Goal GOAT Poll

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

4 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

No, I was ******* kidding.  Yes, it's a serious question.  How many goals do you think Ovechkin would score in the 80's?  How about Hull?  None of us have any idea.  We can only compare how that player scored compared to his peers and make guesses as to the rest.  Gretzky widely outscored his peers in goals during the 80's.  Ovechkin has done the same in his career.  To suggest that Ovechkin would score 1,000 goals easily in Gretzky's era is stupid because it only takes into account GPG as compared to eras.  Players change over time.  They get bigger, stronger, better equipment, etc.  

Anthony Mantha would score 60 goals every season if he suddenly got transported to the 1980's, with no other adjustments.  Doesn't work that way.  You need to think harder on this.  

Back into the weeds

I don't care how much Kurri scored or how much Patty Kane scored. I care how much Gretsky and Ovie scored. And Ovie scores more per game in a less scoring era. Talk about player size, equipment, styles, euros, as much as you want. It's a all a wash. You say you don't wanna compare eras, but then you do just that.

[kliq 3,755]

1 hour ago, GMRwings1983 said:

I can play the bolded game too.  

Bold 1:  I understand you're talking about goal scoring.  You can certainly make a good argument that Ovechkin is a better goal scorer over his career than Gretzky, even though his peak and dominance isn't as high.  Why did I bring up points and not just goals?  Simply because Gretzky still led the league in points in the 90's, despite the expansion of European players.  Why wouldn't he still lead the league in goals, during the 80's, when he was younger and better, even if the best European players (Soviets) were playing in the NHL in the 80's?  I'm pretty sure Soviets playing in the NHL wouldn't have changed Gretzky's goal numbers in the 80's.  He did very well in International competitions.  If you're suggesting his goal scoring in the 90's went down because of more European players, I don't agree.  There were other reasons.  

Bold 2:  This is simply false.  I can see how goalies are better schooled nowadays, but outside of Tretiak, Gretzky was playing against the best goalies of his era.  You can't just transport Ben Bishop with his giant pads into the 80's, as he would instantly become the best goalie in the world.  Even Jimmy Howard would look good playing back then.  Conversely, Grant Fuhr or Billy Smith transported via time machine would struggle in today's era.  This doesn't mean Gretzky didn't face any good goalies or that goaltending sucked in the 80's.  This is not the way to compare different eras.  He dominated who he had to play against.  Ovechkin is playing against giant goalies who are well schooled and wear lots of pads, but he's also bigger, stronger, and uses better hockey equipment.  Gretzky, Kurri, and Bossy didn't use the kind of sticks players use today.  

I don't see how the forwards or defensemen are better today.  The best defensemen of the 80's are Bourque, Potvin, Coffey, Robinson , Chelios, MacInnis, Stevens, Langway.  Fetisov would be the big omission who didn't play in the league during his prime.  Are you going to tell me that Ovechkin's era has seen a higher caliber of defensemen when it comes to all-time ranking?  I doubt it.  Do I need to name all the great forwards of the 80's besides Gretzky?  Yes, there were some NHL omissions like Makarov, Larionov, and many other Soviets, but on the whole the 80's didn't lack great forwards in the NHL.  That era is loaded will Hall of Fame forwards, even if you eliminate accumulators like Andreychuk, Gartner, and a few others.             

Bold 3:  I covered this already.  This is not a knock on Gretzky's era, minus the Soviet players.  Sweden, Finland, and many other countries weren't loaded with stars back then as compared to today.  We're not talking hundreds of players being held back from playing in the league.  I'm not being presumptuous when I say Gretzky would still dominate that decade regardless of who came to the NHL from the Soviet Union, Sweden, Finland, Czechoslovakia, etc.  Yes, there are more players now from other countries, more diversity, etc.  If that is going to be held against Gretzky's era, you can do so with any era pre-Gretzky.  Maybe Crosby is better than Howe because he's playing against more European players from different countries? 

Neither Wayne nor Gordie should be blamed for world hockey not being as developed during their era.  This isn't like Fedor not fighting in the UFC during his prime or Jack Dempsey refusing to fight black fighters.     

Bold 4:  OK, you didn't have a bold 4, but you mentioned something in another post I wanted to touch upon.  You said that it's silly to expect anyone today to outscore the competition by 25 goals.  It's certainly hard to envision it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.  Before Orr or Gretzky came along, many would say it's impossible to envision a defenseman outscoring forwards by a wide margin, or a forward to score close to 200 points every year, while nobody else was close to 150.  Same thing with Gretzky's best goal scoring seasons. 

Imagine if today a player came along with Gretzky or Mario like greatness (so someone better than Crosby, Ovechkin, or McDavid). Is it impossible that guy could score 160 points every year while the next highest would be approaching 120 or 115?  Nobody is going to score 90 goals in today's era, but is it impossible that such a player could score 70+ goals for many consecutive seasons while the next highest is in the low 50's? 

You can call it "silly" until someone does it.  Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux did it in hockey.  Babe Ruth and Wilt Chamberlain had many seasons in their sports where they were lapping the field in PPG or home runs.  

Ok, you're to a degree recycling the same rhetoric over and over again, so for the most part I'm not going to address the things you are just repeating. I already told you, I'm not "blaming" Gretzky for world hockey not being as developed in his era, Im using it as a small factor when comparing 2 of the best 3 goal scorers of all time. I'm not saying that Gretzky's scoring rate would have dropped 50% if the best in the world were all playing, but maybe it drops 2% or 5% or maybe even 10%. No way of knowing, but your attitude of ignoring it all together comes off as defensive and dismissive. Its also funny how you essentially accuse me of disrespecting an era when my #1 and #3 of all time are from that era as my ranking was 1) Lemieux, 2) Ovie, 3) Gretzky. 

I'll give you credit with the composite stick mention, now you're getting it. That should be a factor when talking about Ovie's goal scoring. You contradict your other points by mentioning this, but I agree this is a factor and an advantage that Ovie has. If I claimed that goalies being easier to score on is a factor, but this wasn't, I'd be dishonest. Either they both are factors, or neither are factors. I will be crystal clear by saying both. You can't say that composite sticks are a factor, but smaller pads are not.

As to your last point, Gretzky didn't do that. You know this though as I laid it out (unless you didn't actually read my posts which wouldn't surprise me). In GOAL SCORING, he only decimated the competition in two seasons, the rest he pretty much was right there with the pack. You talk as if he beat everyone by 30 goals every year for a decade.

Here is the bottom line with you, and you have always been this way. You dont give modern players any credit, and you will never put anyone modern above anyone of significance from the past. Everything that you are accusing people of doing to players of the past, you are doing to players of the present. My guess is that this is why you refuse to do rankings as your biases will be exposed. You can lie to me all you want, but do a list of any position publicly, we all know what its going to look like. 

15 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Back into the weeds

I don't care how much Kurri scored or how much Patty Kane scored. I care how much Gretsky and Ovie scored. And Ovie scores more per game in a less scoring era. Talk about player size, equipment, styles, euros, as much as you want. It's a all a wash. You say you don't wanna compare eras, but then you do just that.

Its a trope he always uses to dismiss modern day players, teams etc

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

4 minutes ago, kliq said:

Ok, you're to a degree recycling the same rhetoric over and over again, so for the most part I'm not going to address the things you are just repeating. I already told you, I'm not "blaming" Gretzky for world hockey not being as developed in his era, Im using it as a small factor when comparing 2 of the best 3 goal scorers of all time. I'm not saying that Gretzky's scoring rate would have dropped 50% if the best in the world were all playing, but maybe it drops 2% or 5% or maybe even 10%. No way of knowing, but your attitude of ignoring it all together comes off as defensive and dismissive. Its also funny how you essentially accuse me of disrespecting an era when my #1 and #3 of all time are from that era as my ranking was 1) Lemieux, 2) Ovie, 3) Gretzky. 

I'll give you credit with the composite stick mention, now you're getting it. That should be a factor when talking about Ovie's goal scoring. You contradict your other points by mentioning this, but I agree this is a factor and an advantage that Ovie has. If I claimed that goalies being easier to score on is a factor, but this wasn't, I'd be dishonest. Either they both are factors, or neither are factors. I will be crystal clear by saying both. You can't say that composite sticks are a factor, but smaller pads are not.

As to your last point, Gretzky didn't do that. You know this though as I laid it out (unless you didn't actually read my posts which wouldn't surprise me). In GOAL SCORING, he only decimated the competition in two seasons, the rest he pretty much was right there with the pack. You talk as if he beat everyone by 30 goals every year for a decade.

Here is the bottom line with you, and you have always been this way. You dont give modern players any credit, and you will never put anyone modern above anyone of significance from the past. Everything that you are accusing people of doing to players of the past, you are doing to players of the present. My guess is that this is why you refuse to do rankings as your biases will be exposed. You can lie to me all you want, but do a list of any position publicly, we all know what its going to look like. 

Its a trope he always uses to dismiss modern day players, teams etc

At the end of the day the nitty gritty comparison between eras is all subjective. I don't really care about who had composite sticks, or who had more euros, or which goalies played butterfly, blah blah blah. I care about what the sum of all those factors equals; and that is that 1980 to 1993 was a much higher scoring era than from 2005 to 2020.

So if Gretsky scores 52 goals in 1986, and Ovie scores 52 goals in 2006, 52 goals in 2006 is more impressive. It's that simple. And you can extrapolate that over the two players careers.

[kipwinger 8,521]

3 hours ago, GMRwings1983 said:

I can play the bolded game too.  

Bold 1:  I understand you're talking about goal scoring.  You can certainly make a good argument that Ovechkin is a better goal scorer over his career than Gretzky, even though his peak and dominance isn't as high.  Why did I bring up points and not just goals?  Simply because Gretzky still led the league in points in the 90's, despite the expansion of European players.  Why wouldn't he still lead the league in goals, during the 80's, when he was younger and better, even if the best European players (Soviets) were playing in the NHL in the 80's?  I'm pretty sure Soviets playing in the NHL wouldn't have changed Gretzky's goal numbers in the 80's.  He did very well in International competitions.  If you're suggesting his goal scoring in the 90's went down because of more European players, I don't agree.  There were other reasons.  

Bold 2:  This is simply false.  I can see how goalies are better schooled nowadays, but outside of Tretiak, Gretzky was playing against the best goalies of his era.  You can't just transport Ben Bishop with his giant pads into the 80's, as he would instantly become the best goalie in the world.  Even Jimmy Howard would look good playing back then.  Conversely, Grant Fuhr or Billy Smith transported via time machine would struggle in today's era.  This doesn't mean Gretzky didn't face any good goalies or that goaltending sucked in the 80's.  This is not the way to compare different eras.  He dominated who he had to play against.  Ovechkin is playing against giant goalies who are well schooled and wear lots of pads, but he's also bigger, stronger, and uses better hockey equipment.  Gretzky, Kurri, and Bossy didn't use the kind of sticks players use today.  

I don't see how the forwards or defensemen are better today.  The best defensemen of the 80's are Bourque, Potvin, Coffey, Robinson , Chelios, MacInnis, Stevens, Langway.  Fetisov would be the big omission who didn't play in the league during his prime.  Are you going to tell me that Ovechkin's era has seen a higher caliber of defensemen when it comes to all-time ranking?  I doubt it.  Do I need to name all the great forwards of the 80's besides Gretzky?  Yes, there were some NHL omissions like Makarov, Larionov, and many other Soviets, but on the whole the 80's didn't lack great forwards in the NHL.  That era is loaded will Hall of Fame forwards, even if you eliminate accumulators like Andreychuk, Gartner, and a few others.             

Bold 3:  I covered this already.  This is not a knock on Gretzky's era, minus the Soviet players.  Sweden, Finland, and many other countries weren't loaded with stars back then as compared to today.  We're not talking hundreds of players being held back from playing in the league.  I'm not being presumptuous when I say Gretzky would still dominate that decade regardless of who came to the NHL from the Soviet Union, Sweden, Finland, Czechoslovakia, etc.  Yes, there are more players now from other countries, more diversity, etc.  If that is going to be held against Gretzky's era, you can do so with any era pre-Gretzky.  Maybe Crosby is better than Howe because he's playing against more European players from different countries? 

Neither Wayne nor Gordie should be blamed for world hockey not being as developed during their era.  This isn't like Fedor not fighting in the UFC during his prime or Jack Dempsey refusing to fight black fighters.     

Bold 4:  OK, you didn't have a bold 4, but you mentioned something in another post I wanted to touch upon.  You said that it's silly to expect anyone today to outscore the competition by 25 goals.  It's certainly hard to envision it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.  Before Orr or Gretzky came along, many would say it's impossible to envision a defenseman outscoring forwards by a wide margin, or a forward to score close to 200 points every year, while nobody else was close to 150.  Same thing with Gretzky's best goal scoring seasons. 

Imagine if today a player came along with Gretzky or Mario like greatness (so someone better than Crosby, Ovechkin, or McDavid). Is it impossible that guy could score 160 points every year while the next highest would be approaching 120 or 115?  Nobody is going to score 90 goals in today's era, but is it impossible that such a player could score 70+ goals for many consecutive seasons while the next highest is in the low 50's? 

You can call it "silly" until someone does it.  Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux did it in hockey.  Babe Ruth and Wilt Chamberlain had many seasons in their sports where they were lapping the field in PPG or home runs.    

And what's wrong with that?  Goalies nowadays do wear too much equipment.  But it's also true that skaters have better equipment and are bigger and stronger than they were in the 80's, let alone during Hull's era.  That's why you cannot just transport 5'10 Bobby Hull, with his wooden stick and no helmet to today's era.  Just like you cannot transport Ovechkin via time machine into an era where he'd be one of the biggest players in the NHL and would have a composite stick and a helmet.  

Time machine transportation is not how to compare players.  If you judge those two players based on their peers, you'd see a similar dominance if we're just looking at goal scoring.  

Hull had five 50 goal seasons.  In two of those seasons, he didn't even play 70 games.  He obviously didn't play 80 games in any of those five seasons.  He also won three Art Ross trophies, and was runner up three more times, so he wasn't just being a one-sided offensive player.  He was scoring goals while doing other things.    

Hull won the Richard trophy 7 times.  He finished runner up twice.  Between 1960 and 1972, he had twelve top 5 finishes in goals.  Just one season where he finished 6th during that span.  That's pretty damn dominant. 

Then he went to play in another league.  If he doesn't go to another league, Ovechkin is likely chasing him for all-time leader in goals.  

If you're going to diminish Hull's accomplishments because of the era (or because you don't like him personally) you can also pick apart other eras similarly.  Players should only be judged by their era and their peers.  And before you go there, there wasn't a lot of NHL ready talent in Europe during Hull's time.  He played against the best professionals there were.  

As if kipwinger isn't annoying enough, he now has an avatar we all want to punch.   

 

Ok cool, I'll play your game.  Take all context out of it and just compare scoring vs. peers?  Easy.

Ovechkin scored 703 in 1148 games. Hull scored 610 in 1063. Ovechkin is a better scorer.

Also, regardless of era, peers, equipment, etc. only one of those two guys is going to have the all time record.  The other isn't even close. 

What else do you need?

 

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

2 hours ago, kliq said:

Ok, you're to a degree recycling the same rhetoric over and over again, so for the most part I'm not going to address the things you are just repeating. I already told you, I'm not "blaming" Gretzky for world hockey not being as developed in his era, Im using it as a small factor when comparing 2 of the best 3 goal scorers of all time. I'm not saying that Gretzky's scoring rate would have dropped 50% if the best in the world were all playing, but maybe it drops 2% or 5% or maybe even 10%. No way of knowing, but your attitude of ignoring it all together comes off as defensive and dismissive. Its also funny how you essentially accuse me of disrespecting an era when my #1 and #3 of all time are from that era as my ranking was 1) Lemieux, 2) Ovie, 3) Gretzky. 

I'll give you credit with the composite stick mention, now you're getting it. That should be a factor when talking about Ovie's goal scoring. You contradict your other points by mentioning this, but I agree this is a factor and an advantage that Ovie has. If I claimed that goalies being easier to score on is a factor, but this wasn't, I'd be dishonest. Either they both are factors, or neither are factors. I will be crystal clear by saying both. You can't say that composite sticks are a factor, but smaller pads are not.

As to your last point, Gretzky didn't do that. You know this though as I laid it out (unless you didn't actually read my posts which wouldn't surprise me). In GOAL SCORING, he only decimated the competition in two seasons, the rest he pretty much was right there with the pack. You talk as if he beat everyone by 30 goals every year for a decade.

Here is the bottom line with you, and you have always been this way. You dont give modern players any credit, and you will never put anyone modern above anyone of significance from the past. Everything that you are accusing people of doing to players of the past, you are doing to players of the present. My guess is that this is why you refuse to do rankings as your biases will be exposed. You can lie to me all you want, but do a list of any position publicly, we all know what its going to look like. 

Its a trope he always uses to dismiss modern day players, teams etc

What is this a ******* political debate?  What history of mine are you referring to?  You keep changing this topic to make it more personal for some reason.  I also don't remember all these times I apparently refused to provide a list of rankings.  I can give you my top 10 all time ranking right now if you want.  Crosby would likely be in it.  Ovechkin would be top 20, not top 10 all time.  Lidstrom same as Ovechkin.  That's not a knock on any modern players.  I'm not entirely against modern players in all time ranking.  As far as goals only, I can see Ovechkin ranked anywhere from 3rd to 5th.  I can't put him above Lemieux or Hull just yet but I can see that changing if he keeps his current pace. 

It's not that I don't respect modern players.  It's that many posters like to point out the weakness of prior eras when lauding today's players.  I think we can't be that dismissive of prior eras.        

Gretzky outscored everyone else in the 80's by a wide margin when it comes to goals.  Yes, there were only two seasons where he outscored them by 25+ goals but overall, he was far ahead of Bossy and Goulet for goal leaders in the decade.  I won't repeat those same stats but I posted them earlier.  So his dominance in goals over his peers, in his prime, is significant.  

Edited March 4, 2020 by GMRwings1983

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

15 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

 

Ok cool, I'll play your game.  Take all context out of it and just compare scoring vs. peers?  Easy.

Ovechkin scored 703 in 1148 games. Hull scored 610 in 1063. Ovechkin is a better scorer.

Also, regardless of era, peers, equipment, etc. only one of those two guys is going to have the all time record.  The other isn't even close. 

What else do you need?

 

Very minor differences there.  Hull has a similarly minor advantage in playoff GPG. 

Look, a few more seasons of Ovechkin winning the Richard trophy, and I'd have no problem placing him above Hull in goal scoring.  Not in overall ranking, as Hull was just a better all-around player.  But in goals only I can see it happening soon.  If you already have him there, good for you.    

Also, Hull isn't even close to Gretzky's record because he left the NHL to play in another league.  You know this.  Same as Lemieux, though injuries were the reason he didn't approach the record.  We can only speculate what those guys would have scored.  Just like we're speculating Ovechkin will break Gretzky's record.  He may choose to go to the KHL or have a serious injury.  You never know.    

Edited March 4, 2020 by GMRwings1983

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

15 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

 

Ok cool, I'll play your game.  Take all context out of it and just compare scoring vs. peers?  Easy.

Ovechkin scored 703 in 1148 games. Hull scored 610 in 1063. Ovechkin is a better scorer.

Also, regardless of era, peers, equipment, etc. only one of those two guys is going to have the all time record.  The other isn't even close. 

What else do you need?

 

LOL less hyperbole? 

[kipwinger 8,521]

16 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

LOL less hyperbole? 

610 is a long way from 894.  It wasn't hyperbole.

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

610 is a long way from 894.  It wasn't hyperbole.

Ah. Hull. Me bad. I thought you meant 8 vs 99. I expect those numbers to be close as hell. 

Why would we even be talking about Hull? Either of them. 

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

8 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

610 is a long way from 894.  It wasn't hyperbole.

Is Ovechkin close to Gretzky then?  Because 700 isn't 894 either.  

2 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

Ah. Hull. Me bad. I thought you meant 8 vs 99. I expect those numbers to be close as hell. 

Why would we even be talking about Hull? Either of them. 

This thread is about all time great goal scorers.  Hull is one of them.  Not Brett.  Brett isn't even top 5 in my book.  Maybe not even top 10 best goal scorer (though I have to think about that one).  We're talking about Bobby Hull.  He had enough Richard trophies and top 5 goal scoring finishes to get serious consideration.  

Edited March 4, 2020 by GMRwings1983

[kipwinger 8,521]

5 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Is Ovechkin close to Gretzky then?  Because 700 isn't 894 either.  

This thread is about all time great goal scorers.  Hull is one of them.  Not Brett.  Brett isn't even top 5 in my book.  Maybe not even top 10 best goal scorer (though I have to think about that one).  We're talking about Bobby Hull.  He had enough Richard trophies and top 5 goal scoring finishes to get serious consideration.  

Well, it's closer.  Which is a point you keep ignoring.  You seem to not care about context when it suits you, and not care about numbers when it suits you too.  I'm not sure on what basis you're making your picks other than Richard trophies apparently...

Also, who gives a s*** about Richard trophies?  If Ovechkin score 50 four more times he sets the record.  Who gives a damn if Matthews scores 51 in each of those same seasons?

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

11 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

This thread is about all time great goal scorers.  Hull is one of them.  Not Brett.  Brett isn't even top 5 in my book.  Maybe not even top 10 best goal scorer (though I have to think about that one).  We're talking about Bobby Hull.  He had enough Richard trophies and top 5 goal scoring finishes to get serious consideration.  

Those times were too olden though. Basically I discount any era that involved cardboard hockey gear, world wars, and fans wearing fedoras. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by The 91 of Ryans

[kipwinger 8,521]

3 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

Those times were too olden though. Basically I discount any era that involved cardboard hockey gear, world wars, and fans wearing fedoras. 

GMR has an answer for that.  Basically, if Hull played today he'd be 6'3, 225lbs, and lightening fast.  Conversely, Ovechkin wouldn't even be in the league in 1972 because international hockey was just a bunch of vanilla midgets and commies.

 

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

23 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

GMR has an answer for that.  Basically, if Hull played today he'd be 6'3, 225lbs, and lightening fast.  Conversely, Ovechkin wouldn't even be in the league in 1972 because international hockey was just a bunch of vanilla midgets and commies.

 

LOL.  Exaggerate much?  

Would his wife be able to defend herself nowadays from domestic abuse?  

30 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

Those times were too olden though. Basically I discount any era that involved cardboard hockey gear, world wars, and fans wearing fedoras. 

Ah.  So you're like those folks who consider all movies from 1930 to 1979 be under the same genre known as "classic movies".  

Technically, fans under 20 probably consider the 1980's and 1990's to be olden too.  

Edited March 4, 2020 by GMRwings1983

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11293346

The average height of males in 1970 was 178 cm

The average height of males today is 179 cm

So much bigger

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

5 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11293346

The average height of males in 1970 was 178 cm

The average height of males today is 179 cm

So much bigger

How about penis sizes?  

In all seriousness, are you going to argue NHL players haven't gotten bigger?  How many guys were there Ovechkin's size back in Hull's era?  Or players who are even bigger than Ovechkin, say 6'5 or higher?  Goalies have also gotten a lot bigger.  You can hardly find a goalie today under 6'0 or even 6'2.  

You can take your Norwegian study and shove it.  

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

15 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

How about penis sizes?  

In all seriousness, are you going to argue NHL players haven't gotten bigger?  How many guys were there Ovechkin's size back in Hull's era?  Or players who are even bigger than Ovechkin, say 6'5 or higher?  Goalies have also gotten a lot bigger.  You can hardly find a goalie today under 6'0 or even 6'2.  

You can take your Norwegian study and shove it.  

 

You're the one making the claim, not I. If you have evidence present it.

I showed you clearly that average male height has only increased by 1 cm in the last 50 years.

You're also wrecking your own argument. If say the league is so much bigger now compared to then, then Ovi's size is inconsequential relative to his competition.

[gcom007 1,465]

Ovechkin.

Come on. No one has scored like he has so consistently in an era like this. You can talk about injuries and whatnot but f*** that, gotta stay healthy to score goals and he’s been incredibly durable. Health shouldn’t be held against him nor used to prop others up. You get to an upper echelon of talent like all these guys and it’s almost silly debating who’s the greatest as they’re all basically the .00001% in goal scoring, but no one’s done what Ovechkin’s still doing in an era even easier to score goals in than this.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

50 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You're the one making the claim, not I. If you have evidence present it.

I showed you clearly that average male height has only increased by 1 cm in the last 50 years.

You're also wrecking your own argument. If say the league is so much bigger now compared to then, then Ovi's size is inconsequential relative to his competition.

The average hockey player now is 6'1, 199 lbs.  Gordie Howe was considered big for his era, and he was 6'0, 205 lbs.  I haven't found any study specifically on hockey player sizes.  The average person is one thing.  However, shorter people usually don't have as good a pathway to sports like hockey, football, or obviously basketball.  So I'm not too sure you can use the average person height and say that a similar pattern exists in hockey.  

I don't remember too many 6'5 or above players even when I was a kid watching hockey.  Certainly not goalies.  Shorter goalies don't exist anymore.  Someone like Osgood would be a relic nowadays.  Vernon even more so.    

Ovie's size is consequential when certain idiots try to argue that he'd score 1,000 goals if he played in some prior era.  It's not relevant to his competition, you're right.    

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

22 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

The average hockey player now is 6'1, 199 lbs.  Gordie Howe was considered big for his era, and he was 6'0, 205 lbs.  I haven't found any study specifically on hockey player sizes.  The average person is one thing.  However, shorter people usually don't have as good a pathway to sports like hockey, football, or obviously basketball.  So I'm not too sure you can use the average person height and say that a similar pattern exists in hockey.  

I don't remember too many 6'5 or above players even when I was a kid watching hockey.  Certainly not goalies.  Shorter goalies don't exist anymore.  Someone like Osgood would be a relic nowadays.  Vernon even more so.   

So what happened then? Tall/big people suddenly realized hockey exists in the 2000s and started playing? Or did tall/big people not exist in the 1970s?

24 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Ovie's size is consequential when certain idiots try to argue that he'd score 1,000 goals if he played in some prior era.  It's not relevant to his competition, you're right.  

I guess I'm confused as to what you're trying to prove. If hockey players in the 80s and 70s are as tiny as you would have me believe, Ovie probably would be extremely dominant based on his size and weight.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

3 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

So what happened then? Tall/big people suddenly realized hockey exists in the 2000s and started playing? Or did tall/big people not exist in the 1970s?

I guess I'm confused as to what you're trying to prove. If hockey players in the 80s and 70s are as tiny as you would have me believe, Ovie probably would be extremely dominant based on his size and weight.

I forget, were you this annoying under your previous user names?  

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

13 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

I forget, were you this annoying under your previous user names?  

I forget

Just seems odd that average male height is relatively unchanged, yet all of the sudden hockey is chalked full of HUGE players. I can presume one of two things; either you're incorrect and hockey players aren't that much bigger, or tall people suddenly started playing the game. I tend to think it's the later, regardless of how annoying you find it.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

13 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I forget

Just seems odd that average male height is relatively unchanged, yet all of the sudden hockey is chalked full of HUGE players. I can presume one of two things; either you're incorrect and hockey players aren't that much bigger, or tall people suddenly started playing the game. I tend to think it's the later, regardless of how annoying you find it.

So from your observations of following hockey (however long that's been) you haven't noticed any trend with either skaters or goalies getting bigger?  I thought this was pretty much an accepted fact.  

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Just now, GMRwings1983 said:

So from your observations of following hockey (however long that's been) you haven't noticed any trend with either skaters or goalies getting bigger?  I thought this was pretty much an accepted fact.  

Maybe you didn't read all the way

14 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I can presume one of two things; either you're incorrect and hockey players aren't that much bigger, or tall people suddenly started playing the game. I tend to think it's the later, regardless of how annoying you find it.

 

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

4 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Maybe you didn't read all the way

 

What does that mean, though?  Of course players aren't getting significantly taller after they've already entered the NHL. 

Or are you saying taller people enter developmental hockey at later ages?  So for instance, a 12 year old suddenly begins playing hockey because someone told him he'd be a good goalie due to his size.