Yes, it is all speculation, no one is really saying different here.
You can no more prove that Orr wouldn't be just as dominant as "we" can prove he would be.
Any point made by either side can be equally used to affirm or deny either argument.
For example, you say that goaltending is better so Orr wouldn't get as many points to which I could easily say that would of enhanced his defensive dominance even further.
It really is a chicken or the egg argument that no one is going to "win".
The only thing I will say about Orr that is not debatable imo, is that we have never seen a player with the tools and talent in all area's of the game like Orr before or since.
Bolded.
It was discovered this past summer, look it up.
Last edited by Infinite Vision*: 11-22-2010 at 10:14 AM.
Yes, it is all speculation, no one is really saying different here.
You can no more prove that Orr wouldn't be just as dominant as "we" can prove he would be.
Any point made by either side can be equally used to affirm or deny either argument.
For example, you say that goaltending is better so Orr wouldn't get as many points to which I could easily say that would of enhanced his defensive dominance even further.
It really is a chicken or the egg argument that no one is going to "win".
The only thing I will say about Orr that is not debatable imo, is that we have never seen a player with the tools and talent in all area's of the game like Orr before or since.
n/m.
Last edited by Infinite Vision*: 11-22-2010 at 10:13 AM.
Yes, it is all speculation, no one is really saying different here.
You can no more prove that Orr wouldn't be just as dominant as "we" can prove he would be.
Any point made by either side can be equally used to affirm or deny either argument.
For example, you say that goaltending is better so Orr wouldn't get as many points to which I could easily say that would of enhanced his defensive dominance even further.
It really is a chicken or the egg argument that no one is going to "win".
The only thing I will say about Orr that is not debatable imo, is that we have never seen a player with the tools and talent in all area's of the game like Orr before or since.
n/m.
Last edited by Infinite Vision*: 11-22-2010 at 10:14 AM.
Obviously, if we took Orr or Gretzky exactly as they were and threw them in this current day NHL, they'd be physically outmatched, not just in regards to strength/speed, but overall skill level (not talent). Like Trottier said though, that's irrelevant, because even I could probably give Joe Malone a run for his goals in a season record if I went back to 1920 just as I am and knowing what I know now instead of being born in 1897. And I'm far from one of the greatest goalscorers of all time, lol.
Gretzky was physically outmatched back then.. it doesn't really figure into his game at all.
And Orr being physically outmatched for strength and speed? I don't think so.
I think you must believe that we've evolved into a new species or something because while training improves the average a lot.. the top end of our species has much less room for improvement before hitting limits.
That is just pure speculation. The game is not even close to what it was in the 70s. Orr COULD be star today, and he might not be star at all. His end to end rushes would just not happen that easily.
His advanatage over the average player would be smaller, that's for sure, because average player today is much better than in Orr's era. Not to mention MUCH bigger and better goalies, better coaching and strategies. Sometimes I watch old games and always wonder how did that go in, pathetic goaltending for the most part.
I totally get what you're saying. the game has evolved big time. that's why I said "If Orr was born in 1982" (I said 1992, meant to say 1982) - The assumption is that he'd be the beneficiary of today's training, coaching, equipment, nutrition and medicine. He clearly had the physical gifts to dominate. Without modern advantages he likely wouldn't look that great timewarped in. With them, I'm sure he'd still be dominant. I think all "across eras" comparisons make that assumption, otherwise it's unfair to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision
The only thing anyone knows for sure is the past greats were the best of their time and that's the only thing that matters.
Gretzky was physically outmatched back then.. it doesn't really figure into his game at all.
And Orr being physically outmatched for strength and speed? I don't think so.
I think you must believe that we've evolved into a new species or something because while training improves the average a lot.. the top end of our species has much less room for improvement before hitting limits.
Yeah, the limits for their time...
I didn't think anyone would go out of their way to honestly argue anything I just said, it's as reasonable and realistic as it gets.
I'll just quote a small part from my post.
Jumping ahead that amount of time and being able to adapt (let alone dominate) would be nearly impossible. Why? Because they would have to learn, and then some, what it took those players 20 years to learn, in well, however much time you're willing to give them I guess.
I totally get what you're saying. the game has evolved big time. that's why I said "If Orr was born in 1982" (I said 1992, meant to say 1982) - The assumption is that he'd be the beneficiary of today's training, coaching, equipment, nutrition and medicine. He clearly had the physical gifts to dominate. Without modern advantages he likely wouldn't look that great timewarped in. With them, I'm sure he'd still be dominant. I think all "across eras" comparisons make that assumption, otherwise it's unfair to begin with.
But unfair to whom?
On one hand, it is unfair to flat out say that modern players are just much better, but on the other hand, why should you assume that all old time greats would fully benefit from modern training, coaching, equipment, nutrition and medicine? Some of them may be too lazy (Lafleur maybe, Harvey was a drunk?). Others may have problems with modern rules (Shore?). Some styles might not work that well (Orr?). What makes you think that they would be willing to train all year long and train very hard? Respect for the old timers is warranted. But comparison with modern players is biased one way or the other. But I have to admit it is fun, subjective, but fun
No, I know this goes against your everything newer is better philosophy, but the human body really hasn't changed that much recently. There are finite limits.
Just as an example the 100 meter record from 1968 to 2010 has only changed by .37 of a second. And these are athletes that are focused on purely one discipline for 10 seconds at a time.
Hockey has a vastly more complex set of skills required and I really doubt Bobby Orr or Gordie Howe or Bobby Hull would be giving up much physically to today's players. The average has moved up through training and nutrition but the very top athletes simply don't have much more room for improvement and any improvement takes exponentially more effort.
Similarly, the rules equipment and strategies etc. used in hockey have not changed nearly as much in the last 30 years as they did in the early days. The materials are lighter, the finish and tolerances are better etc. but thats really it.
Last edited by BraveCanadian: 11-22-2010 at 12:53 PM.
No, I know this goes against your everything newer is better philosophy, but the human body really hasn't changed that much recently. There are finite limits.
Just as an example from 1968 to 2010 has only changed by .37 of a second. And these are athletes that are focused on purely one discipline for 10 seconds at a time.
Hockey has a vastly more complex set of skills required and I really doubt Bobby Orr or Gordie Howe or Bobby Hull would be giving up much physically to today's players. The average has moved up through training and nutrition but the very top athletes simply don't have much more room for improvement and any improvement takes exponentially more effort.
Similarly, the rules equipment and strategies etc. used in hockey have not changed nearly as much in the last 30 years as they did in the early days. The materials are lighter, the finish and tolerances are better etc. but thats really it.
The first bolded part is exactly why it's changed more.
The second bolded part, I couldn't even begin to explain the differences between 70's/80's hockey and hockey now, without sounding too obvious. Hate to say this, (I watch tons and tons of hockey, old and new, all the time) but hockey has progressed more in every aspect of the game in the last 30 years, than it did the previous. The 90's being the main decade where you can watch an early decade game, then a late one, and notice a huge change (I'm not just talking goaltending and systems either).
Last edited by Infinite Vision*: 11-22-2010 at 01:12 PM.
The first bolded part is exactly why it's changed more.
The second bolded part, I couldn't even begin to explain the differences between 70's/80's hockey and hockey now, without sounding too obvious. Hate to say this, (I watch tons and tons of hockey, old and new, all the time) but hockey has progressed more in every aspect of the game in the last 30 years, than it did the previous. The 90's being the main decade where you can watch an early decade game, than a late one, and notice a huge change (I'm not just talking goaltending and systems either).
Sure, hockey has changed a lot. But the human beings who play it really haven't, other than their heights (mostly do to nutrition). And not to beat a dead horse, but Ray Bourque, for instance, shows that the best players in the world in the early 80s could adapt and still be the best players in the world 20 years later.
Sure, hockey has changed a lot. But the human beings who play it really haven't, other than their heights (mostly do to nutrition). And not to beat a dead horse, but Ray Bourque, for instance, shows that the best players in the world in the early 80s could adapt and still be the best players in the world 20 years later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision
The only thing anyone knows for sure is the past greats were the best of their time and that's the only thing that matters.
Likewise, Crosby and Ovechkin aren't trying to be the best players of the century (in a time machine sense), they're trying to be the best they can be with what they're given in the present time. I have no doubt that if we jumped ahead 20 years, and threw Ovechkin and Crosby into that NHL, they would most certainly not be close to the best players 20 years from now, and jumping ahead that amount of time and being able to adapt would be nearly impossible. Why? Because they would have to learn, and then some, what it took those players 20 years to learn, in well, however much time you're willing to give them I guess.
However, if they were born today, it's very possible they would be the best players 20 years from now, it's also very possible (but not as likely) they wouldn't be close as well. Players evolve constantly over time, and the length and sustained elite performance over some players careers shows they are able to adapt accordingly, so of course it's not crazy to think a past player could be the best today had they been born later, or managed to stop aging and continue playing (impossible I know, but so is time travel).
Obviously, if we took Orr or Gretzky exactly as they were and threw them in this current day NHL, they'd be physically outmatched, not just in regards to strength/speed, but overall skill level (not talent). Like Trottier said though, that's irrelevant, because even I could probably give Joe Malone a run for his goals in a season record if I went back to 1920 just as I am and knowing what I know now instead of being born in 1897. And I'm far from one of the greatest goalscorers of all time, lol.
Unless you're trying to suggest Bourque didn't improve at all from 1980 until 2000, then yeah what's your point? Because I've just acknowledged how players have managed sustained elite peformance over great periods of time, Bourque probably being the second best example of that after Howe.
You guys are currently arguing things that are apparently rather obvious to everyone else, for reasons I'm not sure of as me and others who share this opinion have stated that's not how you compare players. Then you guys jump in.
You guys are currently arguing things that are apparently rather obvious to everyone else, for reasons I'm not sure of as me and others who share this opinion have stated that's not how you compare players. Then you guys jump in.
Actually, they're not, I think it's you that's missing the point to be honest.
The training, the coaching and everything else that you infer makes today's player better on average are all things that are universal and taught.
What the rest of us are talking about is what you're born with, the pure talent and instincts for the game.
Actually, they're not, I think it's you that's missing the point to be honest.
The training, the coaching and everything else that you infer makes today's player better on average are all things that are universal and taught.
What the rest of us are talking about is what you're born with, the pure talent and instincts for the game.
Then by all means, explain Gretzky's complete and utter dominance.
He was quick and agile but he was never considered fast, even by so called 80's standards.
He certainly wasn't big and strong, again, even by 80's standards, he was fairly weak.
His shot was accurate for sure but powerful...no.
So tell me, what part of Gretzky's game was teachable or coach-able?
Then by all means, explain Gretzky's complete and utter dominance.
He was quick and agile but he was never considered fast, even by so called 80's standards.
He certainly wasn't big and strong, again, even by 80's standards, he was fairly weak.
His shot was accurate for sure but powerful...no.
So tell me, what part of Gretzky's game was teachable or coach-able?
Obviously it is teachable - just look at all the success of the Phoenix Coyotes!
Orr could skate backward faster than most other players could skate forward. He could sometimes go an entire shift without having to turn his back to the oppostion's net.
Cournyer might have been faster, but Orr had unparalleled accelleration. He could start and stop on a dime, while most other speedsters took much longer to get wound up.
To this day, no other defenceman has ever won the scoring championship.
Bobby Orr changed the way the game is played. No other player has ever had such a great impact on the way the game is played.
Orr could skate backward faster than most other players could skate forward. He could sometimes go an entire shift without having to turn his back to the oppostion's net...
There is a quote somewhere, perhaps in the Orr Greats of the Game profile, by one of his contemporary stars (Hull, Espo???), stating that Orr couldn't skate backwards well, but he didn't need to (parphrasing here). I just remember him as very fast, very fluid, and with extremely quick lateral movement. It seemed he always had the puck.
Orr could skate backward faster than most other players could skate forward. He could sometimes go an entire shift without having to turn his back to the oppostion's net.
Cournyer might have been faster, but Orr had unparalleled accelleration. He could start and stop on a dime, while most other speedsters took much longer to get wound up.
To this day, no other defenceman has ever won the scoring championship.
Bobby Orr changed the way the game is played. No other player has ever had such a great impact on the way the game is played.
Best ever, bar none.
Cournoyer might of been faster than Orr later on (still debatable) but no one was even close to him before his first major knee surgery.
Espo mentioned it more than once that Bobby was still unbelievably fast after but he didn't quite have that blazing, make anyone in the league look like they were standing still kinda speed anymore.
