Elmar - When the list came out there was a fair bit of controversy surrounding Yzerman. However, that list would be different now as that was 8 years ago. Both Hasek and Yzerman would receive higher rankings.
As I have always said Orr actually finished first because Stan Fischler voted him no better than 13th. If Fischler had not been allowed to vote, Orr would have been first and Gretzky second.
Fischler is a hockey historian who has written more hockey books than anyone can count. Many of these books have a lot of the same information in them, but he has done quite a bit of research on the history of the game.
I agree that Steve Yzerman needs to be moved up in the rankings, but he continued to show his greatness in the later part of his career. When the list is done again, I feel sure that he will move up in the rankings. He has developed quite a following over the past few years.
Anyone who has Bobby Orr as the 13th best hockey player needs to revisit their research methods; that is beyond insane. He must have been one of the guys that Bobby disowned (just finished reading the new book).
The great thing about Stevie Y was how he changed his game as he aged, from an offensive power to a more defensive role as he lost a step and the make-up of the team changed. Plus his leadership of course. My favorite non-Bruin ! Wish he had gone to the last Olympics, we needed him.
is that guy on drugs or something,i know stan fichler for all his contributions to many books and articles,what happened to him when he voted orr at 13 that day??? maybe he had a dispute with orr that week.anyways lets put bobby orr in all 6 positions VS. gretzky in all 6 positions=====bobby orr #1 hands down!!!! p.s. bobby orr won 2 art ross trophy's (scoring champions) twice.no other defence will ever do that again,he also changed the game of hockey forever with his offensive rushes.need i say more.
I think that to give these lists any legitimacy you have to limit it to retired players. I like the discussion that is always generated, always nice to hear other opinions on players, some of whom one might not be familiar with, but how can you rank someone who is still playing against the greats of the game ? In all likelihood 10 years from now Martin Brodeur will be recognized as a better goalie than Pat Roy so why bother trying to place someone like him on the list now ? You need to be able to look at a career in it's entirety. Maybe Fischler is senile and thought he was in 1966 or something, that would explain things.
The Hockey News had 50 voters rank their top 50 players in order. There was no criteria other than rank your top 50 players of all-time regardless of position. In general the voters are well known hockey names. Some of the writers could be questioned but the people selected at least have a significant hockey background.
Fischler might have researched the game but unfortunately his conclusions are illogical. In 1988 Fischler wrote a book entitled hockey's top 100. At that time he ranked in order: Howe, Gretzky, Shore, Kelly, Frank Boucher, Richard, Morenz, Beliveau, Doug Harvey, Glenn Hall, Syl Apps and Denis Potvin ahead of Orr. I would think 10 years later he would have ranked Lemiuex, Coffey and maybe Mark Messier ahead of Orr - relegating Orr to 16th place.
At the time of the selection Chelios had won 3 Norris trophies, and been a first-team all-star 4 times. Other than Ray Bourque he was probably the best defensemen of his era. The defensemen right after him on the list Tim Horton and Brad Park are probably not as good as Chelios, although the point is debatable. Brad Park was my favourite player after Orr retired, and he was unbelievable on the Power Play, but given the choice I can see people taking Chelios over him.
I can see arguing about Yzerman's place on the list and maybe Chelios is too high but from a defensemen perspective there are not too many behind him that are better.
I think you are dreaming when you say the Chelios is one of the best defencemen of all time!! Orr is rated #1 followed by Doung Harvey and Eddie Shore & Ray Bourque and Paul Coffey. Chelios is good but NOT EVEN close to being near the 20 as a player of all-time. I would rate at least 40 others befroe him.
You may like him as a player but he is not even close or in the same leauge as Orr. Orr has 8 straight Norris Trophies(a record) - no one comes close to that except Doug Harvey with 7. Orr and Harvey redefined how defence was played and are the best at their position of all time.
It was reported in the Toronto Daily News today that Stan Fischler has gone into hiding! Apparently he is following the example of Salman Rushdie who spent over a decade in hiding after receiving death threats for his book "The Satanic Verses." Mr. Fischler ranked Bobby Orr as the 13th best player of all time and has since had his life threatened by angry fans, he lost his job, his wife left him, his dog ran away, the bank repossessed his car, and his children have all changed their last name.
Rumors have it that Mr. Fischler is staying in the guest room of Mr. Rushdie until he can get his new fake passport and other fake documents. He is also said to be preparing for extensive plastic surgery to avoid the wrath of the "Orrfans."
Bobby Orr made a rare public appearance today where he asked everyone to remain calm and to avoid any more threats of violence against Mr. Fischler.
I understand your point but Chelios didn't have much competition in his era. Even though his 1993, 1996 Norris are pretty much questionable (like Lindros being #54 all times great) ...Meanwhile Park had a very little chance playing at the same time with Orr, Potvin, Robinson, and Savard.
Howe G (just in case anybody thought it was Mark or Marty)
I remember when this set was requested by a few of us on the PSA registry. I had to list a few of the cards I had and I kept putting in Steve Yzerman and I could not figure out why it kept getting rejected. I had just assumed that he was on the list.
51 Nels Stewart
52 King Clancy
53 Bill Cowley
54 Eric Lindros
55 Harvey "Busher" Jackson
56 Peter Stastny
57 Ted Kennedy
58 Andy Bathgate
59 Pierre Pilote
60 Turk Broda
61 Frank Boucher
62 Cy Denneny
63 Bernie Parent
64 Brett Hull
65 Aurel Joliat
66 Toe Blake
67 Frank Brimsek
68 Elmer Lach
69 Dave Keon
70 Grant Fuhr
71 Brian Leetch
72 Earl Seibert
73 Doug Bentley
74 Borje Salming
75 Georges Vezina
76 Chuck Gardiner
77 Clint Benedict
78 Steve Yzerman
79 Tony Esposito
80 Billy Smith
81 Serge Savard
82 Alex Delvecchio
83 Cecil "Babe" Dye
84 Lorne Chabot
85 Sid Abel
86 Bob Gainey
87 Johnny Bower
88 Sprague Cleghorn
89 Mike Gartner
90 Norm Ullman
91 Sweeney Schriner
92 Joe Primeau
93 Darryl Sittler
94 Joe Sakic
95 Dominik Hasek
96 Babe Pratt
97 Jack Stewart
98 Yvan Cournoyer
99 Bill Gadsby
100 Frank Nighbor
Lindros? You really have to be kidding me!!! What did this guy ever accomplish? He started off slow after sitting out a full year. He got injured early and seemed to stay injured for his first few seasons. He had one strong year where he took the Flyers to the Cup Finals, and then couldn't help them win one game! Since then he has been a decent player at best who no one looks to as a leader or superstar at all.
I would say Lindros' best season was the season that he sat out! Back then we all "knew" that he was a can't miss superstar. After that it was all down hill!
I really hope that no one comes back and tells me how great he really is, or I will start to lose confidence in the human race.
Maybe Stan is responsible for that too, probably had Lindros ranked ahead of Orr.
I knew the name rang a bell so when I got home I checked my copy of "Searching for Bobby Orr" and sho-nuff, he was indeed one of the guys that Bobby cut off. When he wrote his book "Bobby Orr and the Big, Bad Bruins" in 1969 his "warm, trusting relationship", as the book describes it, came to an end when Orr contemplated suing him. So there you have it, congratulations Stan, wherever you are (are you even alive ?), you really got him back good, serves him right ay ? So what if it only cost you any credibility you may have once had.
Doesn't really go into the details in the book, only says that he was going to sue for using his name without permission in the title; but reading between the lines I would say that he was probably upset about him (Fischler) using some material from an interview that he did. It notes that he had given him an "unguarded" or "candid" interview, something like that. Not that it really matters. Just sad that someone would (apparently) build a reputation as a credible journalist and then sully it because of a decades old grudge. Seems awfully petty to me; actually seems awfully stupid to me.