Gretzky vs Lemieux: Who's game would translate better into modern NHL?
- Thread starter User9992
- Start date
Cianide
Under New Management
- Jun 11, 2022
- 647
- 307
Gretzky. Always Gretzky. The guy's playmaking and vision was off the charts. Just watch old highlights of his game. The guy just stands out.
I would say Gretzky to but too bad there wasn’t a both option. Both the small elite play malking forward and the big skilled sniping center excel,today.
- Jun 22, 2018
- 8,953
- 21,205
Gretzky dominates any era completely, not to mention todays game suits him to a tee
SeanMoneyHands
Registered User
- Apr 18, 2019
- 15,278
- 14,626
Nathaniel Skywalker
DIG IN!!! RiGHT NOW!!!
- Oct 18, 2013
- 14,241
- 5,900
The love affair this board has with Gretzky is getting pretty ridiculous. The answer to this question is clearly Lemieux. We all saw what happened in the dead puck era. Lemieux maintained his production into old age. Gretzky's goal scoring fell off a cliff as goaltending got better league wide. And it's not hard to see why. Just like at his Oilers highlights. A bunch of goals through 80 mph slappers from the blue line which largely went in because goalies at the time didn't know what the hell they were doing. Shots that would have maybe a 0.05% chance of going in nowadays. Lemieux showed his game could adapt across eras because of his vast array of physical tools. It's like in basketball where you have a 7 footer who can shoot 3's. It won't matter what the circumstances are or what kind of defense you throw at him. He would succeed because he could simply just shoot over everyone because he's so damn tall. Lemieux would succeed no matter what for similar reasons.
tabness
be a playa 🇵🇸
- Apr 4, 2014
- 2,923
- 5,248
Both would be easily the best players in the league now but I think Lemieux is more "era proof" than Gretzky, and that's why I happen to think he's probably the best player ever. Lemieux probably wouldn't enjoy the same advantage over Gretzky in this era as compared to the dead puck era though.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,377
- 11,300
Perhaps in your imagination.
Here in real life Lemieux had one good half season after age 31.
Gretzky went from the greatest goal scorer ever in his 20s to a rich man's Joe Thornton in his 30s. He had one 40 goal season during that time, and it was during a high-scoring season. A jump to a different era completely neutralized a major part of his game.
DrDangles
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2013
- 3,822
- 1,707
Gretz would be the best playmaker in the league, but Mario would be the better all around offensive threat.
99 couldn't blow 80mph slapshots past standup goalies today so I think his goalscoring takes a much harder hit than Mario's.
99 couldn't blow 80mph slapshots past standup goalies today so I think his goalscoring takes a much harder hit than Mario's.
This is Lemieux and it isn’t close.
Gretzky’s playmaking would hold up but his last truly elite goalscoring season was at age 25 and didn’t really hold up even in his prime in his own era, much less teleported 35 years into the future.
Gretzky’s playmaking would hold up but his last truly elite goalscoring season was at age 25 and didn’t really hold up even in his prime in his own era, much less teleported 35 years into the future.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,377
- 11,300
Being a quitter and a poor teammate doesn't translate to any era.
This is Gretzky and it's not close.
This is Gretzky and it's not close.
I Hate Blake Coleman
Bandwagon Burner
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2003
- 22,113
- 10,594
Both would dominate and be the top two players in the league. But Lemieux has already shown he can dominate in a low scoring league, while it would be more speculation on Gretzky.
I think Lemieux if we’re looking at how skilled they were in their time periods and just making them train and have the equipment of today. I agree with others that his goal scoring ability translated better against butterfly goalies with a greater edge than Gretzky would have in playmaking. I think Gretzky would be better if both grew up in this era, as I think he was the smarter player and the harder worker, and would figure out what works.
Then he had 63 points in his first 34 games as a 37 year old in 2002-03.
- Oct 9, 2012
- 32,573
- 31,514
Felidae
Registered User
- Sep 30, 2016
- 12,015
- 15,128
Probably has something to do with him only exceeding 30 games played twice from the ages of 35 to 40. He didn't even play from 32 to 34.
Also. He had 2 great seasons, and they happen to be the only 2 where he played more than half a season. He was still 1st in PPG at 35 years old and 2nd in PPG at 37.
Your post really comes across disingenuous.
Pizza!Pizza!
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2018
- 4,828
- 7,370
It's Lemieux. Take away the cancer and broken back and I don't even think Gretz would have all of his records.
McVespa99
Registered User
- May 13, 2007
- 6,052
- 2,795
I think Gretzky was smart enough as a player that he would find other ways to score in this era. Not to mention he would be stronger and faster, have better equipment and sticks. He wouldnt be trying to blow 80 mph slapshots past goalies. No one even takes slapshots anymore and he wouldnt either. Gretzky was the greatest and probably still would be in any era because his greatest asset as a player was his hockey mind.
And by the way I think they both would be dominant now
KoozNetsOff 92
Hala Madrid
- Apr 6, 2016
- 8,567
- 8,235
And what about Gretzky's back? Or is this the usual Lemieux fantasy where only he gets perfect health but no one else does?
Pizza!Pizza!
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2018
- 4,828
- 7,370
I do not recall Gretz having major back issues. Lemieuxs was so bad he literally could not tie his own skates.
KoozNetsOff 92
Hala Madrid
- Apr 6, 2016
- 8,567
- 8,235
Gretzky's back was destroyed by Suter in the 1991 Canada cup. It's obvious not just in the stats but to anyone who actually watched him play that he was never the same player after that hit. The difference is Gretzky just kept his mouth shut and played while Lemieux was a well known whiner and drama queen.
