I often have the Orr vs. Gretzky argument in my own mind.
On one hand, Orr changed the game and won scoring titles as a defensmen. He was perhaps the most dynamic player to ever play the game and (at the time) looked like a man out there amongst boys.
If you don't know a lot about Orr or are too young to have seen him play I find this highlight package to be a good 'coles notes' type of thing:
(ignore the lame music)
Now, on the other hand, if you're giving Orr the nod over Gretzky, I always have to ask myself this:
What more did Gretzky have to do in order to move ahead of Orr?
Wayne Gretzky holds or shares
61 records listed in the League's Official Guide and Record Book: 40 for the regular season, 15 for the Stanley Cup playoff and six for the All-Star Game.
He also won ten Art Ross trophies and nine Hart trophies.
So again, if he didn't do enough to earn the distinction as the best ever, how much more would he have needed to do?
I am not choosing between the two. I am just pointing out the questions that pop up when trying to rank one over the other.
