Peer Bork's obituary presents a compelling case for his contributions to genomics, yet there's an air of overenthusiasm that's worth scrutinizing. The obituary hails him as a pioneer in bioinformatics, hinting at groundbreaking discoveries that changed the course of genomics research. But the evidence supporting this narrative sometimes feels overstated. Are these achievements truly as revolutionary as claimed, or is this another instance of eulogizing past contributions to fit a grand narrative? We see this issue often—where scientists' accomplishments are inflated posthumously. Bork certainly deserves recognition, but we must distinguish between actual scientific breakthroughs and contributions that merely suggest potential avenues for further research. After all, his work arguably supported larger collaborative efforts rather than standing alone as monumental paradigms. Bioinformatics as a field is massive, and Bork’s contributions might have been indispensable for certain niche areas, but it’s debatable whether they represent a seismic shift for genomics at large. The obituary mentions his role in developing new methodologies, yet it's crucial to question how many of these stood the test of time or were utilized beyond his immediate sphere of influence. There's a marked difference between paving the way in a field and being its most transformative architect. Could we be enshrining scientists like Bork post mortem without the critical lens they deserve? Is it perhaps a narrative convenience rather than an objective assessment of his legacy?