Talk:Bobby Orr

Career Statistics

It is not apparent to me what the bolded items signify. Can someone add a note or remove the bolding? 199.126.245.202 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bolding = led the league in the statistic in question. It's common throughout the hockey articles. RGTraynor 09:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

remove not necessary. 150.210.226.5 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Greatest player argument

Bobby Orr is considered one of the greatest to ever play the game of hockey, after Wayne Gretzky of course.

It is my personal opinion that Bobby Orr could put Wayne Gretzky in his back pocket and skate away with him! Bobby Orr scored his points in a time when points were harder to come by and also it must be noted that when he(and the Bruins) began to run up the score on an opponent in a game he(or the Bruins) wouldn't rub it in by scoring as many points as he(and the Bruins) could have in order not to embarrass the opponent and also due to Bobby's personal modesty......according to Don Cherry on Hockey Night in Canada. Gretzky on the other hand was unembarrassable in his pursuit of points, going all out like a madman to the very end of each game trying with all his might to squeeze out that last point no matter what the score, often and mostly into an empty net! Mr Cherry also noted that the highest plus/minus rating Gretzky ever achieved was 89 while Bobby Orr regularly maintained a plus/minus in the 120's, the highest I believe -- according to Mr Cherry-- was a plus of 129 one year, and this in a time when they played about 10 fewer games in the regular season than what Gretzky would play! Add on about another 15% in extra games played and the equally resultant points, Orr would have had an astronomical 148 plus rating in his best season besting Gretzky by a truly incredible and astounding 59 more plus points rating. WE'RE TALKING A 66% DIFFERENCE HERE FOLKS!!!! THAT'S HOW MUCH BETTER ORR REALLY WAS FOLKS. NO JOKING AT ALL!!!! Orr played most of his career on one leg too and the great left winger Bobby Hull said that even on one leg Orr was way better than everybody else on two! Gordie Howe himself, one of the greatest 3 or 4 players to have ever laced up skates, said Orr was the best he'd ever seen. Orr incidentally said the same thing about Howe! Jean Beliveau said that Bobby Orr, when and if he made a mistake, recovered quicker and faster than any other player that he ever knew! It was not unusual for Bobby Orr to kill off a penalty all by himself either due to the fact that nobody could get the puck off of him when he got it, at least not very easily. It was said that Orr had 18 different speeds of fast leaving all the other skaters in the dust and could make impossibly tight turns. Bobby Orr was so great that he revolutioned the game and the defensemans position, something that can not be said about Mr Gretzky. Bobby Orr was the best bar none. 24.66.40.89 10:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Okay, I personally agree with that statement. I used to stay up way too late at night, watching the Bruins play hockey (those west coast games went on until midnight, Boston time), when I should have been getting a good night's sleep before my paper route.

And I'll never forget watching live as Bobby Orr scored the winning goal in May 1970, clinching the Stanley Cup 40 seconds into sudden-death overtime!!

But it's still just opinion. Let's leave it out *sigh*

-- User:Ed Poor

The statement "Bobby Orr is one of the greatest...." is opinion. The above statement is fact -- there are plenty of published opinions showing that he is considered by many to be one of the greatest, Gretzky being the greatest. Maybe adding "by many" after "considered" would clarify that. My favourite memory of Bobby Orr is those slow-motion rushes in which he'd skate the length of the ice at about five miles an hour and no one would come near him because they were afraid he'd make them look like fools. -- Anon 209.29.169.124

---

That image is public domain? - user:zanimum

Record

I don't see it anywhere here, but I've read Orr had the best average for assists/game, at 1.31. (Of course, the '77 Guinness I saw it in also says Phil Espo had 7x100point seasons...) Confirm? Trekphiler 04:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. Wayne Gretzky is the career leader with 1.320 assists per game, followed by Mario Lemieux (going into this season) with 1.145. Orr is third with .982, Peter Forsberg fourth with .905. Just a handful of other players (Coffey, Oates, Peter Stastny) broke .800. RGTraynor 06:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

TrulyTory's post moved from the top of page

Let's see:

Bobby Orr is NOT arguably the greatest Hockey Player of All-time;

yet;

Wayne Gretzky is considered by MOST to be the greatest Hockey Player of All-Time.

I find this highly inconsistent (and disingenious) on your part.

What is your proof that WG is considered by MOST (an highly inaccurate sum I might add ...) to be the Greatest ?

I will delete this POV until you provide proof TrulyTory 18:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I did. Where's yours? RGTraynor 21:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to, because I did not claim opinion as fact and post as an absolute statement. THAT is the difference between you and me TrulyTory 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"widely regarded as the greatest defenseman of all time - and arguably, the greatest hockey player of all time." is your quote. Now if in fact you're just an edit warrior (or a sockpuppet of Pyles or vice versa; it seems likely), fair enough. I just figured it would be the gentlemanly thing to do for a Wikipedia newbie to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you were conducting an honest discussion. RGTraynor 04:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You are hardly presenting yourself as a paragaon of "gentlemanly" virtue here; you have engaged in sheer advocacy in the WG article, whereas my BO edits were defensible, fair, & neutral. Therein lay the difference betwixt Ye and Thee. The fact that adherents of your cause such as Croat Canuck continue to vandalise both articles in the same redundant and biased manner speaks volumes about the agenda you have pursued thus far. It stops now in the interests of fairness and objectivity. WG was one of the greatest players of All Time, but he is not a god, or a religion. TrulyTory 14:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RGTraynor and suggest Mediation before this gets any more venomous. "Croat Canuck continue to vandalise both articles in the same redundant and biased manner speaks volumes about the agenda you have pursued thus far." Whatever. I am far from an adherent from RGTraynor, as we've had our own arguments recently mostly about manner of international spelling between Canadian and American and had a few mini-edit wars. However, I can admit when he is right, and he is right in this instance. Croat Canuck 20:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; this guy isn't just editing like crazy over my head, he's doing it over all the regulars. I'll file a mediation request now.

Then you do not understand the semantical difference between "most" and "many." I find it shocking that you cannot discern a difference between the two, and that you suggest that you can quantifyingly validate the term - "most." TrulyTory 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears this TrulyTory's sole purpose on Wikipedia is to take part in advocacy on behalf of Bobby Orr as the greatest hockey player of all-time. He's currently attempting to censor the relatively mild statement on the Wayne Gretzky page that Gretzky is considered by "many" (with appropriate and abundant citations) to be the greatest hockey player ever in a desperate attempt to advance the cause of Orr. Shamefully lame. If you are going to include "arguably the greatest of them all" (which is an opinion firmly in the minority) on Orr's page, then you have no right to object to Gretzky's page saying he is considered by many to be the greatest player ever (which is a view, coincidentally, held by...MANY...and supported with citations!) The short of it is that TrulyTory is a POV-pusher in every sense.-R Esche 01:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • strong words from a sockpuppet??

Hm. If you object to being called one, why are you doing so yourself?

There. If that's the language that's good enough for Wayne Gretzky, it surely is good enough -- and not one whit more or less POV, according to Tory and Pyles -- for Bobby Orr. I don't expect any objections. RGTraynor 07:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

it's not any better or worse than it was before, Traynor. My arguement the whole time has been that "greatest of all time" can never be determined...in any sport...so why bother. To include those words in 1 bio is just going to create edit wars for or against specific players over the title. And if it is going to be included in 1 bio then there's 15-20 other bios where the same words apply. As, I've posted before, the words "greatest of all time" do not appear in any bio in the Hockey Hall Of Fame...as it should be. Unless you can suddenly produce a 'way-back machine' and send some of today's modern stars back in time to go 1 on 1 against Eddie Shore...or try to score on a break-away against Bill Durnan. My own personal opinion on 'greatest of all time' is neither Orr nor Gretzky or Lemieux or Howe or Messier. But I have not injected those words into my favorite player's bio. You're always spouting about not using this place as a sandbox. But everytime you try to argue your case, you're just continuing to hand out pales and shovels. You'll figure it out someday...after this webpage eventually fades away. ~Mr Pyles

I can live with it - as it seems eminently fair and neutral, just like my Gretzky edits. I am glad you folks have come over to the side of logic. Good For You Son! TrulyTory 12:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr Pyles: Thanks for lying about the biography for Gretzky in the HHOF. It most certainly DOES include a statement that he is "consistently ranked as the greatest hockey player of all time." [1] Thanks for playing, though.-66.254.232.219 05:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

While I decline to directly answer those who indulge in meatpuppetry, I agree that consistent spelling is a virtue. Here we have a player born and raised in Canada, but who as a teenager moved to the Boston area, gained his greatest fame there, has lived in it for nearly forty years, and is a naturalized American citizen. Following Wikipedia national spelling policy, when an article cannot be unambiguously ascribed to one particular national variant, the intent of the first editor holds: [2]. RGTraynor 14:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Doug Harvey

RGT knows very little about the game. see >>> http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?mem=P197301&type=Player&page=bio&list=ByName#photo TrulyTory 19:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug Harvey as alleged "offensive defenseman"

Was Harvey a fine point-gathering defenseman? Sure was, no question about it. Was he an all-time notable at it? Not remotely. Just counting Hall of Fame defenseman playing in the NHL contemporaneously with and before Harvey, he stands twenty-fourth in goals per game. No one would ever have described fellows like Lionel Conacher, Tim Horton, Red Horner, Allan Stanley or Ching Johnson as offensive defensemen, but they all scored more goals per game than did Harvey. Heck, Harvey just barely pipped Marcel Pronovost. Many contemporaries who aren't in the HHOF, such as Ott Heller, Glen Harmon, Doug Mohns and Flash Hollett, scored more goals a game than he did. Hell, even Al Dewsbury and Pat Egan managed that. Harvey didn't even lead his own team in points a full third of his career.

Red Kelly was a high scoring defenseman. Eddie Shore was a high scoring defenseman. But before I'd add Doug Harvey to the list, I'd add King Clancy and Hollett (who each had over half again as many goals as Harvey in half as many games played), Babe Pratt, Buck Boucher or Earl Siebert. The fact of the matter -- fact, mind you, not wishful thinking -- is that despite Harvey's legitimate claim to being the greatest defenseman of all time, he was not notable as an offensive force, either historically or during his own career. RGTraynor 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong you are - again. Harvey controlled the pace of the game much like Orr, and when you consider the low-scoring of the 1950's, a Defenceman who tallied between 30 and 50 points a season is very good. Take 1955 as an example; Geoffrion led the league with 75 points. Harvey totalled 49 points. 65% of the leader's total. In '57 Howe led with 89 points, and Harvey totalled 50 points. In many ways, his seasons are not different than Red Kelly's - except Red scored more goals. Yet Harvey was judged superior to Kelly in terms of the Norris Trophy voting. Why is this? Because, he was judged to the a more "total" player than Kelly - as a defenceman. And Kelly was a great one. There is a triumvirate of great two-way defenders in NHL history, and they commonly go like this: 'Shore, Harvey, and Orr.' This has been the case among hockey men for decades. It is surprising that you find this so novel. Orr was NOT only a great scorer, but a great playmaker, a great defender, and a great fighter. Shore & Harvey were the standard before Orr. Orr has been the standard ever since - and he didn't need Semenko to do his dirty work for him. Yeah, I threw that in for added measure... TrulyTory 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, Harvey's assist totals were "very good" by the standards of defensemen of his day ... although some might not consider having the likes of the Richards, Lach, Geoffrion, Moore and Beliveau finishing off your passes much of a hardship. Absolutely, Harvey was deemed superior to Kelly when it came to Norris voting. Yet how could that be, when Kelly outscored Harvey ten out of the thirteen seasons they played defense head-to-head? Because Harvey was a superior defensive defenseman. Which is not what the section in question discusses. What is surprising is not that I find the concept novel that Harvey was a great defenseman; that much is blindingly obvious. What is surprising is your insistence, wrapped in irrelevancies and straw man arguments, that he was one of the great offensive defensemen of all time. Which the evidence does not support, so failing WP:V. No doubt there are forums where your advocacy would be welcome and eagerly debated, but WP:SOAPBOX applies here. RGTraynor 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. Specious .... Orr was NOT just an Offensive Defenceman. He was a Two-Way Defenceman, as was Harvey. Harvey was a master with the puck in the transition zone, which allowed the Canadiens' forwards to move into the attack earlier in the sequence. It takes skill with the puck in order to do this. You keep falling back into Orr as "merely an offensive player" when he was not. He was a two-way Defenceman, who could and did control the TEMPO of the game and frame the attack - JUST LIKE HARVEY. I love King Clancy. I grew-up in Toronto where he was a living legend. But he is not talked about as the total transitionally dominant player that Shore, Harvey, and Orr were. Orr was about MORE than goals ! Can you not understand that? TrulyTory 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Traynor takes it upon himself as the greatest authority of all things hockey to ignore the fact that Orr is not just considered the greatest offensive defencman in history, but the greatest all-around player/defenceman in history. Similar to Doug Harvey - who played in a lower-scoring league. The comparison is apt and supported by many who know the game. TrulyTory 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If we went by Pts totals, Ray Bourque would be the greatest offensive defenceman of all-time. But, more importantly who cares? why not just say Harvey & Orr are among the greatest defenceman of all-time (they've got good +/- career ratings). Forget the offensive stuff. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the examples entirely. An edit war over the inclusion of Doug Harvey on Bobby Orr's article is beyond WP:LAME, and the examples are not useful in the first place. The section describes defencemen with goal scoring ability as being rare. Examples of defencemen with goal scoring ability adds nothing to that section. Resolute 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Greatest Player Ever, take II

The turn of phrase "arguably the greatest player ever" - especially in the lead paragraph - should only be used when a preponderance of expert and media opinion supports it. Here, it doesn't. The Orr-Gretzky-Howe debate's been an extremely contentious one on Wikipedia, ending through exhaustion as much as any other reason, and ultimately sourced to an insane degree. "Considered one of the greatest players ever" was deemed a reasonable (and accurate) consensus compromise.  RGTraynor  20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would arguably the greatest not be reasonable or accurate as well?

From wiktionary "arguably: that is a plausible proposition; defensible because of solid reasons"

Many fellow players and analysts would agree that Orr is the gretest, search some videos on youtube and I am sure you will find many hockey experts who would say so, to say that he is "arguably the greatest" is perfectly reasonable and accurate.

Also the citation does support it as the hockey hall of fame bio says Orr is frequently brought up when discussing who the all time greatest is.--E tac 07:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And it is not how it is presented here; we've had a few too many edit wars over the subject, and the consensus compromise was reached for that reason ... quite aside from which there are only about several dozen players of whom it could (and has) "arguably" be said he was the greatest ever. The fact is that most observers don't think Orr was the greatest ever; it's plain that Gretzky is viewed in that light, with minority support as well for the Howes, Richards and Lemieuxs of the world, and oldtime observers for Bowie, Malone and Lalonde. All in all, it's a can of worms we decided to close.  RGTraynor  13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your wrong, Gretzky had more offensive skills then Orr, but put 5 of Bobby Orr against 5 of Gretzky. The team of Orrs would win 9 out of 10 times.--E tac 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Howabout, Orr is considered one of the greatest players of all time. I thought an agreement was reached about a year ago, to use the phrase one of the greatest... in order to avoid these boring overwhelmingly PoV disputes. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

PS- I noticed that agreement hasn't been respected at Wayne Gretzky however. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Goal

I'm a little shocked that there isn't a whole arcticle about The Goal. 24.83.3.54 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More of the same

Once again, as per WP:ENGVAR, the article's been reverted to the national language variant used by the original creators, consonant with a subject who has spent his entire adult life in the United States, working exclusively for United States companies, and who has been a United States citizen for many years. Beyond that, the anachronistic usage for "Black Hawks" has been reverted. Finally, I've Xed out the Doug Harvey reference again, which has been solely pushed by an editor for whom changing that reference to say "Doug Harvey" has been his sole Wikipedia activity for almost all of this year; his persistent, solitary POV has been catered to long enough.  RGTraynor  21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I am not going to revert it cause I don't desire to get in an arguement about it. But WP:ENGVAR says that the spelling must be consistant throughout the article, and since he is in a category spelled with the Canadian variation, all other spellings throughout the page should be in the Canadian variation reguardless if he worked in the US his entire life etc etc. because we cannot make the spelling of a cat show up differently like we can with a normal link. --Djsasso (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if many people felt that the spelling of a category listing or an external link needed to be consistent with that of the article; there must be many cases where it is not.  RGTraynor  11:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Orr was never drafted!

Can someone please change that!! It is grossly inaccurate to state that Orr was drafted number 1 overall in the 1966 draft. The number one draft pick that year was Barry Gibbs, a Defenceman by the Boston Bruins. Orr was signed to a C-Form prior to 1963. As a result, players on a C-Form are ineligible for the draft, and the players are assigned to an amateur club sponsored by the big club. In Orr's case, it was the Oshawa Generals (Bostons farm club) of the OHA. As a result, Orr was brought to training camp in 1966 and stayed. Furthermore, Bobby Orr wore #27 that year.

Someone please correct this as it is grossly inaccurate. Thanks, Andrew

So it would seem. I've removed the line altogether. Not sure how that came about. Resolute 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Alan Eagleson

Why did you undo the change? If you put in one side of the argument, why not put in facts countering the argument about Eagleson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits make accusations as to why a person made a decision. Any such edits must be verifiable, cited with reliable sources. A claim of "conventional wisdom" is none of those. Flibirigit (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"conventional wisdom is that he never told Orr about the Bruins' offer of part-ownership. That conventional wisdom is belied by Eagleson's public disclosure of the Bruins' ownership offer. For example, the day before Orr signed with Chicago, Eagleson was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying "[Boston] offered a five-year deal at $295,000 or 18.6 percent ownership of the club in 1980." Then on June 9, 1976, after Orr signed with Chicago, Eagleson again disclosed the ownership offer, telling the Toronto Globe and Mail "Orr was to receive $925,000 in cash payable in June 1980. That was to be a cash payment or involve Orr's receiving 18.6 percent of the Bruins stock."

Actually, accusation "that he never told Orr" is how it now reads. My comment softened it by saying that while this accusation is "conventional wisdom", it appears to be inaccurate. My comments don't make any accusation, just quote facts from a newspaper that refute the accusation. So, using your logic, shouldn't my edit stay in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my previous comment, any such edits must be verifiable (you must provide the source), cited (you must include details of the source, if it's from a newspaper you must provide particulars) with reliable sources (please see that link for what is considered a reliable resource). Flibirigit (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Flibirigit: your statement seems to miss my point. The ONLY accusation is in the portion you kept. My response to that accusation includes the "attribution" that you want (the quotes from newspapers). As you've left it, there is an unattributed accusation that is not verifiable. I've added a verifiable counter. Please respond with specifics so we don't talk past each other and so I understand your issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Give us a date, and I'll be happy to check at the local library myself. It has long been known that the Bruins' offer to Orr came as a complete surprise to Orr, one about which he did not learn for years; I find it hard to believe that it could have been reported in the Globe and Mail and not be plastered all over the Boston papers the next day. (Which, in fact, it was not, nor the next week, nor thereafter.)  RGTraynor  21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've given you both dates and the papers!!!! Your comment about this being "well known" shows just why this needs to be added. Orr may not have known, but that's not because Eagleson hid it from him. The info in my passage comes directly from Steve Brunt's book "Searching for Bobby Orr." The info about the dates was in my post Check the June 7 Toronto Star, and the June 9 Toronto Globe and Mail:

The day before, 6/7/76, Frank Orr of the Toronto Star wrote that Eagleson had a deal with Boston in place Sept 15, 1975, but that the deal got changed after Orr's knee surgery. Quoting Eagleson "they offered a five-year deal at $295,000 or 18.6 percent ownership of the club in 1980. I didn't think it would be wise for him to be a player-owner."

Then on 6/9/76, after Bobby Orr signed with Chicago, the Toronto Globe and Mail quoted Eagleson "Orr was to receive 925,000 in cash payable in June 1980. That was to be a cash payment or involve Orr's receiving 18.6 percent of the Bruins stock."

PLEASE STOP THE CENSORSHIP OF TRUE STATEMENTS JUST BECAUSE THEY GO AGAINST WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD. MY INFORMATION IS VERIFIABLE AND CITED. CHECK THEM OUT YOURSELF BEFORE ASSUMING THEY'RE UNTRUE AND DELETING THEM. MY QUOTES CORRECT THE EARLIER FALSE ACCUSATION AGAINST EAGLESON. ORR MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE OFFER, BUT IT WASN'T THAT EAGLESON HID THE OFFER - HE TOLD THE PRESS BEFORE AND AFTER ORR SIGNED, AS NOTED IN THE TWO NEWS ARTICLES, AND QUOTED LATER IN STEVEN BRUNT'S BOOK. That you don't believe it until you see it yourself is not a basis for deleting information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well now. I don't suppose you actually verified those newspaper links yourself. I just did (and a damn raw, drippy day to be outside, too). Frank Orr had no article in the Star on June 7, 1976, and there was no such quote in the Globe & Mail on the 9th. While you figure out just when any such quotes actually took place, I'm reverting the text.  RGTraynor  19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Steve Brunt, who tells me he has the clippings at his house. I'll forward the info to you later today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Steve Brunt, who responded:

June 7, 1976. Toronto Star. Page B1 (front of the sports section) Headline "$3 million deal for Bobby Orr" Byline Frank Orr quotes as they appear in the book The clip is sitting right in front of me other stories on the page - a milt dunnell column about horse racing, a Jim Kernaghan story about Olympic swimmers, and a wire story about the East German swim team

I'll be restoring me edits now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk • contribs)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Senseless Paragraph

This paragraph makes no sense: "Orr also benefited from playing most of his career in Boston Garden, which was nine feet shorter and two feet narrower than the standard NHL rink. This suited his rushing style very well, as he was able to get from one end of the ice to the other faster than in a standard rink.[5]"

Great skaters like Orr benefit from large sheets, not small ones. Boston Garden was good for knocking guys over, not rushing by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.91.49 (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The guy who wrote that never played hockey. The fact that Orr skated rings around everyone in cramped Boston Garden shows what a great skater he was. If he had played on Olympic sized rinks, he'd have posted a points record that would still be unbroken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.12.181 (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling change request

I propose a change in spelling from American to Canadian English. Though the article appears to have been started in American English and Orr played for NHL teams in the United States, I would argue that the article is primarily a biography of a Canadian person and of greatest interest to Canadian readers. The relevant guideline is WP:ENGVAR. Please comment here on your support or opposition to such a change and a rationale for your position. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Spelling makes no substantive difference. Either should be acceptable. PKT 00:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)