Sergei Makarov not in HoF?

[Epsilon]

Canadiens1958 has such a hilarious double-standard with regards to the HHOF when it comes to evaluating modern and international players compared to O6 era players. Apparently, contributions to the Allan Cup and amateur hockey should matter, but play in international competitions and the Soviet league should be irrelevant.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Credibility

HHOF credibility is a function of precedence and history. So when someone presents an argument that a player should get into the HHOF they are in fact admitting that the HHOF has credibility otherwise there is no purpose to arguing for admission to a body without credibility.

Precedence and history. Gives supporters of a player or a hockey contributor the widest possible range of reasons to present a case for inclusion. Build a case accordingly.

That Joe's achievements years ago were deemed sufficient is not a criteria today unless you are prepared to accept that criteria for acceptance to the medical profession generations ago are sufficient today. Evolution exists in hockey just like in every area of society.

 

[jkrx]

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.

Why do you keep drawing comparisons from the IIHFHOF? No one here is arguing that Makarov should be in HHoH because he is in IIHFHOF. We are arguing for his induction not because he was a good pre-NHLer but because he was amongst the best hockey players in the world. That is where the line is drawn.

It's one thing to ignore players in the O6 era but it's rather ridiculous to disregard one (or more) of the best players in the world based on principle.

Answer this instead.

, 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?

 

[Killion]

Canadiens1958 has such a hilarious double-standard with regards to the HHOF when it comes to evaluating modern and international players compared to O6 era players. Apparently, contributions to the Allan Cup and amateur hockey should matter, but play in international competitions and the Soviet league should be irrelevant.

Are you referring to the rules of induction in the HHOF or simple evaluation of players skill sets?. If the former, then your gonna just Love me.

If its the latter, good luck with that. How do you compare a circa 40's, 50's, 60's or 70's Euro player against North Americans over the distance, the long haul, when their seasons were shorter, the play utterly inferior to the NHL's with the exception of the Red Army team & to a lesser extent the Czech Ntl Team? Cant be done objectively. I dont think the HHOF, as a function of the NHL, should give a whit in honoring players, builders or referee's etc who have made zero or minimal contributions to hockey in North America. Players, coaches, innovaters be they from the Soviet, Finnish, Swedish or any other Euro league is simply outside of the purview of the HOF. Tarasov, Ttretiak et al simply fail to meet the criteria.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Why do you keep drawing comparisons from the IIHFHOF? No one here is arguing that Makarov should be in HHoH because he is in IIHFHOF. We are arguing for his induction not because he was a good pre-NHLer but because he was amongst the best hockey players in the world. That is where the line is drawn.

You quote me but I never brought up the IIHF HOF. I honestly don't care what the IIHF do in this regard.

It's one thing to ignore players in the O6 era but it's rather ridiculous to disregard one (or more) of the best players in the world based on principle.

If the HHOF is about contributions to hockey in North America as I contend then Makarov can really only be judged by his play in the NHL which marked him as a pretty good but not elite forward. I understand that this NHL time was post-prime but I think the rest falls under "we will never know".

 

[Reds4Life]

If the HHOF is about contributions to hockey in North America.

It isn't..hence the name HOCKEY Hall of Fame. Unless you are so ignorant you actually think hockey in North America is special or something.
And as mentioned before (in this very thread) Makarov was integral part of the team that changed the face of hockey forever.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

It isn't..hence the name HOCKEY Hall of Fame.

I'm glad you can deduct that from the name that it was given by Canadians in 1943, rather than looking at its selection committee, the apparent criteria and the list of inductees which is clearly 90% based on NHL performance.

Unless you are so ignorant you actually think hockey in North America is special or something..

To the North Americans that created the Hall of Fame and maintain it, it probably is.

 

[Killion]

It isn't..hence the name HOCKEY Hall of Fame. Unless you are so ignorant you actually think hockey in North America is special or something.

Aha!. Bolded. The term "Hockey" Hall of Fame does indeed denote a "global" reach & your absolutely correct in pointing out the hypocrisy in the literal sense. Its' a pretentious title, particularly as its' been exclusionary in terms of honoring the tremendous contributions made by Builders, Coaches & Players throughout Europe with official inductions, circa 19th through early 21st century.

I believe it might, MIGHT l "morph" into that role over the coming years & decades, if a member of the BOG's or a league Commissioner comes along who with expansionary ideas to the HHOF's existing mandates. Currently, it only "honors" some of the greats from Europe & the old Soviet Union through its International Hockey displays & exhibits, while extensively resourcing & proudly including reference materials on individuals in its archives, many of which are available on-line.

The HHOF was first established in Kingston, Ontario in the 40's, and was in fact called the "International Hockey Hall of Fame". The NHL threatened to pull its sponsorship in the 50's (attendance was lousy, it was expensive, didnt like the way it was being run etc), plans made to move it to Toronto next to the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame on the CNE grounds, the building & installations overseen by Conn Smythe (amongst others) and re-named the "Hockey Hall of Fame". Smythe remained as Chairman, overseeing the day-day, inductions etc, resigned in the early 70's over the postumus induction of Harvey "Busher" Jackson around 70 or 71 (Jackson was a noted drinker & womanizer, anathema to Smythes puritanical values).

The HHOF moved to Yonge & Front streets to a historically significant old bank building within BCE Place in the late 80's early 90's. The original "vision" (International) was lost when the NHL took over complete sponsorship/funding, with its focus & mandate solely concentrated on the NHL, minor & amateur league Builders, Coaches, GM's, Refs' & Players exclusive to North America, with only a passing "nod" to European/Russian contributions & International Play.

As the lead sponsor & owners of the facility, exhibits etc, the NHL's mandate has changed little since the halls opening in the early 60's in Toronto; to honor the players, coaches etc directly involved with the league itself and the men (and recently women) who have contributed to the game pretty much exclusively throughout North America.

It cant possibly be "all things to all people" globally, inducting players & coaches from Europe, Olympic competition, whatever, without a change in its mandate, which would only water down its original intent & require expansion & far more financing on an ongoing basis.

And yes, I do believe "hockey in North America is special", as I believe its "special" in the Czech Republic, Israel & Japan, however, I dont believe its the responsibility of the NHL to "honor" its contributions & contributors to the game; nor do I feel its either appropriate or reasonable to induct pre-NHL involvement & participation, a measuring, to any player or coach who didnt live/work/play over here into the HHOF.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

That Joe's achievements years ago were deemed sufficient is not a criteria today unless you are prepared to accept that criteria for acceptance to the medical profession generations ago are sufficient today. Evolution exists in hockey just like in every area of society.

This might be relevant if there were no exact contemporaries of Makarov's with similar credentials that were in the Hall of Fame. Since there are several, it's irrelevant.

To me, the player category should be judged on the person as a player, not what he might have done in addition to being a player. If they want to reward someone for other significant contributions to the game, they have categories for that. Saying that Makarov didn't do anything outside of being a great player is a massive red herring. The fact that he was such a great player merits his induction in the player category.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

And yes, I do believe "hockey in North America is special", as I believe its "special" in the Czech Republic, Israel & Japan, however, I dont believe its the responsibility of the NHL to "honor" its contributions & contributors to the game; nor do I feel its either appropriate or reasonable to induct pre-NHL involvement & participation, a measuring, to any player or coach who didnt live/work/play over here into the HHOF.

They took on that responsibility when they inducted Tretiak and Kharlamov, who of course didn't play a second in the NHL. They opened the floodgates, and they can't be closed without an admission that they screwed up somewhere.

They were either wrong to honour Tretiak and Kharlamov, or they are wrong in not honouring Makarov (and several others).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

They took on that responsibility when they inducted Tretiak and Kharlamov, who of course didn't play a second in the NHL. They opened the floodgates, and they can't be closed without an admission that they screwed up somewhere.

They were either wrong to honour Tretiak and Kharlamov, or they are wrong in not honouring Makarov (and several others).

Basically, this. If they wanted to remain a Hall that honored contributions to North American hockey, then why induct Tretiak and Kharlamov? The fact that they have some token inductions of Soviet players is worse than not having any at all.

 

[Killion]

They opened the floodgates, and they can't be closed without an admission that they screwed up somewhere.

The fact that they have some token inductions of Soviet players is worse than not having any at all.

Indeed. I think they should create a new category called "International Hall of Fame" & start inducting Builders, Coaches, GM's, Refs, Players. As I said in the earlier post, it could morph into an all encompassing HHOF, which IMO it should, but absent a main proponent (nor the financial resources at this time) driving the bus to get to that destination we'll likely see more of these patchwork inductions that really dont do justice to the people & players who should have their own stage under the HHOF's tent. On the flip-side of the coin, its poltically touchy; what are you supposed to tell the IIHHOF?. "Sorry guys, youve become redundant"?.

 

[JT Dutch*]

... It's a black mark on the Hockey Hall of Fame that Makarov has been excluded and people like Ciccarelli and Neely and Gillies are in.

Those who have gone over Makarov's accomplishments in Soviet and International hockey have done a fine job.

And beyond that, I'll never forget his performance as a 35-year-old with San Jose in 93-94. If there was one player who made the biggest difference in turning a team with 71 losses the season before into a playoff team that nearly made the conference finals, it was Makarov.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

The token inductions are indeed a problem but they were almost certainly simply a response to the sort of criticism leveled at them in this thread.

The HHOF clearly isn't prepared to view international hockey in the same light as NHL hockey and really they probably shouldn't, short tournaments and the weak European leagues don't stack up 1-to-1 to the NHL. But at the same time there's a small cadre of international players with a good enough reputation to have a case. So they induct a few of the most obvious cases, maybe Makarov will join that list eventually.

I don't see a solution to the problem, I mean at some point you'd get the opposite argument where someone could go "wait Tim Kerr or Doug Gilmour was a way better player than this guy".

If you did an "international category" you have the problem that this can really only be retroactive for pre-1990 players. There's basically no point to it at this time, everyone worthy of HHOF consideration today is in the NHL. And you'd still have the problem that it could basically be considered the "cheap route" to the HHOF i.e. do well in the Soviet league, play a nice Canada Cup, bang, you're in.

 

[Killion]

The token inductions are indeed a problem but they were almost certainly simply a response to the sort of criticism leveled at them in this thread.

Very well put, and ya, its problematical and is clearly a contentious issue, a slippery slope. If you did create an International Division, on the one hand you'd appease some of the purists however they may still complain that there not being honored on the same plane as the existing categories with the primarilly North American born, making it a somehow sub-standard induction. And why even bother at all when youve got the IHHOF, various countries Sports & Hockey Hall's of Fame and in some cases Team Hall's of Fame?. Minnesota has the US Hockey Hall of Fame, theres the Seattle, BC, Manitoba & Newfoundland/Labrador Hockey Halls of Fame etc etc. Should all of those existing & future inductee's be included in the HHOF if there not already members?. I guess not.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Timeline

Basically, this. If they wanted to remain a Hall that honored contributions to North American hockey, then why induct Tretiak and Kharlamov? The fact that they have some token inductions of Soviet players is worse than not having any at all.

The Soviet players that were inducted into the HHOF fall into two groups. Those like Kharlamov and Tretiak whose careers were during an era under circumstances that precluded them playing in the NHL and those whose careers allowed them to play in the NHL starting in 1989. To date this group includes Fetisov and Larionov.

So tokenism or slippery slope positions or opening the doors imagery etc do not do justice to the timeline factor.

If someone wanted to make a case for Valeri Vasiliev's enshrinement into the HHOF then by all means use the various norms and factors that apply to the Kharlamov and Tretiak situations. If someone wants to make a case for the enshrinement of Sergei Makarov into the HHOF then the Fetisov and Larionov norms and factors apply.

 

[WingsFan95]

Makarov will be in.

Zero doubt in that.

It's just a matter of time, honestly I'm sure even Makarov himself doesn't care that much.

 

[seventieslord]

Canadiens1958 has such a hilarious double-standard with regards to the HHOF when it comes to evaluating modern and international players compared to O6 era players. Apparently, contributions to the Allan Cup and amateur hockey should matter, but play in international competitions and the Soviet league should be irrelevant.

C1958 will defend every HHOF induction to the death and talk endlessly about the "fatal flaws" that keep our favourite uninducted players out. I can only suspect that this makes him feel that he has some higher level of understanding that the rest of us don't; that he is as smart as the HHOF section committee, and he "gets" it like they do.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The Soviet players that were inducted into the HHOF fall into two groups. Those like Kharlamov and Tretiak whose careers were during an era under circumstances that precluded them playing in the NHL and those whose careers allowed them to play in the NHL starting in 1989. To date this group includes Fetisov and Larionov.

So tokenism or slippery slope positions or opening the doors imagery etc do not do justice to the timeline factor.

If someone wanted to make a case for Valeri Vasiliev's enshrinement into the HHOF then by all means use the various norms and factors that apply to the Kharlamov and Tretiak situations. If someone wants to make a case for the enshrinement of Sergei Makarov into the HHOF then the Fetisov and Larionov norms and factors apply.

fine then. Makarov was just as good and important as Fetisov and significantly better than Larionov when they were all in their respective primes. Does the fact that Larionov and Fetisov won Cups as role players when they were past their primes really make them more HHOF worthy?

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Issue

fine then. Makarov was just as good and important as Fetisov and significantly better than Larionov when they were all in their respective primes. Does the fact that Larionov and Fetisov won Cups as role players when they were past their primes really make them more HHOF worthy?

Seventieslord makes a very important distintion in post #58

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=927143&page=3

effectively recognizing the importance of winning championships or to simplify matters "Cup Counting" is recognized and validated.

Outside the NHL the contributions of each to championships more or less wash. In the NHL both Fetisov and Larionov have a distinct advantage over Makarov, similar to the advantage enjoyed by Harry Watson over Edgar Laprade.

Plus in the same post a very important point is raised about the number of games that the players being considered actually played in the NHL. Including playoffs Larionov played more than 600 extra NHL then Makarov did while Fetisov played almost two hundred more Nhl games when compared to Makarov.

Then you have the various other comparibles and other factors. The Calder that Sergei Makarov is mitigated by the rule change precluding elderly internationals from Calder consideration. Fetisov and Larionov have reputations in the NHL and beyond for various intagibles that may be considered by the HHOF. Can you produce similar factors that the HHOF may consider? The differential in NHl games in the Watson and Laprade situation may be bridged by Laprade's Allan Cup portfolio. Can you produce a similar portfolio for Makarov distinct from Fetisov and Larionov?

If you can satisfy such conditions for Makarov then his candidacy would be strengthened enormously. If you cannot then you are left with a marginal edge outside the NHL plus a loophole Calder trying to match multiple SC triumphs and intangibles. Steep hill to climb.

 

[MS]

Canadiens1958 has such a hilarious double-standard with regards to the HHOF when it comes to evaluating modern and international players compared to O6 era players. Apparently, contributions to the Allan Cup and amateur hockey should matter, but play in international competitions and the Soviet league should be irrelevant.

Yup.

The notion that a good performance 1940 Allan Cup can be a key reason for HHOF induction, while great performances in the biggest set of international tournaments in the sport's history are not, is just utterly laughable.

Senior amateur hockey in the 1940s was crap and the Allen Cup was already well on its way to irrelevence. Laprade scored 22 goals in 13 games at age 20 in the 1940 Allen Cup - the competition was terrible.

If you did an "international category" you have the problem that this can really only be retroactive for pre-1990 players. There's basically no point to it at this time, everyone worthy of HHOF consideration today is in the NHL. And you'd still have the problem that it could basically be considered the "cheap route" to the HHOF i.e. do well in the Soviet league, play a nice Canada Cup, bang, you're in.

No point? Seriously? Fixing a historical error is always a good reason. I guess MLB shouldn't have retroactively gone back and inducted players from the Negro Leagues, in your opinion.

It's not some big, colossal fix.

There aren't any pre-1970 European players that belong in the HHOF, in my opinion. The Europeans didn't really catch up until around 1970. And all Swedes and Finns who deserve to be there are in.

Basically you have 5 or 6 very important Russian players from the 1970s and 1980s (Makarov, Mikhailov, Vasiliev and one or two others) and one or two Czech players.

None of these guys are 'soft inductions' - they dominated a very good league and dominated against NHL competition. And they're damned important - the USSR-Canada rivalry was one of the dominant narratives of the sport between 1972 and 1990, and the games those teams played are many of the most important games played at any level over those two decades.

If the HHOF had been on this properly for the past several years, it would already be fixed. Instead they're still honouring undeserving North American players like Ciccarelli.

The Soviet players that were inducted into the HHOF fall into two groups. Those like Kharlamov and Tretiak whose careers were during an era under circumstances that precluded them playing in the NHL and those whose careers allowed them to play in the NHL starting in 1989. To date this group includes Fetisov and Larionov.

So tokenism or slippery slope positions or opening the doors imagery etc do not do justice to the timeline factor.

If someone wanted to make a case for Valeri Vasiliev's enshrinement into the HHOF then by all means use the various norms and factors that apply to the Kharlamov and Tretiak situations. If someone wants to make a case for the enshrinement of Sergei Makarov into the HHOF then the Fetisov and Larionov norms and factors apply.

Versus Igor Larionov :

- they played on the same line for a decade and Makarov won 9 Russian scoring titles, while Larionov won 0.

- Makarov was almost always the more dominant of the two players in international play, including 3 Canada Cups. Larionov was generally considered the weakest member of the KLM line.

- Makarov was easily the better of the two players for the first 6 years they were both in the NHL together. Unfortunately, Makarov was 3 years older and retired at age 37 just at the point where Larionov hooked up with Detroit for a nice run there.

It's not close.

____________

Simply put :

1) The two most important teams of the 1980s in the sport of hockey were CSKA and the Edmonton Oilers. Makarov was the best player on one of the most important teams in the world.

2) If you're going to list the 10 most important players in the sport of hockey in the 1980s, Makarov is on that list.

He's one of the most talented players ever to play, he's one of the most dominant players ever to play, he's one of the most important players of his era. He should have been in the HHOF on the first ballot.

 

[Hanji]

Outside the NHL the contributions of each to championships more or less wash.

Where's your evidence to support this claim? Because:

Makarov
3 Soviet MPVs
10 time Soviet all-star
2 IHWC best forward
8 time IHWC all-star
NHL Calder Cup winner

Larionov
1 Soviet MPV
4 time Soviet all star
2 time IHWC all-star

Not to mention Makarov was always significantly better than Larionov at Canada Cup tournaments.

The Calder that Sergei Makarov is mitigated by the rule change precluding elderly internationals from Calder consideration.

The rule change is irrelevant in context of comparing Fetisov/Makarov/Larionov. All 3 had the same opportunity to win this trophy, during the same year nonetheless.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Makarov is just as good, if not better, than every single Russian player not named Fetisov. IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Details

Yup.

The notion that a good performance 1940 Allan Cup can be a key reason for HHOF induction, while great performances in the biggest set of international tournaments in the sport's history are not, is just utterly laughable.

Senior amateur hockey in the 1940s was crap and the Allen Cup was already well on its way to irrelevence. Laprade scored 22 goals in 13 games at age 20 in the 1940 Allen Cup - the competition was terrible.



No point? Seriously? Fixing a historical error is always a good reason. I guess MLB shouldn't have retroactively gone back and inducted players from the Negro Leagues, in your opinion.

It's not some big, colossal fix.

There aren't any pre-1970 European players that belong in the HHOF, in my opinion. The Europeans didn't really catch up until around 1970. And all Swedes and Finns who deserve to be there are in.

Basically you have 5 or 6 very important Russian players from the 1970s and 1980s (Makarov, Mikhailov, Vasiliev and one or two others) and one or two Czech players.

None of these guys are 'soft inductions' - they dominated a very good league and dominated against NHL competition. And they're damned important - the USSR-Canada rivalry was one of the dominant narratives of the sport between 1972 and 1990, and the games those teams played are many of the most important games played at any level over those two decades.

If the HHOF had been on this properly for the past several years, it would already be fixed. Instead they're still honouring undeserving North American players like Ciccarelli.




Versus Igor Larionov :

- they played on the same line for a decade and Makarov won 9 Russian scoring titles, while Larionov won 0.

- Makarov was almost always the more dominant of the two players in international play, including 3 Canada Cups. Larionov was generally considered the weakest member of the KLM line.

- Makarov was easily the better of the two players for the first 6 years they were both in the NHL together. Unfortunately, Makarov was 3 years older and retired at age 37 just at the point where Larionov hooked up with Detroit for a nice run there.

It's not close.

____________

Simply put :

1) The two most important teams of the 1980s in the sport of hockey were CSKA and the Edmonton Oilers. Makarov was the best player on one of the most important teams in the world.

2) If you're going to list the 10 most important players in the sport of hockey in the 1980s, Makarov is on that list.

He's one of the most talented players ever to play, he's one of the most dominant players ever to play, he's one of the most important players of his era. He should have been in the HHOF on the first ballot.

1940 Allan Cup Final featured Kirkland Lake with Bill Durnan in nets defeating Calgary. Port Arthur with Edgar Laprade lost to Kirkland Lake in the Eastern Final.Port Arthur won the 1939 Memorial Cup.Bill Durnan qualifies the level of Allan Cup competition as do other players that were contemporaries - Buddy O'Connor, Emile Bouchard, played in the four team Quebec League leading up to the finals.

Baseball Hall of Fame / Negro Leagues. Special Committees were established. The elections or enshrinements were not part of the regular election process.

http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers

Killion has posted up thread in detail listing the various factors involved in such a process. You are not suggesting a special committee or a similar process rather you are insisting that Makarov be enshrined as part of the regular process. Cannot have it both ways.

Unfortunately Sergei Makarov did not retire as you assert but went to play in Europe, later returning to the NHL to play a few games for Dallas.Before retiring. Slight variation in your spin.

"Special Committee" scenario is not problematic and structured properly would be embraced at this end. Sergei Makarov as part of the regular HHOF enshrinement process has problematic ramifications.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

1940 Allan Cup Final featured Kirkland Lake with Bill Durnan in nets defeating Calgary. Port Arthur with Edgar Laprade lost to Kirkland Lake in the Eastern Final.Port Arthur won the 1939 Memorial Cup.Bill Durnan qualifies the level of Allan Cup competition as do other players that were contemporaries - Buddy O'Connor, Emile Bouchard, played in the four team Quebec League leading up to the finals.

Baseball Hall of Fame / Negro Leagues. Special Committees were established. The elections or enshrinements were not part of the regular election process.

http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers

Killion has posted up thread in detail listing the various factors involved in such a process. You are not suggesting a special committee or a similar process rather you are insisting that Makarov be enshrined as part of the regular process. Cannot have it both ways.

Unfortunately Sergei Makarov did not retire as you assert but went to play in Europe, later returning to the NHL to play a few games for Dallas.Before retiring. Slight variation in your spin.

"Special Committee" scenario is not problematic and structured properly would be embraced at this end. Sergei Makarov as part of the regular HHOF enshrinement process has problematic ramifications.

It's as simple as believing whether or not the HHoF should honor the greatest players in the world, or not. Quite frankly, you come across as a cold war remnant in this case - IE. Russians are alien, insectisoid drones with no emotion. I liked Rocky IV just as much as the next guy, but even the biggest N. American flag-waving homer will admit Russia was a legitimate contender in the 80s, and Makarov was a huge part of that.