|
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 20:17:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
To answer this question, there have been 5 players to get 150 points or more in a season.
Bernie Nichols
Steve Yzerman
Phil Esposito
Mario Lemieux
Wayne Gretzky.
How many of these guys have done this more than once??
Mario Lemieux
and
Wayne Gretzky
Mario Lemieux did this 4 times, (87-88, 88-89, 92-93, and 95-96)
Gretzky did this 9 times (80-81 through 86-87, 88-89, and 90-91)
And I really liked the way Guest 9947 expressed his views of Gretzky. Far too many people lean only on stats as a measure. I have said it countless times that the stats are a symptom of how good Gretzky was. This is exactly what I am talking about.
Very nicely researched, Beans. It's incredible, really. To see a player that far ahead of the pack. What a gift he had.
And guest 2761. I aree that the average player is getting better and better. Gretzky himself has always said the same thing. Players are getting bigger, stronger and faster each and every year, each and every decade, each and every era. However, that doesn't mean that Crosby is better than Gretzky. Why not? Because not every player gets better than every other player. For if this were the case, pick any new prospect, and that player would be better than Gretzky going by that logic. Gretzky was before ALL the new prospects after all, and ALL the new prospects are part of the evolution, are they not? As you see, it is absurd to accept that conclusion.
Yes, players do get better and better on AVERAGE. Gretzky was not your average superstar. |
|
|
|
Guest4835
( )
|
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 21:04:07
|
| Gretzky was amazing to watch. He lit up the ice every time he set foot on it. 50 goals in 39 games, I saw it happen. I am not saying that Mario was not terrific, but he definitely did not have the vision that Gretz had and even still has. Gretz understands the game from inside out and knows what guys are going to do before they even know. He left every thing he had on the ice every time he played. He did not hit, nor did he get hit often, but players did try. Yes he did have enforcers, but he also used his vision and talent to stay out of dangerous situations and hard hitting corners. That was his style of play, that is what allowed him to do what he did and do it so well. I do not think that many of his records will ever be broken, and if they are, I hope I get to see the person play that breaks them, because he will be one special player. Obviously for me, hands down, Gretz is my choice!! |
|
|
|
Guest2612
( )
|
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 21:14:01
|
| I was a fan of both of them. And i have nothing to say bad for both of them. I am just telling my way of thinking it. Some people don`t know what is a gifted player and a normal player in here...You can be the 1st pik overall and not be gifted. Gretsky was gifted lemieux, orr, howe ect ect. Let me make this clear. A gifted player is a guy that can be a long time away from the game and come back and still be has good has he was. Exemple lemieux`s 3 years and a half away from the game and came back with 35goals 41 assist in 43 games.Understand this guys, no jagr, forsberg,modano,ect could`ve done that...They were good and still are good.But they are not gifted players.But i would say that jagr is close to be one of them but not so sure of it. And a reminder for the guys who says that gretzky is a better player then lemieux because he has more points...Sorrry but u are wrong. was and is jagr a better player then lemieux? i don`t think so.Will jagr beat him in the points?yes probably. He probably passed him already i don`t know jagr`s total points.But anyways.If one of us had cancer like him and a bad back like him we would probably say ...wow how could he do this? 8 years lemieux had back pain and was putting up points.You guys should go download feerless mario lemieux. and listen verry well that what others have to say about him and what he whent thru.If someone wants to know how to load it e-mail me at perfect27m@hotmail.com see ya guys and yes they were both verry good gifted mother f?%$s lol |
|
|
|
Guest9986
( )
|
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 09:40:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2612
I was a fan of both of them. And i have nothing to say bad for both of them. I am just telling my way of thinking it. Some people don`t know what is a gifted player and a normal player in here...You can be the 1st pik overall and not be gifted. Gretsky was gifted lemieux, orr, howe ect ect. Let me make this clear. A gifted player is a guy that can be a long time away from the game and come back and still be has good has he was. Exemple lemieux`s 3 years and a half away from the game and came back with 35goals 41 assist in 43 games.Understand this guys, no jagr, forsberg,modano,ect could`ve done that...They were good and still are good.But they are not gifted players.But i would say that jagr is close to be one of them but not so sure of it. And a reminder for the guys who says that gretzky is a better player then lemieux because he has more points...Sorrry but u are wrong. was and is jagr a better player then lemieux? i don`t think so.Will jagr beat him in the points?yes probably. He probably passed him already i don`t know jagr`s total points.But anyways.If one of us had cancer like him and a bad back like him we would probably say ...wow how could he do this? 8 years lemieux had back pain and was putting up points.You guys should go download feerless mario lemieux. and listen verry well that what others have to say about him and what he whent thru.If someone wants to know how to load it e-mail me at perfect27m@hotmail.com see ya guys and yes they were both verry good gifted mother f?%$s lol
Again, no one is saying Gretzky is better because of his total points scored. You make an example of Jagr not being better even though he will finish with more points. This isn't really the right way to look at it though. Who has the higher PPG average, Jagr or Lemieux? I don't even have to look it up, and I would say Lemieux by a long shot. That's a better indication, not total points. Gretzky has the highest of all of them.
Anyway, I like the rest of your post....and I agree what you say about special players. |
|
|
|
Guest2612
( )
|
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 13:19:08
|
| guss 9986... yes he finished with mor ppg. If you would play in a team with all superstars would you make more point that if u play with a team that has no superstars?I know that when i play in a good team i make more points and that is for everyone i think. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Gretzky vs Lemieux 
