What are your qualifications for determining the "greatest" ever?

Question

I have read a lot of posts about whether or not Sydney Crosby is the best ever?

This question is not debating if he is or not.

This questions trying to see how someone is capable of determining the best ever.

I have seen posts like "Gordie Howe was the best passer ever" and Ovechkin is better that Crosby because he is better defensively These are just a few

If you make statements like that please let me know how you came to that conclusion. Did you receive a pass from every player in the history of the NHL and was able to say Gordie gave you the best pass? Did you play 1 on 1 with Ovechkin and Crosby and had an easier time beating Crosby.

I guess my point is saying someone is the greatest ever is too subjective. The game is constintly changing and comparing players today to those of the past is virtually impossible.

If you are going to claim someone is the best. Please supply your credentials.

I am excited about and looking forward to you to your jabs

OK, I agree with all that is said and I think stats and awards are a good bench mark But...

Is there too big of a difference between the NHL today and that of say the 40's-60's when Richard scored his 500+ goals to even compare the two. Players tend to shoot harder now, skate faster goalies are better now with more protective, lighter and bigger equipment

Would it be a safe bet to say a guy like Brett Hull with his shot could have potentially scored 3000 goals in the 40's and 50's with a shot like his against those goalies? Could Richard score 541 goals today?

These questions are impossible to answer therefore is really determing the greatest ever more of a personal opinion rather than a hard fast answer.

I don't think it is fair to compare players from different era because there are way too many variables

Answer 1

The key here is the one of the words you use: debate. In a free country you don't really need credentials to debate a topic, only an honest opinion. And one honest opinion is as valid as the next, whether it happens to tick someone off or not.

And the fantasy world of sports is great because my or anyone else's opinion is as good as, say, that of Glen Sather, who, on the surface, would seem to have far more "credentials" but really doesn't.

If you have eyes and have watched these players play, you are qualified to offer an opinion on who you think is the best in whatever category.

You don't have to play bass with The Beatles (ok, insert age group preference here ... are Coldplay still around? Is Amy Winehouse sober yet?) to know how good they were.

Like a lot of forum people here, I've been watching hockey a long long time so my credentials are an honest opinion, some experience playing the game, old age and a television set, much like everyone else.

If you believe eg: Gretzky (again, substitute any name you like here) is the best passer ever, you don't have to receive a pass from Wayne in order to have credentials to back up your opinion. His skills were plain to see every time he was on the ice, just like Crosby, Ovechkin and Kopitar and Zetterberg are today.

In fact, our view from high up in the stands or on TV was probably better than the one Gretzky's coaches had. We saw quite a bit of him because he played so many playoff games on TV and he was a one-man highlight reel.

You also can't compare eras, and I don't think people with a reasonable opinion ever do that. I don't believe when people say they think Howe or Orr were the greatest ever, that they mean if Howe or Orr were playing today they'd be better than anyone else. What they are saying is Howe's and Orr's accomplishments during their careers are greater than any other player's during their careers.

You can only consider a player's impact during his own era. When Maurice Richard played, again just as an example, no one could slap a puck. But there's no denying Richard's year-to-year impact on the game at the time. His impact on the game was far greater than, say, Joe Thornton's will be, unless Joe scores 100 goals in a season or something. And yet, put Thornton in a time machine and send him to NHL 1949, he'd be six inches taller than the average player, twice as fast and the only player that could raise a puck.

One thing is certain: if you're picking the greatest ever, you can't compare someone two years into a career with someone who played 25 years. It's silly.

This isn't a comparison, just an example: What if Crosby blows a knee next year or the NHL drifts back to the old clutch and grab style and Sid gets mugged every night? Or other teams develop a "book" on how to play against him and limit his effectiveness for the rest of his career? How would he be the greatest ever when someone like Steve Yzerman did it so well for more than 20 years? Remember, Eric Lindros had as much a buildup as Crosby ... maybe more ... early in his career, and time took its toll.

You can't really include players who are just starting out with those you can examine in detail who have many more years of success. Howe, for example, finished in the top five in scoring 20 years straight. Can Sid top that? We'll know in a little less than 18 years.

Answer 2

In trying to determine the best, stats may not be everything. Longetivity, points etc all come into play. Championships as well as contributions to the game, leadership. In determining best ever, you can have different best ever in 100 different categories. And then how do you compare todays players to those of 40-70 years ago. Best ever, Bobby Orr, only because he did what he did on such bum knees that his records are ones todays defensemen can only dream about. Gordie and Wayne are tied for 2nd with about 10 others tied for 3rd.One or two years don't make a career, I wish Sydney the best but comparisons except for age marks are at least 8-10 years away but he off to a great start. Good question.

Answer 3

Look... fact is the term "greatest ever" can be seen on two levels... opinion, as you mention, or hardcore stats and ability...an educated approach, if you will. Acheivement is the most relaistic way to gauge a great. You can't argue with numbers when the player in question consitantly builds those numbers day in and day out (Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, et al).

As for comparing the old timers to today... I agree somewhat but favor the older generations as being more talented. You reference a player scoring 500 back then. Back then the NHL did not change the rules to open up scoring in the game. Not taking away from talent like a Crosby but it does help your quest to greatness. When you can pass across two lines then you can cherry pick, you can score much easier with a guy coming out of the box off a penalty. Thats just one example. Size of the rinks is another... more skating room. More refs per game to call more power plays per game and offer short-handed opps. The guys of yesterday did not aid from these benefits. You also mention power, size, speed of todays players. Agreed. Also, lets not forget sports medicine. I guy has a knee surgery and is back the same season. I can't even begin to count how many potential great players of yesterday had promising careers stopped short due to injuries that are as risky as the common cold in today's sports world.

I guess my point is you certainly can compare if you take the time to consider these factors. Guys like Crosby certainly can become great despite opening up the game but my hat is off to many of the guys from the older days thet shattered records and played hard every game considering everything I mentioned above. Now that takes greatness.

Answer 4

I don't think there is a "set" criteria for it. Cyclone Taylor was the first hockey great because he could do things that no one else can do at the time and it amazed people.

Maurice Richard was the first player to score 500 career goals. He also led the Habs to five consecutive Cups between '55-'60 while stretching a ten consecutive Finals appearance streak. Those who have seen him play say that just by looking into his eyes, you can see his ferocity and drive every time see goes to the net. Gordie Howe is also considered great because he was Richard's rival. That can't be an easy feat to begin with.

Gretzky broke records, Lemieux was his rival. Both showed they are both a level of genius at a very young age when it came to the game of hockey. Crosby demonstrated the same genius, but right now, he's just showing off talent and skill; he's not up to the level of Gretzky or Lemieux yet.

In this...era, if you want to call it, there're lots of guys who can perform at Crosby's level: Ovechkin, Malkin, Semin, Toews, Kane, and maybe even the Staals.

Oh, almost forgot. Sakic and Yzerman are also great because of their longetivity and leadership.

Answer 5

Determining the greatest is simple. It's whoever you believe it is. It is not a fact based question, its an opinion. You can base it on facts or numbers but they don't always tell the whole story. Some players scored more goals (Gretzky) but did it in an expanded schedule. How do you factor in the toll extra games may have had on the players body? You can't. So we are stuck with reading opinions to this question.
Some opinions are based on fact, if you only want these, limit your reading to answers by LITY, Bob Loblaw, Puck Dat or Zamdriver and a few others. These guys give great fact based answers in an entertaining fashion. The rest of us usually have only opinions, for the most part. But dammit, we'll post that opinion, anyway.

Answer 6

GREAT QUESTION. and awesome answers to the question.

Each person has thier own opinion on who's the greatest.
It's hard to compare two different players. It could be argued that if Mario didn't retire for those 3 years he could have passed up Gretzky. Who's to say. I mean I'm all about Mario Lemieux because I saw him play more than Gretzky. So I can't really comment. Opinions are based upon which star you see more. Like is someone from out west going to say I like Kopitar over Staal because I've seen Kopitar play more. It's just an opinion.

Answer 7

Completeness as a player, and what they did for the game. Gordie Howe was perhaps the most complete player ever. Mario was much more of a complete player then Wayne was, So I give him the nod in the greatness scale. Bobby Orr was a great defenseman and scorer, besides revolutionizing the game.

Captain Kid may find himself in this group, but Generational Talent is rare. he very well could be a great, but we need more time to see.

Injuries dont' really factor in at all. So what if mario had cancer and got injured on occasion? He played much better then everyone else in the games he did play, that's the point. he missed 20 games one season and won the scoring title. That's just scary good. Biobby Orr had to retire very early because of a completly busted knee- yet he's still a great.

Answer 8

crosby may become hte greatest but he is too young to tell he is doing better than gretzky at this point who is considered THE greatest by almost every hockey fan in the world but in my opinion he is not mario lemiuex's career was plagued with injuries and only came close to playing one full season and had 199 points he had jagr to work with who will be a HOFer but gretzky had what 4 even 5 HOFers on his edmonton team put wade belak on that first line and he could probly get around 100 points im not saying gretzky wasnt good he was amazing but he couldnt do what lemiuex could do and lemiuex could do everything gretzky could do i remeber when mario scored his through the legs shot he had two defenceman on his back hooking slashing holding him doing whatever they coudl and no penalty was called and he still scored if that was gretzky right when he was touched a penatly wouldve been called and a gretzky teammate would beat down the guy who touched him lemiuex had to go through so much more hardship in his career and still won two cups he was on a far less talented team and played hurt his whole career gretzky got injured once and ppl say thats what ended his greatness syd i think is a lot like gretzky in all the ways i just said but there is no1 even close to lemiuex in the game today or will ever be in my opinion ever again

Answer 9

BigFrank
at 19 yrs old, Gretzky had more goals, more assists, and fewer games than Crosby...and went farther in the playoffs

As first year players
Gretzky had more goals, more assists, and fewer games than Crosby..............and went farther in the playoffs.

So, can you elaborate on some points about Crosby having better stats than Gretzky at the same age?

Remember, Gretzky was not allowed to play in the NHL at 18...so he had to wait until the merger.

Answer 10

1