TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Ah, I see. I guess I'd counter with the fact that the two greatest centermen of all time managed to come along just a few years apart from each other. It seems statistically unlikely that we could go from the 1890's up until the 1980's without a center appearing that was even close to the level of Gretzky/Lemieux, but such was the case.
Oh I know. I almost put the Gretzky/Lemieux caveat in the post itself. It's certainly very possible that the three greatest defensemen in history all played between 1930 and 1975.
But those that say that it's harder to stand out in the modern game may have a valid point. How much harder is it? I don't know. But we get to, say, 2025 and there hasn't been a defenseman in the 50 year post-Orr period better than Bourque, then I'd say Bourque probably actually was as good or better than Harvey/Shore. Does that make sense?
There are a great many people who witnessed the full careers of both Harvey and Bourque, and the majority of them prefer Harvey. Collective opinion can't always be taken as gospel, but given the large number of people associated with the game who saw both and rank Harvey a shade higher, I don't have a problem trusting "historical canon" on the matter.
Agreed for the most part. Like I said above, the fact that almost everyone who saw both prefers Harvey is why I rank Harvey ahead too.
But like I also said, there is always the point that maybe advances in the game make it more difficult to stand out now. I'm certainly not willing to say that it isn't possible to be better than Harvey without being as dominant as Orr.
Shore vs Bourque would be trickier, as there is definitely a much smaller number of qualified people who saw and appreciated the full careers of both players. A direct comparison would be challenging to say the least. However, there would be plenty who saw both Harvey and Shore, so that comparison could be used to extrapolate a Bourque-Shore comparison.
It would be interesting to know what the opinion on Shore vs Harvey was back in the 60's or 70's, when there were still lots of people around who saw both and had stories to tell. When Orr came along and established himself as the best defender of all-time, who's throne was he stealing in the eyes of his contemporaries? Any insight from the posters in here old enough to answer this question would be much appreciated.
I've always assumed Shore/Harvey was seen as a tossup by those who saw both, but I honestly don't know why I think this.
Harvey was thought of as better by the THN Top 100, for what it's worth.