Orr Vs Gretzky

[Ogopogo*]

Agreed 100% reckoning, Gretzky was obviously valuable to the Oilers, as a matter of fact, clearly their most valuable player. I was just replying to:



Just showing the knife cuts both ways.

I think you missed my point.

 

[notmynhl]

Originally Posted by notmynhl
Because hockey is a contact sport. How could having more physical presence not be beneficial?

Because sitting in the penalty box does not help your team win. Getting injured does not help your team win. Being distracted with the physical aspect of the game takes away from putting numbers on the scoreboard.

Ever heard of Jarome Iginla?

People think it's cool that Jarome plays physical but, honestly, he is doing the Flames a disservice. Sitting in the box for 5 minutes when you are the teams biggest offensive threat is foolishness.

Not trying to be rude, but did you know it is within the rules of hockey to bodycheck?

Getting injured? Gordie Howe and Chris Chelios. 'nuff said I think.

Jarome Iginla? I consider it a definite asset having a player capable of defending himself rather than wasting a roster slot on an enforcer.

 

[notmynhl]

Ogopogo:
I think you missed my point.

Sorry, what point did I miss?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Not trying to be rude, but did you know it is within the rules of hockey to bodycheck?

Getting injured? Gordie Howe and Chris Chelios. 'nuff said I think.

Jarome Iginla? I consider it a definite asset having a player capable of defending himself rather than wasting a roster slot on an enforcer.

OK simple math:

Do you score more goals when your best offensive player is on the ice or off the ice?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Sorry, what point did I miss?

It was said that a team with Orr would beat a team with Gretzky. I was showing how many Orr led teams couldn't even beat a team without Gretzky.

Just pointing out how stupid that argument is.

 

[notmynhl]

Ogopogo:
It was said that a team with Orr would beat a team with Gretzky. I was showing how many Orr led teams couldn't even beat a team without Gretzky.

Just pointing out how stupid that argument is.

No, I said that if we had two equal teams, add Orr to one, Gretzky to the other, the team with Orr would win.

Why is it that you continously resort to insults? You also continuously argue points that I never made, trying to put words in my mouth. Both of these are the last resort of someone who knows they lost the debate.

 

[notmynhl]

Ogopogo:
OK simple math:

Do you score more goals when your best offensive player is on the ice or off the ice?

OK, apparently you don't know. You are allowed to bodycheck in hockey. It is legal. You do not get sent to the penalty box for a bodycheck.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

No, I said that if we had two equal teams, add Orr to one, Gretzky to the other, the team with Orr would win.

Why is it that you continously resort to insults? You also continuously argue points that I never made, trying to put words in my mouth. Both of these are the last resort of someone who knows they lost the debate.

Depends on the makeup of the team as well.

 

[BNHL]

Agreed 100% reckoning, Gretzky was obviously valuable to the Oilers, as a matter of fact, clearly their most valuable player. I was just replying to:



Just showing the knife cuts both ways.

I'll give a few reasons why the Bruins did not win more cups with Orr-WHA defections,3 Conn Smythe goaltending performances,arrogance,and defeat at the hands of the best NHL team in history-1976-77-78 Montreal Canadiens.

 

[Cawz]

Argue 5 Orrs vs 5 Gretzkys or equal teams, one with Orr, one with Gretzky, and it amounts to the same thing: The team with Orr is going to beat the team with Gretzky. Thus Orr is better than Gretzky.

With all due respect, this is the sillyest argument ever.

 

[Cawz]

As one who is no doubt younger than your father and older than you, I'll simply suggest this, from personal observation:

Indeed, as a general rule, we tend to look back fondly on "the good old days" even when they weren't so much. It's both an endearing and aggravating human trait. And it applies well beyond sports into all aspects of life.

That stated, it cuts both ways. A common trait among some (many?) younger people is to have an utter disregard (and disrespect) for that which came before them. To the extent that they try to diminish the accomplishments of those athletes who were the glory of their times.

Such a myopic view is equally insufferable. And it is played out daily on HF, though thankfully, very infrequently on this particular board, which tends to be a gathering of people old enough to actually remember the Reagan Presidency.

Bobby Orr was great. Wayne Gretzky was great (and still a productive player as recently as 1999, which oddly, qualifies as "olden times" to the born yesterday crowd around here).

Whether they could compete today or not seems to be the big (the only) question for some. Niiiiice hypotheticals, but it matters not. For among anyone not born in the 1990s, they are without question at the top of the conversation among the very best this sport has ever seen. (Alexander Ovechkin notwithstanding. )

Point being, the game is great now. But rest assured it was great then, too. And just as there are superior players today, there were elite players then.

To debase any generation of players, either purposely or unintentionally, is small. An it happens around these parts waaaaay too frequently, by irresponsible "fans".

Just my opinion.

Just to add to this, one thing thats funny on this site is how people base their opinions on hearsay. I asked the goofball Gretzky hater from this site (we all know who he is, no need to name him) how aften he saw Gretzky play in his heyday. He said he was lucky to get more than a couple western conference games a month where he lived (out east). And yet he knows all about how he inflated his stats and was protected by bodyguards...

Orr was great. Or so I am told. I never saw him play. Gretzky was great. I saw him play tonnes growing up in the Edmonton area on locallly televised games (on CTV and ITV I think). Lemiuex was great. I rarely saw him play though, except for the rare regular season Hockey Night in Canada broadcast and playoffs.

Thats why I'm suprised why people argue to passionatly against players. I know for a fact Gretzky was amazing. I saw him play many times. I cant really compare him to Orr or Lemiuex though, since I only have hightlights and few-and-far-between memories. To say one is better is an argument that will never be solved, since its impossible. At least this way, their memories stay active. I just wish it could be done without the negatives that always arise in these threads.

As said above, Bobby Orr was great. Wayne Gretzky was great.

 

[Stonefly]

OK simple math:

Do you score more goals when your best offensive player is on the ice or off the ice?

Oh if hockey were that simple.
You do understand there are intangibles in the game don't you?
A great hit or a fight can completely turn a game around.
Sounds to me like women's hockey is what you're looking for.

 

[Wooty]

Guys I effed up my posting.

I was making the statement that I do NOT believe playing physical has to be a positive OR that the absence of physical play is a negative.

There is no need to be physical if you don't need to.
Physical play is pointless if you can do something else to cause victory. In this case not using physical play is better then your physical play.
- Gretzky was the best ever at causing offense to happen, playing physical would be a waste of time.


Just to point something else out - you guys are arguing with people that agree with you. Every nuance to a position doesn't deserver another 3 page debate.

 

[BNHL]

Guys I effed up my posting.

I was making the statement that I do NOT believe playing physical has to be a positive OR that the absence of physical play is a negative.

There is no need to be physical if you don't need to.
Physical play is pointless if you can do something else to cause victory. In this case not using physical play is better then your physical play.
- Gretzky was the best ever at causing offense to happen, playing physical would be a waste of time.


Just to point something else out - you guys are arguing with people that agree with you. Every nuance to a position doesn't deserver another 3 page debate.

The championship Oiler teams,like all Cup Champions (Carolina notwithstanding),had plenty of fight and physical players (4 or 5 over 100 PIMs).

 

[Wooty]

The championship Oiler teams,like all Cup Champions (Carolina notwithstanding),had plenty of fight and physical players (4 or 5 over 100 PIMs).

This is about Gretzky and Orr with a little bit of Mario tossed in.
What you are saying has nothing to do with what that.

 

[Stephen]

Forget the skills. Orr and Gretzky were so ahead of everyone else because of what went on between their heads. It's incomprehensible to even think of an Orr in todays game. Looking at old highlight reels, as great as they're to watch, don't do justice. To compare him with Kariya or Connelly is an insult. I have a hard time believing that people think he wouldn't make McCabe and Hall Gill look like fools coming in off the rush. He had 3 speeds and he'd toy with the opposition - they were scared of him because he just change gears at any moment. And the Wayner knew what the opposition was going to do before then even did. These guys didn't play in 1920. Wayne retired in 1999 and Orr should have retired in 1989.

It doesn't matter how skilled you are, if you're going into dangerous spots on the ice, i.e. full speed down the centre of the rink, and often, you're going to get filled in in a bad way.

And what do you mean by "these guys didn't play in 1920"? The game has changed a lot in the last thirty years. It was a different era then and there was a different way to play it.

 

[notmynhl]

Cawz:

Originally Posted by notmynhl
Argue 5 Orrs vs 5 Gretzkys or equal teams, one with Orr, one with Gretzky, and it amounts to the same thing: The team with Orr is going to beat the team with Gretzky. Thus Orr is better than Gretzky.

With all due respect, this is the sillyest argument ever.

OK, I'll bite: How is it silly? Two equal teams. Orr on one, Gretzky on the other. I put forward the Orr teams win. If this is true, then anyone who is making up a team would pick Orr ahead of Gretzky (to give themselves the best chance at victory), and Orr would have to be considered the better player.

Edit: My favourite part is that not one Gretzky supporter has even bothered to say the team with Gretzky would win. Kinda puts everything into perspective.

 

[pappyline]

It doesn't matter how skilled you are, if you're going into dangerous spots on the ice, i.e. full speed down the centre of the rink, and often, you're going to get filled in in a bad way.

And what do you mean by "these guys didn't play in 1920"? The game has changed a lot in the last thirty years. It was a different era then and there was a different way to play it.

Wayne retired in 99. Has it changed that much in the last 8 years? I think not.

 

[Wooty]

It doesn't matter how skilled you are, if you're going into dangerous spots on the ice, i.e. full speed down the centre of the rink, and often, you're going to get filled in in a bad way.

And what do you mean by "these guys didn't play in 1920"? The game has changed a lot in the last thirty years. It was a different era then and there was a different way to play it.

Identify exactly how the game has changed since Wayne Gretzky retired please.
Edit: that is not what you said so please identify what has changed in the 30 years span you said things have changed.

 

[Cawz]

OK, I'll bite: How is it silly? Two equal teams. Orr on one, Gretzky on the other. I put forward the Orr teams win. If this is true, then anyone who is making up a team would pick Orr ahead of Gretzky (to give themselves the best chance at victory), and Orr would have to be considered the better player.

Edit: My favourite part is that not one Gretzky supporter has even bothered to say the team with Gretzky would win. Kinda puts everything into perspective.

I'm sorry, its just a silly hypothetical argument that you are passing off as a fact that "The team with Orr is going to beat the team with Gretzky. Thus Orr is better than Gretzky."

I just find the whole "basing opinions on hypotheticals and passing them off as fact" as silly. No offence to Orr, Gretzky or your other posts.

 

[Wooty]

OK, I'll bite: How is it silly? Two equal teams. Orr on one, Gretzky on the other. I put forward the Orr teams win. If this is true, then anyone who is making up a team would pick Orr ahead of Gretzky (to give themselves the best chance at victory), and Orr would have to be considered the better player.

Edit: My favourite part is that not one Gretzky supporter has even bothered to say the team with Gretzky would win. Kinda puts everything into perspective.

Identify who, in this thread, has said that Wayne Gretzky is BETTER then Bobby Orr.
Who are you debating with?

 

[TheSniper26]

Identify exactly how the game has changed since Wayne Gretzky retired please.

It hasn't. But then again, when Gretzky retired in 99, he wasn't producing that much. Now, has the game changed since the 80's when he was putting up those crazy numbers? Absolutely. You'd be silly to try and deny the drastic difference between the 80's NHL and today's NHL.

 

[pappyline]

It hasn't. But then again, when Gretzky retired in 99, he wasn't producing that much. Now, has the game changed since the 80's when he was putting up those crazy numbers? Absolutely. You'd be silly to try and deny the drastic difference between the 80's NHL and today's NHL.

Explain the differences between the NHL in 1989 and today. Other than the rule changes & the salary cap.

 

[Wooty]

In 96-97 he put up 97 points
http://www.canoe.ca/Gretzky/stats.html

 

[TheSniper26]

Explain the differences between the NHL in 1989 and today. Other than the rule changes & the salary cap.

Are you serious? Goaltending equipment? Heavy use of the trap across the board? Butterfly goaltending being used by basically all goalies instead of the flawed stand up style? Guess what all of those things have done. Cut down on what?

In 96-97 he put up 97 points
http://www.canoe.ca/Gretzky/stats.html

A very good season indeed. But a far cry from the 200+ point seasons he had in the 80's. Those seasons very likely would not happen now or even in the 90's for that matter. Face it, the game changed drastically in a pretty short amount of time there.