History Lesson.....?

Question

Which was the best player out of the following and why?

Jean Beliveau
Gordie Howe
Bobby Orr
Guy LeFleur
or Maurice Richards

I never was able to see a lot of these guys play live, but I am an avid reader of hockey. I am just amazed with Jean Beliveau accomplishments and class.

I agree that Guy Lefleur was very good, but he would also be on the bottom. Do not read "Remembering Guy Lafleur" (somewhat of a biography). It was the worst hockey book I have read. He apparently was really shy, which makes for a boring biography.

Answer 1

Based on skills, they rank

1. Bobby Orr
2. Maurice Richard
3. Gordie Howe
4. Jean Beliveau
5. Guy Lafleur

Out of the bunch, Beliveau definitely had the most class, followed by Bobby Orr. The other three were very brash individuals.

Richard, and Beliveau are players I had the chance to watch live at the forum and see on TV in Montreal.

Howe I had the chance to see on whenever he played Montreal (and Montreal was pretty effective in shuttoing him down - but then, when I grew up - Montreal shut everybody down!)

I had the chance to play against both Beliveau and Howe in NHL exhibition play.

Orr I just watched in amazement like everybody else.

Lafleur too.

Bobby Orr revolutionized the game like no other, and for that reason I placed him first.

Rocket Richard was known for his speed and his shot, but he was an amazing stickhandler too.

Gordie Howe was just a behemoth by 1950s and 1960s standards. He could skate, he could shoot, he could pass, he had great command of the ice, etc. He was a complete player.............but he never seemed to dominate a game in the Richard/Hull/Orr/Gretzky/Lemieux sense...at least not in my mind.

Beliveau was a great player. His line with Richard and Moore in the 50s had people on their feet everywhere. Along with Richard, Lach, and Blake...........those were the two most exciting lines in hockey.

Lafleur was a very good player. He was fast, and he used that speed to his advantage. When you combine his speed with his talented mates, you get 5 more Stanley Cups for Montreal. However, Lafleur dominated the NHL for a short time when compared to the other 4 guys you mentioned. And again, I want to emphasize that Guy Lafleur was very good..........but he was not 'great'


Chris
Yes, I played professional hockey.....I attended training camp and tried for 6 years to become a Black Hawk.........and 5 times they sent me down, the 6th time Tommy Ivan told me straight out I'll never be more than a minor leaguer and asked me to be a scout....It paid more......so I said sure. 6 Pre-season games, 0 Regular season games.

Answer 2

After reading some of the other responses, I have to agree that Lafleur doesn't belong. I think Phil Esposito or Bobby Clarke would have fit better on your list. Or even both of them.

I'm going to focus first of Lafleur and Beliveau. Both of these players were solid players and the pillars of their respective eras (Beliveau in the 60s and Lafleur in the 70s). I have never heard either of these players mentioned as the greatest, and I guess that is with good reason. I saw them both play when I was younger and they were very good.

Maurice Richard, Gordon Howe, and Robert Orr have been contendors for the greatest player of all time. In Quebec, Richard and Lemieux were the greatest players, and outside of Quebec, Howe, Orr, and Gretzky were the greatest. I've only ever read about the Rocket and seen the movie, and without having seen him play, Maurice Richard is nothing more than a well-played out memory. I saw both Howe and Orr play and they both wowed me. Howe could move through a brick wall and Orr could skate and dispy doodle like nobody's business. For the longest time, they were the highest scoring forward and defencemen anywhere. It still amazes me that only Bossy, Lemieux, and Gretzky have higher point/game averages than Orr....a D-man extraordinaire.

But goals are where it's at for me so Howe was better!

Answer 3

If you're into hockey books, I recommend Gerry Cheevers book. Very funny.
I'd pretty much agree with LITY. I think the only player you can comapre Orr to in terms of the level of excitment he generated when he got the puck to the overall influence in how the game was perceived and played would be Wayne Gretzky.
As for Richard, if I had to desribe him I would say no other player ever exuded as great a passion to play the game. His competetive fire was truly incredible and he was tough as nails to boot. I think that if we had not seen Orr and Gretzky and then Lemieux come along so quickly after him he may have attained a legendary status to rival Babe Ruth.
I use one word for Mr Beliveau: Classy. The big man was more than a great player, he was a great human being.
And Mr Hockey's big influence in the game is best characterized by his ability to play and compete for so long at such a high level.
I don't think Lafleur belongs in the group with the others, not that he wasn't a great player but simply he never left the same impression on me as the others did.

Answer 4

Bobby Orr was simply the best hockey player ever. Gretzky has the records and had a long, mostly healthy career. Orr's career cut short by bad knees. Saw him go end to end, fire a shot close in on net, and then make the defensive play in his zone to break up a rush seconds later. All the rest on list were great forwards, but if you mean hockey player..defense as well as offense...#4 Bobby Orr.

Answer 5

Gordie Howe with Bobby Orr in a close second.

Orr was the best defenseman to ever play the game. In 12 season, he won the Norris Trophy eight times. He's also one of the top scoring defenseman ever. He also helped win 2 Stanley Cups for the Boston Bruins.

As for Gordie Howe, well, here's a few of his credentials:
-played professionally over the course of 6 decades
-Six time Hart Memorial winner for league MVP
-played in 25 all-star games, 23 in the NHL and 2 in the WHL
-over 1767 games, he scored 801 goals, had 1049 assists (for a total of 1850; still a record for RW)
-has his own hat trick (a goal, an assist, and a fight win)

Answer 6

I rather have usually evoked an identical sentiment as Santayana purely on a greater individualistic point. i think of human beings listed right here are some distance overreaching in attempting to locate parallels between on the instant and activities in history. definite there are the properly-known Pestilence, conflict, Famine, and dying, yet we are able to constantly experience with them as they seem to be a factor of human nature. The essence of Santayana’s words lies not interior the oft misquoted sentence that history repeats itself, yet interior the importance of getting to understand from our blunders. i think of humankind has finished a reasonably good activity of that. There are virtually no similarities between on the instant’s financial turmoil and the large melancholy. Why? because of the fact we've won the acumen to comprehend the adjustments interior the underlying reasons and the thank you to react without delay. an identical is actual approximately how we react to pestilence. I’ve considered varied comments at right here approximately how the media exaggerated the possibility of the H1N1 virus. they did not overestimate the “skill” possibility. instead they underestimated how properly we had learn from previous blunders. Mexican well being officers reacted completely as did the WHO. at the same time as Malthusian disaster has got here approximately on somebody u . s . or interior sight scale, it has by no skill got here approximately on a international scale precisely because of the human skill to income from journey.

Answer 7

LITY, did you play hockey at a professinal level?


Add- Ouch, that must hurt someone telling you that you will never make it.

Answer 8

"La Rocket"