|
|
Post by the bear on Feb 27, 2010 12:26:48 GMT -5
physically inferior? thats the most ridiculous comment ive seen on here
orr played the game the way it was meant to be played......speed skill toughness.....he had knee problems but he also played a tough game...he hit, fougth, battled in the corners
grezky never did any of those things.....not trying to take anything away from him the stats speak for themsevles.....but he had other people aroudn him that hit, fought, and battled in the corners for him his whole career......if anyone went near the guy he had an enforcer to protect him.....he played a different game then the one orr played.....i dont think you could play that way anymore either
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Feb 27, 2010 13:00:50 GMT -5
Exactly. Making the point. You have already admitted you know nothing about him. I can't believe that you are now weighing in less than two hours later because you did a little googling? I am not making your point, because wasn't declaring Gretzky greater. I simply don't know enough about hockey or Orr to give a fair assessement. No one would argue that Gretzky was the single greatest offensive player there was (though I heard some mention Lemieux occaisionally) and that Orr was easily the greatest defenseman. It's the overlap and the "overall" that is the interesting question. Again, I go back to Michael Jordan and what he said about him being declared "the greatest". He said you cannot compared him to Bill Russell or Oscar Robertson because they didn't play against each other. (this is one of the reason i like MJ so much, his sense or reality). Truth is no one will truely know if Orr or Gretzky was better because the only true way was to play them against each other. People have said that Orr could keep the puck the whole game if he wanted to. People also said that Gretzky saw the game in a way that no one had seen it before.. what would have been true if they faced each other? But again you can make comparisions, it is possible. So we can talk about Longevity, defence, offense, fighting (btw, why is this comparison is used it beyond me) and their effects on their teammates and opponents. And this is what makes Crosby vs Ovekin interesting. But in any comparison the only one that counts (IMO) is winning. Goals, assists and other stats really mean nothing without wins. Who won the most stanley cups? Who had the largest effect on winning on their teams? |
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Feb 27, 2010 19:46:41 GMT -5
The hardware tells the story...
Harts: Gretzky 9, Orr 3
Cups: Gretzky 4, Orr 2
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 27, 2010 20:15:16 GMT -5
I've been saving this up because I actually thought you knew what you were talking about but I thought I would let you keep posting away before I came to a conclusion. Presumably, you are more of an expert on track than hockey. Using your own criteria, you didn't even pick the greatest Canadian track athlete, so, spare me your Gretzky/Orr analysis. Do a little research and report back on the greatest Canuck sprinter(using your own criteria). I realize everyone figures everything they experience in their lifetime is the be all and end all(to wit-the ridiculous Pre worship). And you are contradicting yourself with Elliott. Is longevity important or not? Using Herb as an example of longevity is a ridiculous example and using your own criteria, many more middle distance runners are greater. Elliot MAKES the Orr case. A fairly short but brilliant career. Bone up on his history.
|
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Feb 27, 2010 20:27:14 GMT -5
You've seen the cold hard facts and don't like them. I have not laid out any specific criteria, so don't even try the "using your own criteria" BS. In fact I've done quite the opposite and said it is very much up for debate. The Elliott example was done on hearsay, my bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 27, 2010 20:36:13 GMT -5
I have not laid out any specific criteria, so don't even try the "using your own criteria" BS. In fact I've done quite the opposite and said it is very much up for debate. Huh? To wit: As far as greatest Canadian athlete, I look at it this way: Donovan Bailey was at one time the greatest athlete in the world. He was the Olympic and World record holder in the 100m - probably the most contested sporting event of all time. Can we say this about any other Canadian athlete? No. Again, facts. You think Bailey is not only the greatest Canadian sprinter but the greatest Canuck athlete-I am talking about your own conclusion based on your own criteria-you established them and then came up with the wrong guy(using your own criteria) and called them "facts" too. |
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Feb 27, 2010 20:50:43 GMT -5
What aren't facts there? He was an Olympic and World record holder in the 100m, which is probably the most contested sporting event of all time. And you can not say the same about any other Canadian athlete, because there has not been any.
Criteria can be defined as something you either meet or you do not, like a mark on a ruler. I have not laid any of this out at all. I haven't said 'X' makes you a great athlete. For the third time now, I continue to say this is up for debate. If you can find the mark on the ruler that I specify, please identify so. If not, please stop making false claims and attacks simply because you are losing the debate of Orr vs. Gretzky.
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Feb 27, 2010 21:00:16 GMT -5
I have not laid out any specific criteria, so don't even try the "using your own criteria" BS. In fact I've done quite the opposite and said it is very much up for debate. Huh? To wit: As far as greatest Canadian athlete, I look at it this way: Donovan Bailey was at one time the greatest athlete in the world. He was the Olympic and World record holder in the 100m - probably the most contested sporting event of all time. Can we say this about any other Canadian athlete? No. Again, facts. You think Bailey is not only the greatest Canadian sprinter but the greatest Canuck athlete-I am talking about your own conclusion based on your own criteria-you established them and then came up with the wrong guy(using your own criteria) and called them "facts" too. No he didn't say Bailey was the "greatest Canadian sprinter". According to your quote of gtown... he said "As far as greatest Canadian athlete, I look at it this way: Donovan Bailey was at one time the greatest athlete in the world." These are two different clause. The first set up the overall argument. The second says " at one time", as in at one point in time. You can argue that he is implying it, but he didn't specifically state it. In order for gtown to do so, he would need to say "This is what makes Bailey the greatest Canadian Athlete: he was the world record holder ... etc " |
|
|
|
Post by wetcoast on Feb 27, 2010 23:39:42 GMT -5
Slamer,
Once again you got to get off the 'Gretzky not fighting' argument, it's pure BS. Yes he did not fight and couldn't. Earlier in this thread I listed all sorts of great, great players who never ever fought. Sorry man, most top-level offensive players never fight or fight so rarely, they are not 'fighters' per se.
All teams have role players and designated fighters/power forwards to protect the playing players.
We don't know, Orr could have been the victim of surgeons who like to recommend surgery. You know very well as a runner, surgery is the last option. Also surgery in the late 60s early 70s was not what it is today - butchery in comparison.
I was lucky enough to watch everyone talked about on here - I was young for Orr and Howe and Hull, but I watched them in the latter years. Gretz was not the beneficiary of (at least not any more than anyone else) of other good players or protection.
Lemieux had Jagr - true great. He also had Stevens, Francis and several others.
Orr has Esposito, Cashman, Peters and several others.
All the greats had other good linemates.
Gretzky was the greatest, there is no question on that, stats do not lie, cups don't lie and plus-minus is a fair stat.
|
|
|
|
Post by limestonemiler on Feb 28, 2010 4:10:59 GMT -5
jon montgomery. end of discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 28, 2010 5:29:25 GMT -5
Gretz was not the beneficiary of (at least not any more than anyone else) of other good players or protection. Lemieux had Jagr - true great. He also had Stevens, Francis and several others. Orr has Esposito, Cashman, Peters and several others. What are you talking about? Coffey, Messier and Kurri were HOFamers sans Wayne. Cashman basically doesn't exist without Orr-note he doesn't make the HOF-ditto Hodge. Peters? What are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 28, 2010 5:30:01 GMT -5
What are you talking about? Stop making some kind of lawyerly argument based on what he typed. Read what he is saying in context. We are not talking about a point in time. We are talking about the greatest Canuck athlete ever. He is saying it is Bailey. If he is the greatest athlete, he is certainly the greatest sprinter and he isn't based on his own criteria. Read his conclusion: "Can we say this about any other Canadian athlete? No." Using his own criteria, it is wrong just talking about sprinters forget all other athletes. |
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Feb 28, 2010 7:55:45 GMT -5
SI: This is getting ridiculous. You keep trying the "using his own criteria" BS and can not back it up with proving that I have laid out specific criteria of any kind. You don't agree. That's fine. For a second time, find the mark on the ruler that I say makes a great athlete. Otherwise, your argument is simply incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 28, 2010 8:16:04 GMT -5
Follow the bouncing ball. You said the sprinter with the world record and the gold medal is the greatest athlete. Those are your criteria.
|
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Feb 28, 2010 8:25:44 GMT -5
Fail. Those are facts to support "the way I look at it". Not Criteria. I did not say those are what make athletes great.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 28, 2010 10:09:50 GMT -5
?? Let me boil it down even simpler for you. Donovan Bailey was at one time the greatest athlete in the world. He was the Olympic and World record holder in the 100m - probably the most contested sporting event of all time. Can we say this about any other Canadian athlete? No. The answer to that question is actually yes. That is a fact, not what you consider the facts to be: |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Feb 28, 2010 10:26:03 GMT -5
gtown, he's got a point. Bailey was not the only Canadian sprinter to be the best in the world. Percy Williams and Harry Jarome also both held the 100m world record (so did Ben Johnson, for that matter).
|
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Feb 28, 2010 11:38:02 GMT -5
Where is his point at all correct? They all had the WR AND OR? Maybe my research is wrong, though I doubt it, but Percy Williams didn't, nor did Harry Jerome. As for Ben Johnson, he cheated. Out of consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 28, 2010 11:47:55 GMT -5
You're actually wrong but the WR makes the OR redundant in any event and Percy had double the golds that Bailey did in individual events.
|
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Feb 28, 2010 12:06:48 GMT -5
From what I've seen, Percy tied the OR and did not break the WR at the Olympics.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 28, 2010 12:23:11 GMT -5
Once again a distinction without a difference and now you are qualifying your comments. Nowhere did you say anything about the same meet. Simple question. At the end of 1930, what records did Percy hold?
|
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Feb 28, 2010 12:44:27 GMT -5
He held the WR and a share of the OR. A very important distinction with a significant difference. Donovan held both outright.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Feb 28, 2010 13:42:34 GMT -5
Why does hockey always come into play?  ?? What about a global scale? ? I hate to say it but Donovan may have to go down as the greatest.....world record...most competitive event in the world (none of this ski cross stuff).....Percy williams also has some legitimacy....no one else really sticks out at me In regards to hockey the debate of gretzky, orr, howe, etc.....is difficult. In my mind when you look at stats and the ability to control a game Orr wins. He led the league (record at the time) in assists and also in points. No defenceman has even come close to doing that.....I mean it was Gretzky who broke Orr's assists record.......(now what if Orr had modern surgery and his modern arthroscopic surgery knee, as opposed to the butcher job of the time, would ahve meant to the longevity of his career...he'd still hold ever single defencemena record) ..having said all this hockey debate the best analysis I have ever heard was on the radio one day where some hockey guy put it this way (paraphrasing here) that i thought put the greatest hockey debate in perspective. He put it into time frames this way...if u judge the greatest players look at their impact during periods of time that certain players dominated the sport: 1) for 5 yrs Orr is the greatest 2) 10 yrs it's Lemieux 3) 15 yrs it's Gretzky 4) 20 yrs it's Howe |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 28, 2010 13:57:23 GMT -5
He held the WR and the OR. Case closed PLUS he had one more individual gold. Pretty obvious that you are backing and filling here and, like Elliott, for some bizarre reason you want to use an even shorter period of time(one race in this case) which is inconsistent with your Orr argument. Sorry, but you are all over the map. |
|
|
|
Post by trackstar on Feb 28, 2010 14:22:07 GMT -5
This debate reminded me of a list in the hockey news from 1998. It's the top 100 players ever. Obviously, it's still opinions but it was done by a lot of respected hockey minds so I thought it was pretty interesting to see. Obviously not accounting for the last 12 years changes things a bit as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_100_greatest_NHL_players_by_The_Hockey_News |
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Feb 28, 2010 14:31:20 GMT -5
SI: twist it any way you want, I don't care. Just don't F***ing misquote me like that. Bush league right there. You're right, case closed. You lost in Orr vs. Gretzky, you failed to produce a single criteria that I apparently laid out for great athletes, and now you're just trying to discredit my argument by rearranging the words in my posts. What is this, amateur hour?
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 28, 2010 14:44:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Feb 28, 2010 19:12:05 GMT -5
This debate reminded me of a list in the hockey news from 1998. It's the top 100 players ever. Obviously, it's still opinions but it was done by a lot of respected hockey minds so I thought it was pretty interesting to see. Obviously not accounting for the last 12 years changes things a bit as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_100_greatest_NHL_players_by_The_Hockey_NewsInteresting list. Where are the Russians? Tretiak? Not one Russian? |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Feb 28, 2010 19:17:36 GMT -5
NHL and only to 1998.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Feb 28, 2010 19:38:58 GMT -5
Glad to see there was a truce during the gold medal game.
One more knock against Gretzky...too chummy with Harper;)
|
|
?? What about a global scale?