Why is Gretzky known as the best?

First off I wanna say hi to everyone here I'm new to the boards so maybe this question has come up before or maybe not so bare with me. Anyways before everyone starts screaming at me and stuff I wanna say that Gretzky was a real dominant player in his era BUT that doesnt mean he was the BEST of all time. Look here's a list of who in my opinion are equally great as Wayne and dominated in their era:

1- Rocket Richard: First player to score 50 goals in 50 games. Played during a tough time where people knew how to check. Led the habs to 5 straight Stanley Cup wins which is still a record today.

2- Gordie Howe: Somoene who has dominated the game for the longest amount of time. Played till he was 52 and still at a high level.

3- Jean Beliveau: Another great player in his own right, he was one of the finest stick handlers and passers of all time during his era. 10 Stanley Cup championships among other trophies.

4- Bobby Orr: Awesome natural skater, passer, play maker, shooter, deker, defensive and offensive defenseman. Was best defenseman for 8 years in his short career due to injuries. Lead the Bruins to their first cup in years in 1970 and then again in 1972.

5- Guy Lafleur: Known as the most exciting player there ever was, the Flower played during the 70-s and won the Hart trophie twice, 3 times Art Ross, Conn Smythe trophie, scored 50 or more goals for 6 straight seasons, tallied more then 120 points for 6 straight seasons as well. Won 5 stanley cups with 4 of them consecutively. However a car accident in 1980 slowed him down a ot.

6- Mario Lemieux: Mario could play like no one else. He was drafted by Pittsburgh who was the last team in the league then in 1984 and just 6 years later won the stanley cup with that same team and then repeated as champs the year later. He won two straight conn smythe trophies and 2 straight Art Ross trophies. Battle through injuries and Cancer speaking of which, the same day of his last radiation treatment, Mario came back to Pittsburgh's lineup to play against Philadelphia and scored a goal and won the scoring title that year!

Also lets not forget about Marcel Dionne, Bobby Hull, Mike Bossy and Bret Hull.

Plus Gretzky played with some great teammates such as Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Coffee, etc. And unlike the first 5 people I mentioned, he played in a high scoring era. So what are your thoughts about this?

I think the thing with Gretzky is the way he lapped the field. He would lead the leafue in scoring just with his assists. Stat wise, I can only think of how Babe Ruth had more homers than entire teams in the 20's. Personally, I've always considered Orr the best I've ever seen.

Being the best more often than not is more about time peirods in league history.

Maybe Rocket Richard scores a hundred goals in Edmonton on that ice surface in the early eighties. Maybe Mike Bossy does if he is not on an Eastern Conference team and has to play some defense. Switch Paul Coffey and Bobby Orr and what numbers does Orr put up on that ice surface in that era.
Gretzky would not have scored what he did playing in today's league and would not have put up the numbers he did in previous era's.

He played his most productive hockey in an expansion conference against some very weak teams. If he played in the Eastern Conference in that era he would not have put up the same numbers and would have taken more of a physical wear in the playoffs to get to the finals.

Personally I felt Lemieux and Bossy's numbers in a better conference was far more tangible than anything Gretzky did.

Or Cyclone Taylor, Howie Morenz et al.

It's individual bias based on the era you followed closest.

How would Gretzky have fared in the 6 team league? No one really knows.

Lemieux and Orr were the most talented players I've seen. Bossy's consistent goal scoring speaks for itself. All three players stats were impacted by serious injuries. Guy Lafleur is still the most exciting player I ever saw. I don't know if he would dominate the same the way the game is played today...or anyone else for that matter.

Bottom line I guess, is that comparing eras is pretty tough and probably unfair.

Edit: I'd be remiss if I didn't add that I admired watching the marvelous skill of Bobby Hull when I first started following the game.

He played his most productive hockey in an expansion conference against some very weak teams. If he played in the Eastern Conference in that era he would not have put up the same numbers and would have taken more of a physical wear in the playoffs to get to the finals.

Disagree. Just because the Campbell Conference didn't play grind hockey does not make it weaker in any way. As for a weak division, well you could arguably say that every year the Oilers had to go through the second-best team in the entire NHL in the Calgary Flames. The Winnipeg Jets led by Hawerchuk were no easy pickings and the Kings while inconsistent were strong enough to oust the Oilers at least once in that run.

And the east had more than it's share of patsies on the schedule too. If you look back at his records versus certain teams it is pretty obvious he had no more problems against the Bruins, Flyers or Canadiens than he did playing the Wings, Hawks and Canucks. Goals still poured into the net and the assists kept coming. Eastern time zone or west. In his prime Wayne destroyed the systems that were meant to slow him down. Against physical teams, skating teams, checking teams or "offese is the best defense" teams it did not matter. Wayne got his points and 9 nights out of 10 was the best player on the ice.

As for a lot of the stars he played with.... he didn't play ina vacuum. Kurri, while a great shooter and one of the best defensive forwards the league had seen since Bob Gainey certainly benefitted from playing with Gretzky. Those two saw the oppositions top defense pairings and best checkers every single night. You don't suppose that gave Messier and Anderson more room to move do ya? Richard played on a team full of stars, ditto Beliveau, Orr, Howe, Lafleur played on on possibly the most dominant team in the last 50 years and during the Cup runs in the early 90's then Pens were a stacked team. Yet you only here this argument about all the "help" when it comes to Gretzky. It's weak, very weak.

Judging era's is impossible...

Richard might have scored 100 goals in Gretzky's era, or he might not have even made an NHL team. He wasn't the best skater, and he was notorious for not being in very good shape.

Orr may have destroyed Coffey's numbers in the 80's, or Coffey's speed may have destroyed the the slow-paced hockey of the 70's.

All you can really go by is this:

Gretzky dominated like no other player in NHL history. He was lightyears above any other player in the league, and the NHL created rules to stop him from scoring (getting rid of 4 on 4 hockey).

If your top 3 is Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr, Gretzky gets the nod... not only for his dominance, but his longevity. That has to be taken into account. Would you rather have 8 seasons of Orr, 12 of Lemieux, or 20 of Gretzky?

Even in the twilight of his career, during the scoring lull, Gretzky was still a dominant player. His very last season was the only season he averaged less than 1 point per game.

As for Lemieux leading a bad Penguins team to the Cup 6 years later, don't forget what Gretzky did. When the Oilers joined the NHL from the WHA, their roster was absolutely pillaged in not just 1, but 2 dispersal drafts (all but guaranteeing the best players on the team would be gone).

Just 5 years later, Gretzky won a cup... not just that, but got his team to the playoffs every year leading up to it.

Trying to compare eras is impossible. What we do know, is that Gretzky was still a top player in the league near the end of his career, despite the fact that the game had completely changed, and had gotten significantly tighter.

Gretzky is the best because the past best players even have said so.

If you watched him you just knew he was playing in a league by himself (until Mario came along).

Your jaw drops time and again. If Hasek did for over a decade what he did for two years, he'd be ranked right up there too.

I still don't understand quite what made Gretzky so great. But it was just so obvious! It really was.

Disagree. Just because the Campbell Conference didn't play grind hockey does not make it weaker in any way. As for a weak division, well you could arguably say that every year the Oilers had to go through the second-best team in the entire NHL in the Calgary Flames. The Winnipeg Jets led by Hawerchuk were no easy pickings and the Kings while inconsistent were strong enough to oust the Oilers at least once in that run.

The Western Conference for over a decade only had one team to even qualify for a final in the seventies until the conference playoffs were put back in 1982. Only Chicago even went to final over that time peirod. Every year it was an all-Eastern Final. Back in 1967 expansion St Louis went to three finals and it was so non-competitive they had to change playoff formats.

Calgary? They went from a team off the radar in Atlanta to a prime contender for a cup simply because they moved.

In the early 80's the top five Eastern Conference teams would have easily made two finals as a Western Conference team. If the Oilers had to play the Rangers, Washington, Montreal in 1984 and the Isles had to play the Western Conference, Paul Coffey would never have been able to say we were waiting all year just to play the Islanders.

Would have been interesting to see how tired Edmonton would have been as Philadelphia and Boston later had to really go thru a grind while Edmonton struggled and even lost to Calgary.

Things did not change in terms of disparity until the mid-90's.

The Eastern Conference (as it is NOW known) was weak even in the 80's and 90's. Washington? They didn't even win a series for 15 years, let alone pose a threat! Montreal was fading fast, Boston was just starting to rise again.
I'll grant you the Jets may not have seemed like a threat to anyone...except the teams that played them!

Gretzky was the best EVER because there was NOTHING he couldn't do, and do better, in the game of hockey. He out-thought every player in the league for 20 seasons. He is the greatest passer hockey has ever seen. People try to say Oates and Weight are good passers? Gretzky was better than them RIGHT HANDED!!! It's just all the big and little things he did better than everyone that add up to being the greatest forward to ever play the game, and if not the best PLAYER, at least 1A (behind Orr).

He would STILL be the all-time leading scorer in the history of the NHL if he had NEVER scored a goal! Yet he scored almost 900 goals, too! He has the highest PPG average in history. He did it with great teams and terrible teams (Blues, Rangers, Kings). He did it in high scoring eras and low-scoring eras (1979-1982, 1994-1999). He scored with wingers like Marty McSorley and Dave Semenko, he did it with Kurri and Robitallie and Nicholls. He made Messier a better player by allowing him to develop on the 3rd and 2nd line against weaker checkers. Ditto Anderson. He had that inner drive that no player I've seen has had, and maybe only Richard had it to a higher degree.

2857 points. Nearly a thousand ahead of the closest competition.


He's the best ever. No doubt. Guys like Messier and Howe have less points than Gretzky's assists.

Over 2,800 points and somewhere along 60 nhl records is basically why many consider him the greatest of all time.Gretzky's numbers are hard to argue with,damn the eras,when you produce like that you're great by any standard.He's one of the most dominant athletes of all time,not just a dominant hockey player.He has to go down as one of the all-time great athletes.

He's just an awesome guy
Every sport has a legend, some one who is the "best"

Basketball- michael jordan
Baseball- babe ruth
Golf- tiger woods
Soccer- Pele
Football- Dan Marino ( maybe someone better, i'm not a big football fan
and in Hockey theres Wayne Gretzky

You wanna know why Gretzky is the best?

Read the record book.

Based on stats alone...Gretzky is the best ever. But, stats aren't everything right??? Well, what else are you going to base it on? Best passer, best vision of the ice, best goal scorer, best, best, best....check, check, check and check. Wayne is the "Great One" for a reason. #99 simply is the best...

He's just an awesome guy
Every sport has a legend, some one who is the "best"

Basketball- michael jordan
Baseball- babe ruth
Golf- tiger woods
Soccer- Pele
Football- Dan Marino ( maybe someone better, i'm not a big football fan
and in Hockey theres Wayne Gretzky

I'll give you all those with the exception of Woods. Sure he's dominated 5 of the last 7 or 8 years, but he still has a lot more to do to catch the real legends of golf...Nicklaus, Player, and Palmer....

Wayne Gretzkey is the best because he thought the game the best.

I dont know how else to say it.

He's just an awesome guy
Every sport has a legend, some one who is the "best"

Basketball- michael jordan
Baseball- babe ruth
Golf- tiger woods
Soccer- Pele
Football- Dan Marino ( maybe someone better, i'm not a big football fan
and in Hockey theres Wayne Gretzky

I agree with you in soccer, but everyone doesn't. Two awards were handed out to the best player in the last 100 years. Pele AND Diego Maradona. Many think of him as the best player ever.

There is a difference between greatest and best.

"Football- Dan Marino ( maybe someone better, i'm not a big football fan"

Yeah maybe you should have left the football alone.I think the argument is
usually between Jim Brown,Walter Payton,and Joe Montana(because he
won so much)some might also say Jerry Rice.

"Football- Dan Marino ( maybe someone better, i'm not a big football fan"

Yeah maybe you should have left the football alone.I think the argument is
usually between Jim Brown,Walter Payton,and Joe Montana(because he
won so much)some might also say Jerry Rice.
Checked the sporting news top 100- top3:Brown,Rice,Montana and Payton at 8.
Marino is number 27.However I think you'll have more arguments and less concensus in football and baseball than any other sports.

I agree with you in soccer, but everyone doesn't. Two awards were handed out to the best player in the last 100 years. Pele AND Diego Maradona. Many think of him as the best player ever.
But Pele is the greatest player ever.

I'd pick Gretzky, though I'm really starting to think about considering Orr on threads like this, the more I see of him, wow, I think he changed the game more than anybody, the only guy who might have changed it more is Gretz.

But Pele is the greatest player ever.

By whose measurement? Who was awarded FIRST as the best footballer in the last 100 years? Diego Maradona. The second? Pele. But like I said, I also think that Pele is the best of all time.

Wayne would take apart this league if he was 25 again. The argument that the league is too stifling doesn't hold up, Wayne already proved it.

At 37, playing with Adam Graves on a horrible Rangers team, he finished 4th in the league in scoring. The almighty Peter Forsberg beat him by 1 point, on an offensive powerhouse.

Wayne was 37... if he was 25, and had decent wingers, he would have blown Forsberg out of the water, and certainly would have beaten out Jagr easily. Forsberg is generally considered the best player in the world, and if Wayne at 37 with no help could keep pace with him... see what I'm getting at? The era is meaningless, he was a force and found a way to set up goals whenever he played and whoever he played against.

Now, about this ''dead puck'' era, and the percived notion that Wayne's production would be crippled by it... that was '98, when scoring was really dipping... down to 5.2, actually. Scoring in '03'-04? 5.14. It was just as bad as it is now, and he had no problems dismantling opposing offences. All that crap about him not being able to dominate now, being stopped by today's defensive play... is just that, crap. He was a dominant player in today's NHL, and he was WAY past his prime.

Did anybody watch him in the '97 playoffs? 20 points... no other Ranger had more than 12.

And this was the EASTERN CONFERENCE, whom that Islander fan up there thinks is sooooo tough... tight checking playoffs. No problem, he carried the team on his ailing back.

Mario Lemieux couldn't even get a point per game a couple of years ago in the playoffs... his production nosedived. Wayne? At the same age, with no Jaromir Jagr, EASILY eclipsed that, didn't even break a sweat. Also, Wayne and Mario's regular season PPGs are comparable... but their playoff PPGs are not. Wayne's lead is quite signifigant.

Wayne scored 10 goals in 15 games against the stingy, clutch and grab Panthers, the powerhouse Eastern Conference Champion Flyers, and the NEW JERSEY DEVILS... in the playoffs. At 37. Imagine if he was 25 and had something to work with. Total dominance.

He already dominated ''today's NHL'', even as half the player he used to be, and no high quality wingers. Wayne could score 150 even now. To wit- at 37, he got 90 playing on a team whos ''best'' wingers were Adam Graves, Niklas Sundstrom and a still sucky Alexei Kovalev. In a season every bit as low scoring as hockey is now. 90 points. That would be good for, what, second in the league last year? And he his career was just about over.

Let's see Peter Forsberg or Jaromir Jagr get 90 points in a 5.2 goals per game season, at 37.

He wouldn't score 90 goals or 215 points these days, but he'd still be by far the best player in the league. They wouldn't be able to stop him, they couldn't keep him from leading the league in assists, even when the recipients of his sweet passes was John MacLean.

By whose measurement? Who was awarded FIRST as the best footballer in the last 100 years? Diego Maradona. The second? Pele. But like I said, I also think that Pele is the best of all time.
IMO Maradona was the best but Pele was the greatest.As i said previously there is a difference between greatest and best.Best is a measure of ones ability.Greatest
implies more than that

Gretz played in a wide open era, where everyone scored a ton of goals. He played with some great linemates, but yet not a single person from that era even comes close to his totals, not even close.

He dominated offensively in one of the best era's of offensive hockey.

If Bobby Orr hadn't gotten hurt (which he did, so my point is purely hypothetical), he would get a great deal more discussion in this conversation. I grew up near Boston in the late 70's so I only saw the very end of the Orr era, but I never saw anything like him. My argurement for Orr is as follows;

1) He revolutionize the game. No one playing his position ever played the game the way he did. Defensman were stay-at-home, never cross the blue line, and were only an offensive threat on the PP. All of that changed with Orr and after him players like Coffey and Bourque benefitted greatly (as did lesser players like Gonchar, Ozolinsh, etc).

2) I'll accept (easily) that Gretzky was the greatest offensive player of all time (the record book speaks for itself, Mario wasn't within shouting distance IMO), but there's more to hockey than just offense. I think it's pretty clear cut who was better defensively, which leads me to;

3) Overall game. The point of the game for your team to score more goals than your opponents, so let's take a look at +/-. In 1970-71, Orr was an amazing +124 in 78 games, the close as Gretzky ever came was +98 in 84-85. Later in his career (while he still scoring near league leading numbers), he was consistently in -'s. In fact he was only "+" twice after 1991.

4) Physical Play. Again, no doubt offense goes to Gretzky (despite playing different positions), but Orr also controlled the game physically which is something Gretzky clearly never did. Although there is less emphasis on this today, back in Orr's day this was a major part of the game.

All this said, I begrudingly accept Wayne Douglas Gretzky as the greatest player with longevity being a deciding factor. Just don't undersell Orr.

And this was the EASTERN CONFERENCE, whom that Islander fan up there thinks is sooooo tough... tight checking playoffs. No problem, he carried the team on his ailing back.
The results do not lie. Teams from the Western Conference did not play in the finals for years until the conference playoffs were reinstated.

What I also wrote was the disparity ended in the 90's between the Eastern and Western Conference. By 1997, it was a level playing field and the West had more dominating teams.

I'm not putting down Gretzky's vision and abilities and it's hard to argue with numbers and no doubt he was an outstanding player.

I am saying many of the numbers in his prime are like Barry Bonds hitting 200 homeruns a year playing the Devil Rays, Brewers, Tigers while winning World Series the way the Marlins got by a tired Yankee team last year.

No way do I see Gretzky or those Oiler teams doing what they did as an Eastern Conference team. Which is why I see Lemieux and Bossy's numbers as more significant because you cannot win playing that style in this conference.

Three different times Gretzky either had more or the same amount of assists as the next player in the league had points. He had 163 assists in '85-86 while the next highest player, Lemieux, had 141 points!

He could put a pass through a skate blade and a skate boot. His old teammate Dave Semenko once said "Don't ever think that Gretzky can't see you" based on his uncanny passes. The thing that separated him was his vision, he was the smartest person on the ice game in and game out. He anticipated the play before anyone else could even see it.

The results do not lie. Teams from the Western Conference did not play in the finals for years until the conference playoffs were reinstated.

No way do I see Gretzky or those Oiler teams doing what they did as an Eastern Conference team. Which is why I see Lemieux and Bossy's numbers as more significant because you cannot win playing that style in this conference.

This is how the "East Coast bias" thing gets started. Incidentally the Pens did pretty good with that style in the early 90's. Ditto the Nords and Habs in the late 80's. Boston had no problem running and gunning in the 70's did they?

Versus the soft Western conference teams whom he had more chance to do damage against playing them more often in 762 regular season games Gretz scored 1583 pts. An average of 2.08 PPG.

Against the big bad Eastern conference in regular season games he managed a paltry 1116 pts in 611 games. An average of 1.82 PPG.

The difference is a mere .26 PPG. As an aside the team that fared best against him? The Buffalo Sabres. The worst? The Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche.

I'm a fan of the Montreal Canadiens, and Eastern Conference team and a power for the bulk of the 80's. But my boys could not stop Gretzky. Bob Gainey could not stop Gretzky, neither could Guy Carbonneau; both of whom are regarded as some of the best defensive forwards the game has ever seen.

I agree with you, the styles of hockey in the two conferences do favor certain types of player, Val Bure or Vince Damphousse are good examples of that. But for Gretzky it made a negligible difference, if any at all.

Gretzky would not have scored what he did playing in today's league and would not have put up the numbers he did in previous era's.No kidding Gretzky wouldn't have scored as much as he did in the early-80's, but he still would have put up a lot of points and led the league. In 1997-98, while playing for a bad New York Rangers team, Gretzky, who turned 37 midway throught the season, finished tied for third in scoring. What would a 25 year old Gretzky have done? I reckon he would have finished well above Jagr.

1- Rocket Richard: First player to score 50 goals in 50 games. Played during a tough time where people knew how to check.Gretzky scored 50 goals in 39 games. He scored 5 goals against the Philadelphia Flyers on December 30, 1981 to reach the 50-goal level. I think Philadelphia was a pretty tough team. They knew how to do a lot more than simply "check."

Gretzky averaged over 200 points during a six-season period. No one else has ever even reached the 200 point plateau, which the Great One did four times.

9 Hart Trophies, 10 Art Ross Trophies and 5 Lester B. Pearson Trophies.

The NHL retired Gretzky's number 99 for a reason.

For someone who was a playmaker, and the best ever, he sure did score a lot of goals.

"[Gretzky's] intelligence on the ice and instincts for the game are just amazing," Armstrong said. "You watch him do things which 10-year NHL veterans have trouble handling and you figure he must be 35 years old. He has that ability which only the rare, gifted players have to just automatically be where the puck is. It seems to be something a very few players are born with, not something they can learn or be taught.That was said by George Armstrong when Gretzky was 16 years old. Have a look at the Sporting News article (http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/gretzky/greatone.html) from January 27, 1978.

Calgary? They went from a team off the radar in Atlanta to a prime contender for a cup simply because they moved.


.you have made this claim a few times and it is simply not true

Calgary's first year in Calgary they made it to the semi-finals, BUT they were still playing in their 'old' division(NYI,PHI,NYR-who they beat by 18 points, and WSH-who they beat by 22 points). The playoffs that year had them play teams from the East (ie Philadelphia who they beat) and teams from the West (ie Minnesota who they ultimately lost to)

Calgary became a cup contender because they became really good in a decade where they drafted Vernon, MacInnis, Suter, Fleury,Nieuwendyk,Roberts,Loob,Hull,Makarov...trad ed for the likes of Lanny,Gilmour and Mullen and signed college FAs like Otto, Patterson and Macoun. That team would have done just fine in the Eastern Conference in the mid-late 80s...in fact I wager they would have been in the finals more than twice if THEY didn't have to go through Edmonton

not just because they moved to the Western Conference, I'm sorry

and yes Edmonton lost to Calgary during the Gretzky era...ONCE. a damn good team, and they beat Edmonton once. give the Oilers some credit man, it doesn't diminish the Islanders to do so

you have made this claim a few times and it is simply not true

Calgary's first year in Calgary they made it to the semi-finals, BUT they were still playing in their 'old' division(NYI,PHI,NYR-who they beat by 18 points, and WSH-who they beat by 22 points). The playoffs that year had them play teams from the East (ie Philadelphia who they beat) and teams from the West (ie Minnesota who they ultimately lost to)

Calgary became a cup contender because they became really good in a decade where they drafted Vernon, MacInnis, Suter, Fleury,Nieuwendyk,Roberts,Loob,Hull,Makarov...trad ed for the likes of Lanny,Gilmour and Mullen and signed college FAs like Otto, Patterson and Macoun. That team would have done just fine in the Eastern Conference in the mid-late 80s...in fact I wager they would have been in the finals more than twice if THEY didn't have to go through Edmonton not just because they moved to the Western Conference, I'm sorry

and yes Edmonton lost to Calgary during the Gretzky era...ONCE. a damn good team, and they beat Edmonton once. give the Oilers some credit man, it doesn't diminish the Islanders to do soNot about giving crediting or diminishing anything. This was the competitive landscape of the league in that era. I do think the late 80's Flames could have won a cup out of the East, but prior to that absolutely not. In 1981 the league played a balanced schedule so Calgary listed in the Patrick Division played everyone the same four times. Aside from defeating Philadelphia in one playoff series in 1981 (and losing to Minnesota) for five years in the seventies Calgary did not get out of the opening round one time.

When expansion came in 1967 the Blues made three finals in a row and the final was such a mismatch the league had to go back to non-conference playoffs until 1981. During that time only one team from the West (Chicago) even played in a final.

Whether you care to admit it or not there was a huge disaprity.

When the playoff format changed to conference playoffs Calgary finally started winning some playoff series. But the bottom line was teams like Vancouver were marginal at best in that era and never would have had success playing as Eastern Conference seeds.

You want to give the Oilers credit that's fine, they were good enough to win a cup in either conference, but the road and quality of opponents to the finals after the conference playoffs were reinstated were far different for East and West. Would the Islanders in 84 or Philadelphia in 85 had enough to defeat Edmonton if they had Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary in the early rounds as opposed to Boston, Rangers, Montreal.

I think so. I have no doubt Edmonton would have had to go thru a harder grind to get into a final. No way they would have won five cups.

IMO Maradona was the best but Pele was the greatest.As i said previously there is a difference between greatest and best.Best is a measure of ones ability.Greatest
implies more than that

Don't really know what you mean by that. Do you mean leadership? Pele wasn't a real leader. Neither was Maradona. Or do you mean the life after their football-careers? I'd say that that award goes to Pele 100-0, but would you please specify what you mean.

Not about giving crediting or diminishing anything. This was the competitive landscape of the league in that era. I do think the late 80's Flames could have won a cup out of the East, but prior to that absolutely not. In 1981 the league played a balanced schedule so Calgary listed in the Patrick Division played everyone the same four times. Aside from defeating Philadelphia in one playoff series in 1981 (and losing to Minnesota) for five years in the seventies Calgary did not get out of the opening round one time.

When expansion came in 1967 the Blues made three finals in a row and the final was such a mismatch the league had to go back to non-conference playoffs until 1981. During that time only one team from the West (Chicago) even played in a final.

Whether you care to admit it or not there was a huge disaprity.

When the playoff format changed to conference playoffs Calgary finally started winning some playoff series. But the bottom line was teams like Vancouver were marginal at best in that era and never would have had success playing as Eastern Conference seeds.

You want to give the Oilers credit that's fine, they were good enough to win a cup in either conference, but the road and quality of opponents to the finals after the conference playoffs were reinstated were far different for East and West. Would the Islanders in 84 or Philadelphia in 85 had enough to defeat Edmonton if they had Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary in the early rounds as opposed to Boston, Rangers, Montreal.

I think so. I have no doubt Edmonton would have had to go thru a harder grind to get into a final. No way they would have won five cups.

You can't conclusively say that. They may very well have won 5 cups.

Would the Islanders in 84 or Philadelphia in 85 had enough to defeat Edmonton if they had Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary in the early rounds as opposed to Boston, Rangers, Montreal.

I think so. I have no doubt Edmonton would have had to go thru a harder grind to get into a final. No way they would have won five cups.

Aside from 1987, they won all of their final series in 5 games or less. They routinely dominated Eastern Conference teams (60 games above .500 from 1982-83 to 1987-88).

The Flames were built solely to beat Edmonton... it's a lot tougher to beat a team that is built for the sole purpose of beating you, than it is to beat teams you are merely competing against.

NYIsles does have a point in that in the early 80's in particular, it was far more common in the Campbell Conference for teams with losing records to qualify for the playoffs; although it did occasionally occur in the Wales as well. What we need to remember is that for that period some traditional powerhouses were nothing short of pitiful (Detroit, Toronto) while a large portion of the conference were expansion teams thus not as strong as a conference.

My problem with the argument lies in two places. One. Teams and players are often guilty of playing to the level of their opponent, whether up or down. So regardless of a team's record they can still be a dangerous force on the ice. Thus while it may look statistically like a mismatch, going through teams deemed weaker can be just as grueling as going through teams with better records.

Two. If going through weaker opposition made a team unworthy of the final they should nearly always lose. Doesn't happen. If a team slogging through tougher teams en route to the final tires them out, then they should nearly always lose. This doesn't happen either. The dynamic between any two teams is unique to that matchup regardless of the won-loss records.

In the end, no matter what competition he faced, regardless of the style or strategem any opponent used to stop him, Gretzky consistently was the instrument of his opponents' destruction. This was also true of Orr but longevity is the difference there. As for Bossy, while possibly the best pure scorer the league has seen, he was nevertheless one dimensional and defenses could stop him.

You want to give the Oilers credit that's fine, they were good enough to win a cup in either conference, but the road and quality of opponents to the finals after the conference playoffs were reinstated were far different for East and West. Would the Islanders in 84 or Philadelphia in 85 had enough to defeat Edmonton if they had Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary in the early rounds as opposed to Boston, Rangers, Montreal.

I think so. I have no doubt Edmonton would have had to go thru a harder grind to get into a final. No way they would have won five cups.
I'm still not buying your point, at all

look at the Standings from 1984-85 as an example. can you tell me how the Rangers were a tougher opponent than the Flames, Jets or Canucks?

look I agree with you, in the 1970s the Western based teams were not strong, but by the 1980s there were some strong teams emerging in the West, --for example Calgary, that were every bit the equal of many teams in the East

Maybe it has something to do with the 61 NHL records he holds?


:dunno:

Ok, NYIsles guy. When the playoff format when to inter-conference, Calgary finally starting winning some playoff series. Right there you've showed your thin knowledge. The conf. format was instituted in 1993-94 and Cgy. lost to the Canucks, then to the Sharks and Hawks in the first round the next 2 seasons before their 7 year drought. The divisional format was still in there when the Flames began some success in the mid-to-late 80s, then pitifully underacheived after the cup win 89. Yet you know something, they beat the Oilers once in the playoffs. The Oilers won in 83 handily like they should've, came closer than they should've to losing but still won in 84 and lost when they should have won in 86 and we all know what fluky goal did them in! But the Oil managed to beat the Flames even when the Flames were the better team in 1988 (Oilers having 99 to their league-high 105 pts.) and 1991 (82 pts. to the Flames 99).

In an earlier post, my study did support the proof that the Isles had tougher competition to defeat in the playoffs but the notion that Gretz and the Oilers would have struggled to win cups in the Prince of Wales is nonsense. Within itself, the P.O.W. was more closely competitive. The Campbell was the Oilers and everyone else until Calgary woke up. But does that make Edmonton a weaker team than the isles? Not really because the Oilers didn't exactly suffer against P.O.W. teams. Like the Rangers, Capitals and Flyers could've put a stop to the Oilers better than they did to the Isles? I don't buy it, really. But you think that would hurt the Oil in playing in the P.O.W. because the other teams would tire them out and that they beat up on Wales teams in the finals only because those teams were tired out? No no no, that can easily be cancelled out.

The point is, and we're going by driving distance in cases of under 2 days straight, while the Islanders nearest rival, the Rags, was a mere 2 hrs. away (as was the Oil's rival the Flames), their whole division was within at the most (Washington) a 24 hr. day's drive! Washington, Philly, Pittsburgh, later New Jersey were pretty close. As for the other div. you might ask? It was also just a full day's drive to find their furthest rival, as in Quebec. Montreal was a bit shorter of a trip, Buffalo even shorter, Boston about the same, Hartford; maybe 5 hours! Pretty close knit as there were no teams from the East Side, in the sun belt or southcentral or even northcentral for that matter.

The Oilers had not far to go for the Flames, a full day's drive to Vancouver, a day and a half to get to Winnipeg but a freakin' 3.5 hour flight to face Los Angeles who was a bit more than twice as far from Edmonton as the furthest team in the whole P.O.W. conf. was from the Isles. Edmonton, after all, is the furthest North of all major cities in North America. Then, let's go to the Norris. Sure, weak teams and all but Chicago (2.5 hour flight), Minnesota (1.5 hour flight), Detroit (3 hour flight), St. Louis (4.5 hour flight) and Toronto (3.5 hour flight) are not exactly down the road. Factor in this during the reg. season, and a couple of not-so-tough trips during the Div. playoffs, then you face the distant Norris div. winner. Sounds like a lot more flight time than what the Isles had to deal with.

Remember the 1993 Conf. finals in the Campbell Conf. The Leafs and Kings are 5 hours apart and they had to make 4 flights during the series. That's 20 hours on a plane. Meanwhile, the Habs and Isles even if they went 7 would have 4 flights totalling 4 hours. I should know about the Western travel problem, it tires teams out no matter what you want to think when it comes to quality of opponents. The reg. season is way tougher to deal with. And Eastern teams complain about going West, please!!! They don't have to travel multiple hours on the plane to play divisional rivals!!! Being the Habs and going to Tampa takes 2.5 hours but you only make that trip twice in the reg. season, usually pieced in there is a game at Florida.

Being a Habs fan, this close proximity is what helped us stay fresh enough to vanquish our gassed opponents in the 86 and 93 cup finals. The Flames in 89 were good enough to only lose 4 game en route to the finals because if it had been 6-9 L's piled up, they'd be too tired to last against Montreal especially with the crazy 3.5 hour flights. The playoffs would be more balanced if the Eastern and Western teams were pooled 1-16 but that takes away from divisional and conf. rivalry. If it had been like this; guaranteed less injuries and fatigue for the Flames and they'd have beaten Tampa who although they played distant NYI, Montreal and Philly (all over 1.5 hrs. away), didn't need as many games as the Flames who battled Vancouver, Detroit and San Jose (all but one is 3 or more hours away on a flight). If you could calculate the hours every year between the finalist from the Campbell/West and the one from the Wales/East, you'd see the decided advantage of playing out East. Competition aside, the travel length makes you weary and the Oilers avoided this sometimes by not getting drawn into 7 game series' (or the DSF 5 game distance before 1986) with far-away teams. Under div. playoffs: only in the finals vs. Philly in 87, 3 times vs. Calgary, once against Winnipeg in 90, and against LA in 5 games in 82 and 7 in 89 but they were eliminated in those Div. Semi-finals anyway, so there wasn't much to be tired about for a proceeding series.

The fact that the Isles conf. had more teams finish with better records and it was overall not as top-heavy as the Campbell Conf., you still had to play Western teams much more than now because there was just 21 in the NHL. And before the div. format, reg. season play was easy for the Isles too. Playoffs made sure they ended up facing the quality rivals from the P.O.W. such as Montreal, Buffalo, Boston, Toronto and sometimes LA. The tough teams were in their own div. in Philly and Atlanta. They were in the weaker Campbell from 75-81 BTW with the inconsistent such as the Rangers (always tough on the Isles though) and Blackhawks while the Blues and North Stars just plained sucked until 1979. Colorado always was crap, too. Also, the relatively weak WHA teams came in for the last two years that the Isles were in the Campbell, adding the terrible Winnipeg and still bad Washington. Only with the restructured league did the Caps come to life and the Pens and Devils permanently nestle into the bottom.

The Isles had some out-of-div. competition with Montreal, Boston, Buffalo and Quebec a legion of rotating threats out of the Adams. Only Hartford, Pittsburgh and New Jersey were consistently dreadful in this 81-84 time period. While teams took turns being the best in their divisions while remaining never too far ahead of their peers (except for the Islanders of course), the Oilers had the inconsistent Norris to contend with (only Minnesota, Chicago and Detroit had back-to-back seasons of 1st in that division that usually had only 1 team over .500) in the Oilers heyday of 1981-90. While the afformentioned squads blew at other points, Toronto was generally an emberassment and St. Louis waded through mediocrity, only coming 1st in 86-87 with a mere 79 pts., a year after their only conf. final of this period). And a rotating basis of quality competitors would show up in the up-and-down Winnipeg and Los Angeles, while Calgary rounded into their natural born enemies for the rest of the decade. I think I mentioned that in these 9 year periods, the Oilers avg. playoff opponent had 75 pts., the Isles had a quality of 89 pts. Big difference, but maybe it's because the Oilers just made everyone else look that bad.

There were teams everyone beat up on in the Isles 81-84 section, but in the Campbell they all took turns beating on one another while the Oilers, and later Flames, ruled the roost. The only team to rarely show improvement in this 81-90 period was the Canucks. In the 75-84 period for the Isles, it gets tough to gauge because it's split up into two seperate fields of competition. The first being rather easy, the 2nd being more difficult. Eventually, div. rivals Philly and Washington figured out the islanders dynasty and it crumbled, ebbed and flowed throughout the rest of the div. playoff format with the Devils, Rangers and Flyers all offering defeat with the 93 Isles shocking the Caps and Penguins being the only Isle team since their dynasty to truly make a run at the big one.

As for the Oilers, after 1990 they had two unexpected runs through their more tight div. with just the new San Jose Sharks being the constant back-to-back playoff outsiders. But in the last year of the div. format, the Oilers (though more than doubly outsucked by the Sharks) became that team on the skids that everyone haplessly beats up on, to the tune of 60 pts. Their worst season. They missed the playoffs for 4 straight years so any resemblance of success last seen in 92 was gone. As for the Isles, they too would not see success like '93 until finally making to back to the post-season in 2001 after experiencing miserable years they had never even come close to experiencing during dry spells of the early 90s and late 80s and their inaugural 2 seasons. But the Oilers managed to become a consistent playoff squeaker in 1996 and onward. That's where the dynasties have gone, as everyone knows.

Because he was.

Total Hockey Edition 1 (not sure if it is in the second edition and don't recall seeing it in Total NHL) has done a statistical comparison across eras and Gretzky's numbers stand up. You pretty much have to pick up a copy and read the chapters that describe his adjusted scoring stats to understand what he is doing. Total Hockey Edition 1, page 626

Maybe it has something to do with the 61 NHL records he holds?


:dunno:
Well said! There has never been an individual in any sport to come around and absoultely dominate the game like Wayne Gretzky! not even Michael Jordan. He not only holds 61 NHL records, many of those are so incredible, it is even hard to fathom how he did it! I believe as time goes on that some of those records will obvioulsy fall. However, I think that many are simply untouchable!

Quickest to 50 goals...39 games - NHL players rarely hit 50 in a full season nowadays
Most goals in a seaon...92 - See above
Most points in a season...215 - The NHL rarely sees 100 point producers anymore.
Over 3000 points in his career - including playoffs

I could go on and on well into the night talking about why he is the greatest, but in the few lines I have written here, I think it is very obvious!

Like Bobby Orr before him, who revolutionized the defense position, where a very special player was breaking into the league, at a time that the league was ripe for change and a new breed of player. I think that everything would have to go right throughout a players career in order to even come close to those numbers. Barring the NHL losing its marbles and awarding 3 points for a goal and 2 for an assist, I believe his totals will never be touched!

Well said! There has never been an individual in any sport to come around and absoultely dominate the game like Wayne Gretzky! not even Michael Jordan.You forget about Babe Ruth. But if Wayne Gretzky is hockey's Babe Ruth, which I think he is, that is very high praise.

2857 points. Nearly a thousand ahead of the closest competition.


Yup, that's pretty much the general idea.

I've never seen any convincing argument that Gretzky wasn't the best player ever.

Don't really know what you mean by that. Do you mean leadership? Pele wasn't a real leader. Neither was Maradona. Or do you mean the life after their football-careers? I'd say that that award goes to Pele 100-0, but would you please specify what you mean.
Sorry, i was going to add more to the post but I had to leave just then.
Best measures ones ability but greatness measures the impact they made using
that ability.Pele did alot for soccer to expand it's audience and participants.He also
had a social impact.Also:good ,better,best vs great,greater,greatest.Or the
difference between good and great.

He's just an awesome guy
Every sport has a legend, some one who is the "best"

Basketball- michael jordan
Baseball- babe ruth
Golf- tiger woods
Soccer- Pele
Football- Dan Marino ( maybe someone better, i'm not a big football fan
and in Hockey theres Wayne Gretzky

I'd change Ruth to Bonds, Woods to Palmer, and Marino to Brown.

The thing that separated him was his vision, he was the smartest person on the ice game in and game out. He anticipated the play before anyone else could even see it.

That's the thing right there. If you're looking for just one reason that Gretzky was better than anyone else who ever played the game, you can sum it up with those two sentences. The man knew exactly where you were going to be before you even thought of going there, and when you got there, the puck was waiting for you. Every single time.

I'd change Ruth to Bonds, Woods to Palmer, and Marino to Brown.

Bonds over Ruth?!?!

Bonds is a great player, but people still recognize who Babe Ruth is nearly 70 years after he last swung a bat. No way does Bonds carry that kind of clout. Bonds doesn't carry as much clout TODAY as Babe, let alone keep it 70 years later...

Bonds over Ruth?!?!

Bonds is a great player, but people still recognize who Babe Ruth is nearly 70 years after he last swung a bat. No way does Bonds carry that kind of clout. Bonds doesn't carry as much clout TODAY as Babe, let alone keep it 70 years later...
I have to agree, no disrespect to what Bonds has done, but Ruth is the best, Bonds is a great player, but really, I don't think he's even in the group just below Ruth, quite yet.

Being the best more often than not is more about time peirods in league history.

Maybe Rocket Richard scores a hundred goals in Edmonton on that ice surface in the early eighties. Maybe Mike Bossy does if he is not on an Eastern Conference team and has to play some defense. Switch Paul Coffey and Bobby Orr and what numbers does Orr put up on that ice surface in that era.
Gretzky would not have scored what he did playing in today's league and would not have put up the numbers he did in previous era's.

He played his most productive hockey in an expansion conference against some very weak teams. If he played in the Eastern Conference in that era he would not have put up the same numbers and would have taken more of a physical wear in the playoffs to get to the finals.

Personally I felt Lemieux and Bossy's numbers in a better conference was far more tangible than anything Gretzky did.


:bow: :bow: :bow:

I'd change Ruth to Bonds, Woods to Palmer, and Marino to Brown.

yes, but that just demonstrates how little you know about baseball my friend. Ruth hit 50 when the next best hit 20. Ruth pitched and won 20 games twice (once with an ERA under 2.00).

Ruth still has over ten homers more then Bonds in over 200 atbats less.
Ruth is top ten all time in batting average, Bonds isn't even in the top 120.
Ruth has nearly 400 more RBI then Bonds, again, in over 200 atbats less.
Ruth's OBP is still about 25 points higher then Bonds'.
The Babes slug is about 80 points higher then Bonds' (that's the one I'm not sure off hand).

Bonds isn't even as good all time as Ty Cobb, he's hit more home runs, otherwise he's completely inferior. All of a sudden Bonds is third, and we haven't even looked at pitchers yet. I would take both Cy Young and Walter Johnson all time over Bonds every day of the week and twice on sundays, too. When all is said and done, Bonds MIGHT be a top five player all time. But in 50 years, The Babe will still echo in baseball louder then Bonds' greatest scream in the last 15 years.

.... oh... and Gretzky is the only equivalent to the Babe in pure dominance in any of the four major NA sports.

Mario Lemieux couldn't even get a point per game a couple of years ago in the playoffs... his production nosedived.

Mario had 17 points in 18 games during those playoffs, which is .95 ppg. You're splitting hairs.

Wayne? At the same age, with no Jaromir Jagr, EASILY eclipsed that, didn't even break a sweat.

Why is it that so many people attribute many of Jagr's successful numbers to playing with Mario, and so many other people attribute a lot of Mario's successful numbers to playing with Jagr? Anyone else ever notice that? Never mind the fact that Jagr stuggled terribly that postseason with a shoulder injury and only had two goals.

Also, Wayne and Mario's regular season PPGs are comparable... but their playoff PPGs are not. Wayne's lead is quite signifigant

Gretzky has 1.8 ppg in the playoffs, Lemieux 1.6. Yeah thats a huge margin. His ppg average is better, but thats what happens when you play with strong teams that enable you to consistently venture deep into the playoffs. Gretzky played twice as many playoff games than Lemieux.




Let's see Peter Forsberg or Jaromir Jagr get 90 points in a 5.2 goals per game season, at 37.p

Mario did.

Being the best more often than not is more about time peirods in league history.

Maybe Rocket Richard scores a hundred goals in Edmonton on that ice surface in the early eighties. Maybe Mike Bossy does if he is not on an Eastern Conference team and has to play some defense. Switch Paul Coffey and Bobby Orr and what numbers does Orr put up on that ice surface in that era.
Gretzky would not have scored what he did playing in today's league and would not have put up the numbers he did in previous era's.

He played his most productive hockey in an expansion conference against some very weak teams. If he played in the Eastern Conference in that era he would not have put up the same numbers and would have taken more of a physical wear in the playoffs to get to the finals.

Personally I felt Lemieux and Bossy's numbers in a better conference was far more tangible than anything Gretzky did.


TYPICAL SOUR GRAPES...FROM ANOTHER LOSER ISLANDERS FAN...

THE BEST THING THE OILERS EVER DID: ***** SLAPPING THE ISLES 'DRIVE FOR FIVE" LMAO...

THE 2ND BEST THING OILERS EVER DID: WINNING FIVE CUPS = MORE THAN ISLANDERS EVER DID(AND PROBABLY EVER WILL)...

1983...1983....1983...LOL

Mario had 17 points in 18 games during those playoffs, which is .95 ppg. You're splitting hairs.



Why is it that so many people attribute many of Jagr's successful numbers to playing with Mario, and so many other people attribute a lot of Mario's successful numbers to playing with Jagr? Anyone else ever notice that? Never mind the fact that Jagr stuggled terribly that postseason with a shoulder injury and only had two goals.



Gretzky has 1.8 ppg in the playoffs, Lemieux 1.6. Yeah thats a huge margin. His ppg average is better, but thats what happens when you play with strong teams that enable you to consistently venture deep into the playoffs. Gretzky played twice as many playoff games than Lemieux.






Mario did.


Thats right Clefty you tell them.


Mario fought cancer, came back and won the scoring title after finishing his last treatment. You talk about Greatness? Mario sneezes greatness out of his nose, the man is unreal.

TYPICAL SOUR GRAPES...FROM ANOTHER LOSER ISLANDERS FAN...

THE BEST THING THE OILERS EVER DID: ***** SLAPPING THE ISLES 'DRIVE FOR FIVE" LMAO...

THE 2ND BEST THING OILERS EVER DID: WINNING FIVE CUPS = MORE THAN ISLANDERS EVER DID(AND PROBABLY EVER WILL)...

1983...1983....1983...LOL


Whats the argument?

You do know that between the 2 teams, One of them won the stanley cup FOUR years in a row.

5 Stanley Cups, 4 Stanley cups...1 less than the Oilers, hardly anything to brag about really. Gretz wasn't even on the 5th cup winning team.

I have to agree, no disrespect to what Bonds has done, but Ruth is the best, Bonds is a great player, but really, I don't think he's even in the group just below Ruth, quite yet.
To me,i don't think either of them were as good as Willie Mays.He's the greatest of all time imo.

I'd change Ruth to Bonds, Woods to Palmer, and Marino to Brown.

Agree, except for "steroids" Bonds over Ruth. No way, never! Barry Bonds is not even the best player in his generation, let alone one of the top 100 of all-time. Griffey Jr. was better for 12 years, Sammy Sosa was better for 7 years of their careers, and none of them come close to equaling Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Pete Rose, Hank Greenberg, Sadahara Oh, or Crash Davis! Bonds did very little of value until 1994, when he started on the 'roids (as ANYONE with eyes can see) after being traded from Pittsburgh. He was a skinny, wimpy 180 lb. guy who in 1 year turned into a 230 lb. slugging horrible outfielder. And he kept getting bigger and worse! I know lots of slo-pitch outfielders who are better than Bonds! And I'm one of them! I can out-throw, out-catch, and out-hustle that puffed up cheater, but because umpires are scared to call a strike on him (because, obviously, MLB has ordered them NOT to) he gets lots of perfect pitches to swing at for his cheesy home runs. He's a wuss, and arrogant to boot! Cripes, Kirby Puckett was TWICE the fielder Bonds is, and 90% the hitter. Why isn't he seen as an all-time great? Sheesh.....

Mario had 17 points in 18 games during those playoffs, which is .95 ppg. You're splitting hairs.

I'm not splitting hairs, you're just reacting to the wrong point. His production went from something like 1.65 to less than 1.

Not a very inspiring drop, and certainly not splitting hairs. His difference in his numbers and his play were VERY signifigant, compared to what Wayne did at the same age on a worse team. If by splitting hairs you meant the point-per-game thing, that's just an afterthought, who cares. The meat of my argument was that he's nowhere near the offensive force he is in the regular season, whereas an old Gretzky's PPG and overall dominance didn't falter when the defenses closed up and the game's got tougher.

Why is it that so many people attribute many of Jagr's successful numbers to playing with Mario, and so many other people attribute a lot of Mario's successful numbers to playing with Jagr? Anyone else ever notice that? Never mind the fact that Jagr stuggled terribly that postseason with a shoulder injury and only had two goals.

What do you mean? I'm not attributing any individual's production to any other INDIVIDUAL.

But when the wingers on your powerplay were often Niklas Sundstrom, a still sub-par Alexei Kovalev, and Adam Graves, that's a MAJOR handicap compared to having Robert Lang, Alexei Kovalev, Martin Straka, and Jaromir Jagr at your disposal.

Hockey's a team game. So I guess it's fair game to attribute Wayne's better career numbers to his Oilers teammates and poor Penguins teams, but not fair when you use this point AGAINST Mario and FOR Wayne.


Gretzky has 1.8 ppg in the playoffs, Lemieux 1.6. Yeah thats a huge margin. His ppg average is better, but thats what happens when you play with strong teams that enable you to consistently venture deep into the playoffs. Gretzky played twice as many playoff games than Lemieux.

The difference between a 150 point player and a 130 is quite tangible. What looks more impressive to you? How many players have scored 150 points? And how many have scored 130?

And the fact that Wayne played so many playoff games only makes it MORE impressive. Like I said, Wayne played on weaker playoff teams than Mario, who has rarely been in the playoffs (other than '89) without the aid of such players as Kevin Stevens, Ron Francis, Mark Recchi, Jaromir Jagr, Alexei Kovalev, Joe Mullen, Rick Tocchet, Robert Lang, Martin Straka, et al.

An overwhelming amount of his playoff games have been on ELITE offensive squads. His playoff PPG is not affected negatively by those poor mid 80s Penguins teams, because they didn't make the playoffs anyway. He's only ever been on GREAT offensive playoff teams, post 1989 (only 11 games that year).

And he's NEVER went far with a team that wasn't offensively dominant, whereas Wayne carried at least 2 of them on his back through 3 or more rounds. Look at Wayne's wingers in '97, or the playoff stats of the LA Kings in '93. The offense WAS Wayne Gretzky. He had 40, and the only other guys with 20 were... his LINEMATES.

Then look at the stats for Mario's cup winning teams. Lots of guys put up more than 20 points, and Kevin Stevens even put up 33 once, with Recchi putting up 34! Man, imagine if Wayne had THOSE linemates at that time! He might have got 50 points.

Wayne did more, with less, more often. At least in the playoffs.

Mario never played on a playoff team as average offensively as the '93 Kings, or with Wingers as average as some of Wayne's in '97.

Therefore, my point is, Wayne had more time to actually LOWER his PPG in the playoffs... and yet, look at how far ahead of Mario he is, despite that.


Let's see Peter Forsberg or Jaromir Jagr get 90 points in a 5.2 goals per game season, at 37.p


Mario did.

Way to take my quote WAY out of context, Captain Obvious. I wan't even talking about Mario at that point.

Agree, except for "steroids" Bonds over Ruth. No way, never! Barry Bonds is not even the best player in his generation, let alone one of the top 100 of all-time. Bonds did very little of value until 1994, when he started on the 'roids (as ANYONE with eyes can see) after being traded from Pittsburgh.

Sorry, but that's just idiotic. You're obviously totally biased against the man.

Bonds won THREE LEAGUE MVP awards *before* 1994. And he should have been 4 for 4, had not some sentimental votes gone Terry Pendleton's way. Not to mention the four Gold Gloves, and leading the league in On Base Percentage, Slugging, OPS, Walks, RBI's, and Home Runs numerous times during those years.

Sorry, but that's just idiotic. You're obviously totally biased against the man.

Bonds won THREE LEAGUE MVP awards *before* 1994. And he should have been 4 for 4, had not some sentimental votes gone Terry Pendleton's way. Not to mention the four Gold Gloves, and leading the league in On Base Percentage, Slugging, OPS, Walks, RBI's, and Home Runs numerous times during those years.

Yep, he even managed to help make Bobby Bonilla a household name. That is one hell of an accomplishment.

Still, Babe is still clearly better then Bonds (I know you're not contesting that).

Sorry, i was going to add more to the post but I had to leave just then.
Best measures ones ability but greatness measures the impact they made using
that ability.Pele did alot for soccer to expand it's audience and participants.He also
had a social impact.Also:good ,better,best vs great,greater,greatest.Or the
difference between good and great.

Now that's not very fair, is it. Mr. Nascimento plyed in the 1960s and 1970s his best game. Maradona did the same in the late 1980s and early 1990s. You'd think there aren't as many people interested in the game in the 1960s as there are in the 1990s. Maradona also had a social impact. Not a good one, but that's beside the point. Where did Pele play? Almost all of his career in Brazil, and a few years in the states. Maradona played in Italy in his prime. I'd say, that Maradona was very very known among people when played, contrary to Pele, when he played. Of course many people had HEARD about Pele, but Maradona was SEEN by many people.

So yes. I agree, that Pele made the game more known, but that's not fair to Maradona, since he played later. Pele made a lot of goals (many of which are controversy). But Maradona dominated every aspect of the game in the offensive zone. He could do it all. It's not surprising, that probably the two best known goals in football history are both Maradona's. And they were both scored in the same game, if I recall.

TYPICAL SOUR GRAPES...FROM ANOTHER LOSER ISLANDERS FAN...

THE BEST THING THE OILERS EVER DID: ***** SLAPPING THE ISLES 'DRIVE FOR FIVE" LMAO...

THE 2ND BEST THING OILERS EVER DID: WINNING FIVE CUPS = MORE THAN ISLANDERS EVER DID(AND PROBABLY EVER WILL)...

1983...1983....1983...LOL

Dear Islanders Fans,

Please don't take this a representation of typical Oilers fans. We appreciate that Isles were pretty fantastic team in their own right.

Why is it that so many people attribute many of Jagr's successful numbers to playing with Mario, and so many other people attribute a lot of Mario's successful numbers to playing with Jagr? Anyone else ever notice that? Never mind the fact that Jagr stuggled terribly that postseason with a shoulder injury and only had two goals.

Same reason people always attribute Wayne's great number to playing with great players. He never played with Anderson, Messier or Tikkanen.



Gretzky has 1.8 ppg in the playoffs, Lemieux 1.6. Yeah thats a huge margin. His ppg average is better, but thats what happens when you play with strong teams that enable you to consistently venture deep into the playoffs. Gretzky played twice as many playoff games than Lemieux.


You realize that the more games you play, the harder it is to maintain a high PPG average...

Gretz great, you bet - better than ORR, NO!

Replace Gretzky with Orr on the Oilers and how many cups DO THEY WIN??? Orr with that team speed, holy *****!

Gretz. and Co. essentially came into the league as the All Star team from the old WHA. Ziegler realizing Gretzky's appeal decided to "protect" his main drawing card and the great one had certain liberties during his career - something Orr NEVER had. Orr was "run at" his whole career. Run at Gretz., abd you were in the box, tell me I'm wrong.

If we could have 5 Gretzky's play 5 on 5 against 5 Orr's, who would win??, answer honestly please.

Orr was the best 5 tool hockey player EVER. And its not even close. :teach: :bow: :bow:

Gretz. and Co. essentially came into the league as the All Star team from the old WHA.

Yeah, Wayne can attribute his 137 rookie points to the wizardry of Brett Calighen and Blair McDonald.

If we could have 5 Gretzky's play 5 on 5 against 5 Orr's, who would win??, answer honestly please.

Orr, but that's totally ridiculous and not even worth thinking about for more than 2 seconds. Try to be reasonable. That scenario would never and could never happen. Hockey is as much about the foot soldiers, unsung heroes and complimentary players as it is the Waynes and Marios and Orrs. Wayne used his teammates better than anyone, ever. He made mice into men.

Wayne could have easily led Boston to the same heights Orr did. Boston easily wins their measley two Cups, and probably three with Gretzky setting up Esposito, you heard it here. It's no more farfetched than what you're claiming. Espo would get 90 goals, and the Big Bad Bruins would insure Wayne's safety. Why bother defending his manhood, he was a wimp... there's nothing shameful or illegal about requiring some backup, not when you're unstoppable offensively and shaming the league on the scoresheet.

Also, I believe the NHL has caught up to Orr's physical gifts more than they have to Wayne's mental gifts. Orr would NEVER be able to rush up the ice with such aplomb these days, and those point shots would go in with MUCH less frequency. He'd still be the best D-man in the game, but forget about him being as far ahead of the pack as he was in the '70s.

Wayne could easily stick and kill today's defenses, he did it in a season every bit as low scoring as we see nowadays, and at 37 with NO offensive support, to boot.

Gretz great, you bet - better than ORR, NO!

Replace Gretzky with Orr on the Oilers and how many cups DO THEY WIN??? Orr with that team speed, holy *****!

Certainly no more than the 4 they won.

Gretz. and Co. essentially came into the league as the All Star team from the old WHA.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The Oilers came in as an All Star team from the old WHA?

The WHA Oilers (as well as the other 3 WHA teams) had to go through two drafts, which allowed the NHL players to claim players from them, befoe they got to the NHL. The only decent player on that team, outside of Gretzky, was Blair McDonald (who was basically a product of Gretzky).

An allstar team?

:lol

Ziegler realizing Gretzky's appeal decided to "protect" his main drawing card and the great one had certain liberties during his career - something Orr NEVER had. Orr was "run at" his whole career. Run at Gretz., abd you were in the box, tell me I'm wrong.

Yes, you are wrong. For the start of his career, when he was still a kid, he had the toughest player in the NHL riding shotgun with him... no one was going to mess with Semenko. Later on, as much as players tried, they simply couldn't hit Gretzky... he very rarely ever put himself in a position where he was vulnerable.

If we could have 5 Gretzky's play 5 on 5 against 5 Orr's, who would win??, answer honestly please.

Orr was the best 5 tool hockey player EVER. And its not even close. :teach: :bow: :bow:

Seeing as we are tossing out hypothetical crap (5 Gretzky's vs 5 Orr's... lol... what the hell is that all about?), here's a question for you...

Would you take Gretzky's 20 NHL seasons, or Bobby's 10?

Please don't lie and say Orr's... Orr had 6 Good years... Gretzky had 19.

Now that's not very fair, is it. Mr. Nascimento plyed in the 1960s and 1970s his best game. Maradona did the same in the late 1980s and early 1990s. You'd think there aren't as many people interested in the game in the 1960s as there are in the 1990s. Maradona also had a social impact. Not a good one, but that's beside the point. Where did Pele play? Almost all of his career in Brazil, and a few years in the states. Maradona played in Italy in his prime. I'd say, that Maradona was very very known among people when played, contrary to Pele, when he played. Of course many people had HEARD about Pele, but Maradona was SEEN by many people.

So yes. I agree, that Pele made the game more known, but that's not fair to Maradona, since he played later. Pele made a lot of goals (many of which are controversy). But Maradona dominated every aspect of the game in the offensive zone. He could do it all. It's not surprising, that probably the two best known goals in football history are both Maradona's. And they were both scored in the same game, if I recall.you are really missing my point.

[QUOTE=revolverjgw]Yeah, Wayne can attribute his 137 rookie points to the wizardry of Brett Calighen and Blair McDonald.





.

Also, I believe the NHL has caught up to Orr's physical gifts more than they have to Wayne's mental gifts. Orr would NEVER be able to rush up the ice with such aplomb these days, and those point shots would go in with MUCH less frequency. He'd still be the best D-man in the game, but forget about him being as far ahead of the pack as he was in the '70s.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

YOU obviously never saw him play.....SHAME, you wouldn't be posting such drivel if you had. :shakehead

you wouldn't be posting such drivel if you had. :shakehead

Pot, meet Kettle...

you are really missing my point.

Can't argue with that.

[QUOTE=revolverjgw]Yeah, Wayne can attribute his 137 rookie points to the wizardry of Brett Calighen and Blair McDonald.


Also, I believe the NHL has caught up to Orr's physical gifts more than they have to Wayne's mental gifts. Orr would NEVER be able to rush up the ice with such aplomb these days, and those point shots would go in with MUCH less frequency. He'd still be the best D-man in the game, but forget about him being as far ahead of the pack as he was in the '70s.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

YOU obviously never saw him play.....SHAME, you wouldn't be posting such drivel if you had. :shakehead

Actually, he's right. Don't sit there and tell me Bobby would be the same now because no longer would he be the fastest.

On the other hand, Wayne is still the smartest...

How many of your current day "faster than the back in the day" offensive Dmen have come close to a scoring title?????

HOW MANY?????????????????

Thats how great Orr was, watch the videos, he's all by himself leaving HIS teammates AND the defending team in his wake when he took off, AFTER defending first in the defensive zone.. And that was on surgery ravaged knees.

HE'D BE BETTER TODAY BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE PLAYERS WHO COULD KEEP UP WITH HIM!

Orr had the heart of a lion, NEVER complained about the rough stuff, unlike Gretz, Orr took care of payback himself.....detested losing and played hurt ALL THE TIME. I guess Gordie Howe's opinion about the best ever doesn't matter too, huh?

You guys fawning over 99 are treating Canada's probably greatest treasure like an afterthought. :eek:

Do some research. :teach:

This is how the "East Coast bias" thing gets started. Incidentally the Pens did pretty good with that style in the early 90's. Ditto the Nords and Habs in the late 80's. Boston had no problem running and gunning in the 70's did they?

Versus the soft Western conference teams whom he had more chance to do damage against playing them more often in 762 regular season games Gretz scored 1583 pts. An average of 2.08 PPG.

Against the big bad Eastern conference in regular season games he managed a paltry 1116 pts in 611 games. An average of 1.82 PPG.

The difference is a mere .26 PPG. As an aside the team that fared best against him? The Buffalo Sabres. The worst? The Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche.

I'm a fan of the Montreal Canadiens, and Eastern Conference team and a power for the bulk of the 80's. But my boys could not stop Gretzky. Bob Gainey could not stop Gretzky, neither could Guy Carbonneau; both of whom are regarded as some of the best defensive forwards the game has ever seen.

I agree with you, the styles of hockey in the two conferences do favor certain types of player, Val Bure or Vince Damphousse are good examples of that. But for Gretzky it made a negligible difference, if any at all.

I dont want to go too much in detail as I think I pretty agree with your whole statement except the stats you are bringing could very well better be used by those who said he did that good because he play on the western conference...

0.26 PPG less is actually 12,5% less which is HUGE. And the number of games played in both conference just make this more relevant... (Of course, you might want to note that he play the last few years on the Rangers which has probably contribute to put down his East PPG more than West PPG)
__________________________________________________ ________

On another note, I think it's hard to compared guys like The Rocket and The Great one. There's so many years between them! All in all, guys who has been good enough to get such a nickname as those 2 guys and Lemieux with "Le Magnifique" are in a league appart of all the others.

Also, I believe the NHL has caught up to Orr's physical gifts more than they have to Wayne's mental gifts. Orr would NEVER be able to rush up the ice with such aplomb these days, and those point shots would go in with MUCH less frequency. He'd still be the best D-man in the game, but forget about him being as far ahead of the pack as he was in the '70s.

Wayne could easily stick and kill today's defenses, he did it in a season every bit as low scoring as we see nowadays, and at 37 with NO offensive support, to boot.

I have to disagree, I still pick Wayne over Orr on the all time rankings, but I really do not think that Orr would be closer to the pack at all, physical gifts nothing, he still has a ridiculous hockey mind, it seems to me the arguement your using is very similar to that which the Lemieux fans are using to discredit Gretzky. Great players are great players, the era they played in has nothing to do with it, not to mention the amount Orr changed the game, he's really the only guy comparable to Gretzky in that regard IMO. I'll respectfully disagree.

If we could have 5 Gretzky's play 5 on 5 against 5 Orr's, who would win??, answer honestly please.

So a 200 point Gretzky VS Orr? Are you kidding me? Orr never ever ever ever ever ever played against somebody that could and would utterly dominate like Wayne did. If you think it'd be some kind of romp you are clearly lacking on having seen Gretzky play. One Gretzky would out think 2 Orrs. It's just that simple I'm affraid.

So a 200 point Gretzky VS Orr? Are you kidding me? Orr never ever ever ever ever ever played against somebody that could and would utterly dominate like Wayne did. If you think it'd be some kind of romp you are clearly lacking on having seen Gretzky play. One Gretzky would out think 2 Orrs. It's just that simple I'm affraid.
I don't know Thome, I agree that Wayne is better, slightly, but to say Wayne could outthink Orr that easily just isn't true, I mean, Orr had a superior hockey mind, superior to everyone except Wayne I'd say, Orr did not just get by on his physical gifts, because really, he wasn't that physically gifted, Other than speed, he really didn't have much on other guys except that mind.

''I have to disagree, I still pick Wayne over Orr on the all time rankings, but I really do not think that Orr would be closer to the pack at all, physical gifts nothing, he still has a ridiculous hockey mind, it seems to me the arguement your using is very similar to that which the Lemieux fans are using to discredit Gretzky. Great players are great players, the era they played in has nothing to do with it, not to mention the amount Orr changed the game, he's really the only guy comparable to Gretzky in that regard IMO. I'll respectfully disagree.''

Acknowledged and appreciated and I see what you're saying. But I stand by what I said. I'm not discrediting him, otherwise I wouldn't have said ''he'd still be the best D-man in the league''. Just being, I believe, realistic. Today's D-men and skaters are better equipped, both physically and strategically, to deal with a guy of Orr's speed. His hockey sense notwithstanding, it's a fact that his speed and skating were way ahead of his time and contributed GREATLY to his dominance, like Coffey's did to his own. He was a generation or two ahead in terms of physical tools. Wouldn't be so nowadays. He'd benefit from today's advances as well, but the gap between him and the rest would still be signifigantly smaller.

But... there's the rub, there would still be a gap. He'd still take home the Norris with regularity because of his still elite speed and his superior brain. So I'm not discrediting him.

Same idea- Gretzky wouldn't get 200 points these days and wouldn't be as far ahead of the pack as HE was. I think he'd be 30 points better than Forsberg, but not 60-70 like he used to do. I don't think that's discrediting him, I still think he's the best player ever.

Now, that ''Gretzky > Orr'' opinion is a little more controversial, heh... but I stand by that, too. Already listed the reasons why. Boston would be just as good if they had Wayne, they'd win at LEAST their two Cups without a problem.

And yes I HAVE watched Orr play, '04 Hockey, and Gretzky's on-ice ideas and chances impress me more than Orr's. 'Nuff said. Just in the last week, I've watched the '87 and '76 Canada Cup finals (on TSN and my own personal collection), and Wayne was easily the most fun and dangerous player to watch in either series. He also looked way more lethal than Lemieux in that deciding '87 game (Mario's winning goal notwithstanding!), but that's neither here nor there. Take your one-sided fanboyism elsewhere.

I would suggest that to really appreciate Orr, you'd have to see him on a run of the mill mid Deceber game in the late 60's or early 70's. It's not quite fair to compare him to the next generation in terms of speed. Each generation is bigger and faster than the one before. Keep in mind that some of the defenses and systems used to take the flow out of today's game were designed to stop Gretzky and the players influenced by his style. Teams defend passing lanes and the trailer more than ever before wherein Gretzky made his living off passing to players heading for open ice.That's why it's hard to project. If there was no Gretzky, would the plays that he made that were widely imitated not exist ? If you want to judge by numbers and longevity, fine Gretzky has no equal. I doubt that anyone can re-produce what he did. Judging the greatest ever on his best night becomes like art, I saw Orr as a rookie and he did things in a way that changed the game forever, as did #99. Without Orr, a Jr. coach would have made Coffey a center probably. Call whoever you want the greatest, I'm just glad I got to see 'em both.

Can't argue with that.
It seems like you are stuck on defending Maradonna.By the way I am a huge
Maradonna fan.At his peak he was the best,but I also recognize he squandered
some of his career because of personal issues.You have to look at the whole of
the career,plus the intangibles.Gretzky is not known as the Great One just for
his hockey playing abilities but also for many more reasons.

How many of your current day "faster than the back in the day" offensive Dmen have come close to a scoring title?????

HOW MANY?????????????????

Thats how great Orr was, watch the videos, he's all by himself leaving HIS teammates AND the defending team in his wake when he took off, AFTER defending first in the defensive zone.. And that was on surgery ravaged knees.

HE'D BE BETTER TODAY BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE PLAYERS WHO COULD KEEP UP WITH HIM!

Orr had the heart of a lion, NEVER complained about the rough stuff, unlike Gretz, Orr took care of payback himself.....detested losing and played hurt ALL THE TIME. I guess Gordie Howe's opinion about the best ever doesn't matter too, huh?

You guys fawning over 99 are treating Canada's probably greatest treasure like an afterthought. :eek:

Do some research. :teach:

Then take your cranial cavity out of your anal one. Orr was a great player... but his absolute best season wasn't even close to Gretzky's.

Gretzky playerd on the power play, penalty kill, would double and triple shift... everything. The NHL had to institute rules that were there to hurt Gretzky.

They took away 4 on 4 because the Oilers (and Gretzky) would murder teams on it... Orr had the benefit of 4 on 4 hockey his whole career.

If Orr had 15 + seasons, alright, it might be close... but he had 10 seasons, 7 of which were great seasons... how do you compare that with a guy who played 20 seasons, and was a top player for 15 of them?

Call whoever you want the greatest, I'm just glad I got to see 'em both.

Yup, me too. Folks are talking immovable object / irresistible force here. You can't project a winner.

Wayne is #1 and Orr #2 for one simple reason: Wayne was able to maximise his potential, Orr was not. As with Mario, Orr might have or could have had the greatest career. But he didn't. Their peaks are right up there with Wayne, certainly.

I was too young to see Orr in his prime, only seen the highlights.

On the ice, I think it is impossible to decide between Orr and Gretzky. Gretzky has longivity, but if you are talking single-season, Orr is tough to top.

Why I think Gretzky is the greatest? Off the ice. Orr was a tremendous player, but what did he do outside the hockey world? The average joe off the street wouldn't recognize him from Adam or even know what sport he played.

Gretzky was the NHL's marquee star. EVERYONE knows who Gretzky is. They might think hockey has 4 quarters and off-sides results in a 5-yard penalty, but they know who Gretzky was. IMO, Gretzky's sweeping popularity caused the rekindled interest in hockey, and indirectly led to it's expansion.

(note: this primarily applies to USA and the world outside Canada. Not everyone is as advanced in sports appreciation as Canada :D )

I would say he is the best ,MAYBE just maybe because he has about 1,000 more points than the second and third all time scores in NHL history.And has basically more asists than anyone has points , yeah he has great teammates, but how about if u look at it this way.... maybe gretz made his team mates great, maybe without gretz they would never be were they are.

gretz is simply amazing.thats all to say

How many of your current day "faster than the back in the day" offensive Dmen have come close to a scoring title?????

HOW MANY?????????????????

Thats how great Orr was, watch the videos, he's all by himself leaving HIS teammates AND the defending team in his wake when he took off, AFTER defending first in the defensive zone.. And that was on surgery ravaged knees.

HE'D BE BETTER TODAY BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE PLAYERS WHO COULD KEEP UP WITH HIM!

Orr had the heart of a lion, NEVER complained about the rough stuff, unlike Gretz, Orr took care of payback himself.....detested losing and played hurt ALL THE TIME. I guess Gordie Howe's opinion about the best ever doesn't matter too, huh?

You guys fawning over 99 are treating Canada's probably greatest treasure like an afterthought. :eek:

Do some research. :teach:

I've watched Orr and he's outstanding. I just don't think that even with his speed he would bust the trap, rush after rush.

Nobody is saying Orr wasn't or wouldn't be a great player. The fact is Orr's game relied on physical dominance of his opponent. Since Orr's day, players have made incredible strides in the physical skills department. On the other hand, Wayne would still be the smartest player out there and that was his game.

Are you going to sit there and question Gretzky's heart, because that's just foolish? The man played hurt for 10 years without stopping. Just like Bobby. He didn't take care of anything but putting up numbers because that's what he was there to do. Revenge isn't hockey and you can certainly play hockey without exacting it.

I happen to tihnk Gretzky is Canada's greatest treasure. Say what you want about his lack of physical play, but it certainly didn't hurt his performance. He had heart though, just as much as anybody else.

Aside from 1987, they won all of their final series in 5 games or less. They routinely dominated Eastern Conference teams (60 games above .500 from 1982-83 to 1987-88).

The Flames were built solely to beat Edmonton... it's a lot tougher to beat a team that is built for the sole purpose of beating you, than it is to beat teams you are merely competing against.
Badger Bob finally climbed " Mt Oiler ", What a great coach, He lived to beat Edm. Getting though a Calgary series for a bunch of " Wimp kneed wimps" as local reporter Terry Jones called them after the miricle on Mancaster was no easy task. Calgary could of won more cups if they didnt have to face the Oilers every year. Gretzky wasnt great because of Edmonton , Edmonton was great because the GREATEST player made them believe in themselves. There is no denying Orr was 1A but Gretz was still pretty damn good at 37 in the mighty Eastern Conferance. The Oilers could of and would of won thier cups no matter what conferance they were in.

It seems like you are stuck on defending Maradonna.By the way I am a huge
Maradonna fan.At his peak he was the best,but I also recognize he squandered
some of his career because of personal issues.You have to look at the whole of
the career,plus the intangibles.Gretzky is not known as the Great One just for
his hockey playing abilities but also for many more reasons.

If you want to take whole career into account, that's fine by me. Pele played almost his whole career in Brasil! Never in Europe. Maradona played in Europe in his prime and dominated. If you look at it this way, Maradona is far better.

I don't get this arguement. It seems like you are stuck on defending Maradonna. Why do people use this kind of arguements? Are you backing out? No. But you say that I'm not, and seem to think, that it's wrong. Why shouldn't it be you changing your opinion? I'm not saying you should, but it's hard for me to understand the logic behind this kind of arguement.

BTW, I don't agree with your statement about Gretzky. In my books he's the greatest, 'cause he is the best of all time IMO.

Yup, me too. Folks are talking immovable object / irresistible force here. You can't project a winner.

Wayne is #1 and Orr #2 for one simple reason: Wayne was able to maximise his potential, Orr was not. As with Mario, Orr might have or could have had the greatest career. But he didn't. Their peaks are right up there with Wayne, certainly. Exactly. Is the greatest decided by the greatest career or who was the better player when at his best ?

[QUOTE=DrMoses]

Nobody is saying Orr wasn't or wouldn't be a great player. The fact is Orr's game relied on physical dominance of his opponent. Since Orr's day, players have made incredible strides in the physical skills department.
:lol :lol :lol

Just how long do you think it's been?????

Orr's career was "effectively" cut short at the age of 28(his last full season), twenty eight! The single greatest loss of the league EVER. Look at what he accomplished by that young age....would the Bruins have won the cup without him? Would the Oilers win the cup without Gretz?, oh yeah, they did. :amazed:

Exactly. Is the greatest decided by the greatest career or who was the better player when at his best ?
I agree, just don't go underrating Orr :D

[QUOTE=DrMoses]

Nobody is saying Orr wasn't or wouldn't be a great player. The fact is Orr's game relied on physical dominance of his opponent. Since Orr's day, players have made incredible strides in the physical skills department.
:lol :lol :lol

Just how long do you think it's been?????

Orr's career was "effectively" cut short at the age of 28(his last full season), twenty eight! The single greatest loss of the league EVER. Look at what he accomplished by that young age....would the Bruins have won the cup without him? Would the Oilers win the cup without Gretz?, oh yeah, they did. :amazed:

Replace Orr with Gretzky and do the Bruins still win the cup, probably...

Trying to knock Wayne Gretzky is just silly. Are you going to argue that the players today aren't and bigger, faster or stronger than they were in Bobby's days? Probably not. So what makes you think that Orr could go end to end time after time now, when things are so different? End to end rushes are to say the least, rare now. I'm not saying Orr would be Wade Belak here, I just don't think he would have his way with opponents as easily as he did.

Replace Orr with Gretzky and do the Bruins still win the cup, probably...

Trying to knock Wayne Gretzky is just silly. Are you going to argue that the players today aren't and bigger, faster or stronger than they were in Bobby's days? Probably not. So what makes you think that Orr could go end to end time after time now, when things are so different? End to end rushes are to say the least, rare now. I'm not saying Orr would be Wade Belak here, I just don't think he would have his way with opponents as easily as he did.

Dr., no one is knocking Gretz, try to imagine A-N-Y Dman today winning the Art Ross Trophy!, how sensational that would be in todays NHL.

Thats how great Orr was!

The only thing different is the current year, you'll realize that as you get older.
End to end rushes rare?, yeah, I know, there's nobody close today that has anywhere near the total package that was Bobby Orr! Nobody could do what Orr could do, AT HIGH SPEED, since, well, Orr! This from an almost 30 yr. Flyers season tix holder.....
Orr, really was that GREAT!
:eek:

Amazing the amount of posters here that think Orr wouldn't be as good today as in the 70's. :shakehead

As sure a bet as there could be.

Dr., no one is knocking Gretz, try to imagine A-N-Y Dman today winning the Art Ross Trophy!, how sensational that would be in todays NHL.

Thats how great Orr was!

The only thing different is the current year, you'll realize that as you get older.
End to end rushes rare?, yeah, I know, there's nobody close today that has anywhere near the total package that was Bobby Orr! Nobody could do what Orr could do, AT HIGH SPEED, since, well, Orr! This from an almost 30 yr. Flyers season tix holder.....
Orr, really was that GREAT!
:eek:

Amazing the amount of posters here that think Orr wouldn't be as good today as in the 70's. :shakehead

As sure a bet as there could be.

See, that's the thing. I don't think orr would necessarily win the Art Ross now. The league is just not made for defenseman to do that. Orr was obviously superb and I tihnk if he played forward he would win the Ross easily, but today's NHL game is not condusive to defenseman racking up the points. There just isn't any room out there anymore.

Dr., no one is knocking Gretz, try to imagine A-N-Y Dman today winning the Art Ross Trophy!, how sensational that would be in todays NHL.

Thats how great Orr was!

Try to Imagine A-N-Y forward today winning the Art Ross by 100 points!

The only thing different is the current year, you'll realize that as you get older.
End to end rushes rare?, yeah, I know, there's nobody close today that has anywhere near the total package that was Bobby Orr! Nobody could do what Orr could do, AT HIGH SPEED, since, well, Orr! This from an almost 30 yr. Flyers season tix holder.....
Orr, really was that GREAT!
:eek:

End to end rushes don't necessarily need the total package. It was common in the 70's, 80's and early 90's to see a guy pick up the puck from behind his net, and go around 3 or 4 guys and score. That just doesn't happen nowadays, not because the players aren't as skilled... it's the exact opposite, the players are more skilled, especially in the defensive aspects of the game. Teams line up to disrupt the oppositions breakout, something that was unheard of 20 years ago.

Amazing the amount of posters here that think Orr wouldn't be as good today as in the 70's. :shakehead

As sure a bet as there could be.

He certainly wouldn't have lead the league in scoring... Orr relied on physical gifts, and that is one thing that NHL players now are good at disrupting. Gretzky didn't rely on physical gifts, he relied on intelligence. Gretzky certainly wouldn't have put up 215 points in todays NHL, but he certainly would have lead it in scoring... and I don't see Orr having the same offensive impact he did in the 70's. He might be the best 2 way defenseman in the league, but in today's game of shut-down NHL hockey, Orr's best assets would be neutralized, just like many of Today's stars have been.

Try to Imagine A-N-Y forward today winning the Art Ross by 100 points!



End to end rushes don't necessarily need the total package. It was common in the 70's, 80's and early 90's to see a guy pick up the puck from behind his net, and go around 3 or 4 guys and score. That just doesn't happen nowadays, not because the players aren't as skilled... it's the exact opposite, the players are more skilled, especially in the defensive aspects of the game. Teams line up to disrupt the oppositions breakout, something that was unheard of 20 years ago.



He certainly wouldn't have lead the league in scoring... Orr relied on physical gifts, and that is one thing that NHL players now are good at disrupting. Gretzky didn't rely on physical gifts, he relied on intelligence. Gretzky certainly wouldn't have put up 215 points in todays NHL, but he certainly would have lead it in scoring... and I don't see Orr having the same offensive impact he did in the 70's. He might be the best 2 way defenseman in the league, but in today's game of shut-down NHL hockey, Orr's best assets would be neutralized, just like many of Today's stars have been.


Dr. Moses, Orr played HALF of ALL his games in the smallest rink in the league at the time, so much for space having an impact on Orrs' productivity.

Dawg, defensive hockey was the name of the game when Orr played. How many Dmen even crossed the red line then, joining a rush? Nothing like today. Orrs' best assets "neutralized"?? :shakehead
No question, Orr would run amok if he played today, all these big cookie cutter rinks. On two good knees he'd be setting records that would be untouchable. He would have finally played with other players who could keep up with him, ha ha. You young guys really missed the real thing, Take the best attributes from the five best Dmen playing today, combine them - you MAY get close to "an Orr". funny how the great ones come along when they do, unannounced, then are gone without warning.....shame. :cheers:
Fella's, he really was that great. :)

Dr. Moses, Orr played HALF of ALL his games in the smallest rink in the league at the time, so much for space having an impact on Orrs' productivity.

Dawg, defensive hockey was the name of the game when Orr played. How many Dmen even crossed the red line then, joining a rush? Nothing like today. Orrs' best assets "neutralized"?? :shakehead
No question, Orr would run amok if he played today, all these big cookie cutter rinks. On two good knees he'd be setting records that would be untouchable. He would have finally played with other players who could keep up with him, ha ha. You young guys really missed the real thing, Take the best attributes from the five best Dmen playing today, combine them - you MAY get close to "an Orr". funny how the great ones come along when they do, unannounced, then are gone without warning.....shame. :cheers:
Fella's, he really was that great. :)

I didn't miss anything. I'm old enough to have seen the best player ever, number 99 play in his heydey. Sure I would have liked to see Orr but I just can't see him going end to end against trapping teams. It would be rare to say the least. He would still be the best D-Man in the league by a long ways, but he wouldn't be winning Art Ross's I don't think.

First off I wanna say hi to everyone here I'm new to the boards so maybe this question has come up before or maybe not so bare with me. Anyways before everyone starts screaming at me and stuff I wanna say that Gretzky was a real dominant player in his era BUT that doesnt mean he was the BEST of all time. Look here's a list of who in my opinion are equally great as Wayne and dominated in their era:

1- Rocket Richard: First player to score 50 goals in 50 games. Played during a tough time where people knew how to check. Led the habs to 5 straight Stanley Cup wins which is still a record today.

2- Gordie Howe: Somoene who has dominated the game for the longest amount of time. Played till he was 52 and still at a high level.

3- Jean Beliveau: Another great player in his own right, he was one of the finest stick handlers and passers of all time during his era. 10 Stanley Cup championships among other trophies.

4- Bobby Orr: Awesome natural skater, passer, play maker, shooter, deker, defensive and offensive defenseman. Was best defenseman for 8 years in his short career due to injuries. Lead the Bruins to their first cup in years in 1970 and then again in 1972.

5- Guy Lafleur: Known as the most exciting player there ever was, the Flower played during the 70-s and won the Hart trophie twice, 3 times Art Ross, Conn Smythe trophie, scored 50 or more goals for 6 straight seasons, tallied more then 120 points for 6 straight seasons as well. Won 5 stanley cups with 4 of them consecutively. However a car accident in 1980 slowed him down a ot.

6- Mario Lemieux: Mario could play like no one else. He was drafted by Pittsburgh who was the last team in the league then in 1984 and just 6 years later won the stanley cup with that same team and then repeated as champs the year later. He won two straight conn smythe trophies and 2 straight Art Ross trophies. Battle through injuries and Cancer speaking of which, the same day of his last radiation treatment, Mario came back to Pittsburgh's lineup to play against Philadelphia and scored a goal and won the scoring title that year!

Also lets not forget about Marcel Dionne, Bobby Hull, Mike Bossy and Bret Hull.

Plus Gretzky played with some great teammates such as Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Coffee, etc. And unlike the first 5 people I mentioned, he played in a high scoring era. So what are your thoughts about this?

Good post. It can be argues that he is hands down the best hockey player ever on the basis of his numerous NHL records, but you're right, he might not be the best of all time. But how do we measure best?

There are six positions on the ice. Gretzky would not have been the best d-man or goalie no matter how hard he tried...was he the best center? Forward? Ever? It appears so, but then there is a name like Joe Malone. He once had 44 goals in 20 games for the Canadians though it was before they even counted assists. Was he better than Gretzky? No one knows, but we do know a lot MORE, in detail, about Wayne's accomplishments. And in comparing his accomplishments with other players of the last century he sure seems like the best.

Dr. Moses, Orr played HALF of ALL his games in the smallest rink in the league at the time, so much for space having an impact on Orrs' productivity.

Dawg, defensive hockey was the name of the game when Orr played. How many Dmen even crossed the red line then, joining a rush? Nothing like today. Orrs' best assets "neutralized"?? :shakehead
No question, Orr would run amok if he played today, all these big cookie cutter rinks. On two good knees he'd be setting records that would be untouchable. He would have finally played with other players who could keep up with him, ha ha. You young guys really missed the real thing, Take the best attributes from the five best Dmen playing today, combine them - you MAY get close to "an Orr". funny how the great ones come along when they do, unannounced, then are gone without warning.....shame. :cheers:
Fella's, he really was that great. :)

:lol

The goaltenders now are better than they have ever been.

The defensive systems are more complex than they have ever been.

The players are bigger, stronger and faster than they have ever been.

If you are so shortsighted to beleive that Orr would be setting untouchable records today because the ice surfaces are a little bigger and he'd have players that could keep up with him, hey that's up to you... but you are flat out wrong.

Sure, he would have had players on his own team that were fast enough to keep up with him, but so would the opposition.

Sorry man, but Ken Dryden circa 1974 with his equipment and all that wouldn't even make an OHL team today.

That's what you seem to forget... while the goaltenders of that time were good for their era, the goalies today are bigger, quicker, stronger and have more equipment.

Orr took great advantage of that... and to think he'd have better numbers now is completely ridiculous.

Orr was no doubt the best D-man hockey has ever seen. If you grew up watching the guy you'd no doubt agree. You wouldn't even have to look at his records to see how special of a talent he was. Watching that guy was seeing poetry in motion, unusually fast,fluid skater, pure natural.

Wayne was a different type of player altogether. He saw systems unfold before anyone else,he thought the game ,and he worked hard at everything he accomplished.He wanted to score on the face-off, well he worked hard practicing. Wayne wasn't a natural, but he worked so hard at it that you really can't tell. He had played defence as a young man,learning the defensive styles,and thus he knew the system well(Heh,remember the interveiw where the commentator asks him "so how many goals do you have?" to which Wayne responds "uh,um 176" Commentator ".........176 goals as a defenceman!?!"

Sorry man, but Ken Dryden circa 1974 with his equipment and all that wouldn't even make an OHL team today.



:help: :dunno: :banghead: