|
|
Post by loverunning on Feb 28, 2010 19:52:03 GMT -5
Maybe we can make a case for Crosby after that goal today!
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Feb 28, 2010 21:41:53 GMT -5
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 That's a good way of putting it. |
|
|
|
Post by wetcoast on Mar 1, 2010 1:44:39 GMT -5
Gretzky had excellent players around him as did, as I pointed out, Lemieux, Orr, How and almost all others. One player does not make a team.
First off Gretzky did make other players better around him. This was one thing that was talked about ad-naseum when he played is how he made players better. Bernie Nichols was pretty fair, but when he was SCHMOKIN' when he met Gretz in LA. Kurri and Coffey never replicated what they did with Gretz after the splits. Nor did Gretz, but he still scored 185 points with Nicholls on a mediocre team.
Then the trap came in and killed hockey's growth.
Orr did make players around him better, this is a side benefit to having an excellent player (usually)
Dionne and his triple crown line with Simmer and Taylor.
Semin/Ovechkin
Crosby/Malkin
Naslund/Bertuzzi
Selanne/Kariya
Carson/Robitaille
Hull/Oates
Shutt/Lafluer
Sedin/Sedin...ok joke...maybe there is reciprocating.
Bomba, I think of the players you mention for longevity, I think Gretzky was more consistantly at the top especially for about 11 years - just non-stop greatness.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 1, 2010 5:26:43 GMT -5
I'm afraid it's a bit difficult to take your historical analysis seriously given your still unexplained Peters comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Mar 1, 2010 20:33:53 GMT -5
...chris it's kinda like saying Jim Brown isn't the greatest running back of all time because he only played 9 years.......I put a guy like Gale Sayers in the same boat as Orr. Could've gone down as the greatest all around running back of all time if not for his knee operations (i think he aplyed only 7 yrs, but my oh my what a seven yrs)......
..if you judge Orr's impact by the time he played, how he changed the game, records, etc.....in such a short time frame his level of work beats out all the others.......but someone like Gordie Howe gets a lot of points becuase of his longevity, all around play (something gretz never did) and ability to control the game physically make him relevant. On the other side lemieux was the most physically gifted offensive player who could completely control a game.....Gretzky never controlled agame physically or even dominated in many areas he simply used his hockey IQ to pick and choose his spots.......
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 1, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Just watch the clips.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetcoast on Mar 2, 2010 15:35:41 GMT -5
Bomba,
I am shocked and dismayed. Lemieux retired crying about the physicalitah and I don't blame him, the holding was stifling, but in open hockey he displayed, like you say, probably the most purest of talent. Lemieux did not live and breath hockey like Gretz, when he was younger, he was viewed as a whiner and a guy who wasn't interested in playing for his country - he ended up growing out of that and enjoying international competition, because, it was less stifling. I don't think he dominated a game in a physical sense, but was big enough that he could handle being hammered.
You are right, Gretz's hockey IQ was brilliant.
Keep in mind it was NOT me who credits ORR or discredits ORR because of the length of his career. That was two other people I thought Orr was incredible. I also don't think he changed the game completely. I think he changed the way defencemen played which is huge, yes, but one could argue about any era that there were weaknesses in the competition or level of play or trend of the hockey.
It seems anyone over 50 claims Orr or Howe
Over 40 Gretz or Lemieux
Under 40 Gretz or Orr.
It's partially marketing.
I think Larionov and Trottier were more complete players than all of them, but at the end of the day, did they win cups or not. Larionov didn't escape Russia until he was 28 or so, so he can be credited with the same level.
I claim Gretz...that's my opinion. His stats, length of career, number of cups, influence upon team-mates and his revolutionizing (until the trap came in) the game, was (as far as I see it - opinion) the greatest of all named.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 2, 2010 15:48:18 GMT -5
I also don't think he changed the game completely. I think he changed the way defencemen played which is huge, yes, but one could argue about any era that there were weakn As I said, that is a distinction without a difference. There are three basic positions. I really don't know how you can fundamentally change two of them so changing the other one is changing the game. Glad you're on board. It seems anyone over 50 claims Orr or Howe Over 40 Gretz or Lemieux Under 40 Gretz or Orr. It's partially marketing. Nonsense. Marketing doesn't control what I saw and I saw all of them-a lot. As I have now said for the third time, any historical analysis you do is suspect anyway given that you have yet to explain what your comments about Peters were all about. |
|
|
|
Post by wetcoast on Mar 2, 2010 18:17:54 GMT -5
No not nonsense it is personal belief. I personally believe Gretzky was the (is) the greatest player to play and so far, nothing you have said so far even nudges my personal opinion one iota. So it is not nonsense. It makes complete sense to me. You know perception is reality.
You can change what the defenceman does and not change the game. At least not change the game enough to call it revolutionizing the game.
After Orr and during Orr wingers continued to skate up and down things wings - for the most part. Defencemen, save for 1 per team typically were not all that offensive. But enough to credit Orr with changing it. Also whoever let Orr go, whether it be Cherry or a previous coach should be given credit.
The game changes all the time You can credit Lemaire for changing the game (and ruining it in my opinion) by using the trap relentlessly - the trap was invented by the Czechs. That trap was possibly the single biggest influence on hockey (in a big way). Another influence was Sather and Gretz. If Sather was an old school coach, Gretz would have been confined to play within some pretty staid parameters and possibly would have been only a good or a good second liner.
I think I meant Cheevers as a goalie and typed Peters. I am not going back to look now.
Anyway, you say Orr, I say Gretzky and that is ok in my books, they were both brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetcoast on Mar 2, 2010 18:33:04 GMT -5
Ugh - some weird errors like 'things wings' meaning 'the wings'.
Trap changed the game, in 'bad way' is what I meant.
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Mar 2, 2010 19:10:32 GMT -5
What are you talking about? Stop making some kind of lawyerly argument based on what he typed. Lawyerly?? It's basic reading comprehension. You dispute what he wrote, I'm simply using reading comprehension to get at what was written. Directly stating something and it's implied context is what reading comprehension is all about. You can't dispute what someone says and then try to avoid being accurate about what that point is. That's being dishonest. 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. It's clear you are talking about in "greatest ever". But at that point he was not. 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. Besides, even if he miscommunicated the point he was trying to make (something that I don't think he did), does that change his point? I'd like to also point out that what ever the point, it doesn't make it true. Either way, why don't we stop this pointless non-sense about what was said and what it ment. Even if you are right SI (gtown said what you say he said), but gtown ment to say something else, this line of argument is just pointless discussion. Here's my solution: gtown, state you case clearly. SI take that new statement as what his position is and go from there. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 2, 2010 19:27:40 GMT -5
Read the first post. You'll get it.
|
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Mar 2, 2010 20:00:33 GMT -5
After SI decided to "quote" me by rearranging my words in the text box, I decided not to stoop to his level and continue. I'm far too happy and still in celebratory mode...no need to waste any more time defending myself against someone that immature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gangster Pre on Mar 2, 2010 20:01:36 GMT -5
ben Johnson
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 2, 2010 20:20:15 GMT -5
After SI decided to "quote" me by rearranging my words in the text box, At the end of 1930, did Percy have the OR? Yes. At the end of 1930, did Percy have the WR? Yes. As I said, the WR makes the OR redundant in any event. It would be like trying to improve Bailey's and Percy's résumés by saying that they were Canadian record holders. The most important fact was that Percy was the gold medalist. |
|
|
|
Post by rocknroll on Mar 2, 2010 20:21:51 GMT -5
I personally don't think that the greatest canadian athlete is someone from track and field. How I see it is that the number of people in Canada that play hockey is MUCH greater than the number who do track, this is just a rough guess but I'm going to say around 40-50 times as much, so there are a lot greater odds that the best is going to be a hockey player.
I'm going to say the best so far is Gretzky, Crosby could eventually, but he's gotta prove a lot more before he surpasses the Great One.
|
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Mar 2, 2010 20:57:08 GMT -5
SI: you still rearranged the words, and now to your downfall you will go as a result. You see, I am particular about my word choice and the way I arrange them. It tends to come in handy when someone like you comes along. As mentioned before, there is an important distinction I made with a significant difference.
I was going to spare you the embarrassment of this, but here's the nail in the coffin for you. It comes by way of the word "the". This word of the English language is a definite article as opposed to indefinite, meaning one and not more than one. If you were to take your own advice and read my original post, you would see this word preceding the terms World record and Olympic record with reference to Donovan Bailey. The sentence is formed in a way that explicitly states Donovan Bailey to be the World and Olympic record holder at one time. As a result of this oversight on your part, you are 100% wrong in your assessment that Percy Williams is another Canadian we can say the same about. He had a SHARE of the Olympic record, making him AN Olympic record holder, and not THE Olympic record holder.
Checkmate.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 2, 2010 21:05:58 GMT -5
The sentence is formed in a way that explicitly states Donovan Bailey to be the World and Olympic record holder at one time. Just like Percy was. Your own words. Back and fill all you want. It is pretty obvious you were about as familiar with Percy as you were with Elliott: The Elliott example was done on hearsay, my bad. If you want to try and say: there is no Canadian comparison ...you're going to have to do WAY better than that particularly since Percy had the 200 gold for good measure. |
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Mar 3, 2010 15:28:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Mar 5, 2010 12:50:43 GMT -5
So someone brought this to my attention. It seemed that the one year Phil Esposito and Orr were teammates, Esposito won the Hart Trophy. Indicating he wasn't even considered the best player of his own team (at least that year). How does that factor in to this discussion? |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 5, 2010 14:29:49 GMT -5
Amusing. Check out Phil's stats before he got traded to Boston. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. And I don't know what this means: It seemed that the one year Phil Esposito and Orr were teammates, |
|
F.T
Full Member
Posts: 293
|
Post by F.T on Mar 5, 2010 20:28:38 GMT -5
guys.... ben johnson... I mean... talk about the pride he bestowed in our nation. Have you ever seen so many steriods in one man? Clearly the greatest.
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Mar 6, 2010 15:02:17 GMT -5
Amusing. Check out Phil's stats before he got traded to Boston. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. Maybe I missed the gist of what you are saying, but what I understand you said was that Orr made his teammates better. He took no name type guys and elevated their game significantly. What I am saying is that no matter how much better Jordan made Pippen, no one was ever confused about who the MVP always was. I just think it's telling to say that during the high of his playing days, he wasn't consider the most valuable player one his own team (never mind the league). If he was he would have won it. It's a significant knock against him as the "greatest". AND Phil was amongst the leaders in scoring, league wise, for the Blackhawks when he first came into the league (his first 3 seasons in the league). The fact that he improved doesn't at all prove that Orr had something to do with it as he was still young in the Chicago days (although it almost certainly helped him more I'm sure). Phil, as far as I understand is considered one of the greatest hockey players ever. It was his records that Gretzky broke afterall. I may not be the most knowledgeable hockey guy, but you reasoning is at best, flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Mar 6, 2010 15:15:09 GMT -5
Esposito was quoted as saying "Scoring goals is easy, you just stand in the slot, take a beating and shoot the puck in the net". Certainly not a finesse player, but effective.
He scored most of his goals from his 'office'....and largely because of Orr. He broke some amazing records that stood for a long time, however he could not be considered one of the greatest players of all time. The reason he won the Hart was because without a doubt because of Orr.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 6, 2010 17:08:02 GMT -5
I may not be the most knowledgeable hockey guy, Agreed. |
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Mar 6, 2010 17:14:29 GMT -5
...however he could not be considered one of the greatest players of all time. Except that he is considered one of the greatest of all time. Continue your debate gentlemen. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 6, 2010 17:34:17 GMT -5
Everyone could be considered to be among the "greatest of all time" depending on how far you go down the list. The list quoted earlier in the thread puts him 18th. That was all due to Orr. He got 21 goals in his last season with Chicago and 29 in his first season with NY. He doesn't make HOF with those kind of stats let alone be ranked 18th. Ken Hodge was the most ridiculous example. 10 goals with Chicago and 21 with NY. No HOF despite a 50 goal season and 2 100 points plus seasons. The HOF voters knew what was going on in his case.
|
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Mar 6, 2010 18:07:59 GMT -5
Somehow those crazy Hall of Fame voters judged Esposito based on his play with the Bruins, which shockingly corresponded to the prime of his career.
Regardless, it's a good thing Orr was there to help Esposito be the leading scorer for Canada during the Summit Series. In spirit that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 6, 2010 18:19:33 GMT -5
Believe me, I don't disagree that he was a great player.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 6, 2010 18:28:46 GMT -5
Regardless, it's a good thing Orr was there to help Esposito be the leading scorer for Canada during the Summit Series. In spirit that is. Good thing he wasn't able to play. Would have been much less exciting is my guess! I have arguments with people about various world champs that have happened since and the argument is that they were more exciting. I'm afraid not. Even a track tie in story. Our grade 10 gym class had a x-c route we would run behind Sacred Heart high school in Walkerton. Everyone was allowed to watch the last game and that was it. A couple of games before, somebody had a radio going back on the x-c loop and we could do the loop and find out what was going on. |
|
