Players were so horrible when Orr played!

[Nordic*]

If Joe Thornton played in 2050 he would hardly make it as a waterboy.

The argument is very hollow. You compare players based on how they dominated their own era.

Agreed! You can´t compare players that were active 40 years apart, since the player of today are so much better. But if you want to give Orr a title, then call him the greatest defender ever, not the best.

Greatest = compared to his peers in the same era.

Best = compared to player from any era.

And common sense will tell anyone that players from 1970 wouldn´t dominate today, even if they got to use all the modern equipment.

Orr is the greatest, not the best.

Geez its comments like this that lead to a rippling effect and make people believe Orr was no more than a waterboy. If you had a time machine a put Orr in his prime in the NHL today he would be the best defenseman bar none. He'd be better than Lidstrom, Nieds, Pronger etc. Would he put up 120-130 points? I dont know but he'd get over 100.

You have to remember that players get bigger, faster and stronger. Not that they werent in Orr's days but 30 years from now the game might be faster and we'll wonder how Crosby was able to so easily split the defense. If Orr played today he'd have the training regimen that everyone else has, plus he'd have the natural talent. He'd still be the best. Howe would still be intimidating, Coffey could still skate faster than anyone else, Gretzky could still pass better than everyone else.

Jesse Owens was fast in 1936 but implant him in 2008 and he'd look like an amateur. It doesnt mean he's not still the fastest of all time based on a projection but today he'd have a better training program and I think in 1996 he would have beaten Donovan Bailey if he had that advantage. You get my point.

1: That´s just too funny.. Even the oldtimers themselves admits that the game is much faster today, a whole new game. You don´t think they´d know better?

About Jesse Owens.. The whole damn point is, that they didn´t have the training (and everything else) that the stars of today have. Was Owens as talented or perhaps even more talented than the sprinters of today, perhaps, but that´s not what we are arguing.

I bet some dude in the 18:th century had better genes and more talent than some elite athletes of today, but talent isn´t the only thing that matters, it´s the complete finished package that makes someone the best.

 

[BNHL]

Agreed! You can´t compare players that were active 40 years apart, since the player of today are so much better. But if you want to give Orr a title, then call him the greatest defender ever, not the best.

Greatest = compared to his peers in the same era.

Best = compared to player from any era.

And common sense will tell anyone that players from 1970 wouldn´t dominate today, even if they got to use all the modern equipment.

Orr is the greatest, not the best.



1: That´s just too funny.. Even the oldtimers themselves admits that the game is much faster today, a whole new game. You don´t think they´d know better?

About Jesse Owens.. The whole damn point is, that they didn´t have the training (and everything else) that the stars of today have. Was Owens as talented or perhaps even more talented than the sprinters of today, perhaps, but that´s not what we are arguing.

I bet some dude in the 18:th century had better genes and more talent than some elite athletes of today, but talent isn´t the only thing that matters, it´s the complete finished package that makes someone the best.

...so you take those athletes of past eras and train them like today's athletes and you still have a comparable performing athlete especially in today's no touch NHL.

 

[trenton1]

Yes, it should be assumed that if Orr was an NHL player today he wouldn't train like today's NHLers. It wouldn't even occur to him.

He'd have to compete with Lidstrom and Niedermeyer for today's Norris trophy with 1970 Northland equipment and he'd absolutely have to take a puff off of someone's cigarette during each intermission. During the summer he would work at a grain elevator instead of training.

 

[XploD]

Of course they look horrible. Orr was kind of like Da Vinci. Way ahead of anyone else for his time and that's what you'll have to measure his career by.

 

[BNHL]

Yes, it should be assumed that if Orr was an NHL player today he wouldn't train like today's NHLers. It wouldn't even occur to him.

He'd have to compete with Lidstrom and Niedermeyer for today's Norris trophy with 1970 Northland equipment and he'd absolutely have to take a puff off of someone's cigarette during each intermission. During the summer he would work at a grain elevator instead of training.

There were probably plenty of Niedermeyers of past eras that just happened to smoke and drink but there has certainly never been a player of any era,in shape or out,with Orr's abilities.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Certain players from the 70s may not be able to translate their games to the 00s, simply based on the changes in systems, speed, and subsequent quick thinking.

But after watching the Summit Series, I'll argue 'til I die that you could plunk Valeri Kharlamov circa 1972 - without today's amenities - into today's NHL and he would compete for the Art Ross. He was fast enough, well-conditioned enough, and sharp enough to make an easy transition. Haven't seen any complete Orr games, but I can only assume he'd be a similar case.

 

[Big Phil]

1: That´s just too funny.. Even the oldtimers themselves admits that the game is much faster today, a whole new game. You don´t think they´d know better?

Explain to me how Lidstrom would outperform Orr in 2007? Keep in mind I'm not plunking a 1972 Orr into 2007 just as is, I'm giving him better training, better equipment just like today. Orr would train just like any other guy. Maybe someday someone will think Crosby didnt show enough "hustle" and determination and wonder how he could play in 2047.

It's assumed Orr would have the same advantages as other player. But he'd have the brains, speed, skill and vision as well. Do you not think that he'd mop the floor with Lidstrom or Pronger or Niedermayer? I do. I'll tell you one all-time great defenseman he always outplayed year after year. Brad Park. Not bad. Park is an all-time great and while most of us would put Lidstorm ahead of him on an all-time list it isnt that far off. Come on man, give Orr some respect. It's like saying Kharlamov wold be too slow in today's NHL, just wrong.

 

[Transported Upstater]

Yes, it should be assumed that if Orr was an NHL player today he wouldn't train like today's NHLers. It wouldn't even occur to him.

He'd have to compete with Lidstrom and Niedermeyer for today's Norris trophy with 1970 Northland equipment and he'd absolutely have to take a puff off of someone's cigarette during each intermission. During the summer he would work at a grain elevator instead of training.

And he'd still be the best player in the world at the same time, that's the amazing part.

 

[Trottier]

I was too young to ever see Orr play...

That's apparent from the rest of your lazy, cliche stereotyping of all players from an entire era.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

The Ray Bourque case study sort of destroys the notion that players are some how better now than they were in the late 70's and early 80's. When Ray broke in he was an all-star and compared favourably with the best of that generation which was just a couple of years after Orr. In his latter days, he was still a consistent all star and compared favourably against the best of the late 90's players, when in theory he should have be surpased significantly due to his advanced age and the supposed fact that players of the later generation were supposedly so much better..

Since Bourque was as good as anybody in the late 90's, if the theory that players are somehow better now than before is true, he should have destroyed the competion in his early years and made them look like minor leaguers.

Now either Bourque was made Bionic in his later years, or the whole notion that players in the late 90's were better is bogus. It likely has more to do with better skates, lighter equipment, better ice, better conditioning regimes and advances in medical science.

 

[trenton1]

The Ray Bourque case study sort of destroys the notion that players are some how better now than they were in the late 70's and early 80's. When Ray broke in he was an all-star and compared favourably with the best of that generation which was just a couple of years after Orr. In his latter days, he was still a consistent all star and compared favourably against the best of the late 90's players, when in theory he should have be surpased significantly due to his advanced age and the supposed fact that players of the later generation were supposedly so much better..

Since Bourque was as good as anybody in the late 90's, if the theory that players are somehow better now than before is true, he should have destroyed the competion in his early years and made them look like minor leaguers.

Now either Bourque was made Bionic in his later years, or the whole notion that players in the late 90's were better is bogus. It likely has more to do with better skates, lighter equipment, better ice, better conditioning regimes and advances in medical science.

Good point. I think most of the Hall of Fame level players will adapt and evolve just fine. Much of it with these players is drive, smarts, creativity, dicipline, anyway. Add in the new standards and regiments and things tend to stay the same.

 

[Weztex]

He could dominate since players were that much worse back then. If he had played today he wouldn´t even be a Norris-candidate.


Not even kinda close either.

Absolutely. Everyone knows that in the last 30 years human became superhuman in the course of evolution and every primitive 70's man wouldn't hold a candle to the 2000's superhumans.


no need for sarcasm figure

 

[mytor4*]

it's really hard to tell what orr would have done in todays nhl. the system today is so different. back in the 70's d-men had a free ride out to there blueline. the forchecking game was not as good as it was today with 4 lines rotating all the time. many say if you dropped orr in today he would dominate. my question is what if you took lidstrom and just dropped him in orrs time. don't you think lids would dominate. i think he also would have led the league in scoring . not saying lids is better than orr just that orr was that much better than most back than and so would have been lids if he played in that era also.

 

[Stonefly]

it's really hard to tell what orr would have done in todays nhl. the system today is so different. back in the 70's d-men had a free ride out to there blueline. the forchecking game was not as good as it was today with 4 lines rotating all the time. many say if you dropped orr in today he would dominate. my question is what if you took lidstrom and just dropped him in orrs time. don't you think lids would dominate. i think he also would have led the league in scoring . not saying lids is better than orr just that orr was that much better than most back than and so would have been lids if he played in that era also.

Drop Lidstrom back in Orr's day and take away all the advances in training and equipment and no, he doesn't dominate or win a scoring title. Lidstrom is just not that good.

 

[pitseleh]

Absolutely. Everyone knows that in the last 30 years human became superhuman in the course of evolution and every primitive 70's man wouldn't hold a candle to the 2000's superhumans.


no need for sarcasm figure

Not to mention that being bigger, faster or stronger has little bearing on how well a player plays. If that were the case, Derek Boogaard and Rico Fata would have illustrious NHL careers.

 

[mytor4*]

Drop Lidstrom back in Orr's day and take away all the advances in training and equipment and no, he doesn't dominate or win a scoring title. Lidstrom is just not that good.

thats a difference of opinions i guess.

 

[RUSqueelin*]

it's really hard to tell what orr would have done in todays nhl. the system today is so different. back in the 70's d-men had a free ride out to there blueline. the forchecking game was not as good as it was today with 4 lines rotating all the time. many say if you dropped orr in today he would dominate. my question is what if you took lidstrom and just dropped him in orrs time. don't you think lids would dominate. i think he also would have led the league in scoring . not saying lids is better than orr just that orr was that much better than most back than and so would have been lids if he played in that era also.

If Lidstrom played in the 70's he'd be one of the top dman in the league, just like he is today. No way he wins a scoring title. Talk about a slap in the face to everyone who played 30 years ago. For as good as you think Lidstrom is (and he is) think about how good Orr was. If Orr had played the last 10 years in the NHL, Lidstrom wouldn't have any Norris'.

 

[alrusso]

diddo

If Lidstrom played in the 70's he'd be one of the top dman in the league, just like he is today. No way he wins a scoring title. Talk about a slap in the face to everyone who played 30 years ago. For as good as you think Lidstrom is (and he is) think about how good Orr was. If Orr had played the last 10 years in the NHL, Lidstrom wouldn't have any Norris'.

I grew up in the Boston area when Orr was in his prime. When I read rediculous comments about Lidsrom or some other defensmen being as good as Orr or even close it makes me cringe. Some of today's fans just don't realize how great Bobby Orr was. It was like he was from another planet. The best ever!

 

[Gee Wally]

He could dominate since players were that much worse back then. If he had played today he wouldn´t even be a Norris-candidate.


Not even kinda close either.

Having seen every game Orr played....and 40 more years since he started...I respectfully submit that you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[reckoning]

Albert Einstein was sooooo overrated!!! He doesn't deserve to be considered one of the best scientists of all-time. The scientists today know more than he did, therefore they're better. If one of those guys were around 70 years ago, they would've easily accomplished everything he did a lot quicker.

If Einstein was around today, he wouldn't even know how to use a computer.



Do you guys see how stupid the argument is?

 

[arrbez]

The part that kills me about this argument is that you'd swear Orr played 100 years ago. The guy is still in his 50's.

If Bobby Orr played as long as many other GREAT defencemen play (Bourque, Stevens, Chelios, MacInnis, Robinson, etc), he would have played into the late 80's, and possibly even the 90's.

 

[BNHL]

When you see people compare Orr to Niedermayer or Lidstrom then it's time to move on because the guy you are talking to has absolutely no clue. I hate to insult people over opinion but some things are just plain assinine.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

When you see people compare Orr to Niedermayer or Lidstrom then it's time to move on because the guy you are talking to has absolutely no clue. I hate to insult people over opinion but some things are just plain assinine.

Agreed. It's basically like comparing Joe Sakic and Yzerman to Gretzky and Lemieux.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Orr had the hockey instincts that were superior to his peers and would be now also. He wouldn't skate through teams like he used to because players are so much better now but he would still be the best.

 

[pappyline]

Orr had the hockey instincts that were superior to his peers and would be now also. He wouldn't skate through teams like he used to because players are so much better now but he would still be the best.

Yeh, players are so much better now. Orr got to play against weak players like Park, Hull, Howe, Mahovolich, mikita, beliveau, horton, cournoyer, Plante, hall etc.