So I’m watching Bobby Orr highlights

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
No.

They are better.

Much better.

Just like Ronaldo and Messi are lightyears better than Pele.

Hockey has evolved much faster and way further than soccer. But this could also hurt its current stars worse in a two-way comparison. No doubt, Bobby Orr put into today's gear and thrown right into a game as it's played today would be lost. But how about gearing up Malkin, Sid and Ovi á la 70s and throwing them right in to play in the Orr era?

Ha, where's me helmet ma?

They would not look too good either.

I'd wager the difference between today's and yesterday's soccer players is faaar from as pronounced as the gap between today's hockey players and their forefathers.

Still, shoe Leo and C in Pelé's boots, let them play with Pelé era balls (I narrowly escaped writing "Pelé's balls") and on Pelé era pitches (those were terrible).

They would not look light years better than Pelé or Best, not at all.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,890
13,687
Who are you people?

So many posters in this thread I've never seen on the History board before. Was this thread moved here?

(Edit: I recognize seven posters, only two of which are on the first few pages. Welcome newbies. Are you lurkers or sudden participants from other boards?)

It was moved.I only got into the thread by accident at first.

I wish what happened on the main board stayed on the main board :laugh:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VanIslander

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
13,636
10,264
The GOAT. You can just SEE the difference.

Orr was before my time but I watch a lot of archive footage or use to anyway. It's like Wilt in the NBA. Total destruction. Gretzky was the best player on possibly most talented top heavy team of all time.

Why I have Mario ahead for forwards as well.

Mario Lemieux had 6 other hall of famers on his team.
 

SPV

Zoinks!
Sponsor
Feb 4, 2003
10,514
4,870
New Hampshire
hfboards.com
There's no question that the talent level throughout the league is so much higher now than it was back then. I think Ray Bourque said in an interview one time that when he came up, there were some players in the league that could really skate, but by the time he left everyone in the league could.

The availability and popularity of youth hockey, college hockey, etc is so much more advanced than it was 40 years ago. Orr was on another level than his peers at the time; but I think any great of any era, given the same tools that current players have for training and developing, would still be great today.
 

BobbyAwe

Registered User
Nov 21, 2006
3,457
896
South Carolina
Orr generally played in one of the weakest talent pools in league history. Right after the biggest expansions in history, but just before the Americans, Russians and Euros really started entering the league. Not to say Orr wasn't great, because he was, and is arguably the best D ever, however... he was playing in a very seriously diluted league.

Exactly right, TDot. I am as big an Orr fan as anyone (see avatar ;)) but I am also a realist. The league expanded 300% during Bobby's prime years. That's BRUTAL. Most players still around from the original six were suddenly putting up bigger numbers than they ever did in the O-six, even if they should have been on the downside of their careers age-wise. Goalies were, on average, no where near as good as today. That may be due also to their equipment and lack of training compared to the modern era, but the point is that they were not stopping many shots that would be almost child's play for the average modern netminder.
 

BobbyAwe

Registered User
Nov 21, 2006
3,457
896
South Carolina
Wrong.Bottom-6ers in the O6 era were vastly superior players than bottom-6ers from today, because the league was small.

It happened that a player stuck on Montreal's bottom 6 for a few years became a star once traded elsewhere.

The talent pool is MUCH larger today, with TWICE the population in Canada, and players coming from the U.S. and Europe. The talent level (per team) probably works out pretty much the same.
 

tony d

Registered User
Jun 23, 2007
76,596
4,556
Behind A Tree
He's a very good one. Gretzky's the best ever but for me Orr's #2 all time. The guy really changed the way the game is played.
 

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,562
2,200
Exactly.

For some perspective people should try strapping on tube skates and using a wood stick from the 70s. It took more strength to handle the puck and was more tiring. The reason guys from that era didn't stick handle like Patrick Kane wasn't simply because they were lazy out of shape beer leaguers.

Then take a turn in goal with leather pads that soaked up water like a sponge. Goalie equipment size was self limiting because it got so heavy.

Players today have better training and coaching from a young age, especially now that the NHL is a multi-billion dollar industry. But people still seem to underestimate how big of a role technology played.

Sometimes, I’d like to post something like this:

“There are so many people going on and on about OV and Crosby and how great they are. I’ve checked them out on YouTube and guess what? The only reason they look so good is because the game today is horrible!

My God, every second pass covers 2 lines and should be offside! What kind of idiot floaters don’t even know the rules of the game? Duh? It’s called the red line, not the green line!

Everyone gasping in freakin awe when Erik Karlsson launches a 150 foot pass — faceoff in your own zone, pal!

And did you see how many guys each team has on the bench today? LOL! 45 seconds and off is a joke! Real men play 60 Minutes because they can! At the very least I’d like to sit down with these guys and tell them about Phil Esposito and proper 5 minute shifts. Aren’t they embarrassed?

I don’t have any idea if Carey Price is or isn’t a good goalie because he’s always on his knees! You’d think his goalie coach would teach him to play within the rules, no? Get up, ya cheater!

And speaking of goalies, I saw good old Connor McDavid cut hard to the net the other night, almost right through the crease. He’d better hope Sprague Cleghorn didn’t see that because all the figure skating lessons in the world won’t save him from ol’ Cleg’s homicidal wrath! Don’t sleep on Odie either, ok? He snaps more than collarbones after a few brown pops.

Oh, and OV? Newsflash: hockey sticks are supposed to be made out of hand carved ironwood, so ditch the 385 gram composite aberration and hire a proper Micmaq craftsman, pal. One of those beauties will give whole new meaning to the term “one-timer.” Better order two, k?

Sid? Gordie Howe never wore a helmet and if he crashed head first into the boards he went to a hospital to have a proper hole drilled into his skull to relieve the pressure on his brain. Oh, and then he got back on the freakin ice instead of whining about dizzy spells and a lost prime. Got a cool nickname, Blinky, out of the deal. So ditch the lid and grow a set — you’re a hockey player, not a construction worker, so dress like one.”

But if I were to write something like the above, I’d never actually post it.
 

Dingo

Registered User
Jul 13, 2018
1,786
1,794
Hate these threads ..... can’t stop looking st the same old opinions, though. Yuck, I feel dirty.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,606
10,249
Melonville
the guy skates so much better than his peers. Wow.

He is considered one of best players of all-time - and he is no doubt.

But here’s what’s weird. Orr was before my time so I’m trying to watch stuff on how great players in past eras were.l

But wow... just watching some of the defense in the past, the skating in the past, and these goalies in the past... it’s kind of brutal to watch.

That being said, maybe they just look like clueless beer league guys because Orr is THAT good.

Again, this video of Orr highlights isn’t to mock Orr. I consider him a all-time great of course. He is no doubt. I am simply posting this so people can see the difference in defense/the game from back then VS now.

Just watch.... wow. We are sooooo lucky to have high definition and the talent/speed/etc we have now. Watching nhl at this time seems like by far best era to watch hockey.


Best player who ever lived. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rfournier103

billybudd

Registered User
Feb 1, 2012
22,049
2,249
look like clueless beer league guys

To be fair, on the low end, a lot of players were "clueless beer league guys." NHL depth didn't really catch up to the expansions until probably the mid 90s.
 

Merya

Jokerit & Finland; anti-theist
Sep 23, 2008
2,279
418
Helsinki
Hockey has evolved much faster and way further than soccer.

Anyone who watches both sport alot will disagree. Football has much higher development in tactics and player condition than hockey. It's only natural, the competition in football is hundred times that of hockey.
--
Orr was ten or twenty years (maybe 30?) ahead of his time in conditioning and training. He was able to dominate because compared to him, most others were bums from beer leagues, even when they were prime athletes in their own sport. Unfortunately recovery methods of the time failed him (and he himself) and he was left with a half career plagued by injuries.
In short, Orr was the first true athlete in the sport of hockey, way ahead of his time.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,814
3,749
The talent pool is MUCH larger today, with TWICE the population in Canada, and players coming from the U.S. and Europe. The talent level (per team) probably works out pretty much the same.

Just my monthly chime in to state that the talent pool is much more complicated than it seems at face value.

Canada's population is older, less kids play hockey as a percentage of population, and hockey has become gentrified. The US is producing more NHL talent but other countries are producing much less than in their heydey and you have the KHL keeping players over the pond as well.

Totally agree that the league was in a weak phase post expansion in Bobby's time though. It ebbs and flows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mbraunm

Pominville Knows

Registered User
Sep 28, 2012
4,477
333
Down Under
To be fair, on the low end, a lot of players were "clueless beer league guys." NHL depth didn't really catch up to the expansions until probably the mid 90s.
I believe a lot of it is becouse of training. During the last 20 years it has become very clear what behaviour a professional athlete has to adhere to if they don't want to get scrutinized making that much money.
Training can level the playing field when not mainly talent is what players is all about.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,814
3,749
I believe a lot of it is becouse of training. During the last 20 years it has become very clear what behaviour a professional athlete has to adhere to if they don't want to get scrutinized making that much money.
Training can level the playing field when not mainly talent is what players is all about.

You just had to keep doing it..

AO2.jpg
 

Pominville Knows

Registered User
Sep 28, 2012
4,477
333
Down Under
You just had to keep doing it..

AO2.jpg
Upper body has never been a focal point for ice hockey.
Still not that many pounds of unnecessary fat there buddy, but gives just a little more heavy hits from a guy whose lateral ability has not been prioritized.
Had he had less body fat we would have been able to notice his muscularity more.

What i'm saying is that it can't just be more "talent" that gives us a more even playing field now with 31 teams, than with 26 teams in 1994 or 21 teams in 1990.
Equal "talent" sure, seems reasonable. Although through training unusually tall people not named Lemieux now all of a sudden can compete, which perhaps would also give a little boost on the "talent" side of things. Although those kinds of giants don't really need great talent as much as physical things.
 
Last edited:

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
Anyone who watches both sport alot will disagree. Football has much higher development in tactics and player condition than hockey. It's only natural, the competition in football is hundred times that of hockey.
--

I watch both sports a lot and I agree with myself, so there.

There is no way to measure or prove what you proposed, but we definitely know how much hockey equipment has evolved (that in itself moves hockey up an evolution notch compared with football), and we definitely do know that football has no shifts (that could be drastically reduced in length) and we know that football has no red line (that could be virtually erased).

No PP that could be drastically reduced, no experiments like the number of players in overtime, etc.

All in all, there is really not much debate that hockey has gone much further from where it started. So again, there.

As far as strategy goes, of course, football has more variables and much more benevolent pitch size requirements, so it will always be more tactical and it will always offer a larger plethora of styles. That's about it though.

While the football talent pool is larger, it does not guarantee the talent ceiling or the competition is naturally higher. It's wider, and it's spread thinner through the number of top leagues. While the CL distills this spread quite nicely, I don't think the competition level is higher than in -- for example -- NHL playoffs.

And since so very few matches are actually played in the CL and so many of them against often inferior sides in domestic leagues, no, not even the Europe top teams are competing at a higher level than NHL teams most of the time.

The fact that the soccer or football talent pool is larger does not guarantee a faster or more profound evolution of the game, as the distribution and concentration of the talent is completely different compared with hockey.
 
Last edited:

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,725
18,628
Las Vegas
one of the big things most tend to forget when comparing game speeds is shift length.

hockey in the 70s looks slower, because it was.

Guys had to conserve energy because shifts were measure in minutes, not seconds. Players today can go 100% every shift because they know they only have to last 30-50 seconds.

Its like comparing a marathon runner to a sprinter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: overg

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
Upper body has never been a focal point for ice hockey.
Still not that many pounds of unnecessary fat there buddy, but gives just a little more heavy hits from a guy whose lateral ability has not been prioritized.
Had he had less body fat we would have been able to notice his muscularity more.

What i'm saying is that it can't just be more "talent" that gives us a more even playing field now with 31 teams, than with 26 teams in 1994 or 21 teams in 1990.
Equal "talent" sure, seems reasonable. Although through training unusually tall people not named Lemieux now all of a sudden can compete, which perhaps would also give a little boost on the "talent" side of things. Although those kinds of giants don't really need great talent as much as physical things.

I also don't get why this is so often posted as a demonstration of the lack of conditioning. Ovi is obviously fit and fat on that one. It's the sort of physique a well trained athlete develops through eating like a pig and not doing much for a month. Give him another month of practice and you get a ripped athlete again.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
354
Just my monthly chime in to state that the talent pool is much more complicated than it seems at face value.

Canada's population is older, less kids play hockey as a percentage of population, and hockey has become gentrified. The US is producing more NHL talent but other countries are producing much less than in their heydey and you have the KHL keeping players over the pond as well.

Totally agree that the league was in a weak phase post expansion in Bobby's time though. It ebbs and flows.

First off, Bobby Orr would have been a superstar in any era because he was simply blessed with the body and mind for hockey. Lapping the field like he did in his era proves enough to me that he would be great in any NHL season and he was clearly ahead of his time. However, I highly doubt he would be as dominant if he played in the modern era.

It's not really that complicated when it comes to the early 70's. It was the start of baby boomers turning pro, lead by Orr, and that's probably one of the reasons why the NHL expanded because there were lots of young people who were fans and could start to support teams. The Soviets were the other hockey power by '72 or so and as everyone knows they weren't in the NHL. The US and the rest of Europe barely made a mark on the NHL in the early 70's. The NHL was about 95% Canadian and that's only if you say someone like Ken Hodge was from the UK.

1970‑1971 NHL Scoring Leaders

371 "Canadians", 9 Americans, 1 Swede is a far cry from the NHL we've seen since the early 90's. It's really not that complicated at all. The talent pool feeding the NHL simply wasn't what it would become.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,606
10,249
Melonville
I "usually" agree that if one can express himself properly, there is no wrong answer. Except here.

Anybody who says that Bobby Orr wasn't the greatest hockey player who ever lived is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennis Bonvie

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Upper body has never been a focal point for ice hockey.
Still not that many pounds of unnecessary fat there buddy, but gives just a little more heavy hits from a guy whose lateral ability has not been prioritized.
Had he had less body fat we would have been able to notice his muscularity more.


What i'm saying is that it can't just be more "talent" that gives us a more even playing field now with 31 teams, than with 26 teams in 1994 or 21 teams in 1990.
Equal "talent" sure, seems reasonable. Although through training unusually tall people not named Lemieux now all of a sudden can compete, which perhaps would also give a little boost on the "talent" side of things. Although those kinds of giants don't really need great talent as much as physical things.

From time to time could catch someone from behind defensively.
 

billybudd

Registered User
Feb 1, 2012
22,049
2,249
I believe a lot of it is becouse of training. During the last 20 years it has become very clear what behaviour a professional athlete has to adhere to if they don't want to get scrutinized making that much money.
Training can level the playing field when not mainly talent is what players is all about.

Probably has more to do with money and global access to travel + hockey rinks. Your 6th defenseman in the mid 70s might make more than a CPA, but probably not by a lot. Certainly nowhere near the difference now. Greatly increase the compensation for a given profession, greatly increase access to training for that profession, make hiring into a competitive, qualitative system and the competence floor in order to maintain that job will rise fast.

Same thing happened with MMA. As the sport went from a novelty to a behemoth--and compensation rose along with it--you stopped seeing guys like Tank Abbot on a pay-per view. The professionalism floor rose, but so did the athleticism floor.
 

WingsFan95

Registered User
Mar 22, 2008
3,508
269
Kanata
Mario Lemieux had 6 other hall of famers on his team.

For how many years exactly? If talking about the early 90s to be fair, Trottier was on his last legs and not what you'd call a contributor at that point. Coffey was had for 1 season and Francis was brought in late in 91 for the playoff push. Then you had a young Jagr still very much learning.

So Mullen and Murphy round out. Again, this was for a short period that you had Coffey-Mullen-Murphy-Francis-Jagr all contributing. Basically for the 91 playoffs. Then you lose Coffey and Murphy/Mullen after 95.

Who did Lemieux have in the 80s exactly outside of Paul Coffey?

What's funny is people try and make it seem Gretzky went to a trash Kings team and put them on his back when he had several great pieces there. Robitaille, Nicholls, Duchesne, Tonelli then Larry Robinson and Rob Blake (albeit basically 3 years after Gretzky came in he got good). Coffey was there for a bit too.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad