Talk:Wayne Gretzky/Greatest or One Of the Greatest 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives

Most vs Many

The previous edit seemed to be OK? I wasn't going to argue with a guy with a Stanley Cup ring an a Calder Trophy to his credit. 'Most' still implies POV while 'many' was a more valid, and more wiki, way of wording what needed to be said. I took a quick poll of some of my employees who are spread across the country(and includes several former Major Junior stand outs, a couple of former AHL players, and 1 former NHL player) just to see who they thought was the 'greatest' Of the 68 responses I got it was split 30% to Wayne, 30% to Mario, 30% to Bobby and 10% to various other players. These aren't just couch potato coaches. The bulk of them are lifelong NHL season ticket holders in their various cities. Some going back over 40 years. It just showed that opinions do vary and sometimes in ways which we don't believe were the obvious ones. 'Many' feel Gretzky was 'one' of the greatest(as do I) 'Many' feel Mario was 'one' of the greatest(as do I) 'Many' feel Bobby was 'one' of the greatest(as do I)...and so on. My brother-in law(a former scout) thinks Bob Gainey was the best hockey he ever saw and wished he could've cloned him into a whole team.

I won't bother trying to alter your idol worship anymore. I probably won't have to. It's Wiki. Someone else will eventually change it in a way neither you or I agree with. As it should be. You don't own it...and neither do I.

Someone editted it earlier to say he was a 2 year old scoring 390 goals against 17 year olds. Which is ridiculous and I'm glad it was corrected quickly. But I'm glad I got to read it because, you have to admit it.....it was pretty funny.

Oh, of the 'experts' you listed earler, Steve Dryden's is the worst HN editor they've ever had. Bobby Mac is one of the best.(except he got a smack from Esposito from runnin' his mouth a little too much) And I've known Ernie for many many years and I know who he voted for. And it wasn't who you think it was. ~Mr Pyles

Mr. Pyles, I know where you are coming from as the 3 you mentioned as well as Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard are usually ranked as the 5 greatest players, although there is bias as very few living people has seen greats like Howie Morenz and Frank McGee. The only way their legacy lives on is through stories and statistics. However, it is quite apt to say Gretzky is believed by most people to be the greatest player of all-time. My vote is for Mario, personally, but, I can admit that Gretzky is viewed by most to be the best player of all-time.

P.S., for curiosity's sake what's your problem with The Hockey News guy Steve Dryden? Croat Canuck 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat myself: "But I'll tell you what; find us verifiable, current references backing your own views up, and you might get a consensus around them." I'm afraid that Wikipedia is still not a soapbox. RGTraynor 07:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Trulytory's post moved from top of page

Let's see:

Bobby Orr is NOT arguably the greatest Hockey Player of All-time;

yet;

Wayne Gretzky is considered by MOST to be the greatest Hockey Player of All-Time.

I find this highly inconsistent (and disingenious) on your part.

What is your proof that WG is considered by MOST (an highly inaccurate sum I might add ...) to be the Greatest ?

I will delete this POV until you provide proof TrulyTory 18:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you are having trouble wrapping your head around this. Whether or not Orr (or Gretzky, for that matter) was the greatest player of all time is a subjective POV we can't actually say on Wikipedia. Whether Orr (or Gretzky, as to that) is considered the greatest player of all time isn't subjective at all; it is a quantifiable, verifiable fact. I'm likewise surprised you need proof of this: stop for a moment and forget that you think Orr is the greatest ever. Ask yourself, honestly ask yourself, who does the hockey world consider the greatest ever? THN's panel of fifty experts -- broadcasters, ex-players, journalists, general managers, coaches, statisticians -- picked Gretzky first. The NHL gave Gretzky honors no one else -- Orr included -- has received (has #4 been retired league-wide, for instance?). If I actually felt like doing it, I could give you citations and quotes until the cows came home. By contrast, how many verifiable, current quotes could you obtain citing Orr over Gretzky or Howe?
The funny thing is that while you toss around phrases like "wikinazi", you don't actually know my position on the subject, because as a Wikipedia editor that position is irrelevant and counterproductive. In the meantime, since you and Mr Pyles are new to Wikipedia, take a gander at the following: Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox RGTraynor 21:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, we bottom post here on wikipedia. Anyways, i removed the word "most" and kept out "some". While i believe that most is more accurate than some, no word seems better. What do others think? Masterhatch 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm. No qualifier at all suggests that all hockey authorities regard Gretzky as the best, which of course isn't true. I'd much prefer "most" to no word at all. In any event, "most" is legitimately verifiable, and it's getting irksome that Mr Pyles and TrulyTory keep demanding proof while refusing to give any of their own. RGTraynor 21:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. But no less irksome than your advocacy - because that is what you are engaged in - of Gretzky over Orr. THN is a journalistic publication; their surveys are no less aboslute than any other. They are hardly a DEFINITIVE Source. TrulyTory 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
RGT: If you cannot quantify it - don't state it ! I have caught you engaging in advocacy. You must stop this. If Gretzky is considered by "most" to be the greatest, then I could claim the same for Orr. Since neither one of us can prove it, it is a POV TrulyTory 21:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you cannot provide any evidence to back up your assertion that most authorities consider Orr the greatest. That being said:
ESPN SportsCentury 48-man panel rated Gretzky the 5th greatest athlete of the 20th century and the greatest hockey player. (Gordie Howe ranked 21st, Bobby Orr 31st)
On Jan. 9, 1998, Gretzky is named the Greatest Hockey Player of All-Time as selected by The Hockey News.
"He's made the record book obsolete," said former Minnesota general manager Lou Nanne. "His only point of reference is himself."
"How great is Gretzky?" said committee member and Edmonton Oilers president and g.m. Glen Sather, who coached Gretzky for 10 seasons. "There aren't enough adjectives. Just look at his records and longevity."
"He's the greatest player I've ever seen," said former NHL goaltending great Glenn Hall.
"Gretzky sees a picture out there that no one else sees. It's difficult to describe because I've never seen the game he's looking at," said Boston Bruins president Harry Sinden.
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman - "I think he's brought to this game a level of excellence both on and off the ice that no athlete in any other sport can match."
Mario Lemieux upon Gretzky's retirement: ""I wanted to be here. It's a very special day. I certainly have mixed emotions. I'm happy for Wayne because I think he's making the right decision. He's accomplished so much throughout his career. The other side is hockey's losing the greatest player ever."
The NHL's website touts him as the greatest ever: [1]
I'll post more later on, but in the meantime, if you'd care to come up with some current authorities who cite Orr over Gretzky, feel free. RGTraynor 00:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of Orr's supporters wrote their homilies prior to the Internet; nevertheless, what you provide as "evidence" is still opinion or a POV. This cannot be quantified, so do not claim it in the reference/article on WG, unless you are willing to accept that some OTHERS who saw both play, rate Orr #1 and Gretzky #2. You cannot state that he IS the greatest when your evidence is a range of opinion. Opinions are not facts - which is the whole point of my battle with you. That many people share an opinion, does not make the opinion a fact. My edits on both articles seem the fairest and most objective. TrulyTory 00:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The simple turn of phrase "most hockey authorities regard Gretzky as the greatest player ever" is fact. Most of them do. Why you are hellbent on insisting anyone is making an assertion beyond that I cannot figure out. Do you intend to bring any evidence of your own to the contrary to the table? RGTraynor 05:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just say that it is suggested by most that Gretzky is the best forward of all-time and that Orr is considered by most to be the best defenceman of all-time? Croat Canuck 03:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the 'bone of contention' is that the word 'most' implies 'FACT' which in this case(or any other 'great' sports celebrity) can never be proven. To state 'X" is considered by many to be the greatest, is a much more accurate description.(because it can be applied truthfully to more than 1 subject without being anyone POV) RGTraynor and a few others cite a few 'select' sources to back up there 'most' arguement, but it just doesn't hold any water. Example: to remove POV from the opening pragraph of the Wayne Gretzky Bio accurate...and STILL hold to the point which they're trying to get across...the line would say. In 1998, Gretzky was picked by a group of hockey experts(as selected by the Hockey News) as the greatest NHL Player of all time. Were it written tht way, it would narrow down the origin of the statement and express the 'FACT' that they're trying to get across. I, myself would not have a problem with that wording at all because the point given to to the reader is more direct. To say "considered by most hockey experts to be the greatest" is simply too ambiguous and implies 'fact' where fact cannot be proven. 50 opinions or even 100 opinions do not express the opinions of all, unless all are asked. All in this case perhaps being all sports journalists...all NHL coaches(active and retired), all international coaches(active and retired) all professional scouts(active and retired) etc etc. To gather such a panel would be impossible. But then and only then could the word 'most' be used and still be accurate. Nowhere in the Hockey Hall Of Fame bio on Gretzky, Orr, Howe or anyone else for that matter does it say 'greatest of all time' most, many, some or whatever. At least they know how to word a biography without including any bias. Sooner or later that same vein of thought will eventually make it's way here....I hope. Mr Pyles
I agree with RGTraynor, this should go to mediation before it gets any more venomous. Croat Canuck 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Despite Masterhatch's protestations, the fact remains that despite RGT's "evidence" he cannot claim that the term "most" is verifiably accurate. "Many" is the most appropriate term. Bring on mediation. You will find that I am correct. In order for RGT to be correct he must identify the quantifiable type and amount of "authorities" to cite, and prove that theirs is a majoirty opinion within an agreed-to list of worldwide authorities on Ice Hockey and the NHL. Good Luck though, as you will need the rest of your waking life to acomplish this - if ever you could. TrulyTory 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to TrulyTory

As for you saying your winning the battle. I don't look at it as a battle. Simply a differing opinion on the use of the words 'most' vs 'many' My whole arguement(as stated before) 50(or even 100) do not speak for all. S.I. voted Michael Jordan the greatest basketball player of all time. Thats not a global opinion...just S.I.'s. And in this case 'most' means most of the panel selected by The Hockey News. I don't mind it going to mediation. I've made that suggestion a couple of times already. The words 'greatest of all' do not appear in any bio in the Hockey Hall of Fame. The truth of it all is that 'all' the elected members of that shrine are 'the greatest of all'. Each in their own way have built the game into the most exciting sport in the world. 50 years from now...The Hockey Hall Of Fame will still be there and the Wiki-Encyclopedia....will be a long forgotten memory. I myself find this whole concept of a public access encyclopedia a very fascinating experiment. BUT...I question everything I read and would never use it as a source if I had to argue a point...'in the real world'. Lots of people have put a lot of time into creating it. But eventually, unfortunately...it'll just disappear.

~Mr Pyles

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/y/Talk%7EWayne_Gretzky_Greatest_or_One_Of_the_Greatest_3_bec0.html"