HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[ResilientBeast]

Have you ever seen the Summit Series? He made men look like boys. I want to see your justification for leaving him out of the top 5.

I think you are over-using this notion of Canadian hockey exceptionalism.

Well of course there is a gargantuan bias, this is a Canadian forum. But after seeing the list it seems the people who voted are stuck in their little universe without much thought for the outside world and how it compares.

Like someone else said, no one else in the Summit Series makes my top 10.

Kharlamov domestically
- USSR League MVP (1972, 1973)
- USSR League All Star (1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978)
- USSR League Champion (1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981)
- European Cup Champion (1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981)
- Scoring Champion, Goals (1971)
- Scoring Champion, Points (1972)

Gordie Domestically

6 x Hart Trophy Winenr (1952, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963)
6 x Art Ross Trophy Winner (1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1963)

12 x First Team All-Star (1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970)
9 x Second Team All-Star (1949, 1950, 1956, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1967)

Hart voting - 1st(1952), 1st(1953), 1st(1957), 1st(1958), 1st(1960), 1st(1963), 2nd(1959), 3rd(1951), 3rd(1961), 3rd(1964), 3rd(1965), 3rd(1966), 4th(1954), 4th(1962), 5th(1968), 5th(1969), 6th(1970), 7th(1956), 7th(1967)

All-Star voting - 1st(1951), 1st(1952), 1st(1953), 1st(1954), 1st(1957), 1st(1958), 1st(1960), 1st(1963), 1st(1966), 1st(1968), 1st(1969), 1st(1970), 2nd(1949), 2nd(1950), 2nd(1956), 2nd(1959), 2nd(1961), 2nd(1962), 2nd(1964), 2nd(1965), 2nd(1967), 3rd(1948), 5th(1971)

Gordie Howe was far better in a stronger league than Kharlamov was.

Kharlamov was good, not nearly as great as your think he is.

Answer me this, if he was so great why isn't his domestic resume better?

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Like someone else said, no one else in the Summit Series makes my top 10.

Kharlamov domestically
- USSR League MVP (1972, 1973)
- USSR League All Star (1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978)
- USSR League Champion (1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981)
- European Cup Champion (1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981)
- Scoring Champion, Goals (1971)
- Scoring Champion, Points (1972)

Gordie Domestically

6 x Hart Trophy Winenr (1952, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963)
6 x Art Ross Trophy Winner (1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1963)

12 x First Team All-Star (1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970)
9 x Second Team All-Star (1949, 1950, 1956, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1967)

Hart voting - 1st(1952), 1st(1953), 1st(1957), 1st(1958), 1st(1960), 1st(1963), 2nd(1959), 3rd(1951), 3rd(1961), 3rd(1964), 3rd(1965), 3rd(1966), 4th(1954), 4th(1962), 5th(1968), 5th(1969), 6th(1970), 7th(1956), 7th(1967)

All-Star voting - 1st(1951), 1st(1952), 1st(1953), 1st(1954), 1st(1957), 1st(1958), 1st(1960), 1st(1963), 1st(1966), 1st(1968), 1st(1969), 1st(1970), 2nd(1949), 2nd(1950), 2nd(1956), 2nd(1959), 2nd(1961), 2nd(1962), 2nd(1964), 2nd(1965), 2nd(1967), 3rd(1948), 5th(1971)

Gordie Howe was far better in a stronger league than Kharlamov was.

Kharlamov was good, not nearly as great as your think he is.

Answer me this, if he was so great why isn't his domestic resume better?

The fact that he was the point and goal champion only once in a much weaker league than the NHL really sticks out doesn't it?

 

[ResilientBeast]

The fact that he was the point and goal champion only once in a much weaker league than the NHL really sticks out doesn't it?

Very much so, the eye test can only get you so far. A lot of players look flashy, but the numbers don't really back it up and the numbers don't lie.

Kharlamov would slot in somewhere around 35ish for me on an all time list. Like the discussions from ATD so far, quotes make him sound like The Rocket and the stats oppose that completely.

 

[TheMachiavelli*]

If Kharlamov was so bad then why was he on centennial team? As I said, the top 10 on this list is all Canadian. Just maybe would some of you look at not only Soviet greats such as Firsov, Maltsev, Makarov, Fetisov but also at Swedish ones like Salming or Czech such as Hlinka.

 

[ResilientBeast]

If Kharlamov was so bad then why was he on centennial team? As I said, the top 10 on this list is all Canadian. Just maybe would some of you look at not only Soviet greats such as Firsov, Maltsev, Makarov, Fetisov but also at Swedish ones like Salming or Czech such as Hlinka.

Because he played tons albeit excellently internationally opposed to most NHL stars who were unable too.

None of those players justify at 10 position at all. If you disagree stop dancing around the issue and present a case and lets have a reasonable debate. If you can't do that, or don't want too my point has been made.

Edit : And you clearly missed where I said I'd have him around 35th on my list, and maybe you should read some of the discussions, you're acting like no one here knows anything about European players. And it's quite the opposite a lot of the regulars around here are extremely knowledgeable.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If Kharlamov was so bad then why was he on centennial team? As I said, the top 10 on this list is all Canadian. Just maybe would some of you look at not only Soviet greats such as Firsov, Maltsev, Makarov, Fetisov but also at Swedish ones like Salming or Czech such as Hlinka.

Because the IIHF Centennial Team looked primarily at tournaments where North American players rarely played. Canada's best defenseman and goaltender played a combined 13 international games.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

If Kharlamov was so bad then why was he on centennial team? As I said, the top 10 on this list is all Canadian. Just maybe would some of you look at not only Soviet greats such as Firsov, Maltsev, Makarov, Fetisov but also at Swedish ones like Salming or Czech such as Hlinka.

Of course none can get off their high horse of Canadian superiority.

Centennial Team was based only on international accomplishments. Canada didn't have the chance to send its best players to the WC until 1976 and the Olympics until 1998. Plus the fact that Gretzky only got 38 out of 56 votes for C should tell you something about that team.

Also, please explain to me why Kharlamov, whom you consider so great as to be the 2nd GOAT, only led the Soviet league in points and goals once each in his career. A player of his caliber should easily destroy a weaker league right? He should be winning those titles left and right. Bobby Orr has more point titles than Kharlamov, and he's a defenceman and he played in a much stronger league. Plus seems you totally ignored TDMM's evidence of Tikhonov saying Orr is the GOAT.

Until you answer these questions, I don't think you'll be taken seriously.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Centennial Team was based only on international accomplishments. Canada didn't have the chance to send its best players to the WC until 1976 and the Olympics until 1998. Plus the fact that Gretzky only got 38 out of 56 votes for C should tell you something about that team.

I dont think Salming would have made the list if that was the case. It was more of a reputational icon thing, with Salming for example being seen as the first european to really star in the NHL. But obviously they to a high degree voted out of the IIHF's perspective.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Very much so, the eye test can only get you so far. A lot of players look flashy, but the numbers don't really back it up and the numbers don't lie.

Kharlamov would slot in somewhere around 35ish for me on an all time list. Like the discussions from ATD so far, quotes make him sound like The Rocket and the stats oppose that completely.

Just out of curiosity, how do you rank Lafleur and Bossy? Lafleur had the flash and a great 6 years, but Bossy had 8 great years and if not for injury, may have had more. Traditionally, Lafleur has been ranked higher than Bossy by 10-15 spots. Not that that is a whole lot. Maybe its nit picking really. Outside of the top 4 and then top 10, there could be arguments for many a player to move between the 11th and 25th spots.

 

[Plural]

Kharlamov is the most overrated player in the history of this sport. No way does he even come remotely close to being a top 10 player, Makarov was better IMO.

I don't often see eye to eye with you, but this one I will sign too.

Kharlamov, whilst great, is so ridiculously overrated by some. Generally, he is not overrated. But he has vocal fan group.

 

[Plural]

If Kharlamov was so bad then why was he on centennial team? As I said, the top 10 on this list is all Canadian. Just maybe would some of you look at not only Soviet greats such as Firsov, Maltsev, Makarov, Fetisov but also at Swedish ones like Salming or Czech such as Hlinka.

You do realize that NHL players played significantly less international games than Soviet players?

 

[daver]

If Kharlamov was so bad then why was he on centennial team? As I said, the top 10 on this list is all Canadian. Just maybe would some of you look at not only Soviet greats such as Firsov, Maltsev, Makarov, Fetisov but also at Swedish ones like Salming or Czech such as Hlinka.

Are you serious? Canada's best were not allowed for 3/4 of the centennial, then only could play when club team commitments permitted.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Just out of curiosity, how do you rank Lafleur and Bossy? Lafleur had the flash and a great 6 years, but Bossy had 8 great years and if not for injury, may have had more. Traditionally, Lafleur has been ranked higher than Bossy by 10-15 spots. Not that that is a whole lot. Maybe its nit picking really. Outside of the top 4 and then top 10, there could be arguments for many a player to move between the 11th and 25th spots.

They'd slot in somewhere between 15 and 30, their peaks were short but they peaked higher than Kharlamov in a stronger league.

But then again I've never actually deeply worked out my list.

 

[TheMachiavelli*]

They'd slot in somewhere between 15 and 30, their peaks were short but they peaked higher than Kharlamov in a stronger league.

But then again I've never actually deeply worked out my list.

Well there you go. If the people who voted did not deeply work out their list of international players then perhaps time to reconsider.

And plus, you could actually learn that hockey is played across the pond. And it is just as good as in NA

 

[ResilientBeast]

Well there you go. If the people who voted did not deeply work out their list of international players then perhaps time to reconsider.

And plus, you could actually learn that hockey is played across the pond. And it is just as good as in NA

I didn't vote lol, I wasn't on the board then. (List made in 09, I joined June 2012)

And you're still ignoring our question if Kharlamov was top 5 all time, why didn't he dominate the Soviet League?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

And plus, you could actually learn that hockey is played across the pond. And it is just as good as in NA

I'm going to remind everyone to stop insulting other fanbases (whether they be franchise-based or country-based).

 

[Michael Farkas]

If there was more to it than just hot air, it would have already been presented on the table. Instead, it's just been excuse-making and accusations...if Kharlamov was really the best player ever or close to it, we would have heard more than just slander from the source I'd think...

"I think Gretzky is the best!"
- Why?
"Because you're an idiot!"

 

[Rhiessan71]

And plus, you could actually learn that hockey is played across the pond. And it is just as good as in NA

Ummm...no it really isn't.
While the exact level of the Hockey played outside of the NHL has varied over the years, the one constant has ALWAYS been the NHL leading the way in quality and quantity.

And as far as '72 goes...Kharlamov did look good, very good but if #4 was there that tourny would have been over before they even made it back to Russia.
If you believe Kharlamov was a man amongst boys at that time, then Orr was a God amongst boys.

Even 4 years later with Orr on crutches because he had zero cartilage in one knee and almost zero in the other, he still made the best the World could offer look like children and as Devil pointed out earlier in this thread, the Russians damned well knew it too.

 

[TheMachiavelli*]

Ummm...no it really isn't.
While the exact level of the Hockey played outside of the NHL has varied over the years, the one constant has ALWAYS been the NHL leading the way in quality and quantity.

And as far as '72 goes...Kharlamov did look good, very good but if #4 was there that tourny would have been over before they even made it back to Russia.
If you believe Kharlamov was a man amongst boys at that time, then Orr was a God amongst boys.

Even 4 years later with Orr on crutches because he had zero cartilage in one knee and almost zero in the other, he still made the best the World could offer look like children and as Devil pointed out earlier in this thread, the Russians damned well knew it too.

Hockey is a team game. Orr would have made a large difference but it would of still went to 8 games. And you are forgetting that USSR did not have Firsov, a loss equally important to them.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Hockey is a team game. Orr would have made a large difference but it would of still went to 8 games. And you are forgetting that USSR did not have Firsov, a loss equally important to them.

There's also something to say about teamwork, the Soviet team were "amateurs" who had extensive time playing together and were excellent as a unit if you'd given the NHLers the same luxury of extensive team practice the result may have looked different.

And no, the loss is not equal Orr is easily the greatest defenseman to ever play hockey.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Hockey is a team game. Orr would have made a large difference but it would of still went to 8 games. And you are forgetting that USSR did not have Firsov, a loss equally important to them.

The Russians without Firsov isn't even in the same ballpark as Canada without Orr, hell, it's not even on the same continent. Orr played 35-45 mins a game and controlled a game for the entire 180' like no one else in history.

And btw, it was going to be 8 games no matter what, point being is that Canada wouldn't have been going to Russia trailing in the series with Orr playing, of that I have no doubt.
The absence of Firsov for the Russians was closer to the level with the absence of Hull for Canada.
Just remember that eh, Canada won that series without their 2 greatest players at the time even playing!
Perspective my friend.

Either way, this top 5 stuff for Kharlamov you're spouting has no basis in reality and you sure as hell don't get to put him up with the likes of Orr, Gretzky, Howe and Lemieux. It's not even remotely close.
You can't even make an argument for him over Makarov or Fetisov for pete's sake let alone Hull, Richard, Harvey, Bourque, Jagr, Lidstrom, Sakic, Yzerman...so many players it's not even funny...

There's no amount of "counter bias" possible that would even get him close to the top 5!

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

The Russians without Firsov isn't even in the same ballpark as Canada without Orr, hell, it's not even on the same continent. Orr played 35-45 mins a game and controlled a game for the entire 180' like no one else in history.

And btw, it was going to be 8 games no matter what, point being is that Canada wouldn't have been going to Russia trailing in the series with Orr playing, of that I have no doubt.
The absence of Firsov for the Russians was closer to the level with the absence of Hull for Canada.
Just remember that eh, Canada won that series without their 2 greatest players at the time even playing!
Perspective my friend.

Either way, this top 5 stuff for Kharlamov you're spouting has no basis in reality and you sure as hell don't get to put him up with the likes of Orr, Gretzky, Howe and Lemieux. It's not even remotely close.
You can't even make an argument for him over Makarov or Fetisov for pete's sake let alone Hull, Richard, Harvey, Bourque, Jagr, Lidstrom, Sakic, Yzerman...so many players it's not even funny...

There's no amount of "counter bias" possible that would even get him close to the top 5!

Plus he hasn't even answered the question of why Kharlamov didn't destroy his competition, like the God he is, in the Soviet league yet. I'm still waiting for an answer or are you totally going to ignore this point?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Plus he hasn't even answered the question of why Kharlamov didn't destroy his competition, like the God he is, in the Soviet league yet. I'm still waiting for an answer or are you totally going to ignore this point?

Let's move on. Pretend that the thread bump never happened.

 

[daver]

A case was recently made that Jagr is arguably a top 5 offensive player all-time. Why is he ranked behind so many other forwards?

 

[MXD]

A case was recently made that Jagr is arguably a top 5 offensive player all-time. Why is he ranked behind so many other forwards?

Because the case was as successfully made as you implies.

And because there isn't only offense to hockey.