Gordie Howe or Maurice Richard?

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
20,370
17,535
Tokyo, Japan
The two top right-wingers of the first half-century of the NHL, if not the two best ever.

4acjy35o0edayj54.jpg
20041.jpg


I'm just wondering, who do you prefer as a better player, based on having seen them, or -- like most of us -- based on what you've read/seen/heard?

In particular, I wonder who people would prefer based on their career overlap, or based on each's prime. (We all know Gordie Howe had a nearly unsurpassed longevity.)

Anything you have to comment about these two players in comparison, or in relation to one another, is of interest.

cd84631579e69f43f8cdd7708471e31a.jpg
rockt421.jpg
 
Obviously never seen them personally. Would have not seen them even If I were born early enough, since I live on the other side of the planet.

I think Howe is offensively in the immortal territory with Gretzky/Lemieux. Probably a bit behind them, but closer to these two than the rest of the pack. Howe also is one of the rare superstars that can actually compare comfortably against Richards physicality and toughness. Richard was probably more insane, but both guys were extremely hard to play against.

The way I could see someone preferring Richard over Howe, is if the emphasis is on playoff goalscoring and frankly, not much else. Since outside of scoring those playoff goals, I don't see what Richard did better/longer when compared to Howe. Not even the (in)famous physicality and mean-streak.

Everything I've heard says that Howe was better than Richard and he was better for longer. Not necessarily in another realm. But better still.
 
Howe was definitely better. Richard was a more prolific playoff goal scorer, that's about it.

See round 1 of the HOH wingers project for plenty of discussion on both players, and a few different forms of statistical analysis.
 
Howe was top-5 in points nearly twice as many times as Richard was top-10 in points (20-11).

You might be surprised to know that he was also top-5 in goals more times than Richard was top-10 in goals (14-13).

Howe won the Hart trophy as many times as Richard was within striking distance of the trophy (top-5): 6-6.

In Howe's best 7 seasons, he averaged 126% of the point total of the second best scorer in the league. In Richard's best 7, he averaged 102% (ww2-adjusted score).
 
The number of times in the top-10 thing seems a little weighted to Howe inevitably because of his enormous(ly impressive) longevity. It would seem more fair to compare Richard's 15-year best to Howe's, for example. [I'm not saying, btw, that longevity isn't a significant factor in evaluating players overall -- it certainly is -- but just that, per this thread, I'm more interested in comparisons of the two players in each's prime.]

Still, I agree there's no doubt that Howe was the bigger point producer (vs. peers, for example) than Richard, as Seventieslord points out.

In Richard's 'defence', it can be pointed out that he beat Howe for 1st-team All Star finish in 1950, 1955, and 1956.
 
The number of times in the top-10 thing seems a little weighted to Howe inevitably because of his enormous(ly impressive) longevity. It would seem more fair to compare Richard's 15-year best to Howe's, for example. [I'm not saying, btw, that longevity isn't a significant factor in evaluating players overall -- it certainly is -- but just that, per this thread, I'm more interested in comparisons of the two players in each's prime.]

I think that the VsX best-7-years comparison does a good job of that.

You could do 8, 10, 12, 15 years even, but the wider you make the lens the more How dwarfs Richard.

[/quote]In Richard's 'defence', it can be pointed out that he beat Howe for 1st-team All Star finish in 1950, 1955, and 1956.[/QUOTE]

1955 was, by a good deal, Howe's worst statistical season from 1951 to 1966. The other two times Richard was merely Howe's statistical equal and it was pretty much a pick-em.

In any case, 1950 and 1956 were howe's 9th and 18th-best seasons by points per game.
 
It's not a fair comparison. It's like comparing Harvey to Orr, Beliveau/Mikita to Gretzky/Lemieux ect. Howe was just on a different level. Amongst mortals, like Harvey, Beliveau, Mikita, Richard has a great case as the greatest at his position. But there is a sharp dropoff from Howe to Richard. Incidentally, as great as Richard's playoff goal scoring was, Howe still beats him in playoff PPG.
 
Howe is the answer for me.

I think the more interesting debate is whether Richard is above Hull? I would say so, but from looking at the recent "Best Wingers Ever" forum, it looks like the majority disagree.
 
Maurice Richard is more of an icone because of his importance to people in Quebec.He has reached legendary status to an unheard of level.Howe is not as important to people of Detroit or anywhere else really.

But as a player, Howe was just better.
 
Maurice Richard is more of an icone because of his importance to people in Quebec.He has reached legendary status to an unheard of level.Howe is not as important to people of Detroit or anywhere else really.

But as a player, Howe was just better.

I would think that its more a matter of a canadian market versus an american one. I think Howe is higher rated in most places outside Quebec. More "Important" is somewhat subjective though. But what one can say with certainty is that even Richards much stronger canadian legacy has still only put him at about equal with Howe in terms of legend, which says a lot about how Howe actually on the the ice was considerably better. Richard is not even only overvalued compared to Howe, but against other lesser players of his day. The dude never even won an Art Ross.
 
Last edited:
Having seen both over the years, I would say that Howe was the better all around player. If both were playing at different rinks on the same night and I could only go to see one of them, my choice would be to go and see Richard. There was never a more exciting and entertaining player than "The Rocket."
 
I would think that its more a matter of a canadian market versus an american one. I think Howe is higher rated in most places outside Quebec. More "Important" is somewhat subjective though. But what one can say with certainty is that even Richards much stronger canadian legacy has still only put him at about equal with Howe in terms of legend, which says a lot about how Howe actually on the the ice was considerably better. Richard is not even only overvalued compared to Howe, but against other lesser players of his day. The dude never even won an Art Ross.

As players Howe was better.

Legend is a big thing however. Do not diminish Richard's. Richard held the all-time records for both goals AND points. He was the oldest player in the league near the end and managed some great playoffs as the oldest player in the league. But that is his on ice legacy.

Off-ice legacies... Are huge. Gordie Howe became Mr. Hockey. Owned every record until Gretzky came around. Played with his sons. Greatest hockey only legacy ever except perhaps Gretzky.

Then we have Beliveau. The Captain, the gentleman. The face of the Montreal Canadiens for life.

But Rocket's legacy, for whatever reason, is still greater them either of those men. From the hockey sweater book, to the Richard riots... Richard was the underdog, they oppressed Quebec frenchman. The biggest icon of a political movement. Not by his choice, but he was chosen. He was the symbol of the Quebecois becoming in charge of their province or nation. He was everyman suffering under "The Man"... And punching him in the face.

And I write this as a proud Canadian, who does not want Quebec to separate. Who lived in Hull for 5 years not a 10 minute walk from the statue of Rocket Richard.

But also I know history. I know Quebec before the quiet revolution was neo-facsist. Run by the catholic church, the mob, and big English businesses. I don't think it is as simple as the English. The Quebecois were oppressed by their religion, their own leaders, the people that owned most all the businesses, of either language.

For whatever reason Rocket was the hero. Of the entire nation of Quebecois, and his brashness and sheer will, helped the entire nation find their soul and helped end the oppression of the people. They got rid of the church, their corrupt leaders, the lack of awknowledgement of their language.

I mean as an aside. In the 40's and early 50's maps printed by gas companies in Quebec were mostly in only English, despite the vast majority of people being French. That is unimportant.

Rocket was a hero, despite being apolitical, and never even saying much about anything... He was still the hero of a huge social revolution in North America that brought modernity to a province that was decades behind the progress of other provinces.

And Rocket helped do this. By just being himself. Not even trying. Not even taking part politically. Would it have happened without him? Eventually, maybe he didn't matter that much. But I think he did. The Richard Riot was so instramental to what change was happening and what would come.

Because not just when he punched the linesman, or argued with management or the press or Clarence Campbell. Rocket took **** from no one. Ever. He didn't back down. Ever. And he was great. And quiet and he was not going to take being oppressed, or punched or anything. Whether it was the perfect timing, the perfect temperament. Whatever. Rocket was bigger then sports. Bigger then life.

And as an aside... The Forum literally had a cage between the cheap seats and the good ones. At the time. A wired fence inside to keep the rich and the poor. The unwashed masses, from those of a better class. It superceded language. It was about more. And Rocket was always the hero of the unhundled masses. For whatever reason. I don't think he sought it. He just was. And of any man, in any sport, in North America... The only more important historical figure and hero to a huge group of people as an athlete is Jackie Robinson. And even he might not of been quite as big a hero to his people as Rocket was to his people.
 
Howe was top-5 in points nearly twice as many times as Richard was top-10 in points (20-11).

You might be surprised to know that he was also top-5 in goals more times than Richard was top-10 in goals (14-13).

Howe won the Hart trophy as many times as Richard was within striking distance of the trophy (top-5): 6-6.

In Howe's best 7 seasons, he averaged 126% of the point total of the second best scorer in the league. In Richard's best 7, he averaged 102% (ww2-adjusted score).

This really stands out, especially considering that Richard is known as the goal scorer of that era.
 
This really stands out, especially considering that Richard is known as the goal scorer of that era.
Their eras are slightly different. Rocket became a scoring star in the fall of 1943, Gordie around 1949. Close, but given Gordie's superhuman longevity, it means he was still an NHL star until the end of the 60s, whereas Richard was basically done by 1958 or 1959.
 
I'd take Gordie Howe for the long haul, but there are plenty of situations in which I could see Maurice Richard being maybe my first choice out of everyone.
 
The only things I can come up with in defense of Richard is that I view him as a bit of a Kharlamov figure. Very unique, did things nobody else could, creative. Also scored goals at the most important of moments.

Other than that, it's Howe by a mile. I rank Richard below him, Hull, Jagr, and somewhere around Makarov.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad