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.
Last edited: