Howe accomplished about ten times more than Lemieux in his career, in a much lower scoring era. Unless this is a "could have been" poll, Howe is head and shoulders above Mario.
I figured it was more of an "in their primes"-type deal...
I figured it was more of an "in their primes"-type deal...
As Thornton_19 posted (with links), Howe was better in his prime (or at worst, just as good as Lemiuex), as well as having the much better career.
It's strange that Lemiuex is beating Howe so badly, in all honesty. I'd be curious to read some reasons why Lemiuex is clearly better in so many minds.
no goalies on this list yet? add plante and sawchuk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck
As Thornton_19 posted (with links), Howe was better in his prime (or at worst, just as good as Lemiuex), as well as having the much better career.
It's strange that Lemiuex is beating Howe so badly, in all honesty. I'd be curious to read some reasons why Lemiuex is clearly better in so many minds.
Its mostly because a good portion of this section have no clue that 95 points in 1953 was equal to 175 points in 1989. People just see a high number and think "Wow"
As Thornton_19 posted (with links), Howe was better in his prime (or at worst, just as good as Lemiuex), as well as having the much better career.
It's strange that Lemiuex is beating Howe so badly, in all honesty. I'd be curious to read some reasons why Lemiuex is clearly better in so many minds.
It could be because more people here saw Lemieux play, or maybe they're factoring in his dominance on the ice more than his games missed due to injures. Yes I know "what ifs," "phantom points," "useless to the team when he's injured," etc. but maybe not as many people see it that way. Another factor, as already mentioned, is that Lemieux has the flashier numbers so that could be why (it happens with Gretzky as well).
In any case it's no more ridiculous than you saying that Howe accomplished ten times more and is head and shoulers above Lemieux. Why aren't you picking on Gretzky winning #1 by such a landslide like you are with Lemieux?
It could be because more people here saw Lemieux play, or maybe they're factoring in his dominance on the ice more than his games missed due to injures. Yes I know "what ifs," "phantom points," "useless to the team when he's injured," etc. but maybe not as many people see it that way. Another factor, as already mentioned, is that Lemieux has the flashier numbers so that could be why (it happens with Gretzky as well).
In any case it's no more ridiculous than you saying that Howe accomplished ten times more and is head and shoulers above Lemieux. Why aren't you picking on Gretzky winning #1 by such a landslide like you are with Lemieux?
There is a big difference between Gretzky and Lemieux - I think Howe is a lot closer to Gretzky than he is to Lemieux.
There is a big difference between Gretzky and Lemieux - I think Howe is a lot closer to Gretzky than he is to Lemieux.
That's your opinion. I don't really agree but my point was that on the History of Hockey board Gretzky was barely ranked #1 over Orr (and I believe that's only because somebody left Orr out of the top 4) yet here he was easily ranked #1 by a mile.
I don't really agree but my point was that on the History of Hockey board Gretzky was barely ranked #1 over Orr (and I believe that's only because somebody left Orr out of the top 4) yet here he was easily ranked #1 by a mile.
Correct, one (out of 23) voters didn't have Bobby Orr in their top four.
For the record, you can find our voting results here and our discussions at the bottom of this post.
Correct, one (out of 23) voters didn't have Bobby Orr in their top four.
For the record, you can find our voting results here and our discussions at the bottom of this post.
Even without that voter, Gretzky would have still taken 1st placehaving more 2nd place votes than Orr. But yes, on the HOH list, just like the original THN list, the first three picks are quite close, with Mario more or less a consensus #4.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 02-09-2009 at 10:31 PM.
