Should Gordie Howe's #9 be retired by the entire NHL in the similar fashion as Wayne Gretzky's #99?

Question

With the news of retired and "honoured" numbers coming about the past few days, an old issue came to light. For years, I have always believed that before Wayne Gretzky and the subsequent assault upon the record books came along, Gordie Howe was the NHL's brightest light. By and far the league's greatest ambassador, Howe (outside of being inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame) has never really been given proper tribute for his achievements. To that end, should Howe's #9 be raised to the rafters in every NHL city the way Gretzky's #99 was?

Answer 1

no.  gordie howe is not a nice man and does not promote hockey like gretzky does.  howe makes kids cry at signings when we refuses to sign anything but his own photo they have to buy.

on several all star weekends howe agrees to sign sticks, pucks, hats, shirts, etc...and when he gets there it is photos only.  howe is human scum.

Answer 2

No BUT if you do it can be for Howe and Richard..A duel retirement would be nice.

They shouldn't the same reason the NBA doesn't retire George Mikan's #99,NFL doesn't retire Jim Thorpe's #31 and baseball doesn't retire Babe Ruths' #3.Just because they were the first huge superstars doesn't mean they should be retired by their respective leagues.

Answer 3

yea because gordie howe was mr hockey and he was fantastic at the game he loved

Answer 4

Because Number 9 has already been retired by 5 NHL teams, retiring it league wide for Gordie Howe would be to show disrespect to Johnny Bucyk, Clarke Gilles, Bobby Hull, Lanny MacDonald and Maurice Richard. These are all players who have had their number 9 retired by their teams for what they did.

I agree with Conn Smyth when it comes to retiring numbers. Retire only those numbers of players who ended their careers either by accident of death while they were still active. Having a firm policy and sticking to it avoids the ego problem that develops when someones number isn't retired and someone else's is.

Answer 5

not my favorite number

Answer 6

Yes,

#19 should be as well since it is retired on the Canadian Olympic team

Answer 7

Snoop, good to see you, btw.  Nice to see a brain around these parts.  

No.  I matter of fact, I don't think they should retire a number for one player throughout the entire NHL.  If one of the teams that you had played for, wants to retire your number...fine.  I love Gretzky, I just think an "ALL" retired number is stupid, therefore obviously, I wouldn't want to see it done for Howe either.  Just my opinion.

Answer 8

No, not because he didn't deserve it but there are lots of players who deserve it and you can't keep retiring numbers so nobody can wear them because then there would be much less numbers to wear and maybe somebody in the future who deserves it even more than Gordie Howe won't be able to have their number retired for the entire league. Gretzky also had the most career points by far and his statistics are better than any bodies by a long shot. Also 99 was a far less popular number but if you retire 9 around the league lots of people would be forced to change numbers and other teams would want retired players on their teams to get that honor. It would only cause problems so I think it is best to keep it the way it is right now.

Answer 9

I really don't see that happening. If it does. Then Number 66 and 4 should also be retired for those players honors as well. The teams would be losing a lot of numbers really fast that way. I think that Gretzky will forever be the only one with a league wide retirement

Answer 10

No it should not, 9 is to low and common of a number to retire league wide. Plus so many great players have worn that number throughout there career i.e Maurice Richard, Bobby Hull, and Mike Modano, to name a few. They retired Gretzky's league wide because he was, in all good fairness the Great One, which mean he is never to be outdone, at least in terms of statistics. So no Howe's number should not be reitred league wide.

Answer 11

no, too many people use it in the nhl...

Answer 12

Yes, it should.

Joe Sakic?????  Are you serious?

I understand he is great, but he still lives in the shadows of Steve Yzerman.  I guess he is about 8th on the all time points list?  Still, his role in hockey is not as significant as that of The Captain.  I understand your point, but retiring Yzerman's would be more symbolic, because Marcel Dionne, Ron Francis, and Mark Messier technically would have to have theirs retired before Stevie Y.  If you send Yzerman and Sakic to the NHL's rafters, you send the top 10 in points, the top 5 defensemen, and the top 3 goalies ever to play.  Sending Sakic and Yzerman would be too much.

Answer 13

Yes.

Along with #19 jointly for Yzerman and Joe Sakic.

Also 66 for Mario.

RedWing: Most for Yzerman, but Sakic has also had an amazing career that is worth noting in the hockey universe. 600+ goals, nearly 1700 points, the face of the Avs/Nordiques orginization for the last 20 years just as Yzerman was for the Wings.

Answer 14

I agree with Joe. I don't think a retiring number (that's very common) for just one player is valid enough; especially when Howe's greatest rival was Richard who also wore the same number. It would be downright insulting to him and he'd be rolling in his grave.

Answer 15

No. Then you would have to do that for Orr and Lemieux as well. Once you do that people will ask why not ...Plante? why not Rocket Richard ? why not everyone from the HOF and the list will grow...and grow.

And people will get carried away like the guy who said they should retire Sakic's number league wide.

I didn't think they should have done it for Gretzky.

Great in theory ...but not in practice.