Totally agree. Having seen both in their prime, I can confidently say Lemieux is the greatest. Gretzky was incredibly cerebral - he out-smarted people. But no one could dominate a game like Mario. GOAT

And to the guy who brought up Patrick Roy and Marty Brodeur - neither comes close to Dominik Hasek. Not even close. Hasek = GOAT

I've always disagreed with the notion that longevity = greatness (another area in which Tannsy and I see eye-to-eye). Give me Bo Jackson over Cal Ripken Jr. And give me Eric Lindros over Mark Messier. I'd take Pat Lafontaine over Messier as well
- AxlRose91

I agree that Hasek = GOAT. just thought for some reason people would argue with me if I said hasek was the best and so I said roy or martin was the best cuz they were canadians. no idea why

Totally agree. Having seen both in their prime, I can confidently say Lemieux is the greatest. Gretzky was incredibly cerebral - he out-smarted people. But no one could dominate a game like Mario. GOAT

And to the guy who brought up Patrick Roy and Marty Brodeur - neither comes close to Dominik Hasek. Not even close. Hasek = GOAT

I've always disagreed with the notion that longevity = greatness (another area in which Tannsy and I see eye-to-eye). Give me Bo Jackson over Cal Ripken Jr. And give me Eric Lindros over Mark Messier. I'd take Pat Lafontaine over Messier as well
- AxlRose91

I think for a lot of sports fans, they overrate championships and awards and longevity. Yes, those things are all important, but when we're discussing best player I think it's a different topic than best career.

Take Toews and Thornton - both are elite defensively and Thornton scores more and is probably the better player by a pretty wide margin - but I bet most people would rank Toews as better because of the 3 x Cups.

The best players I've seen in my life, in order:

Lemieux
Gretzky
Lindros
Lindstrom
Hasek
Ovechkin
Crosby
McDavid
Bure
Forsberg
Jagr
Karlsson

I think for a lot of sports fans, they overrate championships and awards and longevity. Yes, those things are all important, but when we're discussing best player I think it's a different topic than best career.

Take Toews and Thornton - both are elite defensively and Thornton scores more and is probably the better player by a pretty wide margin - but I bet most people would rank Toews as better because of the 3 x Cups.

The best players I've seen in my life, in order:

Lemieux
Gretzky
Lindros
Lindstrom
Hasek
Ovechkin
Crosby
McDavid
Bure
Forsberg
Jagr
Karlsson
- James_Tanner

I am gonna be honest with you Tanner... I REALLY like your list.
Maybe not Lindros but that is probably because I didn't watch him play that much AND cuz he was a philly player .

I think for a lot of sports fans, they overrate championships and awards and longevity. Yes, those things are all important, but when we're discussing best player I think it's a different topic than best career.

Take Toews and Thornton - both are elite defensively and Thornton scores more and is probably the better player by a pretty wide margin - but I bet most people would rank Toews as better because of the 3 x Cups.

The best players I've seen in my life, in order:

Lemieux
Gretzky
Lindros
Lindstrom
Hasek
Ovechkin
Crosby
McDavid
Bure
Forsberg
Jagr
Karlsson
- James_Tanner

A good list, to be sure. Personally, I put Gretzky on the pedestal. They were the two best players, just completely different. That is the only thing that is not up for debate. It is simply personal opinion in this argument, though. It always is. Magic or Bird, Ripken or Ozzy, Sugar Ray or Hagler.

My only other comments would be,
1) if you have players like Bure and Forsberg on your list, there should be a spot for Fedorov. I have seen every one of these players live (except McDavid, yet) and in 1993 I saw Fedorov absolutely dominate the Cup champion Penguins. He was literally untouchable. I have never seen a live performance like that before or since.
2) I know you are huge on Karlsson, but until I see more over time, I put Niedermeyer ahead of him as a legendary defenseman.

A good list, to be sure. Personally, I put Gretzky on the pedestal. They were the two best players, just completely different. That is the only thing that is not up for debate. It is simply personal opinion in this argument, though. It always is. Magic or Bird, Ripken or Ozzy, Sugar Ray or Hagler.

My only other comments would be,
1) if you have players like Bure and Forsberg on your list, there should be a spot for Fedorov. I have seen every one of these players live (except McDavid, yet) and in 1993 I saw Fedorov absolutely dominate the Cup champion Penguins. He was literally untouchable. I have never seen a live performance like that before or since.
2) I know you are huge on Karlsson, but until I see more over time, I put Niedermeyer ahead of him as a legendary defenseman.
- Tonybere

I would say anyone after McDavid on my list is strictly opinion. The ones above are only debatable by the order, not the inclusion. Like, there is no way you can argue that say Sakic or Fedorov were as good as Lindros on his best day.

I would say anyone after McDavid on my list is strictly opinion. The ones above are only debatable by the order, not the inclusion. Like, there is no way you can argue that say Sakic or Fedorov were as good as Lindros on his best day.
- James_Tanner

Agreed. What I said about personal opinion was meant for the debate between Gretzky and Lemeiux only. The rest of your list, I agree. Except Karlsson. And that is not to say that he won't end up there. Just that if we were to take more time and make this a discussion, there would be more D-men to add before him (IMO).
Lindros was an absolute menace in his prime. Really unfortunate that he grew up being so far superior physically than his competition that it didn't prepare him for guys like Stevens. Lindros did skate with his head down on occasion, but before getting to the NHL it didn't matter too much.

MINUS: Crosby getting another concussion. Though the first week of the season was great, that does cloud it a bit. The last thing anyone wants to hear about is Crosby and Concussions. Here's hoping it's somehow minor and he can resume his role as second best player in to the world after Connor McDavid, who I think recently stole the title.

Not trying to be overly critical but when was his first concussion? His injury everyone thought was concussion was a misdiagnosed case of deep tissue trauma in the neck that caused concussion like symptoms.

Not trying to be a jerk, its just saying "another concussion" is feeding in to the idiots who love saying Sid is nearly done forever.

In my opinion there have been two generational players, Orr and Gretzky and now it looks like McDavid will be number three. I'm a big Crosby fan but those other guys were on another level and I think McDavid will be too. Orr and Gretzky had their haters and I'm sure McDavid will too. Instead we should enjoy every minute of watching him play.
- shack67

Mario

Crosby I think should be there too....Sid would have scored 600 points on those Swiss cheese goalies

I think for a lot of sports fans, they overrate championships and awards and longevity. Yes, those things are all important, but when we're discussing best player I think it's a different topic than best career.

Take Toews and Thornton - both are elite defensively and Thornton scores more and is probably the better player by a pretty wide margin - but I bet most people would rank Toews as better because of the 3 x Cups.

The best players I've seen in my life, in order:

Lemieux
Gretzky
Lindros
Lindstrom
Hasek
Ovechkin
Crosby
McDavid
Bure
Forsberg
Jagr
Karlsson
- James_Tanner

My 2 cents on this generational talent thing, I think youre a generational talent if youre unlike anyone before you. Thats why I think McDavid is a generational talent, he is the combination of several greats before him, speed and scoring of a Bure, vision and passing of a Gretzky/Crosby, etc. There is room for Gretzky and Mario to be generational because they were unlike anyone else in how they played/impacted a game. Orr and Hasek similarly were unique.

I think there are others who have dimensions of their game that were generational but not themselves generational, ie puck playing or butterfly goalie, hardest shot, etc.

I also recognize that my theory is flawed in that Crosby is the best this league has had over the past several seasons, miles above the rest, but he is basically a modern day replica of Gretzky, which according to my own rationale would not make him generational. I'm sure I'll figure out a way to make him fit

The problem is that anyone who actually likes music and has an opinion worth hearing is so sick of those bands that they'd probably make a way different list.
- James_Tanner

I agree and that why I made the point... The issue is when you have a band like the Beatles or Led Zepplin that has sold so many records and have influenced so many bands that followed... they have to be in the conversation regardless of opinion... That to me are Mario and Wayne... They stand out as head and shoulders above the rest. To deny their greatness or influence is to ignore the data driven portion of the conversation!

On Generational talent: I understand that this term is invented and overused... That being said Malkin is as talented as any player I ve ever watched with the exception oif Mario, Wayne and Crosby (Possibly Mcdavid..we ll see)... Does he get overlooked because 1) He plays second fiddle to Crosby 2) Injuries have limited his potential (2nd in Points per game over the last 5 years only to Crosby) and 3) The "myth" of the lazy Russian???

My 2 cents on this generational talent thing, I think youre a generational talent if youre unlike anyone before you. Thats why I think McDavid is a generational talent, he is the combination of several greats before him, speed and scoring of a Bure, vision and passing of a Gretzky/Crosby, etc. There is room for Gretzky and Mario to be generational because they were unlike anyone else in how they played/impacted a game. Orr and Hasek similarly were unique.

I think there are others who have dimensions of their game that were generational but not themselves generational, ie puck playing or butterfly goalie, hardest shot, etc.

I also recognize that my theory is flawed in that Crosby is the best this league has had over the past several seasons, miles above the rest, but he is basically a modern day replica of Gretzky, which according to my own rationale would not make him generational. I'm sure I'll figure out a way to make him fit
- WhiteLie

Crosby is much stronger on the puck then wayne... plays the dirty areas in front of the net very well and is much better defensively.... I view him as a combo of Sakic and Gretz... Would it be fair to say he changed the game in the ways listed? Mario and Wayne did not play in the dirty areas and only played d in the playoffs or when it counted.(though they were very capable when they wanted to be)

There are no "carbon copies" Crosby is a combination of influences with his own twist... just as Mcdavid will be... Its the same in the music arguement from before...

My 2 cents on this generational talent thing, I think youre a generational talent if youre unlike anyone before you. Thats why I think McDavid is a generational talent, he is the combination of several greats before him, speed and scoring of a Bure, vision and passing of a Gretzky/Crosby, etc. There is room for Gretzky and Mario to be generational because they were unlike anyone else in how they played/impacted a game. Orr and Hasek similarly were unique.

I think there are others who have dimensions of their game that were generational but not themselves generational, ie puck playing or butterfly goalie, hardest shot, etc.

I also recognize that my theory is flawed in that Crosby is the best this league has had over the past several seasons, miles above the rest, but he is basically a modern day replica of Gretzky, which according to my own rationale would not make him generational. I'm sure I'll figure out a way to make him fit
- WhiteLie

I would take this a step further and say that, to me, what makes a player "generational" is that they change the way people who come after them play the game. Sid would not play his game if he hadn't seen Gretzky, just as McDavid would not be the player he is without Crosby.

Crosby is much stronger on the puck then wayne... plays the dirty areas in front of the net very well and is much better defensively.... I view him as a combo of Sakic and Gretz... Would it be fair to say he changed the game in the ways listed? Mario and Wayne did not play in the dirty areas and only played d in the playoffs or when it counted.(though they were very capable when they wanted to be)

There are no "carbon copies" Crosby is a combination of influences with his own twist... just as Mcdavid will be... Its the same in the music arguement from before...
- Brianandr1

I agree you can make that argument that hes a grittier player than those before him. I think that helps his generational cause. I guess my general rationale for generational is comparable players. I cant compare Gretzky to anyone before him, nor Mario, McDavid or the other guys mentioned.

I would take this a step further and say that, to me, what makes a player "generational" is that they change the way people who come after them play the game. Sid would not play his game if he hadn't seen Gretzky, just as McDavid would not be the player he is without Crosby.
- Tonybere

I dont really think Sid or McDavid play the game as replicas to Gretzky at all, comparable but not modelled after it. I think these 3 were just blessed with an excellent hockey IQ, vision and talent. Add in the work ethic and they are excellent, but I think they would be this good and play that way without seeing the others play. The game may have changed to encourage or benefit that style, but being able to see things unfold and passing to the right spot is not something that can be learned from watching someone else IMO

He is martox. If you actually do watch Oilers games next game count how many break aways 97 has in a game. He has the acceleration of Orr and the knees of a guy that is 19. Last game versus Calgary with a very good top 5 NHL defence by the 8 minute mark he had 2 breakaways. Be interesting to see today how many he has against the injury riddled Buffalo Sabres in 2 hours time.
- al3535

Lol great game eh!!!

I think for a lot of sports fans, they overrate championships and awards and longevity. Yes, those things are all important, but when we're discussing best player I think it's a different topic than best career.

Take Toews and Thornton - both are elite defensively and Thornton scores more and is probably the better player by a pretty wide margin - but I bet most people would rank Toews as better because of the 3 x Cups.

The best players I've seen in my life, in order:

Lemieux
Gretzky
Lindros
Lindstrom
Hasek
Ovechkin
Crosby
McDavid
Bure
Forsberg
Jagr
Karlsson
- James_Tanner

Lidstrom

The phrase 'generational talent' is perhaps the worst. However, certainly Lemieux and Gretzky are slightly better than Crosby and Ovechkin, and Jarg and Malkin have no place in this discussion. Lindros does, but like Orr has no longevity.

However, if we're arguing about it, I 'd say it's way more rare.
- James_Tanner

Jagr

I would say anyone after McDavid on my list is strictly opinion. The ones above are only debatable by the order, not the inclusion. Like, there is no way you can argue that say Sakic or Fedorov were as good as Lindros on his best day.
- James_Tanner

Fedorov may not have been as good offensively, but even that is debatable. No question Lindros was more physically dominant, but Fedorov was so much better at an all-around game.

Fedorov would probably get my vote as the most balanced forward, and one of the most talented, to ever play. He scored 56 goals in the year he won his first Selke. Scored 39 goals when he won his second. He's one of the best skaters to ever live, and played defense for the Wings when the had injury problems. Shanahan's even said he thinks Fedorov could have won a Norris if he made the position change. Fedorov could do it all, and do it all better than most of the league.

In my opinion. Didn't say it was a fact.
- shack67

Mario was the best hockey player ever.

There are no "carbon copies" Crosby is a combination of influences with his own twist... just as Mcdavid will be... Its the same in the music arguement from before...
- Brianandr1

very true

I would take this a step further and say that, to me, what makes a player "generational" is that they change the way people who come after them play the game. Sid would not play his game if he hadn't seen Gretzky, just as McDavid would not be the player he is without Crosby.
- Tonybere

Very wise words, and very true.

McDavid is certainly something special and will most likely (and hopefully) have great career. However, none of us can look into the future and know how it actually will turn out. He will get injured in some capacity sometime and maybe accidentally it will turn out to ruin his career. We cant know that by now. He hasn't been playing a full season yet, it is waaaaaay too early to put him on a pedestal as the best player ever yet.

The phrase 'generational talent' is perhaps the worst. However, certainly Lemieux and Gretzky are slightly better than Crosby and Ovechkin, and Jarg and Malkin have no place in this discussion. Lindros does, but like Orr has no longevity.

However, if we're arguing about it, I 'd say it's way more rare.
- James_Tanner

I've been harping on this since we had two generational talents in the "McEichel" draft. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And as George Carlin once said:

"generational" means, "once in a generation." It's a media driven phrase. And like most media driven things, makes no sense.

Really there aren't any but Orr, Richard and Howe, everyone else all had at least one equal. Except for some of the goalies, but that position has always been in transition that it's impossible to compare them. Having seen probably 80% of Hasek's games I'd say him for sure, but Brodeur and Roy were playing at an elite, never before seen level too at the same time. So can you really say one over the other 2 was the generational player?

Also, how about that McDavid last night? I wonder what his Corsi was... Yes, I know if you just looked at the advanced stats for last night, you'd say "obviously the Oilers won" I'm just being a smartass because he was pretty invisible. That's why individual game Corsi means precisely Richard, you need way more data to draw any conclusions.

I've been harping on this since we had two generational talents in the "McEichel" draft. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And as George Carlin once said:

"generational" means, "once in a generation." It's a media driven phrase. And like most media driven things, makes no sense.

Really there aren't any but Orr, Richard and Howe, everyone else all had at least one equal. Except for some of the goalies, but that position has always been in transition that it's impossible to compare them. Having seen probably 80% of Hasek's games I'd say him for sure, but Brodeur and Roy were playing at an elite, never before seen level too at the same time. So can you really say one over the other 2 was the generational player?

Also, how about that McDavid last night? I wonder what his Corsi was... Yes, I know if you just looked at the advanced stats for last night, you'd say "obviously the Oilers won" I'm just being a smartass because he was pretty invisible. That's why individual game Corsi means precisely Richard, you need way more data to draw any conclusions.
- Wetbandit1

Mario had no equal... He was literally unstoppable... The Devils developed the left wing lock to slow him down ... Teams would literally break there system to shadow him...I would go as far as to say he was the most dominating player in team sports since the 80's with possible exception of Jordan ... To say he's not generational is absurd

Mario had no equal... He was literally unstoppable... The Devils developed the left wing lock to slow him down ... Teams would literally break there system to shadow him...I would go as far as to say he was the most dominating player in team sports since the 80's with possible exception of Jordan ... To say he's not generational is absurd
- Brianandr1

Yeah, but Gretzky was still amazing for a good chunk of his career. Post Greztky absolutely.

Edit: And I'm one of the few people who say that maybe Lemieux was the best ever, so it's not with bias I say that.

Yeah, but Gretzky was still amazing for a good chunk of his career. Post Greztky absolutely.

Edit: And I'm one of the few people who say that maybe Lemieux was the best ever, so it's not with bias I say that.
- Wetbandit1

Gretz was amazing, no question...Mario was better!!! My point is teams literally changed there systems to deal with him,the left wing lock, shadowing, the nhl allowed goalies to use bigger pads and of course the"clutching, holding and grabbing that led him to retire the 1st time... Mario was also 6"5 in a league of 5 10 players ... What is the average size of a player now compared to 1983.... If all of these reasons and his total domination don't count as generational then we should just toss the term out the window