I might be willing to concede that. But I would say it only if it was along the same lines as:
"Mario was a better talent, but, IMO, Beliveau was the more effective player."
In other words Shore would still be higher than Harvey. The way Mario remains ahead of Beliveau despite the inherent truth of the previous statement.
Its not even close to the same. The gap between Shore and Harvey is miniscule compared to the visible gap between Mario and whoever comes #5.
Here I am arguing both sides here. Earlier I was defending Shore to a Habs fan, now I am defending Harvey to a Bruins fan. lol
You do realize that the likelyhood Shore gets 4 Hart Trophies would have been diminished if the Norris existed back then. once Defensemen had their own award, it became an exceedingly difficult thing to get them consideration for. Shore probably would still have gotten 1-2 of them, but 4? No. Conversely, Harvey likely would have gotten a few Hart Trophies had the Norris not existed considering his high finishes for the Hart. Shore lines up well for around 7-8 Retro Norris trophies.
Another thing to consider. Harvey is far and away considered the greatest defensive player of all time and Best PKer. However, Harvey was not the best offensive Dman of his era, although still very good. The opposite is true with Shore. Shore was far and away the best Offensive Dman of his era, but was not considered the best in his own end in his time, though still solid.
Now someone tell me how Ray is not in their top ten.......
Easy. Because I have him #11
Nobody is disputing Shore's greatness but Harvey was the key man, and the quarterback for the most dominant team ever. Everything that team did offensively flowed and began with Harvey's stick, and the team's entire defensive structure revolved around him.
Some people will look at it in a different way. Such as, how much playing on that team helped Harvey too. As Much as he is and was the cog of that team, the near same squad won 5 Stanley cups in the 60's immediately after getting another decent puck mover without Harvey. Its not like he was the sole engine of that team, although he was very important. They were still on average 20-30 points above the league average every year without him.
Harvey dominated his position for a decade as his 10 first team all-stars attest (as well as his one second team all-star, and his seven Norris trophies). Furthermore the high quality of his play with the Blues in the 1967-68 playoffs and 1968-69 regular season speak to a longevity that Shore was unable to match.
Again, Shore was a lock for 7-8 Norris trophies himself, as well as around 12+ all star selections. He played 4 terrific years before all star selections were even around.
They are closer than credit is being given here by both of you.
During his first NHL season, His goal total exceeded that of all but three Boston forwards and it became apparent that he was capable of fully controlling a game when he was on the ice.
Shore was just as responsible for Boston's success. And this was before the Forward pass was legal for a few years.
And I've heard plenty of old fans (and players like Beliveau) claim that Harvey played defense better than anyone ever (including Orr).
I'm not knowledgeable enough to say which one is better than the other, I just didn't like how you seemed to dismiss the idea that Harvey was better than Shore as unbelievable.
He did. Harvey was the best defensive Dman and Pker ever and was the 3rd best offensive Dman of his era(Red Kelly and Bill Gadsby were better).
Conversely, as I said, Shore was far and away the best offensive Dman the world had ever seen until Orr, and is probably still 3rd best behind Coffey and Orr. Shore was solid in his own end as well, but not as solid as a few others in his day.
Both guys have their strengths and weaknesses.