Ovechkin, Jagr, and Howe are all more complete players than Gretzky ever was, and would be great on any line, and against any opposition, in any era—unlike Gretzky.
I love Gretzky, but points totals don’t tell the full story.
It’s the same reasoning that people have for picking Wilt in basketball—he could do it all, against anybody, with any supporting cast…and, he did. Also Olajuwon, IIRC.
I have nothing but the highest regard for Ledecky, but her breast sucks—but recently did look much improved to my eyes.
Unless I am mistaken, she went 4:35.77 at Philips 66 last year. In December, a 16-yr-old Summer McIntosh went 4:28.61 at the US Open for # 3 all-time. Hosszu is way down at 4:26.36 in the terrible Rio pool. Ledecky isn’t even in the top 25 for the event. The young women, like Grimes, are dominating. OTOH Hosszu is not only a distant (for now) WR-holder in the 400 IM, but she is also the 200IM WR-holder, #11 all-time in 200 back, #13 all-time in the 100 back, #25 all-time in the 200 free, and #6 all-time in the 200 fly.
Ledecky’s entire claim to fame at this point is 200-1500 free, where she is of course the GOAT, male or female—but she is hardly the best swimmer.
Hosszu is the female equivalent of Phelps, the GOAT all-around female swimmer. FOR NOW. She could soon be dethroned by one of the crop of young women who are currently kicking azz LC—McInosh, Grimes, etc. They are amazing.
I stopped reading your list after seeing Ovechkin. You have been disqualified!
Ovechkin, Jagr, and Howe are all more complete players than Gretzky ever was, and would be great on any line, and against any opposition, in any era—unlike Gretzky.
I love Gretzky, but points totals don’t tell the full story.
It’s the same reasoning that people have for picking Wilt in basketball—he could do it all, against anybody, with any supporting cast…and, he did. Also Olajuwon, IIRC.
Lara is probably 3rd on the list (Sachin being second) but is not even on the same planet as Bradman's dominance. I mean he wasn't even the best player of his own era, nevermind all time.
281 straight weeks at #1, almost 5 1/2 years. Nobody else has cracked 100 weeks.
Jack was also dominant, but nowhere near the depth of fields during Tiger’s reign.
Nicklaus faced far more all-timers than Woods when competing for Majors.
At the time Nicklaus was at his peak, there were maybe 8-10 players realistically capable of winning majors. So naturally a bunch of them won multiples and cemented themselves as greats. Now there are 200+ guys who on their day that can win, the depth is ridiculous. Someone who wins 5 majors today is probably the equivalent of 15 in Jack's day. And I'm a huge Nicklaus fanboy, but you can't compare eras. Tiger might have won 30 or 40 in the same era.