Where does Maurice Richard rank in your opinion of all time greatest players? | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Where does Maurice Richard rank in your opinion of all time greatest players?

Baberham Lincoln

Baberham Lincoln

Registered User
Nov 5, 2019
318
303
Toronto
There are more legends about Maurice Richard than any other NHLer from movies, heritage commercials, books, etc.

But he's rarely mentioned these days in the list of all time greatest. Not part of the big four. Not in the top 10. So where does he rank?

Edit: i mean i don't see him mentioned in the top 10 not saying i don't think he deserves to be
 
Last edited:
Larry Hanson said:
Too hard to compare eras for multiple reasons, same reason that Howe is considered #4 of the big 4. Most people aren't old enough to remember him play, I'm probably one of the older people on here and I started watching seriously in the early 80's.
Click to expand...

I get that but most of us have never seen Howe or Orr play but most agree they're in the top 4
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight, jigglysquishy and DickSmehlik
You'll start to see players fall out of rankings as less people have seen them.

You mention Howe. In about 10 years, maybe less he won't be a top 4 listed player. Maybe even less time.
 
Baberham Lincoln said:
I get that but most of us have never seen Howe or Orr play but most agree they're in the top 4
Click to expand...

You can actually go back and watch them play though. Who today can actually say they watched Richard and therefore make somewhat of a fair comparison?
 
Buck Naked said:
You can actually go back and watch them play though. Who today can actually say they watched Richard and therefore make somewhat of a fair comparison?
Click to expand...

True. I guess the only comparison I can make is the rivalry with Howe and if Howe was once considered the GOAT then wouldn't Richard be his Lemieux?
 
In terms of "biggest legend of the sport" - I may have him top 3.

Overall as a player? I'd say top ~10-15 or so. He's one of those players who has an argument for#5, but so do a lot of others, so I think he falls closer to ~10-15.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 57special
Zuluss said:
Richard is a top5 goal-scorer ever and a top10 player ever.
Howe, btw, is as close to Gretzky as it gets, and should probably be ranked #2 in the Big Four.
Click to expand...

I certainly feel there is a strong similarity between the Gretzky-Lemieux and the Howe-Richard duos. I think Richard might have been the better player, and the story goes that his points were purposefully undercounted while Howe's were overcounted, but Howe just had an absolute monster longevity while Richard, like Lemieux, had a much shorter career.

So who was better? Is it the peak that matters most or the career? I think your answer to the first depends on your answer to the second.
 
ismelofhockey said:
I certainly feel there is a strong similarity between the Gretzky-Lemieux and the Howe-Richard duos. I think Richard might have been the better player, and the story goes that his points were purposefully undercounted while Howe's were overcounted, but Howe just had an absolute monster longevity while Richard, like Lemieux, had a much shorter career.
Click to expand...

Richard had a long career. His first Hart nomination came in 1945 (the 50-in-50 season). His last Hart nomination came in 1955, when he was 33 and won his last goal-scoring title. He was also on the 2nd All-star team as early as 1944 and as late as 1957.
His play did decline somewhat abruptly after he was injured in RS of 1957/58; his SC run in 1958 (11 goals in 10 games) was his swan song. He was almost 37 though, so it is hard to complain about lack of longevity.
By that time, Richard was considered the best player of all-time, and Howe was working on passing him (and Howe did pass him in the end).
Richard's (and Beliveau's) lack of Art Rosses is caused by the fact that most teams at that time rolled three lines, and Canadiens could afford rolling four lines, so their stars could play less in RS and be fresher for PO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forceofnature, Thenameless and beowulf
Ask any fanbase what they want more than anything else, and they’ll all answer the same way: a winner.

They’d also like to see their team’s best player lead the club to victory over and over again.

That’s Richard’s legacy. He actually did what many contemporary fans dream of seeing their team’s star player do.

Forget the regular season performance — ultimately, Montreal won 8 Cups during Richard’s 15 playoff seasons and during those 8 Cup runs he played 71 total SC games and scored 51 goals (.718/game). He scored an incredible 18 game winning goals during his playoff career, including 6 overtime winners. In playoff action, Richard AVERAGED 4.3 goals per 7 game series during the absolute lowest scoring era in NHL history, and I’m even including his final few seasons when he was a genuine elder statesman.

Yes, he played in the O6 era when cups were won in just 2 rounds. But the pressure to perform in those 2 rounds, where one crappy game meant so much more to a team’s fortunes, was intense, especially in Montreal. Richard was expected to perform at a Superman level and he did, time after time. The Habs routinely faced the Red Wings for the Cup in the 1950s — 2 extraordinary dynasties (imagine Richard, Beliveau, Harvey and Plante going up against Howe, Lindsay, Red Kelly and Sawchuk year after epic year). They all posted superb numbers, but it was The Rocket who shone brightest when it most mattered.

If your measure of greatness is being the best player on the ice when the SC is at stake, over and over again for 15 years, the only players who challenge Richard are Gretzky and Patrick Roy. Until they came along, Richard was the gold standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl, DJ Man, Smirnov2Chistov and 6 others
There has been a lot of great playets over the years, so Rocket will fall a pretty far bit.

I think him and Hull are two legends that has been overcomplished by many of the next generations talent.
Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin, Jagr, Forsberg, Selänne, Roy, Hasek all have them beat for ex. Probably even kucherov. I mean 128 points in this era.
 
To quote myself from another thread:

From the early 1990's onwards (ie after Lemieux firmly established himself as one of the Big Four - which I'd argue was no later than spring 1992), Maurice Richard seemed to be almost universally considered the #5 player all-time. It's not that you didn't have people argue for Hull or Morenz (as examples), but he seemed to be the most common pick for the 5th spot by a wide margin. It's only been in the past 15 years that his reputation seems to have dropped.

I agree with TDMM - part of his reputation was as a French-Canadian icon. Growing up in Quebec (though as an anglophone), it's hard to exaggerate his cultural significance. Of course, cultural significance and playing ability are separate concepts - and I often wondered (as an outsider, looking in on French-Canadian culture) if his fanatical fans were conflating two different things. Still, he seemed to have widespread support from nearly everyone (francophone or not).

It seems like over the past 15 years or so, there's been an over-reaction in the other direction. I've seen people say (on the main boards - for whatever that's worth) that it's laughable for him to be considered a top ten player all-time. The main knock on him is he never won an Art Ross. That ignores that, had he not peaked at the same time as peak Gordie Howe, he'd have at least two scoring titles (1951 and 1954), and probably three (1953 - depending on what Lindsay did without Howe). Add to that a very long, consistent prime (14 consecutive years as a first- or second-team all-star), a ton of consideration for the Hart trophy ("only" one win, but six times a finalist), and a (deserved) reputation as arguably the 2nd greatest playoff performer in NHL history - and there's a pretty clear case for him being in the top ten.

As a player, he has his weaknesses. His playmaking is comparatively poor (I've made the same criticism of Hull and Ovechkin). His most famous accomplishment (50 goals in 50 games) was done when the league's talent was depleted. There are different accounts of his defensive play, but it seems to range from average to poor.

All that being said - I had him ranked 12th when I submitted my list for the top 220 project. I suspect that's pretty low on HOH. But having him in the top ten is perfectly defensible. And if we're strictly talking about importance to the history of the sport and cultural significance (rather than playing ability), I think only Gretzky would be unquestionably ahead of him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ottawa, Tad Mikowsky, Voight and 8 others
Hockey Outsider said:
To quote myself from another thread:

From the early 1990's onwards (ie after Lemieux firmly established himself as one of the Big Four - which I'd argue was no later than spring 1992), Maurice Richard seemed to be almost universally considered the #5 player all-time. It's not that you didn't have people argue for Hull or Morenz (as examples), but he seemed to be the most common pick for the 5th spot by a wide margin. It's only been in the past 15 years that his reputation seems to have dropped.

I agree with TDMM - part of his reputation was as a French-Canadian icon. Growing up in Quebec (though as an anglophone), it's hard to exaggerate his cultural significance. Of course, cultural significance and playing ability are separate concepts - and I often wondered (as an outsider, looking in on French-Canadian culture) if his fanatical fans were conflating two different things. Still, he seemed to have widespread support from nearly everyone (francophone or not).

It seems like over the past 15 years or so, there's been an over-reaction in the other direction. I've seen people say (on the main boards - for whatever that's worth) that it's laughable for him to be considered a top ten player all-time. The main knock on him is he never won an Art Ross. That ignores that, had he not peaked at the same time as peak Gordie Howe, he'd have at least two scoring titles (1951 and 1954), and probably three (1953 - depending on what Lindsay did without Howe). Add to that a very long, consistent prime (14 consecutive years as a first- or second-team all-star), a ton of consideration for the Hart trophy ("only" one win, but six times a finalist), and a (deserved) reputation as arguably the 2nd greatest playoff performer in NHL history - and there's a pretty clear case for him being in the top ten.

As a player, he has his weaknesses. His playmaking is comparatively poor (I've made the same criticism of Hull and Ovechkin). His most famous accomplishment (50 goals in 50 games) was done when the league's talent was depleted. There are different accounts of his defensive play, but it seems to range from average to poor.

All that being said - I had him ranked 12th when I submitted my list for the top 220 project. I suspect that's pretty low on HOH. But having him in the top ten is perfectly defensible. And if we're strictly talking about importance to the history of the sport and cultural significance (rather than playing ability), I think only Gretzky would be unquestionably ahead of him.
Click to expand...

Good post. I don’t know if he’s the best Hab of all time, but he’s certainly the greatest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Montreal Shadow and Hockey Outsider
He does seem to not always get acknowledged or considered as one of the top 10 best, and as others have said it's largely due to his era and being overshadowed by Howe. Richard was smaller and missed more time than Howe which probably hurt him over the years in comparisons due to how few games Howe actually missed throughout his career.

One thing that does stand out is that he is one of only 2 players from his era to have over 500 goals, and only 7 players did it in fewer games. In comparison to Howe, Richard reached 500 in about 180 less games which really speaks to his ability to score. He's also still in the top 10 in playoff goals and goals per game in the playoffs. He was at his peak one of the best goal scorers of all time, he just didn't have the longevity (or perhaps endurance) that Howe did, although he did play 18 years.
 
Zuluss said:
Richard is a top5 goal-scorer ever and a top10 player ever.
Howe, btw, is as close to Gretzky as it gets, and should probably be ranked #2 in the Big Four.
Click to expand...
howe was not above his peers like Mario was. Mario dominating jagr in art Ross races is more impressive then Richard and his 2 playoff round career dominance
 
Baberham Lincoln said:
There are more legends about Maurice Richard than any other NHLer from movies, heritage commercials, books, etc.

But he's rarely mentioned these days in the list of all time greatest. Not part of the big four. Not in the top 10. So where does he rank?

Edit: i mean i don't see him mentioned in the top 10 not saying i don't think he deserves to be
Click to expand...

Well, the reason for that is pretty simple and, at the end of the day, has very little to do with him being the greatest of the greats (he was when he retired, but he is still very significant over 60 years later).

Name me a hockey player who is more culturally significant for his fanbase and, most importantly, his people? Maurice Richard was a symbol of French-Canadian emancipation. He was the guy that showed us that we could be great too. In a way, his legend led to the Quiet Revolution (which is ironic considering he campaigned for Duplessis). Of course, it is more complicated than that and the evolution of Quebec is closely tied to the evolution of the rest of the West, but, still, Richard has been made a symbol of that capacity for French-Canadians to achieve great things. "Maître chez nous"... in a way ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rfournier103 and Classy Goon
It’s easier IMO to start with his ranking at his own position and go from there.

Among RWs, most people have him ranked behind Howe. There’s less consensus about his ranking against Jagr, but let’s just say it’s close. Most people would have him ranked above other elites like Lafleur, Makarov, Bossy, etc. So he’s either the #2 or #3 RW depending how you rate him against Jagr.

Among wingers overall, most would have him below Hull and now Ovechkin, but above Lindsay and the other strong LWs. So consensus would have him the #5 or #6 winger.

Now add centers. Virtually nobody has him above Lemieux and certainly not Gretzky, so he’d be no higher than #7 among forwards. The next tier of centers includes Beliveau, Crosby, Mikita, Morenz, Clarke, Esposito, Nighbor, and Messier (who was also a LW) and it is very much up for debate where Richard fits in with that group. So he’d be somewhere in the 7-15 range among forwards.

It gets much harder when you add defensemen and goalies. Nobody would have him over Bobby Orr, so that pushes him to at least #8 overall. He could remain as high as 8 or drop as low as 20+ depending how you rate him against Bourque, Harvey, Shore, Lidstrom, Roy, Hasek, Plante, Hall, Sawchuk.

So somewhere between #8 - #25 as an overall player, depending on your preferences and biases. I will just say, ranking him as low as #25 would likely require some inconsistent judgments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Czech Your Math, barbu, jigglysquishy and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom