Wayne Gretzky

[Speed Demon 0]

Okay first of all, I totally disagree with this article and I am totally with the fact that Wayne Gretzky is the greatest hockey player of all time.

Here is the link to the article:

Top 10 myths and lies in sports

If you wish not to load the site, here is the text that I am talking about:

EDIT:

Text removed by mods.

[Chadd 916]

I've always said that Orr changed the game more than any other player, Lemiux was the most physically gifted player and Gretz was the best. That article does nothing to change those opinions.

Next time just use a link.

[JGraz15 53]

Interesting rebuff on the same page

http://msn.foxsports.com/id/2592994

[Lightning 0]

the rebuff stated what I was thinking while I was reading that article. Obviously the writer was trying to get a rise out of the readers that happened to read it. Or he just doesnt know the game nor anything about the Great One.

[kosydar 0]

In reading the other nine topics, the guys just trying to shock people.

[MDE3 0]

The thing that made Gretzky was his "magic", both with the puck, and almost equally without it. I think maybe 3 other players had that type of magic for an extended period of time...Marice Richard..his magic was his gift of speed with the puck, as well as his incredible shot...., Lemieux with his grace and incredible hands, and Orr of course who left no doubt who owned the rink whenever he was on it...All of these players had "the magic". That ability to dominate the rink so as to freeze the breath in your chest whenever they got the puck, knowing something would happen,,hoping it wouldn't if you were cheering or playing for the opponents, and buzzed with excitement if they were playing for your team.

More than a few others have had this gift of course, but the measure of "the greatest" is for how long, how strong, and how consistantly, in the face of everyone knowing it. Having watched all of these guys play over a great portion of their careers, I would have to say Gretzky certainly held the highest magic for the longest period.

Don't ever get lost in the stats of any of these players...their gift to us was their magic, that palpable excitement they inspired day in and day out.

[kosydar 0]

What I find interesting is that he didn't even mention Howe at all in the article. I'd believe Howe was the greatest player ever way before I would ever consider Lemieux.

[MDE3 0]

Howe's greatness was much more subtle..he was not nearly as spectacular as a Richard or a Lemieux or an Orr or a Gretzky....he was an indomitable force, but much more subtle(some would say "sneaky") His "magic" was easier to hate than to get excited by it. Gordie Howe was almost always the strongest player on the rink...not necessarily the most "gifted', but so strong and so strong willed that the game just seemd to go his way more often than not.

If "the greatest Player" was to be measured by durability while exhibiting dominance on the rink, then a case could certainly be made for Howe as "the one", but he did not generate "the oohs and ahs" of the others, a lot more "ouches"....and "damns".

If nothing else he certainly deserves the title of "the grand old man of hockey", and embodied more of what the total game was about than maybe any of the others but Orr.

[Chadd 916]

To a point I agree with your thoughts on Howe but imagine if Eric Lindros played in that era. Without guys taking runs and the shots to the head, he could have been the same type of player as Howe.

As for the stuff against Gretz, Benjamin Disraeli once said; "There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics."

You can say anything you want and find some stat that will back you up.

[MDE3 0]

There is really no comparison there...when someone took a shot at Gordie Howe..they rarely did it more than once....his one punch/elbow retaliations were legendary.

Lindros was never close to having the toughness or ruggedness that Howe had. He had such strength that you never really saw what hurt you....he did it with more economy of motion than any player I have ever seen. Howe would make you pay in such a way that you never wanted to see him close to you again. Lindros never had that reputation although he was certainly big and strong enough. Lindros coming after you was like looking at a Mack truck stuck in 4th gear...not subtle at all....Howe you never saw coming, or if you did, it looked innocent enough not to get to concerned..unless you had been there before..

[Chadd 916]

I've only seen Howe on tape, never live. From what I saw of him in his prime, a lot of that was simply because he was so much bigger than the other players. Many of the players of his day have been quoted as saying they never saw the hits coming because they were so far behind the play. Gordie was a very skilled bully.

[wolveshockey10 0]

Is that a Joke. This guy probally doesn't know what he's even talking about.

[Eazy_b97 1]

It may be because he was the only one I saw in his prime, but I just don't see anyone being able to dominate the way Mario could. Unfortunately I only saw Wayne on the kings (and for a short while), but Mario's 50 game, lead the league in scoring and 50 goal season was incredible. I remember watching him go through the whole Stars team to beat John Casey. I never thought he played with extremely talented players. He had good lines, but there was only a short while where the team was stacked (hard for me to remember, I could be wrong). I always felt that when he played the Penguins contended, when he didn't they weren't much more than Jagr. Looking back on the past Eras the more I see of the young old Lindros the more I believe he could've been a force like none other. He could fight, hit and score all with a presence. Part of his problem was the attention he recieved and the difference in the league, there is nothing that goes on behind the play anymore, thats whats watched. I never saw Howe, but hold the fact he stayed in the game so long against him. Maybe i'm just an ignorant kid, but i wouldn't hold him, nor Mark Messier (where he came from i'll never know) on the level that I regard Lemieux, Gretz, and Orr.

[Guest 2048]

Eazy, people name mark messier because while he couldn't dominate the game, he could change the momentum of it with a play or a lockerroom speech in his prime. He also has enough rings to plug Patrick Roy's ears three times over and is the second leading scorer of all time. Oh, and he brought a cup to new york.

[Chadd 916]

Mario had the unique combination of talent and size, the only thing he was lacking was the intense desire that the others showed. I never saw Orr or Howe in person. I was able to see both Mario and Wayne near the end and the extra effort exerted by Gretz was readily apparent to anyone who watched. My wife was a Pens fan and even she realized why Gretz was so much better at playing a team game.

[kosydar 0]

To echo what Chadd said, I've read a lot of stuff thats said that Mario didn't put forth nearly the effort that Wayne did, and just played on talent alone. Hell the guy smokes cigarettes constantly which obviously doesn't help your conditioning.

[headonaswivel 1]

Oh, and he brought a cup to new york.

Ugggh, as a left coast guy for the first 20 years of life, that stings everytime it enters my mind.

But as a leader the Moose is second to nobody at all. And that is just one of a number of things that elevates his greatness.

In his prime, he was a dominant player, its just that he played in the shadow of the single most game changing player in history, let alone 8 other potential hall o famers.

The year they beat the Bruins for the cup, he WAS the best in the leauge, with a very able and active Gretz playin elsewhere.

For me, I was a rediculously huge Lemieux fan. Still have his jersey that I got at the game he started the streak.

But his heart didn't match his talent at times. Although no single person can question a man who couldn't bend over to put on socks in the morning, and didn't practice, then went out and dominated every night like Mario did. SO heart isn't the thing I should say. Perhaps drive is more appropriate.

[Eazy_b97 1]

Eazy, people name mark messier because while he couldn't dominate the game, he could change the momentum of it with a play or a lockerroom speech in his prime. He also has enough rings to plug Patrick Roy's ears three times over and is the second leading scorer of all time. Oh, and he brought a cup to new york.

I know he wasa great leader and all, but I don't think I could ever mention him in the same breathe as Mario or Wayne.

I'm aware Gretz did much more for the game and put much more into it than Mario, and think Chadd had a great sumamry of Mario being talented, Orr changing the game and Gretz, well simply being the best. Mario had had all the talent in the world and Could impact a game like nobody else (at least thats how I see it), but I don't think he was a great as Gretzky, purely because his drive just wasn't at the same level.

I wasn't able to see Messier in his prime really. I remember the '94 run, before then the Rangers weren't much around here because I was so young, after that I remember his flop in Vancouver and return to NYR which both hinder him in my mind. Like I said early he was a great player, but I wouldn't consider him on the greatest of all time level.

[kosydar 0]

But as a leader the Moose is second to nobody at all. And that is just one of a number of things that elevates his greatness.

Better than Yzerman? I might not have seen the peak of his career, but from what I've seen, he doesn't do captainly things, like his spearing earlier this year. Or take for instance him still playing. Sorry, but he should hang em up. In watching him play, hes easily two steps behind everybody out on the ice. It seems like he continues to play and take a healthy amount of ice time for himself just so he could pass Howe and for other personal accomplishments. The day Stevie thinks hes hurting his team by being out there is the day he will retire. Back in his day, Messier was a great leader, no doubt, but like Lemieux, the longer they play, the more respect I'm losing for them.

[JR Boucicaut 3801]

Yes, better than Yzerman.

One of the reasons why Mess thinks he can still play is because he is healthy. When he got surgery last year it was the first one of his career.

[Chadd 916]

If Mess is such a great leader, why has he been unable to lead the Rangers to the playoffs the last couplee of years? Ok, not counting the firesale this year. They have had plenty of talent where was his leadership?

I like to debate, I think he's a good player but the "greatest leader in sports" thing started after he promised they would win game 6.

[Perry94 0]

yah I'd vote Yzerman as the best leader. He still makes an impact to the team. Hell, just the fact that he's on the ice has a positive effect already.

[JR Boucicaut 3801]

The Rangers had three cliques in the locker room. They were not a team. I agree with you there.

[Guest 2048]

If Mess is such a great leader, why has he been unable to lead the Rangers to the playoffs the last couplee of years? Ok, not counting the firesale this year. They have had plenty of talent where was his leadership?

I like to debate, I think he's a good player but the "greatest leader in sports" thing started after he promised they would win game 6.

His first year back he had 30 goals I think, two years ago they had a better record (I think +.500 with him in than out) and I can't remember the year between. I'm not saying he's as good as he once was or even that he's a great leader today, but to blame them missing the playoffs solely on him is a joke. Lindros was paired with midget sized wings. Leetch was the defense, the czechmates were a bunch of cream puffs and other than having one line that could consistently score, the team did nothing. Also, Fleury went into rehab the year they looked like they'd make it. Could he have said "play me on the fourth line and play X instead"? Yeah, but the fact is, most of the time, X sucked or was hurt.

[Chadd 916]

I wasn't solely laying the blame at his feet, My point was simply that he was unable to lead a talented team to the playoffs. It's easier to lead a bunch of hungry kids than it is to lead a bunch of fat and happy millionaires.