Orr Vs Gretzky

[Gee Wally]

I have to go with my eyeballs.



Orr.

 

[jiggs 10]

Dont you remember? in the 80s, the players were such pansies that they would allow Gretzky to score at will because they were afraid of being beat up. Plus, they were such rule-abiding nancies, they agreed to lose games becasue Ziegler told them not to hit the star.

Its a good thing the players of today have the guts to stand up for themselves. Imagine if the players nowadays purposely let themelves look stupid, just so the stars could score more points.

I think thats where the whole "lack of respect" issue comes in these days. Back in the 80s, the players cared for the league as a whole, so they allowed Gretzky to score over 200 points in a season, becasue it was for the greater good. Nowdays, the players care more about winning, not like in the 80s when players were just happy to play the game and have fun.

Or like in the 70s, when star players like Orr "would do things in practice that he would never do in the actual game because he didn't want to embarass the opponent". I was too young in the 70s, but apparetly the respect for the opponant was there as well.

Maybe some of the older posters here should shes some light on how things were in the 60s. Maybe there was so much respect back then that the players didnt hit each other, and all the players from both teams cheered whenever anyone scored. Becasue isnt having fun the whole reason of sports?

LOL, the players today care more about MONEY, not winning! My God, some of the 3rd liners in the 80's would lead the NHL in scoring today (or at least be in the top 10)!

Glenn Anderson could lead the NHL in goals every year today. He was a 2nd or 3rd liner in Edmonton and Toronto. Mike Bossy could conceivably score 90 goals today (except for the goalie's giagantic padding, that is!). There are some great skilled players in the game today, no doubt. But there were a greater number of them during the glory days of the 1980's (Nilsson, Hawerchuk, Savard, Yzerman, Dionne, Stasney, Vaive, Housley, Doug Wilson, Bourque...these guys would STILL dominate the All-Star team every year!).

Respect for the opponent left the game in the 1970's, when the Flyers became popular. And with the advent of masks in minor hockey, it will never come back. Players today are never taught to keep their sticks down and their heads up. They just flail away. Not that there was great respect in the 60's. There were many feuds between players and teams, but the players had more respect for the LEAGUE as a whole, and not just for themselves.
And yes, the whole idea of sports IS indeed having fun! Winning is more fun than losing, but the "having fun" part is why every star players plays. Maybe the ham-and-egger's think injuring an opponent to try to win a game is "heroic", but most of us think it's pathetic!

 

[Cawz]

LOL, the players today care more about MONEY, not winning! My God, some of the 3rd liners in the 80's would lead the NHL in scoring today (or at least be in the top 10)!

Glenn Anderson could lead the NHL in goals every year today. He was a 2nd or 3rd liner in Edmonton and Toronto. Mike Bossy could conceivably score 90 goals today (except for the goalie's giagantic padding, that is!). There are some great skilled players in the game today, no doubt. But there were a greater number of them during the glory days of the 1980's (Nilsson, Hawerchuk, Savard, Yzerman, Dionne, Stasney, Vaive, Housley, Doug Wilson, Bourque...these guys would STILL dominate the All-Star team every year!).

Respect for the opponent left the game in the 1970's, when the Flyers became popular. And with the advent of masks in minor hockey, it will never come back. Players today are never taught to keep their sticks down and their heads up. They just flail away. Not that there was great respect in the 60's. There were many feuds between players and teams, but the players had more respect for the LEAGUE as a whole, and not just for themselves.
And yes, the whole idea of sports IS indeed having fun! Winning is more fun than losing, but the "having fun" part is why every star players plays. Maybe the ham-and-egger's think injuring an opponent to try to win a game is "heroic", but most of us think it's pathetic!

My whole post was in jest.

For the life of me, I dont understand why people think Gretzky scored so much becasue he was allowed to by the opposition. The myth that he scored so much becasue there was an unwritten rule that you couldnt hit him in comical.

Do people actually think that the opposition would discuss in the dressing room before the game how they would allow him to score 5 goals becasue Ziegler asked them not to hit him? Seriously?

Well, I guess my whole post wasnt in jest, maybe tongue in cheek is a better term. Half truth, half jest. I definaltly didnt mean any downplay to the stars of yore.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Dont you remember? in the 80s, the players were such pansies that they would allow Gretzky to score at will because they were afraid of being beat up. Plus, they were such rule-abiding nancies, they agreed to lose games becasue Ziegler told them not to hit the star.

Its a good thing the players of today have the guts to stand up for themselves. Imagine if the players nowadays purposely let themelves look stupid, just so the stars could score more points.

I think thats where the whole "lack of respect" issue comes in these days. Back in the 80s, the players cared for the league as a whole, so they allowed Gretzky to score over 200 points in a season, becasue it was for the greater good. Nowdays, the players care more about winning, not like in the 80s when players were just happy to play the game and have fun.

Or like in the 70s, when star players like Orr "would do things in practice that he would never do in the actual game because he didn't want to embarass the opponent". I was too young in the 70s, but apparetly the respect for the opponant was there as well.

Maybe some of the older posters here should shes some light on how things were in the 60s. Maybe there was so much respect back then that the players didnt hit each other, and all the players from both teams cheered whenever anyone scored. Becasue isnt having fun the whole reason of sports?

Great post! I laughed out loud at this one.

 

[toastman344*]

Orr was the Best I Ever Saw Play...No Doubt About It...He was and Still IS ...in a Class by Himself...IMO

I also think that the argument saying...well the average player back then wasn't as good etc...doesn't hold much water...Yes, todays goalies are better...their equipment is lighter etcetera ..Yes, the average guy is bigger and faster...BUT...the fastest guys back then were every bit as fast...and the best players were everybit as good...

Howe played in four decades, and even well past his prime, he still held his own against a supposedly oh so superior class of athletes ...If You could magically have put a much younger version of Howe against those same guys...of course he woulda been dominant...

There were plenty of guys who transcended eras...who ( for example ) played with and/or against Both Gretzky and Orr....I don't think u'd find too many who would NOT pick Orr as the more talented of the two...Nobody could do those things at top speed that Orr did...NOT EVER

I'd likewise say that our 1976 Canada Cup team, was our Best Team Ever...& The Best Team ever Period...Yeah better even than 1987...and No Potvin wasn't our Best D man, much less our Mvp in that tourney...I saw those games, & it was Orr...even on one leg he was Still The Greatest on the Planet...

...That isn't just nostalgia talking either...far from it...When Orr came along...Nobody was saying well Howe or Richard or whoever was better in his primes ...Everyone , old timers included...were saying WOW ! There's never been anyone like Orr !

If the players today are faster...then why cant they break , or even come close to Mike Gartner's Fastest Skater Record Time ( for example )...Stop Watches don't lie...

Ditto AL IAFRATE'S Shot ...Radar guns were being employed in the 80's...Hell he was clocking them at over 105 mph with a wooden stick...U think there's anyone in the League now who could do better...I think NOT

***
I think the guy who said that the quality of the old video...doesn't do the players justice...is bang on...it often makes them look slower then they really were...

When Gretzky was near the end of his career he was still near the top of the league in scoring bad back and all...Mario after his return from cancer, retirement etc...was actually leading the league in scoring until he got hurt...this when he's clearly over the hill and likewise can barely bend over to tie his skates...so what makes the athletes Super Mario was competing against near the end, so superior ...as compared to those he faced in his prime...clearly, they weren't

My point is that if an in his prime Gretzky , Lemieux , Howe etcetera ...could magically compete today...They'd rocket right to the top of the scoring race...Crosby or no Crosby...

Ditto ORR in Spades...Cuz #4 was THE BEST There's Ever Been !

ENDOFSTOREY...

 

[alanschu]

I also think that the argument saying...well the average player back then wasn't as good etc...doesn't hold much water...Yes, todays goalies are better...their equipment is lighter etcetera ..Yes, the average guy is bigger and faster...BUT...the fastest guys back then were every bit as fast...and the best players were everybit as good...

I have no doubt that the fastest players back then were as fast as guys now. The science of Sports Medicine provides more benefits to people on average. We all have a maximum potential for our physical abilities, and there is nothing stopping a player like Orr from reaching his. This potential would not be significantly different than the potential we have now. I have no doubt that Orr would come in and be an excellent defenseman. The issue is that the rest of the players around him would be at less of a disadvantage from a physical aspect.

If the players today are faster...then why cant they break , or even come close to Mike Gartner's Fastest Skater Record Time ( for example )...Stop Watches don't lie...

I am pretty sure Jason Chimera did it. It just wasn't at an All-Star game since he wasn't an All-Star.

..That isn't just nostalgia talking either...far from it...When Orr came along...Nobody was saying well Howe or Richard or whoever was better in his primes ...Everyone , old timers included...were saying WOW ! There's never been anyone like Orr !

That certainly helps Orr's case. But there are still people that do rate Howe as the best player they'd ever seen.

It's also a problem. People remember Orr coming in and saying "man, he has no equal." If a player comes along today and is Orr+1, it won't look as dominating because we'd have Orr (and the rest of the players as well) to compare him to. Even though he'd have more talent than Orr.

 

[toastman344*]

It's also a problem. People remember Orr coming in and saying "man, he has no equal." If a player comes along today and is Orr+1, it won't look as dominating because we'd have Orr (and the rest of the players as well) to compare him to. Even though he'd have more talent than Orr.

Dont worry about it ...It's all completely hypothetical at this point...Cuz Nobody's even come close to ORR yet...

NB* ...In another Thread...ORR's at the top of everyone's all Time D list...and there's NO DEBATE About That...Many even have a dividing line set below him...To Signify that #4's In A Class All BY Himself...

U Think We Wouldn't Recognize another Orr IF ...One Came ALong...TRUST ME THE WHOLE WORLD WOULD TAKE NOTICE !

***
Btw U Never Saw Orr Play... Did U

That Seems Painfully Obvious

CHEERS

 

[Ogopogo*]

Nobody's even come close to ORR yet...

These kind of statements destroy your credibility and tarnish Orr's image.

Most people call the player they watched growing up, the greatest ever. Older folks say it's Howe, you say Orr, I say Gretzky, some say Lemieux. It depends when you were born for most people.

Those four are the four greatest of all time, virtually everyone says that. But to say that nobody's been close to Orr is simply foolishness. How would that explain Orr winning 3 Hart Trophies in his 9 full NHL seasons? In Gretzky's first 9 seasons he won 8 Hart trophies.

I am not trying to bash Orr at all, it is just foolish to make comments like the one you made above.

 

[pappyline]

These kind of statements destroy your credibility and tarnish Orr's image.

Most people call the player they watched growing up, the greatest ever. Older folks say it's Howe, you say Orr, I say Gretzky, some say Lemieux. It depends when you were born for most people.

Those four are the four greatest of all time, virtually everyone says that. But to say that nobody's been close to Orr is simply foolishness. How would that explain Orr winning 3 Hart Trophies in his 9 full NHL seasons? In Gretzky's first 9 seasons he won 8 Hart trophies.

I am not trying to bash Orr at all, it is just foolish to make comments like the one you made above.

It pisses me off to no end when you talk about Gretzy's 8 hart trophies to Orr's 3. Big Deal. In Orr's days they voted MVP's exclusive of the AR. MVP DOES NOT MEAN BEST PLAYER In Gretzy days's the Voters in the watered down NHL didn't have a clue as to what the Hart Meant. Don't use the moronic views of a bunch of USA sports writers to support your biased views of Gretzy. I am sick of it,

 

[Ogopogo*]

It pisses me off to no end when you talk about Gretzy's 8 hart trophies to Orr's 3. Big Deal. In Orr's days they voted MVP's exclusive of the AR. MVP DOES NOT MEAN BEST PLAYER In Gretzy days's the Voters in the watered down NHL didn't have a clue as to what the Hart Meant. Don't use the moronic views of a bunch of USA sports writers to support your biased views of Gretzy. I am sick of it,

LOL.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your deep love.

Explain why Orr could only win 2 Cups when Gretzky won 4 in the same number of seasons?

I have no problem with people who pick Orr as the best ever, it just amazes me at the stupidity of people to say that no player was ever close. The facts don't substantiate that foolish claim.

 

[Lowetide]

LOL.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your deep love.

Explain why Orr could only win 2 Cups when Gretzky won 4 in the same number of seasons?

Put Orr on those Oilers teams sans 99 and they run the table.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Put Orr on those Oilers teams sans 99 and they run the table.

Why could he not win a cup with 8 of the top 10 scorers in the league on his team? Gretzky never had a team like that.

 

[Stonefly]

"These kind of statements destroy your credibility and tarnish Orr's image.

Most people call the player they watched growing up, the greatest ever. Older folks say it's Howe, you say Orr, I say Gretzky, some say Lemieux. It depends when you were born for most people.

Those four are the four greatest of all time, virtually everyone says that. But to say that nobody's been close to Orr is simply foolishness. How would that explain Orr winning 3 Hart Trophies in his 9 full NHL seasons? In Gretzky's first 9 seasons he won 8 Hart trophies.

I am not trying to bash Orr at all, it is just foolish to make comments like the one you made above."



Actually I think the Hart argument is weak as well. Sorry Ogo, but if you look back at the history of the trophy, that Orr won it three times, let alone at all is astonishing. It is heavily, heavily weighted towards forwards. Since Orr there has only been one other d-man to win it. Before Orr it was equally as rare. The Hart and the Art Ross have a very tight bond.

 

[Stonefly]

LOL.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your deep love.

Explain why Orr could only win 2 Cups when Gretzky won 4 in the same number of seasons?

I have no problem with people who pick Orr as the best ever, it just amazes me at the stupidity of people to say that no player was ever close. The facts don't substantiate that foolish claim.

I wasn't aware either player won the cup on their own. I was always under the impression the Bruins and Oilers won them. This is good information to know.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I wasn't aware either player won the cup on their own. I was always under the impression the Bruins and Oilers won them. This is good information to know.

I was just trying to make a point. It is fine to call Orr the best player of all time if you feel that way but, saying that no other player is even close - that is foolishness.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Why could he not win a cup with 8 of the top 10 scorers in the league on his team? Gretzky never had a team like that.

Ken Dryden????????

 

[alanschu]

NB* ...In another Thread...ORR's at the top of everyone's all Time D list...and there's NO DEBATE About That...Many even have a dividing line set below him...To Signify that #4's In A Class All BY Himself...

That's nice. This isn't a debate about who's the best defenseman though.

U Think We Wouldn't Recognize another Orr IF ...One Came ALong...TRUST ME THE WHOLE WORLD WOULD TAKE NOTICE !

I disagree. Evolution of Sports Medicine, combined with improved coaching and system play, makes the average player more able to compete with the superstars. Superstars still run the league, but I'd be very surprised if Bobby Orr was able to skate around for a full 2 minutes on a Penalty Kill, as talented as he was. In order to do stuff like that you need to have a combination of insane physical and insane mental superiority over your opponents. I do not think he'd have the edge physically to just skate around. And no, I don't think Orr would get as much of a benefit from the improvements in Sports Medicine. I suspect he was probably as close to his physical peak as he can get, hence his dominance back in the day. Just like I don't think Wilt Chamberlain, a very fast and very powerful basketball player, would benefit as much. Would he do well? Absolutely. The best players are the best players primarily because of their mental abilities, not their physical abilities (if it is based on physical abilities, then it's a sign that the competition level is too weak). The only significant improvement Orr would have would be that he'd likely be able to get better treatment for his knees, and therefore be able to play longer.

Btw U Never Saw Orr Play... Did U

That Seems Painfully Obvious

CHEERS

No, I didn't. I didn't really watch Gretzky play when he was lighting up the league (I was too young to appreciate it), nor did I really watch Mario Lemieux (since I was following basketball at that time). Pretty much everything that I have seen has been old game tapes and highlights (though I hate highlights, because they obviously only paint a player in fantastic light).


Quite frankly, the smug attitude of both Gretzky and Orr supporters in this thread is rather sickening. I think I'll bow out of this discussion now. I knew before coming in that it was pointless to even think about saying anything, since issues like these involve people that already have made up their minds on the issue.


And since I haven't stated a choice on who I'd pick yet, I figure I'll take the wussy approach and pick no one. Two different players, playing in two different eras. Impossible to tell who's the better player.

 

[pappyline]

LOL.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your deep love.

Explain why Orr could only win 2 Cups when Gretzky won 4 in the same number of seasons?

I have no problem with people who pick Orr as the best ever, it just amazes me at the stupidity of people to say that no player was ever close. The facts don't substantiate that foolish claim.

I do have a problem with those who use the words "stupid" & "foolish" to describe people who have conflicting views. There are no right or wrong answers here. It all comes down to opinion.

 

[toastman344*]

Alanschu I think u missunderstood me...u implied that if an ' Orr + 1' arrived us Oldtimers still would insist that Orr was better...I assumed u were talking about another D man here...

...I said that that's all hypothetical at this point cuz no one's come close to Orr...Look at the context of my statement...I was clearly talking about D men...and even referred to another thread to make this abundantly clear...

This isn't a debate about who's the best defenseman though.

I was trying to put Orr in the context of his peers ...and who says we cant do that, here ? There's debate about who was the best ( in terms of pure talent ) forward of all time...Lemieux, Howe , Gretzky...and this IS a lively debate...BUT NB*: ORR HAD NO PEERS ON D...AND THERE'S NO DEBATE ABOUT THAT...Pretty telling no ?

Again its pure foolishness IMo to say if another D man came along ...with Orr level talent...that, the whole world wouldn't Take Notice...IT WOULD

... Evolution of Sports Medicine...( yadda , yadda )...

The evolution of Sports Medicine hasn't prevented anyone from recognizing the talent of Crosby has it ?...19 years old, not nearly in his prime yet, and with a pretty sizeable lead in the scoring race alteady...nor has it prevented Crosby vs. Gretzky comparisons...

Like I said...If another ORR ( yeah I'm talking D here again ) came along...People WOULD NOTICE...& u can take that to the bank...

Anyway that Evolution of Sport's Medicine Schmeel is pretty overrated...in a lot of athletic endeavors the biggest improvements were a direct consequence of Performance Enhancing Drugs...Prime illustration=Baseball...

 

[mytor4*]

Totally agree, orr was a great player but he isn't touching wayne

Gretzky>>>>>>>orr

 

[Stonefly]

Totally agree, orr was a great player but he isn't touching wayne

Gretzky>>>>>>>orr

Had he had the opportunity to play against Wayne, i guarantee he would have touched him.

 

[farzamk*]

gretzky the better player. done.

 

[Devilhawk]

Having watched both of there careers from start to finish. I would Take Orr.

Gretz was an offensive explosion. But hockey is a diverse game... and Orr did it all. Like nobody who has ever played. Gretz was the the greatest offensive player ever. But toughness and defense are very much a part of hockey . And Orr like Howe did it all. I do however put Gretz on an even par with Howe.. But not Orr. He is the best.

 

[ilovehockey]

If you actually look at the stats and awards that they won over there first 9 years, it shows how good they were compared to their pears. As an 18-20 year old there really isn't an argument because Gretzky accomplished way more then Bobby Orr in their first 3 seasons. When they were each 21-26 or during their primes they were both unstopable. Bobby Orr was winning scoring titles and was the best defensive player in the league. Wayne was winning scoring title by a point per game. So you can argue that all you want but the best answer for this stage of their careers is they were equal. After that Orr played 3 partial seasons in which he played 36 games. Gretzky went on from that stage of his career and was the leading scorer of the decade of the the 90's. Winning a couple more scoring titles, and lead his team to a Stanley Cup Final. This is why I Believe Wayne was the better player, at Gretzky's and Orr's prime they were equal, but Wayne was better before their prime, and he actually played after his prime, where he was still one of the top players of the game and some years was the best. The hockey news voted Gretzky as the greatest player of all time, and it's not going to change. Gretzky will be know as better of Orr, when it comes to all the greatest players polls because he is always on top when it is done by other magazines.

 

[alanschu]

The evolution of Sports Medicine hasn't prevented anyone from recognizing the talent of Crosby has it ?...19 years old, not nearly in his prime yet, and with a pretty sizeable lead in the scoring race alteady...nor has it prevented Crosby vs. Gretzky comparisons...

Crosby's not the first person to be considered "The Next One." Keep predicting it, and sooner or later you're going to get it right.

Anyway that Evolution of Sport's Medicine Schmeel is pretty overrated...in a lot of athletic endeavors the biggest improvements were a direct consequence of Performance Enhancing Drugs...Prime illustration=Baseball...

Which aren't related in anyway. All you've demonstrated is that if people have a large edge in physical attributes, they can become more dominant. That's why they take the performance enhancing drugs...to further realize (and perhaps even elevate) their athletic potential.

The Evolution of Sports Medicine isn't overrated. It's why the times for fastest athletes in a huge variety of sports gets smaller with time. It's sure as hell not because the human body has evolved.