How good was Howie Morenz?

[authentic]

Very unlikely Morenz was as good as Modano or Perreault, and almost no chance he was among the 100-best hockey players ever.

There weren't very many people playing hockey in the early decades; therefore the "stars" get overrated in a small pool.

Any real historian who looks at this objectively and honestly would come to the same conclusion.

So all those people are lying say he was as fast and dynamic with the puck as Orr? I get there could be some exaggeration and nostalgia going on there but not to the point where he wouldn’t be a top 100 player. I believe he was better than Modano but most likely no better than Malkin. No real way of knowing without some more full length footage of the 1920s.

 

[The Panther]

I don't even understand this way of thinking -- "He wasn't as good as Modano"; "He was better than Malkin", etc.

To me, it's absurd to directly compare players from 70-90 years apart (the more so, when none of us actually saw one of them play). To me, it's like saying, "The 1920 Ford Model-T was better than the 2019 Ford Fusion Hybrid, but one notch below the 2022 Ford EcoSport."

I mean, yeah, you can have that opinion, I guess, but what does it even mean? Obviously, if we time-teleported 1927 Howie Morenz in his 1920s' equipment to an NHL game in 2017 against Malkin, Morenz would look tiny and be struggling to keep up. Likewise, the Ford Model-T would look like a gas-guzzling, sluggish go-cart compared to any modern car.

The point is how the Ford Model-T did compared to its own era and competition. Likewise, Morenz. In this sense -- which, I think (with perhaps only some minor context otherwise applied) is the correct sense -- Morenz is way better than Modano.

 

[MadLuke]

The point is how the Ford Model-T did compared to its own era and competition.

Not purely, there 2 points going at the same time (making it an impossible and forever discussions, which is good for this message board)

A gray vague sense of how good compared to his own era yes and then how good the competition was in that era.

Take Ali-Frazer-Foreman legacy, they can get a pass to have loss to each others, heavyweight boxing went from being one of the most prestigious and well paid endeavor on earth, Ali was maybe at some point the biggest worldwide star, with boxer having 100+ high level fight in their careers to a world in which international level athlete with good size can make good/better money in bastketball-football-soccer-etc... without having to fight like that and star boxer fighting 1 time every 18 months.

2014 team Canada was maybe the most dominant Team Canada in a best on best tournament ever, does not mean it was the best team Canada it could mean they did not had to face a team that was of the level of the 1980s soviets.

Yes we want to evaluate how good of an athlete and hockey mind they had and not an exercise in time machine, but how good relative to their peers is not the only thing that matter for that, how good as their peers over time matter a lot.

We can easily imagine the 10th best Canadian in 1993 was better than the 5th one in 1928 (or 2003)

 

[authentic]

I don't even understand this way of thinking -- "He wasn't as good as Modano"; "He was better than Malkin", etc.

To me, it's absurd to directly compare players from 70-90 years apart (the more so, when none of us actually saw one of them play). To me, it's like saying, "The 1920 Ford Model-T was better than the 2019 Ford Fusion Hybrid, but one notch below the 2022 Ford EcoSport."

I mean, yeah, you can have that opinion, I guess, but what does it even mean? Obviously, if we time-teleported 1927 Howie Morenz in his 1920s' equipment to an NHL game in 2017 against Malkin, Morenz would look tiny and be struggling to keep up. Likewise, the Ford Model-T would look like a gas-guzzling, sluggish go-cart compared to any modern car.

The point is how the Ford Model-T did compared to its own era and competition. Likewise, Morenz. In this sense -- which, I think (with perhaps only some minor context otherwise applied) is the correct sense -- Morenz is way better than Modano.

For sure, it’s comparing peer domination and taking into account the level of competition that makes people question if he’s even better than Modano in that sense I believe.

 

[The Panther]

As I said, there's some level of context we need to apply -- @MadLuke and @authentic give two such examples -- and I think everyone would agree that winning 5 scoring titles in a row in the 1920s is less impressive than doing the same in the 1950s, which is arguably less impressive than doing so in the 1990s.

Even so... Morenz was popularly said to be the very best player of his era, and he was voted best player in the history of the sport, pre-1950 (a quarter-century after his peak ended). Modano from 1993-94 to 2002-03 was 10th in points-per-game, with career-best point finishes of: 8, 9, 10.

Morenz was better.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't even understand this way of thinking -- "He wasn't as good as Modano"; "He was better than Malkin", etc.

To me, it's absurd to directly compare players from 70-90 years apart (the more so, when none of us actually saw one of them play). To me, it's like saying, "The 1920 Ford Model-T was better than the 2019 Ford Fusion Hybrid, but one notch below the 2022 Ford EcoSport."

I mean, yeah, you can have that opinion, I guess, but what does it even mean? Obviously, if we time-teleported 1927 Howie Morenz in his 1920s' equipment to an NHL game in 2017 against Malkin, Morenz would look tiny and be struggling to keep up. Likewise, the Ford Model-T would look like a gas-guzzling, sluggish go-cart compared to any modern car.

The point is how the Ford Model-T did compared to its own era and competition. Likewise, Morenz. In this sense -- which, I think (with perhaps only some minor context otherwise applied) is the correct sense -- Morenz is way better than Modano.

I get where you are going with this but this is actually a terrible analogy because people have not advanced at all like cars have. People are not technology (yet!), we USE technology.

Yes, the average North American is larger than in the way back but that is again do to agriculture technology and not anything about the players. (Players are smaller now than 20 years ago too so..)

Equipment has improved tremendously and for sure sports medicine and science have.. and there has been a move over time from general athleticism to specialized selection and training.. but all these things together make the difference appear much larger than it is based on the inputs.

Human beings just haven't changed that much. Everyone is just standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

[MadLuke]

I think at least we need to be open at the idea that he was better than anyone now, in absolute, there is no reason for a better than Modano athlete to be born at any time and to have chosen hockey.

Very hard to tell either too, I would agree that we cannot know for sure that when Modano was a clear top 5 center in the league that the 4 better than him were not also better than any of Morenz competition.

Modano from 1993-94 to 2002-03 was 10th in points-per-game, with career-best point finishes of: 8, 9, 10.

Among Canadian center, Modano during that time would have been quite high

Second to Lindros in +/-, third in points, third in ppg among the 500 games or more played, second in goals.
Third in playoff points, 4th in playoff ppg

Among Canadians is top 10 finish look more like 4, 6, 6.

I do agree the car analogy can be clunky here, the claim he is that Morenz was a better athlete or not (i.e. would it have been likely than training in the 90s he would be better than malkin or not), while a Corrola is just better than a Model T at being a car.

Maybe too extreme in the other way, but chess player is a good analogy I feel like where it is so easy to imagine anyone in the Top 200 today would destroy Fisher in chess, well old Kasparov of today would destroy the 1988 version, while the 1988 version was a much better chess player than the old one has your brain slow down and endurance-collagen, etc.. as well, there is only a knowledge difference not a skills at chess one.

It is possible that Bobby Fisher had the highest peak of any chess player ever, no one suggest that putting him in a time machine that he would day 1 be in the top 1000, he would get crushed by people that know a lot of is game by heart and mountain of knowledge since his time and we cannot know how much is talent would transfert to modern day chess which is a bit of a different game.

Heavyweight boxing is an other one where how attractive, popular, large the talent pool (when you could be 5f10-200 pound and compete), talent pool among war veteran and other hard life growing up type, it is easy to see it is up and down flow in talents and not just getting better and better, even if in a time machine way maybe the latest one win it (but that a rare sport where it is really maybe not, there is not much equipment change, rule and so on).

 

[The Panther]

I get where you are going with this but this is actually a terrible analogy because people have not advanced at all like cars have. People are not technology (yet!), we USE technology.

Yes, the average North American is larger than in the way back but that is again do to agriculture technology and not anything about the players. (Players are smaller now than 20 years ago too so..)

Yes, I was thinking more so about equipment, fitness standards, familiarity with modern standards of play, etc. I was not thinking about size of players.

I think at least we need to be open at the idea that he was better than anyone now,

Agree. It's like there's an aversion to even considering the possiblity that people in the past were better than now. They very well might have been. It's not like people are any physically different.

 

[authentic]

As I said, there's some level of context we need to apply -- @MadLuke and @authentic give two such examples -- and I think everyone would agree that winning 5 scoring titles in a row in the 1920s is less impressive than doing the same in the 1950s, which is arguably less impressive than doing so in the 1990s.

Even so... Morenz was popularly said to be the very best player of his era, and he was voted best player in the history of the sport, pre-1950 (a quarter-century after his peak ended). Modano from 1993-94 to 2002-03 was 10th in points-per-game, with career-best point finishes of: 8, 9, 10.

Morenz was better.

I agree

 

[sr edler]

It's hard to tell how much impact WW1 had on sports or things in general.

But hockey back then was more democratic, I think, you only needed a pair of skates and a heavy-ass stick that wouldn't break, and you were kinda thrown to the wolves, so to speak. I'm talking early 1900s here, into the pro era and the 1910s, not 1880s or 1890s.

But nowadays you need all types of padding as well, and helmets, and super expensive skates, and tons of stick replacements each year, and daddy or mommy probably need to drive you around to all the hot spot venues as well. Modern hockey's certainly not an every man's sport.