Where do you rank Ray Bourque all time?

[Sentinel]

You could just as easily make the case that people picking Lidstrom are doing it because he isn't Canadian. That stuff works both ways.

No, it doesn't. Canadian opinion (and Canadian media) have greater impact on the sport than the rest of the world combined.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No, it doesn't. Canadian opinion (and Canadian media) have greater impact on the sport than the rest of the world combined.

I must say, you seem very bias towards European players.

While Canadian media opinion certainly will influence the masses, I'm not sure that it would influence most of the posters on this site.

 

[Admiral Awesome]

No, it doesn't. Canadian opinion (and Canadian media) have greater impact on the sport than the rest of the world combined.

Sure, but for your argument to actually have a leg to stand on, you'd have to ignore all of the Hart, Norris, Calder, and Smythe trophies, along with all of the postseason All-Star selections, given out over the last few decades to non-Canadian players.

 

[jj cale]

No, it doesn't. Canadian opinion (and Canadian media) have greater impact on the sport than the rest of the world combined.

I wasn't making a point about impact, I was saying there are plenty of people ( usually of the European variety of course) that would vote Lidstrom without even thinking about it and why?.................because he is a European player and not Canadian.

Do a poll about who was the better defenseman between these two with only European fans and Lidstrom will win hands down, and we know why. They won't even bother to take time to think about the relative merits of each player and try to come to an honest decision based on those merits, they will just pick Lidstrom. Same for a poll in Russia between fetisov and Bourque, who do you think takes that one in a landslide? any guess why he would? I don't need to tell you why fetisov wins that going away i'm sure.

So yes, what I said was true, you just missed the point.

 

[Sentinel]

I wasn't making a point about impact, I was saying there are plenty of people ( usually of the European variety of course) that would vote Lidstrom without even thinking about it and why?.................because he is a European player and not Canadian.

Do a poll about who was the better defenseman between these two with only European fans and Lidstrom will win hands down, and we know why. They won't even bother to take time to think about the relative merits of each player and try to come to an honest decision based on those merits, they will just pick Lidstrom. Same for a poll in Russia between fetisov and Bourque, who do you think takes that one in a landslide? any guess why he would? I don't need to tell you why fetisov wins that going away i'm sure.

Uhm... because both Fetisov and Lidstrom were better than Bourque?

 

[Sentinel]

Sure, but for your argument to actually have a leg to stand on, you'd have to ignore all of the Hart, Norris, Calder, and Smythe trophies, along with all of the postseason All-Star selections, given out over the last few decades to non-Canadian players.

People who put Bourque over Lidstrom routinely ignore Norrises and Smythes. THAT's my leg to stand on.

 

[Staniowski]

I am all for ranking Bourque above Lidstrom but why would you rank Harvey higher than either?

re: Doug Harvey

During the '94-'95 lockout, HNIC televised a weekly game from older seasons. One particular week, they were showing a Habs game from the '50s, I can't remember the opponent. I remember being excited to finally see Rocket Richard and Jean Beliveau play, the Habs 2 great offensive superstars about whom I'd heard so many great things. If I remember correctly, Rocket didn't play that game.

When I started to watch the game, though, I soon forget about everybody else, including Beliveau, because I couldn't take my eyes off of #2 on defense the entire game. Doug Harvey, of course. It seemed like he could do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to do it. He not only looked much better than everybody on the opposing team, but he also looked much better than any of his teammates. Better than everyone, and smarter.

 

[jj cale]

Uhm... because both Fetisov and Lidstrom were better than Bourque?

Matter of opinion, and the opinion is naturally influenced by where the fan is from.

And fans from North america say bourque is better because................................... bourque is better?

See how easy that was?

Thats the point, you say Bourque gets named as better with fans here because he is Canadian and all I am saying is the same thing would be in effect with fans from over there concerning Lidstrom.

So we all may as well just say who we prefer strictly on why we think the player was better and just keep nationalities out of it around here.

I'll give my opinion on it and keep their passports out of it, I saw very little seperation between Bourque and Lidstrom, who a person would prefer and why is razor thin, theres no clear cut winner here. This is not like a poll between say Marcel Dionne and Wayne Gretzky, Bourque and Lidstrom are CLOSE.

 

[frisco]

Does Bourque rank ahead of Shore and his four Hart's?

My Best-Carey

 

[Staniowski]

Uhm... because both Fetisov and Lidstrom were better than Bourque?

I would rank Fetisov ahead of both Bourque and Lidstrom. Fetisov was at his best in the early '80s.

Great mobility, big hitter, great passer, shooter, and almost unbeatable one on one. Great defensively. Very smart.

 

[Admiral Awesome]

People who put Bourque over Lidstrom routinely ignore Norrises and Smythes. THAT's my leg to stand on.

Yeah, that makes sense...

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Bourque > Lidstrom. Lidstrom only won Norris trophies when his top competition (Bourque, Chelios, Leetch, etc) retired or were way past their prime. Great player, but overrated.

 

[Killion]

re: Doug Harvey..... It seemed like he could do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to do it. He not only looked much better than everybody on the opposing team, but he also looked much better than any of his teammates. Better than everyone, and smarter.

Indeed. Much like Maurice Richard & Bobby Hull at times, but more closer akin to Orr, Gretzky & Lemieux, fascinating to watch. In a League of his own as were #'s 4/99&66. With Harvey, like watching a Man playing with Kids only these werent kids, these were the best players in the world he was making look like unpolished Juniors. Like he was just out there for a Sunday afternoon skate & at any moment, any second, got bored or whatever, decided to take things in hand.

Cool as a cucumber about it all too. Beyond confident. Tremendous vision. He didnt just see the game & its players, he saw right through it & them. In the twinkling of perception he'd either stopped you or moved right through you. He didnt think just one or two moves ahead, he was thinking 3rd, possible 4th... alternate possibilities including but not limited to the puck taking a weird bounce or whatever.... like in that documentary movie Predator... on-board computer simulation program tracking trajectories, of pucks & peons.... Doug Harvey forgot more about the game than most people will ever know and what he didnt know wasnt important... also..... if Doug Harvey had been born a Spartan; The 300? Wouldve been called 1..... when Doug Harvey went deep sea diving?... the sharks got into steel cages.... get the picture Stan?

 

[Sentinel]

I'll give my opinion on it and keep their passports out of it, I saw very little seperation between Bourque and Lidstrom, who a person would prefer and why is razor thin, theres no clear cut winner here. This is not like a poll between say Marcel Dionne and Wayne Gretzky, Bourque and Lidstrom are CLOSE.

They are close in talent. Bourque is slightly better in offense, Lidstrom in defense. In terms of accomplishments -- there is no contest. We don't hold it against Ovechkin that he is dominating the league where there are no pure goalscorers of similar talent, like Bossy or Bure.

 

[Sentinel]

Yeah, that makes sense...

I'm glad you finally saw the light.

 

[jj cale]

They are close in talent. Bourque is slightly better in offense, Lidstrom in defense. In terms of accomplishments -- there is no contest. We don't hold it against Ovechkin that he is dominating the league where there are no pure goalscorers of similar talent, like Bossy or Bure.

Not just close in talent, close in terms of what they both brought to their teams, in terms of their PLAY.

Watched them both so many times, it's so tough to pick one over the other.

 

[Staniowski]

Indeed. Much like Maurice Richard & Bobby Hull at times, but more closer akin to Orr, Gretzky & Lemieux, fascinating to watch. In a League of his own as were #'s 4/99&66. With Harvey, like watching a Man playing with Kids only these werent kids, these were the best players in the world he was making look like unpolished Juniors. Like he was just out there for a Sunday afternoon skate & at any moment, any second, got bored or whatever, decided to take things in hand.

Cool as a cucumber about it all too. Beyond confident. Tremendous vision. He didnt just see the game & its players, he saw right through it & them. In the twinkling of perception he'd either stopped you or moved right through you. He didnt think just one or two moves ahead, he was thinking 3rd, possible 4th... alternate possibilities including but not limited to the puck taking a weird bounce or whatever.... like in that documentary movie Predator... on-board computer simulation program tracking trajectories, of pucks & peons.... Doug Harvey forgot more about the game than most people will ever know and what he didnt know wasnt important... also..... if Doug Harvey had been born a Spartan; The 300? Wouldve been called 1..... when Doug Harvey went deep sea diving?... the sharks got into steel cages.... get the picture Stan?

Cool as a cucumber is right.

I forgot to mention....apparently it's disputed whether hockey was even his best sport...great baseball player and football player too...

 

[Canadiens1958]

No, it doesn't. Canadian opinion (and Canadian media) have greater impact on the sport than the rest of the world combined.

The same Canadian media that championed an open Olympics post WWII for various sports not only ice hockey, than campaigned for Euros in the NHL since the fifties.

The same Canadian media that criticized Bobby Clarke, praised Tretiak and Salming, countless other Euros. That voted for Lidstrom and other deserving players for awards and honours from day one.

 

[OrrNumber4]

It's projection. Russians are biases towards Russian players and assume Canadians are just as biased.

Truthfully we all have those ethnic and nationalistic biases, but the Canadians seem best at getting around it.

 

[Theokritos]

It's projection. Russians are biases towards Russian players and assume Canadians are just as biased.

Truthfully we all have those ethnic and nationalistic biases, but the Canadians seem best at getting around it.

I don't think this is true. Or rather, if it does indeed happen to be true, then I doubt it is because the Canadians are somehow inherently better at getting around their bias than other nations are. I think exposure is the key here. For hockey fans in Canada (and the USA too, let's not overlook that) the NHL is their top domestic league, so the vast majority of them follow the league regularly and pretty closely. I don't think there is less bias than in other nations, but the regular exposure tends to make it easier to realize when you were mistaken and wrong about a player. E.g. you might come in with a bias torwards your favourite Canadian defenceman, but when you see him not doing as well as you expected while a European defenceman you didn't think highly of keeps impressing you week after week, then chances are good you'll correct your original estimation.

Now of course, there are also hardcore NHL fans among hockey fans in Europe who follow the league just as closely. But for obvious reasons, this does not apply to the vast majority of hockey fans in Europe. For a broader part of the hockey-interested public there, news on the NHL often come in the form of reports soley focusing on the exploits of their local or regional or national heroes.

Mind you, while exposure often helps to correct bias, I don't think it necessarily works as well when players are really close in their level. When you've got a case like Bourque vs Lidström where a reasonable argument can be made for either player, a poll among Canadian fans (minus perhaps Detroit RW fans) would probably not be unbiased. But then, it would certainly be much less biased than a poll in Sweden on the same question.

 

[Fredrik_71]

Bourque > Lidstrom. Lidstrom only won Norris trophies when his top competition (Bourque, Chelios, Leetch, etc) retired or were way past their prime. Great player, but overrated.

Ok I'll bite. Would you care to elaborate on why Lidströms competition were weaker (Chara, Niedermayer, Pronger, Stevens, Keith etc.)?

 

[MXD]

Ok I'll bite. Would you care to elaborate on why Lidströms competition were weaker (Chara, Niedermayer, Pronger, Stevens, Keith etc.)?

Any of these guys better than Chris Chelios and Paul Coffey?
(and that's obviously just the start).

And congrats for name dropping Duncan Keith in that group to make Lidstrom's competition look more impressive, when Keith's prime started when Lidstrom was in his very late thirties.

Also, congrats for name dropping Scott Stevens in the Lidstrom group, considering that his career overlaps significantly more with Bourque's than with Lidstrom's.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I don't think this is true. Or rather, if it does indeed happen to be true, then I doubt it is because the Canadians are somehow inherently better at getting around their bias than other nations are. I think exposure is the key here. For hockey fans in Canada (and the USA too, let's not overlook that) the NHL is their top domestic league, so the vast majority of them follow the league regularly and pretty closely. I don't think there is less bias than in other nations, but the regular exposure tends to make it easier to realize when you were mistaken and wrong about a player. E.g. you might come in with a bias torwards your favourite Canadian defenceman, but when you see him not doing as well as you expected while a European defenceman you didn't think highly of keeps impressing you week after week, then chances are good you'll correct your original estimation.

Now of course, there are also hardcore NHL fans among hockey fans in Europe who follow the league just as closely. But for obvious reasons, this does not apply to the vast majority of hockey fans in Europe. For a broader part of the hockey-interested public there, news on the NHL often come in the form of reports soley focusing on the exploits of their local or regional or national heroes.

Mind you, while exposure often helps to correct bias, I don't think it necessarily works as well when players are really close in their level. When you've got a case like Bourque vs Lidström where a reasonable argument can be made for either player, a poll among Canadian fans (minus perhaps Detroit RW fans) would probably not be unbiased. But then, it would certainly be much less biased than a poll in Sweden on the same question.

North American hockey fans follow the sport,period. European fans and the European media by your admission - second bolded only care about the local or national hero. That the player's NHL team does not win matters little or not at all. In other words Washington not winning an SC matters little to European fans as long as Ovechkin scores 50 goals, wins the Richard - rather ironic since Maurice Richard cared much more about winning the SC than scoring goals. Fact of the matter is that Maurice Richard was one of the rare athletes who hated losing.

Once Ovechkin retires European fans of his will basically ignore the Capitals. Whereas in Canada there was never a separation between the Montreal Canadiens fans and Maurice Richard fans or other Canadiens' players. Yet there was and continues to be a deep appreciation of opposing teams and players or hockey in general.

 

[Doctor No]

North American hockey fans follow the sport,period.

Some do. The vast majority only follow either (1) the NHL generally, or (2) their NHL team specifically.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Ok I'll bite. Would you care to elaborate on why Lidströms competition were weaker (Chara, Niedermayer, Pronger, Stevens, Keith etc.)?

because Potvin, Coffey, Chelios...all 3 of which are better than any of the above listed. Then you can add in Leetch and Langway