HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Orr vs. Hull

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2010, 10:14 PM
  #1
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,210
vCash: 500
Orr vs. Hull

Hull may be the best forward Orr ever had to play against. I would like to hear how this match-up played out from people that saw these two play against each other. I would like to specifically hear about their one and only meeting in the playoffs in 1970, which resulted in a 4-0 sweep for the Bruins on their way to the Cup.

Did Orr completely shut Hull down?

Were there times when Hull gave Orr trouble?

Did any player consistently give Orr trouble?

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 10:28 PM
  #2
LeBlondeDemon10
Stack Shot Billy
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,753
vCash: 500
Check out Orr's Legends of Hockey video. Hull talks about playing against Orr. Its funny yet Hull demonstrates a great deal of respect for Orr.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 10:51 PM
  #3
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
Check out Orr's Legends of Hockey video. Hull talks about playing against Orr. Its funny yet Hull demonstrates a great deal of respect for Orr.
About says it all I think

About 1:45 in, Hull again at 6:04


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-17-2010 at 11:04 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 11:58 PM
  #4
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
About says it all I think

About 1:45 in, Hull again at 6:04
I always get goosebumps when Schmidt talks at the end...

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 04:02 PM
  #5
JaymzB
Registered User
 
JaymzB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 2,547
vCash: 500
From what I have read and heard, the only guy who truely gave Orr some problems was Henri Richard, due to Richard being nearly as good a skater, and having an amazing understanding/ability of taking away an opponents space/angles.

JaymzB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 04:13 PM
  #6
Scott1980
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaymzB View Post
From what I have read and heard, the only guy who truely gave Orr some problems was Henri Richard, due to Richard being nearly as good a skater, and having an amazing understanding/ability of taking away an opponents space/angles.
How about the Roadrunner or Beliveau? I imagine the Habs attack gave Orr some problems. I've seen some clips of this. I got this book by Dick Irvin called, The Habs and Orr talks about how Cheevers used to say, "Hey Yvan, slow down!" and Yvan made some funny comment. I lent the book out to a friend who I think still has it!

How about guys like Perrault and (74/75) Lafleur?

As for Hull, Orr could stop his shot! He did that a lot in that 70s series!

Scott1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 04:28 PM
  #7
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,486
vCash: 500
Guys like Perreault and Lafleur certainly could skate with him as could the "Roadrunner".

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 05:00 PM
  #8
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Guys like Perreault and Lafleur certainly could skate with him as could the "Roadrunner".
Yes and no.
The last half of his career...yes.
When Orr first came into the league up till his one knee really started going south, no one could.

There's plenty of stories out there dealing with both like how Henri talks about Orr getting the puck from him one game. Henri turns to catch him, expecting Orr to be like 5-10 feet away and is shocked to see Orr 20-30 feet away already leaving him in the dust.
Another one where Cournoyer had a breakaway from center, Orr was on the Habs blueline and was able to catch him just inside the Bruins blueline.

Then you have the stories of how Orr had noticeably lost a step after one of his major knee surgeries. They all say he was still one of, if not the fastest in the league but he just didn't have that ludicrous speed gear anymore.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 05:07 PM
  #9
Scott1980
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
So up until, 1972?

See, the long playoff run of '72 did a lot of damage to his knees and he missed the '72 series.

Funny, there was talk of him playing game 8.

Paul who?

Scott1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 07:12 PM
  #10
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Hull may be the best forward Orr ever had to play against. I would like to hear how this match-up played out from people that saw these two play against each other. I would like to specifically hear about their one and only meeting in the playoffs in 1970, which resulted in a 4-0 sweep for the Bruins on their way to the Cup.

Did Orr completely shut Hull down?

Were there times when Hull gave Orr trouble?

Did any player consistently give Orr trouble?
If I remember what I read correctly it was Ed Westfall who was used to shadow and neutralize Hull in that series.. not Orr.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2010, 07:24 PM
  #11
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
If I remember what I read correctly it was Ed Westfall who was used to shadow and neutralize Hull in that series.. not Orr.
And you are correct. That is how teams beat Chicago in those days. Shut down Hull & you had a good chance of winning. those Hawk teams were not that deep.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2010, 02:20 AM
  #12
Scott1980
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
And you are correct. That is how teams beat Chicago in those days. Shut down Hull & you had a good chance of winning. those Hawk teams were not that deep.
What was the Hawks second line like? Wasn't it D. Hull, Pit Martin, and Jimmy Pappin?
Not bad, plus they had Stapleton and White on defence. Cliff Koroll, I always felt was underrated, and of course Tony O!

Scott1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2010, 10:33 AM
  #13
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
And you are correct. That is how teams beat Chicago in those days. Shut down Hull & you had a good chance of winning. those Hawk teams were not that deep.
Chicago tied Boston for the league lead in points that season and had clearly the best GF/GA ratio and differential in spite of Bobby Hull missing a significant number of games. If they had no depth then who did?

Crosbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2010, 01:10 PM
  #14
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosbyfan View Post
Chicago tied Boston for the league lead in points that season and had clearly the best GF/GA ratio and differential in spite of Bobby Hull missing a significant number of games. If they had no depth then who did?
I stand corrected. Yep, Chicago was a little deeper than I remembered. In fact 5 out the 6 East division teams were pretty close that year. Chicago did well until they met the Bruins in the East Division finals. The Bruins wiped them out. Westfall tied up Hull and it was the same old story. The secondary players for the Hawks didn't come through. Mind you, the Bruins were an offensive power house that year.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2010, 02:02 PM
  #15
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I always get goosebumps when Schmidt talks at the end...
Same here. Because Milt Schmidt is old as the hills and when he speaks hockey, I listen. And because I can relate to his comment, 100%.

Then I immediately log on to HF's main board and read some born yesterday type inform us all how Orr played in an era when "everyone sucked!" and how he would be ordinary today.

And I chuckle.

Trottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2010, 02:32 PM
  #16
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier View Post
Same here. Because Milt Schmidt is old as the hills and when he speaks hockey, I listen. And because I can relate to his comment, 100%.

Then I immediately log on to HF's main board and read some born yesterday type inform us all how Orr played in an era when "everyone sucked!" and how he would be ordinary today.

And I chuckle.
Well, should we completely dismiss that as a possibility?

I love Orr, and respect his dominance in the NHL he played in. I often say that, per game, he's the best player ever.

I base my comparisons of all-time greats based on dominance of their peers, not on imagining them being time-transported here and dropped onto the ice surfaces of today's NHL, because, well, ugly things would happen.

Could Orr play in the NHL today? No doubt. Could he star? Most likely. Would he look anywhere near as dominant as he looked in the 1970s? I really doubt that. The puckhandling, passing and skating in 1970s NHL hockey was brutal compared to today.

By no means am I advocating this as a method of player evaluation and I don't mean in any way to disrespect the greats of the game in the past - they dominated the game as it existed back then. But if these born yesterday types are thinking about this as a time warp type of comparison (which I do not, in any way advocate as a thought-provoking or meaningful discussion about the game's greats) and not a comparison of relative dominance, maybe they are not too far off the mark.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2010, 02:50 PM
  #17
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Well, should we completely dismiss that as a possibility?
No. But personally, I do not even contemplate it, for it is irrelevant. The Nuuu NHL meme that everything sucked in the 70s, 80s, 90s or whenever is meaningless to me because, to be honest, I typically have little regard for the source of such generalizations (while simultaneously, I agree that the game has evolved significantly in some aspects).

The common sense and respect of the average hockey fan was superior back then too; do I bring that up? No.

While you and others do not necessarily conduct your statistical research with a jaundiced eye toward what came before you, one assumes you have observed the obvious: many of the Born Yesterday types elsewhere on HF do have an overt and often uninformed bias. They casually and boorishly pass off anything that transpired before last week as unimportant, unimpressive and having taken place in an inferior time. (Me? I revere hockey players - and the NHL brand of hockey - past and present, equally.)

Which brings me back to the basis of my previous post.

When I weigh the opinion of a man who has observed this game from every vantage point over some 70+ years with the stereotype cliches of those to whom I previously referred, I indeed chuckle. For it is preferrable to other means of expressing my contempt for the latter.

I respect knowledge and wisdom. And that cannot be captured solely in numbers and cliches. Sometimes, the human element matters. Which is why, like Dreakmur, I get chills listening to Milt Schmidt speak at the end of that segment. Because it is real. And, to this observer, it is true.

If you or someone else wishes to scientifically challenge that man's opinion, go for it. No one is stopping you. Nor, in your case, at least, am I challenging your statistical claim. Sometimes best, however, to know when to let things lie.

(No malice intended above, just wanted to provide you with a sincere, thorough answer.)


Last edited by Trottier: 11-21-2010 at 11:25 PM.
Trottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2010, 05:20 PM
  #18
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier View Post
No. But personally, I do not even contemplate it, for it is irrelevant. The Nuuu NHL meme that everything sucked in the 70s, 80, 90s or whenever is meaningless to me because, to be honest, I typically have little regard for the source of such generalizations (while simultaneously, I agree that the game has evolved significantly in some aspects).

The common sense and respect of the average hockey fan was superior back then too; do I bring that up? No.

While you and others do not necessarily conduct your statistical research with a jaundiced eye toward what came before you, one assumes you have observed the obvious: many of the Born Yesterday types elsewhere on HF do have an overt and often uninformed bias. They casually and boorishly pass off anything that transpired before last week as unimportant, unimpressive and having taken place in an inferior time. (Me? I revere hockey players - and the NHL brand of hockey - past and present, equally.)

Which brings me back to the basis of my previous post.

When I weigh the opinion of a man who has observed this game from every vantage point over some 70+ years with the stereotype cliches of those to whom I previously referred, I indeed chuckle. For it is preferrable to other means of expressing my contempt for the latter.

I respect knowledge and wisdom. And that cannot be captured solely in numbers and cliches. Sometimes, the human element matters. Which is why, like Dreakmur, I get chills listening to Milt Schmidt speak at the end of that segment. Because it is real. And, to this observer, it is true.

If you or someone else wishes to scientifically challenge that man's opinion, go for it. No one is stopping you. Nor, in your case, at least, am I challenging your statistical claim. Sometimes best, however, to know when to let things lie.

(No malice intended above, just wanted to provide you with a sincere, thorough answer.)

Very good post and who's to say that today's levels of training, nutrition and medical capabilities wouldn't of enhanced Orr's natural talent even further.
Chicken or egg folks.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2010, 06:52 PM
  #19
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post

Very good post and who's to say that today's levels of training, nutrition and medical capabilities wouldn't of enhanced Orr's natural talent even further.
Chicken or egg folks.
It probably would have enhanced it even further, to the point where he'd have been just as dominant now as he was then. If Orr was born in 1992, he'd be working on his 9th straight Norris right now and we'd look at Nicklas Lidstrom the way we look at Brad Park. I fully agree. In fact, Trottier and I completely agree that the "time warp" method of comparison is lame and I was only explaining that if one is to use that viewpoint, then it's very possible they are correct, in absolute terms, but we're not really here to discuss absolute terms.

And yes, it was a very good post... except I'm not making any statistical claim this time

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2010, 02:18 AM
  #20
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It probably would have enhanced it even further, to the point where he'd have been just as dominant now as he was then. If Orr was born in 1992, he'd be working on his 9th straight Norris right now and we'd look at Nicklas Lidstrom the way we look at Brad Park. I fully agree. In fact, Trottier and I completely agree that the "time warp" method of comparison is lame and I was only explaining that if one is to use that viewpoint, then it's very possible they are correct, in absolute terms, but we're not really here to discuss absolute terms.

And yes, it was a very good post... except I'm not making any statistical claim this time
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.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2010, 02:28 AM
  #21
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
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.
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.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-22-2010 at 02:34 AM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2010, 03:04 AM
  #22
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
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.
Of course. But that was not the point. Some people apparently still believe that Orr would just make fools from all players, like he did some 40 years ago. It is much harder to dominate today, I think everyone agrees with that.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2010, 03:19 AM
  #23
Eisen
Registered User
 
Eisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier View Post
No. But personally, I do not even contemplate it, for it is irrelevant. The Nuuu NHL meme that everything sucked in the 70s, 80s, 90s or whenever is meaningless to me because, to be honest, I typically have little regard for the source of such generalizations (while simultaneously, I agree that the game has evolved significantly in some aspects).

The common sense and respect of the average hockey fan was superior back then too; do I bring that up? No.

While you and others do not necessarily conduct your statistical research with a jaundiced eye toward what came before you, one assumes you have observed the obvious: many of the Born Yesterday types elsewhere on HF do have an overt and often uninformed bias. They casually and boorishly pass off anything that transpired before last week as unimportant, unimpressive and having taken place in an inferior time. (Me? I revere hockey players - and the NHL brand of hockey - past and present, equally.)

Which brings me back to the basis of my previous post.

When I weigh the opinion of a man who has observed this game from every vantage point over some 70+ years with the stereotype cliches of those to whom I previously referred, I indeed chuckle. For it is preferrable to other means of expressing my contempt for the latter.

I respect knowledge and wisdom. And that cannot be captured solely in numbers and cliches. Sometimes, the human element matters. Which is why, like Dreakmur, I get chills listening to Milt Schmidt speak at the end of that segment. Because it is real. And, to this observer, it is true.

If you or someone else wishes to scientifically challenge that man's opinion, go for it. No one is stopping you. Nor, in your case, at least, am I challenging your statistical claim. Sometimes best, however, to know when to let things lie.

(No malice intended above, just wanted to provide you with a sincere, thorough answer.)
If you think it's bad how the main board talks about the 70s at least they talk about them. The 50s are not even considered hockey by most^^

Eisen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2010, 03:30 AM
  #24
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Of course. But that was not the point. Some people apparently still believe that Orr would just make fools from all players, like he did some 40 years ago. It is much harder to dominate today, I think everyone agrees with that.
Well a 35+ Lemieux was still making "fools" of people less than a decade ago so no, I don't think I can honestly agree with that.

Sorry but to me when you talk about Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux, these are guys that would dominate in any era.
So maybe Orr only gets 100-110 points instead of 130-140 and maybe Gretzky only puts up 170-180 points instead of 200-210.
Is that any less dominating though...I think not.
Orr, as a D-man would still be fighting for the league scoring lead or Gretzky would still be blowing everyone else away.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-22-2010 at 03:38 AM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2010, 09:37 AM
  #25
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,862
vCash: 500
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.


Last edited by Infinite Vision*: 11-22-2010 at 10:03 AM.
Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.