Sergei Makarov not in HoF?
- Thread starter SidGenoMario
- Start date
octopi
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2004
- 31,547
- 4
A lot of people aren't in the HOF. Makarov didn't have as much overall sucess/tenure as Larionov once he transitioned to NA. Meanwhile, Larionov managed to end up with 3 Cups.
SidGenoMario
Registered User
Cups are a team accomplishment, and everything Larionov did in Russia or in tournaments, Makarov did better.
Eisen
Registered User
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
Larionov is now a member of the committee (replacing Dick Duff); I expect Makarov's case will be given more attention than it has in the past.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
I certainly understand why some Russian superstars are not selected to the HHOF. We have a very small window in which to judge them on how well they would have fared in the NHL vs. the best players in the world night in and night out. I figure Valeri Kharlamov would have been just fine and adjusted to the physical treatment, but another name that comes to mind is Makarov.
For starters, we did see what he could do in the NHL and he wasn't that far off a point a game in his short 5 year career. His best season was 86 points. But keep in mind he was 31 years old when he started in the NHL. I think it's safe to say that how he performed in Canada Cups even vs. Canada that he would have been a star in the NHL, especially with his strength.
I think he should get a pass in there by now.
For starters, we did see what he could do in the NHL and he wasn't that far off a point a game in his short 5 year career. His best season was 86 points. But keep in mind he was 31 years old when he started in the NHL. I think it's safe to say that how he performed in Canada Cups even vs. Canada that he would have been a star in the NHL, especially with his strength.
I think he should get a pass in there by now.
Makarov was the best forward (and possibly best player) on the planet aside from Wayne Gretzky for the bulk of the 1980s, and the fact that he isn't in the HHOF is an absolute travesty.
Ciccarelli in before Makarov is a joke.
Ciccarelli in before Makarov is a joke.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Was Dick Duff a member when Dick Duff was elected to the HHOF? Or was he just close enough to the committee that he became one of them shortly after being inducted?
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Sergie Makarov HHOF
Comes down to the basic issue of recognizing merit and contribution at its appropriate level.
That Sergei Makarov was talented, amongst the elite of his era is not in dispute. That Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe,Bobby Clarke, Mike Bossy were talented and amongst the elite of their eras is not in dispute either.
The issue of where each contributed and where the contribution should be recognized is a totally different matter altogether.
Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, Bobby Clarke,, Mike Bossy, all touched International hockey through active participation to a limited degree, providing glimpses of their skills. Yet these glimpses are not sufficient to merit induction in the IIHF HOF. Conversely players like Fran Huck, Roger Bourbonnais, Seth Martin,amongst other Canadian players while lesser talents than Howe, Orr, etc are deserving members of the IIHF HOF.
http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/history/the-iihf/iihf-hall-of-fame.html
Sergei Makarov is a deserving member of the IIHF HOF, so are Slava Fetisov and Igor Larionov. Slava Fetisov and Igor Larionov are also members of the HHOF. What is the difference?
Whether Sergei Makarov was a better player than Slava Fetisov or Igor Larionov is not even an issue. Each of their talents was more than sufficient and displayed long enough on the International Hockey stage to merit induction into the IIHF HOF. But what did Sergei Makorov do on the "Hockey" beyond the boundaries of International Hockey?
Did Sergei Makarov in the late 1980's challenge the Soviet system like Fetisov and Larionov did, at great risk, to facilitate the entry of the multitude of existing and future Soviet/Russain players into the NHL? Once in the NHL did Sergei Makarov step-up and facilitate the integration of former Soviet players or the Soviet style of play into the NHL? Fetisov and Larionov did.Did Sergei Makarov assume a leadership role and integrate the NHL teams that he was a member or was he simply a player who produced interesting numbers for a short period of time? Fetisov and Larionov were not only leaders amongst their compatriots but they were integral parts of their teams.
To date honours and recognition have been granted Makarov at the appropriate level - the IIHF HOF. The HHOF is another matter. Show how his activities in the NHL approached that of a Fetisov or a Larionov.
Comes down to the basic issue of recognizing merit and contribution at its appropriate level.
That Sergei Makarov was talented, amongst the elite of his era is not in dispute. That Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe,Bobby Clarke, Mike Bossy were talented and amongst the elite of their eras is not in dispute either.
The issue of where each contributed and where the contribution should be recognized is a totally different matter altogether.
Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, Bobby Clarke,, Mike Bossy, all touched International hockey through active participation to a limited degree, providing glimpses of their skills. Yet these glimpses are not sufficient to merit induction in the IIHF HOF. Conversely players like Fran Huck, Roger Bourbonnais, Seth Martin,amongst other Canadian players while lesser talents than Howe, Orr, etc are deserving members of the IIHF HOF.
http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/history/the-iihf/iihf-hall-of-fame.html
Sergei Makarov is a deserving member of the IIHF HOF, so are Slava Fetisov and Igor Larionov. Slava Fetisov and Igor Larionov are also members of the HHOF. What is the difference?
Whether Sergei Makarov was a better player than Slava Fetisov or Igor Larionov is not even an issue. Each of their talents was more than sufficient and displayed long enough on the International Hockey stage to merit induction into the IIHF HOF. But what did Sergei Makorov do on the "Hockey" beyond the boundaries of International Hockey?
Did Sergei Makarov in the late 1980's challenge the Soviet system like Fetisov and Larionov did, at great risk, to facilitate the entry of the multitude of existing and future Soviet/Russain players into the NHL? Once in the NHL did Sergei Makarov step-up and facilitate the integration of former Soviet players or the Soviet style of play into the NHL? Fetisov and Larionov did.Did Sergei Makarov assume a leadership role and integrate the NHL teams that he was a member or was he simply a player who produced interesting numbers for a short period of time? Fetisov and Larionov were not only leaders amongst their compatriots but they were integral parts of their teams.
To date honours and recognition have been granted Makarov at the appropriate level - the IIHF HOF. The HHOF is another matter. Show how his activities in the NHL approached that of a Fetisov or a Larionov.
Reds4Life
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 3,896
- 223
If there wasn't Hockey Hall of Fame, but NHL Hall of Fame, you'd be right.
Regardless of Makarov's NHL achievements, he is far better hockey player than vast majority of Hockey Hall of Famers.
I mean seriously, if they induct women (their competition and level of play is laughable) into the Hockey Hall of Fame, then there is no excuse for not inducting Makarov (-like players).
Last edited:
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
The "Hockey Hall of Fame" is in Toronto and if we are being honest, it's the North American hockey Hall of Fame. Out of the 18 members of the current selection committee, only three aren't from North America and of the three, Larionov and Stastny were long-time NHL players which leaves Mr.Edvinsson as the only guy on there who mostly comes from a IIHF hockey background.
Sure, there's a few tokens in the HHOF but you're kidding yourselves if you think the ultimate factor isn't reputation in North America.
Sure, there's a few tokens in the HHOF but you're kidding yourselves if you think the ultimate factor isn't reputation in North America.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
Exactly, if they want to call it the Hockey Hall of Fame and not the NHL Hall of Fame or North American Hall of Fame, then international play HAS to be given strong merit.
No offense, but what a pile of BS.
It's the 'Hockey Hall of Fame', not the 'NHL Hall of Fame'.
Sergei Makarov was one of the top 5 players on the planet for nearly a decade.
He was an absolutely towering figure in international hockey during the 1980s, probably 2nd only to Gretzky. In the biggest international tournaments ever played to that point, he was one of the biggest players. In particular, he was the best offensive player on the Soviet team that shredded Canada in the 1981 Canada Cup to completely re-set the international paradigm at the time.
He dominated the Russian league domestically, dominated at the Olympics and World Championships, dominated in best-on-best internation tournaments against NHL players.
He was the central forward on a squad that revolutionized what was possible in terms of speed and precision in the transition game. Watching those teams break out of their zone is still mind-boggling 25 years later.
I could care less if he ever played an NHL game. What he did in the 1980s should have made him an automatic first-ballot HHOFer. It's not even debateable. He is one of the most special, dominant talents of the past 40 years.
He was better than Larionov in their primes by a country mile. It's laughable that the fact that Larionov had a couple good seasons for championship Detroit teams late in his career has gotten him into the HHOF ahead of Makarov. And I'm a big fan of Larionov.
_________
What was Dino Ciccarelli's 'contribution to hockey'?
That was a guy who never won anything, had a limited offensive peak, never a post-season All-Star, left off every international squad he was eligible for, was a one-dimensional garbage goal specialist. His most remembered moment as a player is one of the ugliest stick-swinging incidents in NHL history, for which he was arrested and jailed. And he was also arrested for an off-ice incident where he exposed himself to a female neighbor.
Can you honestly say with a straight face that :
a) Ciccarelli was a better player than Makarov?
or
b) Ciccarelli made a bigger contribution to the sport than Makarov?
I would certainly hope not.
jkrx
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2010
- 4,337
- 21
They need to change the name if they want to keep ignoring the best players. It is still the HOCKEY hall of fame and not just NHL, I agree with you to some extent as what you describe is basically what is going on within the HHoF but I don't think it is even remotely right to do so. A hockey hall of fame should induct the best or most important players and not just friends of the committee.
If Makarov and the other top Russian players weren't in the NHL at that time then you can't really claim the NHL had all of the best players in the world. Makarov didn't get a chance to play against the NHL's best consistently but the NHL players also didn't get a chance to prove themselves against Russia's best consistently. Considering how close most of those Canada/Russia games were before Russians were allowed to come over I think people should stop looking at it this way.
Makarov should have been in the HHOF long ago. It really is the NHL HOF with some exceptions.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
using LArionov as an example hurts your case
Larionov played in almost 1000 games and won several cups and was a class act on and off the ice.
Other HOF players are in based on merit AS A PLAYER so why does Makarov get punished because he didn't fight the Soviet system as much as Fetisov and Larionov? If we were talking about getting in as a builder then fine but we're not.
I have to agree with MS, this just sounds like a bunch of BS to me.
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
The Hockey Hall of Fame was created in the 1940s by Canadians in Canada, before the Soviets even played hockey, at a time when Canadian amateurs dominated the best of the rest of the world. The absence of serious competition by default instilled a North America-centric perspective in the institution. There was almost certainly no contradiction seen at the time in wanting to create a place of honoring hockey's best and those best being exclusively North American and mostly Canadian.
The Hockey Hall of Fame is not an IIHF body or otherwise integrated in the framework of international hockey either. It's not gonna change its name either (nor should it), people should just take what it actually is into consideration when they talk about it.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
Or the HHOF can actually be progressive and recognize the players it needs to recognize in order to have credibility.
Unfortunately, they can't even induct the right players on an NHL vs. NHL basis, so that seems unlikely in the near future.
Seriously?
Makarov won the Russian scoring title 9 times in 10 years - Gretzky-like dominance.
Kamensky never won it.
Makarov was Russian MVP 3 times.
Kamensky was Russian MVP once, after the best players had already left.
Makarov was the highest-scoring Russian forward at 3 Canada Cups.
Kamensky? 0.
And on and on. Comparing those two players is utterly ridiculous. Makarov was a generational talent. Kamensky was a good player who scored a couple highlight-reel goals in the 1987 Canada Cup.
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
Given that fans and media devote a huge amount of time to discussing the Hall, I have a hunch credibility isn't a massive problem on their part. If nobody took it seriously, we wouldn't desperately argue about who should be in it.
I've never really been under any impression other than the HHOF being primarily a NHL thing. The name isn't exactly confusing either, if you follow sports. All the North American leagues like to ignore the rest of the world. The Naismith basketball Hall of Fame is basically only American as well.
If they retro-actively tried to add the "best" of international hockey as well, it would be quite chaotic. I mean where do you draw the line? Just add every notable Soviet that Russian fans don't shut up about? Does Milan Novy get the nod? What about Erich Kuhnhackl? Does anyone have any idea how those guys would stack up if they had played full careers in the NHL?
I don't see why we shouldn't just say, HHOF in Toronto is for accomplishments in North American hockey.
Easy answer :
a) this is not what the HHOF itself claims to represent.
b) prior inductions (Tretiak, Kharlamov) are clearly based on international play, and it's only fair to expect consistency.
__________
As for Makarov, even if I accept what you're saying :
He dominated at three separate Canada Cup tournaments held on North American soil against the best North American players.
Those games were massively important to North American hockey and North American hockey fans, and the performances of Canadian players in those tournaments is considered extremely important and significant.
Even if you throw out his 9 Russian scoring titles and his dominance in Olympics and World Championships, what he did in those 3 Canada Cups should put him in the HHOF. Period.
And it goes without saying that Makarov is on a completely different level that some of the other guys you mentioned. There were games where he was playing Canadian teams with 15 HHOFers on their rosters and he was the only player on the ice close to Gretzky.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Hhof
So far we have a divergence of opinion as to what the Hockey Hall of Fame represents. Some claim that it represents all of "Hockey", others claim it represents the NHL, others claim that it represents hockey as viewed from the North American perspective. Others tend to an openess to international contributors from a fanboy position - the "Wow" factor. Finally, others tend to have a vague view that suggests it should only represent the male hockey playing population of the world.
Narrow it down and we'll have a look at the result. A disjointed position trying to produce a Golden BB result has little to offer.
There seems to be a sense that the various halls of fame honouring hockey achievement and contribution operate under some reciprocal or commutative principals that is binding on the HHOF in Toronto but not binding on the IIHF HOF. So if players like Kharlamov, Tretiak, Larionov, Fetisov are in both halls then other players of similar caliber like Makarov should be in both. This of course overlooks non-player contributions that specific players made and that come under the criteria of the HHOF. The builder or founder contributions of Larionov and Fetisov have been listed. Vladislav Tretiak was a leading innovator when it comes to goaltending - equipment, technique, on ice and off ice training. Valeri Kharlamov was the first international star to smoothly adapt to the 1969 rule change that allowed checking beyond the center red line. That Makarov was the most impressive of the Soviets in the transition game is nice but it is not innovative since the Soviets built their transition game on the Canadiens and Doug Harvey.
Now we'll look at the IIHF HOF. What is the appropriate combination of achievement and contribution?
Lennart Svedberg is not an honoured member of the IIHF HOF yet in terms of length of international play - upwards of 12 seasons plus AS recognition at a number of WC tournaments he seems to be more qualified than some. The Swedish teams he played on certainly did better against Canadian teams than the Soviet teams with Nikolai Sologubov did. Yet this omission is ignored. So let's not invoke the various insider or conspiracy positions.
So far we have a divergence of opinion as to what the Hockey Hall of Fame represents. Some claim that it represents all of "Hockey", others claim it represents the NHL, others claim that it represents hockey as viewed from the North American perspective. Others tend to an openess to international contributors from a fanboy position - the "Wow" factor. Finally, others tend to have a vague view that suggests it should only represent the male hockey playing population of the world.
Narrow it down and we'll have a look at the result. A disjointed position trying to produce a Golden BB result has little to offer.
There seems to be a sense that the various halls of fame honouring hockey achievement and contribution operate under some reciprocal or commutative principals that is binding on the HHOF in Toronto but not binding on the IIHF HOF. So if players like Kharlamov, Tretiak, Larionov, Fetisov are in both halls then other players of similar caliber like Makarov should be in both. This of course overlooks non-player contributions that specific players made and that come under the criteria of the HHOF. The builder or founder contributions of Larionov and Fetisov have been listed. Vladislav Tretiak was a leading innovator when it comes to goaltending - equipment, technique, on ice and off ice training. Valeri Kharlamov was the first international star to smoothly adapt to the 1969 rule change that allowed checking beyond the center red line. That Makarov was the most impressive of the Soviets in the transition game is nice but it is not innovative since the Soviets built their transition game on the Canadiens and Doug Harvey.
Now we'll look at the IIHF HOF. What is the appropriate combination of achievement and contribution?
Lennart Svedberg is not an honoured member of the IIHF HOF yet in terms of length of international play - upwards of 12 seasons plus AS recognition at a number of WC tournaments he seems to be more qualified than some. The Swedish teams he played on certainly did better against Canadian teams than the Soviet teams with Nikolai Sologubov did. Yet this omission is ignored. So let's not invoke the various insider or conspiracy positions.
This is again just a bunch of bafflegab that means absolutely nothing.
I don't care about the IIHFHOF. We're not talking about that in this case. I'm sure they have their own selection issues but that has nothing to do with whether Sergei Makarov should be in the HHOF.
As a player,
a) Sergei Makarov is *by far* the best eligible player of the past 50 years not in the HHOF. In terms of his playing ability, he easily belongs.
b) Sergei Makarov is one of the most important eligible players from the past 50 years not in the HHOF. He was one of the most important players in the greatest series of international battles in hockey history (the 1981-87 Canada Cups). In terms of his legacy and his contribution to the sport, he easily belongs.
And while the notion that the 1980s Russians 'built their transition game on Montreal' is all well and good, the fact is that they took explosive end-to-end hockey to a level never before seen in the sport, and not really seen since. Take a look at the breakout at 1:20 of this video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJRbpb94XFQ
... from the early 1980s and still looks stunning and almost futuristic 30 years later in terms of the speed and organization. No team in the history of hockey has been able to go end-to-end as a unit better than that team with Makarov as the central engine.
He was one of the most beautiful players in hockey history. Bure-type explosiveness while being the 2nd-best passer in the world after Gretzky.
_________
Again, answer my question on Makarov on Ciccarelli.
What was Ciccarelli's 'contribution to the sport'?
How is that greater than Makarov's?
Do you honestly think that Ciccarelli was a better player?
Why on earth is Ciccarelli in the HHOF ahead of Makarov?
