Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u
Thanks for your post.
What I meant was that Gretzky came along and broke all of Howe's records. He took away Gordie's crown.
Yes, Orr was amazing, but for only a very short time. By the time he was 27 years old, he was done as a player. Howe, on the other hand, dominated the league for a long time. Afterwards, he played in the WHA and then went back to the NHL in his fifties! He could score, set up his team-mates, was good on the boards, excellent two-way player and was also an enforcer. I would take Howe over Orr anytime.
|
Gordie Howe was in a class by himself when it comes to his legendary durability and longevity. Bobby Orr was amazing for only a very short time, you say. Sadly, you are correct, of course. However, you grossly underestimate his impact on the game, and his stature in the minds of his many fans, as well as students of hockey history. For so many people, it's always one over another; who's the best or who's the greatest?
Had the leagues' players not laid a glove, stick, or skate upon Gretzky, as they brutally did to Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr, Wayne may very well have suffered the same fate as the two Bobbys. Dennis Hull tells some great stories of how wickedly dirty the players were against his brother. When the great Bruin hope Bobby came along, from day 1, the NHL players began dealing with this 18-year-old whippersnapper by the name of Orr. By the end of the 74/75 season, with Bobby just having turned 27, he was, as you said, about finished as a player. Hey, go check out his Wikipedia biography. It's longer than your arm, bub! It may not be as long as Wayne's or Gordie's, but for someone that just lasted 'til he was 27, well, must I speak plainer?
Can't it be enough that guys like Howe, Hull, Orr, or Richard are hockey legends? Must we always argue immaturely as to who's number 1? --- Brian Powell