TS: Gretzky vs. Mario

I was thinking of power play duration - used to be that a team was at a disadvantage for the duration of a penalty. So the team with a man advantage could score early and often. I thought it was because of Edmonton they did away with this rule (meaning that as soon as a goal is scored by the team with the advantage, both teams revert back to full strength), but it was actually because of the success of the old Canadien teams on the power play. So, mea culpa.

But, they did change a rule with regards to the way penalties are assessed; used to be with matching major penalties, both teams would spend the duration 4-on-4. but because the Oilers were so dominant in that situation, they switched it to the current state where matching majors leave both teams at 5-on-5.

I saw Gretzky play in his latter days, and he moved unlike any player I have ever seen. Lemieux had the obvious size advantage, he could hunch over the puck like he had a forcefield protecting it. As much as Mario hates the close quarters of the nhl game now, his game was built better for it then Gretzky's.

however, Gretzky is still the best.

Was he ever actually deranged? He just seemed annoyed.

I was searching for "Mario Kart" and came up with this thread, and I must say I'm severely disappointed.

Mario, by the way.

gretzky's not much of a coach, is he?

picking Mario over Gretzky is like picking Pippin over Jordan, pointless willful contrarianism - yep, Jordan sucked at baseball and Gretzky's not much of a coach, but anybody who'd take prime Mario over prime Gretzky on the ice is an idiot

Pippin would be Jari Kurri. Mario is more Dr. J.

come on now, pippen? mario was better than that. how about kobe?

I was talking about Mario bros. Mario.

I always thought Mario was the goal-scorer, Gretzky was the playmaker. Advantage: Gretzky. That said, I'd still take Yzerman over either one of them.

Mario was Randy Savage to Gretzky's Hulk Hogan.

I grew up watching Mario and saw him dominate the game like no other. I missed Gretzky's 200-point seasons, so I can't tell how good he was in his prime, but when they were both playing at the same time, I'd have to go with Mario on the way he can just take control of the match.

I can't believe that I didn't post to this thread before since this is an argument I've had thousands of times since 1987. The answer is Gretzky, for the reasons mentioned above, and in all of the countless articles written about him during his playing career, and since his retirement.

He dominated the sport in a way that is difficult to understand 20 years after the fact. The Oilers teams of the 80s were on such a different level, that they forced the league to actually change the rules.

He was also a symbol (I refrained from the term "ambassador") of the game in a way that Mario wasn't until much later in his career. In the late 80s, the two top players (sorry Stevie Y.) in the league were a skinny, perpetually smiling boy-next-door type, and a scowling giant, barely able to mask his disdain for the press.

Truth be told, anyone old enough to have seen him play will tell you that Bobby Orr was the best player ever. I only know about him from what I've heard, read and from old footage. I suspect though, that their may be something to that. That guy put up some ridiculous numbers in a very short career.

to be fair, mario didn't really speak english when he came to pittsburgh. he's definitely grown into the public role, though, and i'll always love him for the numerous times as a player and owner that he saved the penguins.

i love stevie y, but i don't think he really makes it into this argument. better to ask TS: Yzerman vs Messier

mario was the only hockey player i ever loved

I mentioned this 3 years ago, but when I saw Gretzky play, his lateral movement was insane. It was like he could move in any direction without any change in speed or effort.

"i love stevie y, but i don't think he really makes it into this argument."

I want so much to disagree with this, but I'm not sure that I do. My affection for the man knows no bounds, and I've never cared for Detroit as a team. He put up a lot of great numbers playing for some really bad Red Wings teams, was a captain at 21, won a couple of cups, and played on Canada's best line in the 2002 Olympics on basically one leg. Still, I think you're right. Damn it!

In your opinion, do Orr, Richard, and Howe merit consideration for best of all-time?

I think part of the Gretzky mystique also stems from the fact that he really didn't have any obvious physical gifts. He was skinny, and while he was a solid skater, Coffey could have skated circles around him. His shot was deadly accurate, but not overly hard. He just saw the game in a way that other people couldn't. That is scary in the best possible way. Lemieux was built to dominate.

i'm sure they do--but i never saw them play. it's really tough to compare things like that across eras.

it seems at least conceivable that crosby could approach gretzky's greatness, but despite the "new" rules, the league is still more defensive than it was in the '80s, so i kind of doubt that crosby (or anyone) will approach gretzky's numbers.

xpost That makes a lot of sense, but also brings up one obvious point he lacked: the phyisical element. I didn't see a whole lot of Edmonton-era Gretzky. Was he much of a defensive player? Could he play the body if necessary? That aspect of the game should play into the consideration, surely.

Edmonton's defense was Fuhr + "you score 5, we score 6 lolz". Gretzky's physical element = Dave Semenko.

How was the game less defensive in the 80s? I'm not refuting, I jsut wnat to know (I didn't start watching until after the ottawa/ tampa/ anaheim/ florida expansions cos i am a young'un)

Could he play the body if necessary?

no, but there are anecdotes (many of them retold again & again during the runup to retirement) about how if you hard-checked him, he'd pretty much go into score-at-will mode - the physical game isn't really a necessary quantity for a guy who just sees all the angles at once. Gretzky just seemed able to perceive the entire playfield & all the potential action developing on it at once.

Players are bigger, talent is more diluted, left wing lock/trap was popularized. Think goalie equipment was smaller then too.
xpost

I did a school project on Mario Lemieux in grade school, and I just remembered that due to the odd placement of his eyes on his face, it gave him something like a 130º degree field of vision where normal people only had 110º or something. This was in his autobiography (or maybe it was a biography, I forget). They did some tests anyway and he could see stuff in his peripheral way before average people. It blew my mind as a kid and I always imagined everyone looked really thin to him until I realized that they looked normal to him because that's all he's ever seen then I was like "wait so red to me might be blue to someone else and there's no way anyone will ever know! some people might see all fucked up, like the alternate colors in Super Game Boy, and that's totally normal to them!"

Wow, that story derailed huh