How does Prime Sergei Makarov compare to Gretzky and Lemieux?

[JackSlater]

Soviets were better defenders in the 1980s though. The forwards for sure. The best on best series against Canada have enough evidence of that.

Look at the guys who were winning Selkes in the 1980s: grinders. Superstar players weren't winning them. Except for Bobby Clarke, who's high scoring days were long over. If you want to argue Guy Carbonneau, for example, was a better defender than Makarov you can, but each player has a completely different role with different responsibilities.

it's like comparing Manute Bol with Hakeem Olajuwon.

So, you don't have anything to back up your seemingly outlandish claim? The Soviets played good team defence, certainly better than what we typically saw from the Canadian players. Makarov doesn't stand out as hands down better defensively than the other Canada Cup forwards though, so I'm still struggling to see how he is clearly the best defensive forward in the world in the 1980s.

If Makarov is capable of scoring 150+ a year in the 1980s while being hands down the best defensive forward in hockey we're talking about a top five player ever basically.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes, that would be a great question. Keeping in mind this is a post-herniated disc (post "Gary Sutered") Gretzky who won the Art Ross at age 33 with 130 points (10 points more than a 24 year old Fedorov playing at the same time). Gretzky at age 24 or 27 or even age 30 would have scored anywhere between 160-215 points. Again, not close at all.

Thanks for spotlighting an important point.

Gretzky at 33 put up 130. Without the context of the complete game, that's remarkable.

But Gretzky was also -25 that season. By far the worst plus/minus of any Art Ross winner ever. Yes, the team he played on was bad. But his -25 is also the worst on that terrible team. So those 130 points do what for his team if the opponents are scoring so much more with him on the ice?

Offensively, not close? OK. Complete game, again, not a joke to compare Makarov to Gretzky. Gretzky's better, but not by as much as most people think.

And please stop with Gary Suter crap.

 

[Sentinel]

So, you don't have anything to back up your seemingly outlandish claim? The Soviets played good team defence, certainly better than what we typically saw from the Canadian players. Makarov doesn't stand out as hands down better defensively than the other Canada Cup forwards though, so I'm still struggling to see how he is clearly the best defensive forward in the world in the 1980s.

If Makarov is capable of scoring 150+ a year in the 1980s while being hands down the best defensive forward in hockey we're talking about a top five player ever basically.

Top Ten is where I rank him.

 

[JackSlater]

Top Ten is where I rank him.

I'm high on Makarov. I could even keep an open mind on him being around a top ten player but I'd need to watch a lot more of him. It just seems that there are some rather extreme opinions being thrown around on both sides regarding him. Not shocking I guess given how little material most of us have to judge him on relative to other greats. Offensively I am pretty convinced that he's in the group below Gretzky.

 

[tazzy19]

Thanks for spotlighting an important point.

Gretzky at 33 put up 130. Without the context of the complete game, that's remarkable.

But Gretzky was also -25 that season. By far the worst plus/minus of any Art Ross winner ever. Yes, the team he played on was bad. But his -25 is also the worst on that terrible team. So those 130 points do what for his team if the opponents are scoring so much more with him on the ice?

Offensively, not close? OK. Complete game, again, not a joke to compare Makarov to Gretzky. Gretzky's better, but not by as much as most people think.

And please stop with Gary Suter crap.

"Please stop with the Gary Suter crap"? Yeah, ok, Sire (or is it ok if I just call you Sir?).

Anyway, as mentioned earlier, we are not talking about plus/minus stats, or best defensive forwards, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. (Well, I do know why....)

 

[scott clam]

So, you don't have anything to back up your seemingly outlandish claim? The Soviets played good team defence, certainly better than what we typically saw from the Canadian players. Makarov doesn't stand out as hands down better defensively than the other Canada Cup forwards though, so I'm still struggling to see how he is clearly the best defensive forward in the world in the 1980s.

If Makarov is capable of scoring 150+ a year in the 1980s while being hands down the best defensive forward in hockey we're talking about a top five player ever basically.

Fedorov scored 120 points in the '90s, and won the Selke so it's not so outlandish. I could have said "best defensive forward among superstars", but really who's comparing Makarov to Steve Kasper or Doug Jarvis?

Makarov is as good defensively as he is offensively, so best defensive forward isn't really an overstatement. That doesn't mean you convert him to a shut down specialist.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

"Please stop with the Gary Suter crap"? Yeah, ok, Sire (or is it ok if I just call you Sir?).

Anyway, as mentioned earlier, we are not talking about plus/minus stats, or best defensive forwards, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. (Well, I do know why....)

Where does it say in this thread that we can only talk about offense when comparing Makarov to Gretzky & Lemieux?

 

[tazzy19]

Where does it say in this thread that we can only talk about offense when comparing Makarov to Gretzky & Lemieux?

In case you haven't noticed, this thread is comparing Makarov to Gretzky and Lemieux. I realize this might be a stretch in existential thinking for some, but generally these two guys (Gretzky and Lemieux) aren't exactly known for their Selke award nominations.... Regardless, if you want to say that Makarov is better than Gretzky and Lemieux defensively, I have no problem with that. I'll still take Gretzky's 22 scoring titles (in regular season, playoffs, and international competition which includes all 4 Canada Cups) any day of the week, and you can keep Sergei (any of them).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

In case you haven't noticed, this thread is comparing Makarov to Gretzky and Lemieux. I realize this might be a stretch in existential thinking for some, but generally these two guys (Gretzky and Lemieux) aren't exactly known for their Selke award nominations....

Usually when we compare hockey players on the HOH site we compare their total game. Not just the aspect of their game that makes the player look good for their fan boys.

 

[tazzy19]

Usually when we compare hockey players on the HOH site we compare their total game. Not just the aspect of their game that makes the player look good for their fan boys.

As I added to my above post: If you want to say that Makarov is better than Gretzky and Lemieux defensively, I have no problem with that. I'll still take Gretzky's 22 scoring titles (in regular season, playoffs, and international competition which includes all 4 Canada Cups) any day of the week, and you can keep Sergei (any of them).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

As I added to my above post: If you want to say that Makarov is better than Gretzky and Lemieux defensively, I have no problem with that. I'll still take Gretzky's 22 scoring titles (in regular season, playoffs, and international competition which includes all 4 Canada Cups) any day of the week, and you can keep Sergei (any of them).

Has anyone in this thread said Makarov is better than Gretzky?

 

[JackSlater]

Fedorov scored 120 points in the '90s, and won the Selke so it's not so outlandish. I could have said "best defensive forward among superstars", but really who's comparing Makarov to Steve Kasper or Doug Jarvis?

Makarov is as good defensively as he is offensively, so best defensive forward isn't really an overstatement. That doesn't mean you convert him to a shut down specialist.

Fedorov is Fedorov, Makarov is Makarov, and I do not see Makarov performing to the same level defensively. Fedorov was a lot bigger, at least as good a skater, and is beyond proven as an elite defensive player and in a more significant position defensively. There is also usually quite a big gap between "best defensive forward hands down" and "best defensive forward among superstars". Makarov was a good defensive winger from what I've seen. He's very, very likely not hands down the best defensive forward in hockey during his prime and he certainly wasn't as good defensively as he was offensively. Let's say he's a top 25 offensive player ever. He is not a top 25 defensive player ever. You made a big overstatement and there doesn't seem to be much of anything to support it. Makarov was a great player and doesn't need gross overstatements to help him.

 

[tazzy19]

Has anyone in this thread said Makarov is better than Gretzky?

Does it matter if they have or not? If they are even comparing them, it's not a close comparison.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

So, you don't have anything to back up your seemingly outlandish claim? The Soviets played good team defence, certainly better than what we typically saw from the Canadian players. Makarov doesn't stand out as hands down better defensively than the other Canada Cup forwards though, so I'm still struggling to see how he is clearly the best defensive forward in the world in the 1980s.

If Makarov is capable of scoring 150+ a year in the 1980s while being hands down the best defensive forward in hockey we're talking about a top five player ever basically.

Gretzky and Mario were better but after that I'm struggling to name better forwards than Makarov.

 

[scott clam]

Fedorov is Fedorov, Makarov is Makarov, and I do not see Makarov performing to the same level defensively. Fedorov was a lot bigger, at least as good a skater, and is beyond proven as an elite defensive player and in a more significant position defensively. There is also usually quite a big gap between "best defensive forward hands down" and "best defensive forward among superstars". Makarov was a good defensive winger from what I've seen. He's very, very likely not hands down the best defensive forward in hockey during his prime and he certainly wasn't as good defensively as he was offensively. Let's say he's a top 25 offensive player ever. He is not a top 25 defensive player ever. You made a big overstatement and there doesn't seem to be much of anything to support it. Makarov was a great player and doesn't need gross overstatements to help him.

You don't have to be big to be an elite defensive forward. Look at Carbonneau and Gilmour. Also Makarov was unusually strong for his size. And I never said he would be the best defensive player, I said best defensive forward. In a run and gun league.

I was using Fedorov as an example of elite defensive forward putting up huge numbers. Also as a player who developed under the same system and played a similar style. Both players were phenomenal skaters, who played a 200 foot game.

I'll admit it, I may have used a bit of hyperbole, in a fantasy sports argument. Y0u got me. I knew somebody was gonna give me crap for that, but I left it in there. Nobody can be the best "hands down" in an "intangible" category. That's why Selke Trophies are decided by votes, not by facts. Even though we do have advanced stats now.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Does it matter if they have or not? If they are even comparing them, it's not a close comparison.

We disagree.

 

[JackSlater]

You don't have to be big to be an elite defensive forward. Look at Carbonneau and Gilmour. Also Makarov was unusually strong for his size. And I never said he would be the best defensive player, I said best defensive forward. In a run and gun league.

I was using Fedorov as an example of elite defensive forward putting up huge numbers. Also as a player who developed under the same system and played a similar style. Both players were phenomenal skaters, who played a 200 foot game.

I'll admit it, I may have used a bit of hyperbole, in a fantasy sports argument. Y0u got me. I knew somebody was gonna give me crap for that, but I left it in there. Nobody can be the best "hands down" in an "intangible" category. That's why Selke Trophies are decided by votes, not by facts. Even though we do have advanced stats now.

You're running all over the place here. I know that size is not something that you need to be elite defensively, but it is certainly an asset, and it is part of Fedorov's package and part of why he is very likely the superior defensive player. I know that you said defensive forward, and it was almost certainly a large overstatement. Your Fedorov example is meaningless as I didn't say anything along the lines of Makarov's offence precluding him from being strong defensively. Fedorov being a great defensive forward, and for a time the best defensive forward in hockey, has nothing to do with Makarov.

In any event you can twist and turn all you want but it definitely looks like a large overstatement unless there is some glaring evidence I am missing. I'm quite content to move on from it if it's left at something like "Makarov was good defensively" rather than "Makarov was hands down the best defensive forward in hockey."

Gretzky and Mario were better but after that I'm struggling to name better forwards than Makarov.

You'd probably start with Howe and then work down until you find Makarov.

 

[scott clam]

You're running all over the place here. I know that size is not something that you need to be elite defensively, but it is certainly an asset, and it is part of Fedorov's package and part of why he is very likely the superior defensive player. I know that you said defensive forward, and it was almost certainly a large overstatement. Your Fedorov example is meaningless as I didn't say anything along the lines of Makarov's offence precluding him from being strong defensively. Fedorov being a great defensive forward, and for a time the best defensive forward in hockey, has nothing to do with Makarov.

In any event you can twist and turn all you want but it definitely looks like a large overstatement unless there is some glaring evidence I am missing. I'm quite content to move on from it if it's left at something like "Makarov was good defensively" rather than "Makarov was hands down the best defensive forward in hockey."

Fedorov was brought up because he won a Selke while finishing second to Gretzky in scoring. In previous statements I made the claim Makarov may have won the Selke and finished second in points to Gretzky(and not neccesarily in the same year.). it's just speculation, and I gave an example to show that it is possible.

I can concede that Fedorov was probably defensively than Makarov, but '80s Makarov would be playing against an NHL that was much weaker defensively, so he would stand out amongst forwards that typically played very little defense.

I stand by my claim that he was elite defensively, more than just good. Maybe not "hands down" the best DF, if that really matters to you. The truth is that his game was puck posession, which is part of defense, and he was as good at that as anyone. But that wasn't even my main point in the original post.

The point I was originally trying to make is that he would probably not score as many as 150 points in a season, even though he was capable of it, because of his two-way game. Unless he was put in an extremely favourable poistion, ie Gretzky's linemate.

 

[JackSlater]

Fedorov was brought up because he won a Selke while finishing second to Gretzky in scoring. In previous statements I made the claim Makarov may have won the Selke and finished second in points to Gretzky(and not neccesarily in the same year.). it's just speculation, and I gave an example to show that it is possible.

I can concede that Fedorov was probably better defensively than Makarov, but '80s Makarov would be playing against an NHL that was much weaker defensively, so he would stand out amongst forwards that typically played very little defense.

I stand by my claim that he was elite defensively, more than just good. Maybe not "hands down" the best DF, if that really matters to you. I already admitted to embellishing a little, for dramatic effect. But that wasn't even my main point in the original post.

The point I was originally trying to make is that he would probably not score as many as 150 points in a season, even though he was capable of it, because of his two-way game. Unless he was put in an extremely favourable poistion, ie Gretzky's linemate.

Fedorov is still irrelevant to Makarov. In the 1980s the NHL was a very open league but there were still defensive specialists at forward who were elite defensively. If Makarov were a better defensive player, hands down, than all of them it would be massive for his legacy. You can keep trying to dance around what you said by saying "maybe" he wasn't hands down the best defensive forward or you "may have used a bit of hyperbole" but the point remains that what you said is far from substantiated by anything. That claim is what I have issue with. Was he elite defensively? I don't know that many of us have seen enough of his play during his prime or read enough sources from those who did in order to judge it. Maybe he was but I'd like to see more than a few Canada Cup games to know it.

 

[scott clam]

Fedorov is still irrelevant to Makarov. In the 1980s the NHL was a very open league but there were still defensive specialists at forward who were elite defensively. If Makarov were a better defensive player, hands down, than all of them it would be massive for his legacy. You can keep trying to dance around what you said by saying "maybe" he wasn't hands down the best defensive forward or you "may have used a bit of hyperbole" but the point remains that what you said is far from substantiated by anything. That claim is what I have issue with. Was he elite defensively? I don't know that many of us have seen enough of his play during his prime or read enough sources from those who did in order to judge it. Maybe he was but I'd like to see more than a few Canada Cup games to know it.

You can take issue with that claim all you want, but it wasn't even my main point. Makarov played a different style from Canadian players. All the soviets did. They didn't play dump and chase, and they didn't defend in the "traditional" way. And when they played us their posession game was superior. We saw a mini version of that with the "Russian 5" in Detroit.

Makarov was the team's leading scorer but he still was an important part of the defensive fabric. He knew how to play in his own end.

So while he may not be "hands down" the best DF like I claimed earlier, he played a posession game that when properly executed was a superior way of defense, and largely misunderstood by North Americans. it's very much a lost art.

 

[The Panther]

My purpose in entering this thread was basically to say that judging Makarov against 80s' era NHL peers is virtually impossible, that we never really saw Makarov at his best in the NHL, and that Makarov certainly had the potential to be a regular 110-point per year NHL player (in addition to other aspects he brings).

I thought I was complementing him, but it seems people think I was insulting him.

 

[Albatros]

Makarov was good enough to dominate the NHL in the 1980s, but I'm not sure that it would have been the better deal for him in terms of hockey. A lot of what he achieved was in the context of the system of his team which was more advanced than anything he'd have found in the NHL.

 

[tazzy19]

Makarov was good enough to dominate the NHL in the 1980s, but I'm not sure that it would have been the better deal for him in terms of hockey. A lot of what he achieved was in the context of the system of his team which was more advanced than anything he'd have found in the NHL.

That's actually a nice way to look at it. It's almost like the NHL was the free market (it was more about the individual than the system) and the Red Army was refined communism (the system and collective was the most important), if we want to use that metaphor. And so how could you really compare the two if they are such different approaches. That is why the 1987 Canada Cup is such an interesting battle. It's not just two countries. It's almost like two ideologies meeting. One wasn't necessarily better than the other. Every game went to overtime and every game was 6 to 5. In the end, it was one individual that broke the system...so did the free market win? (Not to get too deep.) Interesting stuff...

 

[The Panther]

That's actually a nice way to look at it. It's almost like the NHL was the free market (it was more about the individual than the system) and the Red Army was refined communism (the system and collective was the most important), if we want to use that metaphor. And so how could you really compare the two if they are such different approaches. That is why the 1987 Canada Cup is such an interesting battle. It's not just two countries. It's almost like two ideologies meeting. One wasn't necessarily better than the other. Every game went to overtime and every game was 6 to 5. In the end, it was one individual that broke the system...so did the free market win? (Not to get too deep.) Interesting stuff...

Canada in the 1980s was not really "free market", if you want to split hairs... more like democratic socialism.

 

[tazzy19]

Canada in the 1980s was not really "free market", if you want to split hairs... more like democratic socialism.

In the practical sense, I suppose that's true. However, Canada was under Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives in 1987 (which later became the Conservative Party of Canada), and were perceived as a free market society by the Soviets, who were on the extreme side of the geopolitical spectrum even from a democratically socialist standpoint.