Maybe my opinion is skewed because I saw
Ray Bourque play in real life, almost every game he played for the Bruins. I was 6 when
Bobby Orr retired so all ive ever seen of him was clips. Orr was DEF the most talented dman, but he played D like no other before him. Dman didnt go coast to coast, or score like him.
I guess my point was that
Ray Bourque had the best CAREER for a dman. He is the points leader for dman, yet was also considered a great def dman. He was a great hitter when he the time was right, a great captain and was very underrated for his toughness. IMO
Ray Bourque was the most complete dman in NHL history. And for a guy to play the way he did, thru alot of injuries and on some awful Bruins teams for 20 years has to be taken into account. 19 straight all-stars.
Again, IM not taking anything away from Orr, but lets face he didnt play on a regualr basis the same talent level that Bourque did for 20 years. He was so dominate becaue half the league coudnt skate when he played. Goalies were not even close to the levels they are now.
Bobby Orr was 20 years ahead of his time.
But I see everyones point. If you feel
Bobby Orr was a better player than
ray Bourque I can see it that way too. To me though 20 years as either 1-2 best at your position has tp mean something. Remember fans didnt always pick the all-stars, fior the most part it was players and gm who voted.