Sergei Makarov not in HoF?

ozzie

Registered User
Aug 3, 2005
1,698
493
Australia
Makarov was the best Soviet player in the 80's. He was the Russian version of Gretzky. Lets not forget the Soviet league only counted primary assists, he was by far the best player since 17 and only Fetisov was on the same level.

His international play and play in NHL sponsored tournaments is more then enough to get him into the HHOF. His Gold medals and World Championships are fantastic.

Once you put in those "token" Soviet players, thats it. Game over. He will be in eventually. His NHL play means little at the end of the day. He was old, broken and a shadow of himself when he came over.

Meanwhile you have Soviet players with ZERO NHL experience. Sorry, the pandora's box is open. He will get in, he should be in regardless. Soviets or not. He deserves to be there probably more then the others in there.

For people who still don't get it.

Once they put in Cam Neely, they opened the door for Lindros and Bure. They changed the rules and expectations for entry. Token Soviets did the exact same thing. So its pointless to argue.

I'd take Makarov over Neely's induction by far. I never agreed with Neely being in, but there he is, deserving or not.

The whole KLM line should have its own private wing in the HHOF. Its a crime Makarov isn't in already, but he will be eventually.

Canada Cup 87 is some of the most magical hockey I ever witnessed.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,427
Vancouver, BC
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.

Sorry, 1939. Laprade was 19, not 20. And scoring like Gretzky against crap competition.

There might have been a few future NHLers kicking around, but senior amateur hockey in the 1940s was a poor product. Call a spade a spade - it was minor-league hockey where the players weren't being paid. And not as good a form of minor-hockey as the AHL.

Essentially a guy like Laprade had a few good years of minor-league hockey before getting to the NHL. Big freaking deal. Is Bronco Horvath - a guy who had a fairly similar-level NHL career to Laprade - suddenly HHOF material because he dominated the AHL in the mid-1960s?

The notion that sub-AHL level competition from that era is somehow more important than better-than-NHL competition at the 1980s Canada Cups is just ... ludicrous. There's no other way to describe it.

Canadiens1958 said:
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.

Why exactly does there have to be a committee?

There are 6 or 8 guys who should be inducted. They've already picked up 4 of them (Kharlamov, Tretiak, and Larionov and Fetisov who are *not* in for their NHL work).

If the HHOF was gradually inducting these guys instead of undeserving players like Duff and Ciccarelli the probably would already be mostly solved.

Canadiens1958 said:
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.

He was 37 going on 38, was the 2nd-oldest regular skater in the NHL the previous season, and decided to finish out his career in Switzerland.

He was 3 years older than Larionov, had played top-level hockey for over 20 years, and his career was at an end. There's no shame in that.

Canadiens1958 said:
"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.

Problematic ramifications?

How on earth are there 'problemic ramifications' of inducting one of the best and most important players of his generation in the 'Hockey Hall of Fame'?

He exceeds all the listed criteria for induction. Therefore, he should be inducted.

If there are 'problematic ramifications' out of inducting players who should be inducted, the HHOF has more internal issues than I thought.

Again, a list of the 10 most important players of the 1980s would have Makarov on it as an automatic selection. The fact that guys like Ciccarelli are in ahead of him is a disgrace.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Your Criteria

Sorry, 1939. Laprade was 19, not 20. And scoring like Gretzky against crap competition.

There might have been a few future NHLers kicking around, but senior amateur hockey in the 1940s was a poor product. Call a spade a spade - it was minor-league hockey where the players weren't being paid. And not as good a form of minor-hockey as the AHL.

Essentially a guy like Laprade had a few good years of minor-league hockey before getting to the NHL. Big freaking deal. Is Bronco Horvath - a guy who had a fairly similar-level NHL career to Laprade - suddenly HHOF material because he dominated the AHL in the mid-1960s?

The notion that sub-AHL level competition from that era is somehow more important than better-than-NHL competition at the 1980s Canada Cups is just ... ludicrous. There's no other way to describe it.



Why exactly does there have to be a committee?

There are 6 or 8 guys who should be inducted. They've already picked up 4 of them (Kharlamov, Tretiak, and Larionov and Fetisov who are *not* in for their NHL work).

If the HHOF was gradually inducting these guys instead of undeserving players like Duff and Ciccarelli the probably would already be mostly solved.



He was 37 going on 38, was the 2nd-oldest regular skater in the NHL the previous season, and decided to finish out his career in Switzerland.

He was 3 years older than Larionov, had played top-level hockey for over 20 years, and his career was at an end. There's no shame in that.



Problematic ramifications?

How on earth are there 'problemic ramifications' of inducting one of the best and most important players of his generation in the 'Hockey Hall of Fame'?

He exceeds all the listed criteria for induction. Therefore, he should be inducted.

If there are 'problematic ramifications' out of inducting players who should be inducted, the HHOF has more internal issues than I thought.

Again, a list of the 10 most important players of the 1980s would have Makarov on it as an automatic selection. The fact that guys like Ciccarelli are in ahead of him is a disgrace.

You and no one else introduced the relationship between the Baseball Hall of Fame and the induction of the the Negro League players. This induction was accomplished by forming a "Special Committee" twice that met and produced the enshrinements outside the regular voting procedure. The annual votes governed by specific rules about eligibility did not produce the enshrinements of the Negro League players. This fact was supported by a link. As stated previously up thread by Killion such a procedure or variation carries its own set of consequences.

However properly structured it would be an alternative that would be embraced at this end since like the Baseball HOF solution it would not create additional issues, rather it would solve them. The HHOF has proceeded in a similar fashion in the case of writers/media and most recently women's hockey.

Problematic ramifications. Many are quite adept at using the slippery slope argument to suit specific agendas. Constantly railing against perceived weak inductions by some unique subjective standards yet thankful for their existence. Posters rail against Duff, Neely, Laprade, Boivin, Ciccarelli and whoever else happens to be their favourite whipping boy.

Basic issue with inducting Sergei Makarov into the HHOF via the regular annual process is that it creates a scenario where a player with the following NHL credentials was elected via the normal procedure.

Sergei Makarov. In the post expansion era < 500 total NHL games, 1 Calder that resulted in eligibility rules being changed, zero NHL championships or honours, with a stats package that is below a point a game:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/makarse01.html

Such criteria would apply to post expansion NHL players in a fashion that would only be limited by imaginations..

As a slippery slope induction under normal HHOF voting procedures it is harder to imagine a steeper one. These issues were not presented by the Fetisov and Larionov inductions The games played were much greater and the SC championships combined with the perception of intangibles virtually leveled the slippery slope.
 
Last edited:

Iain Fyffe

Hockey fact-checker
As a slippery slope induction under normal HHOF voting procedures it is harder to imagine a steeper one. These issues were not presented by the Fetisov and Larionov inductions The games played were much greater and the SC championships combined with the perception of intangibles virtually leveled the slippery slope.
Utter nonsense. Taken by itself, Larionov's NHL career is nowhere near Hall of Fame calibre. 644 points in 921 games, zero All-Star teams, no awards of any kind and never led the league in anything. I don't care how many Cups your team won, that is not a Hall of Fame career.

It's absolutely clear that Larionov's pre-NHL career was considered when he was honoured.

It's even more apparent with Fetisov: 228 points in 546 games (not many more than Makarov played), zero All-Star teams, no awards of any kind. It takes much, much more than two Stanley Cup wins to make that look like a Hall of Fame career.

It's absolutely clear that Fetisov's pre-NHL career was considered when he was honoured.

So the question remains: since Larionov and Fetisov's pre-NHL careers were clearly considered, why would they not also consider Makarov's? He even has something neither of them have: an NHL award in the Calder.
 

Iain Fyffe

Hockey fact-checker
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.
I'm inclined to agree. Everything that has happened in hockey history was destined to happen, and anything that might seem strange at first has a very simple explanation that wraps it up into a neat little package, regardless of how little sense that explanation makes when you think about it.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,427
Vancouver, BC
You and no one else introduced the relationship between the Baseball Hall of Fame and the induction of the the Negro League players. This induction was accomplished by forming a "Special Committee" twice that met and produced the enshrinements outside the regular voting procedure. The annual votes governed by specific rules about eligibility did not produce the enshrinements of the Negro League players. This fact was supported by a link. As stated previously up thread by Killion such a procedure or variation carries its own set of consequences.

However properly structured it would be an alternative that would be embraced at this end since like the Baseball HOF solution it would not create additional issues, rather it would solve them. The HHOF has proceeded in a similar fashion in the case of writers/media and most recently women's hockey.

My god are you obtuse sometimes.

The BHOF case was an example of a HOF going back and correcting past mistakes and why it's correct to do so. Another poster had said that there was 'no reason' to fix oversights, which is a bizarre claim if I've ever heard one. The point was not about 'how' they did it, it was about 'why'. I agree that special committees tend to be a problem that make poor inductions to justify their own existence - as happened with the Veteran's Committees in the BHOF in the 1970s and the HHOF in the 1990s with Laprade et al.

Why on earth you're trying to start a debate about committees I have no idea - again, the simplest way to fix the problem is to induct the 6 or 8 correct players as opportunites come up to do so.

Canadiens1958 said:
Problematic ramifications. Many are quite adept at using the slippery slope argument to suit specific agendas. Constantly railing against perceived weak inductions by some unique subjective standards yet thankful for their existence. Posters rail against Duff, Neely, Laprade, Boivin, Ciccarelli and whoever else happens to be their favourite whipping boy.

Basic issue with inducting Sergei Makarov into the HHOF via the regular annual process is that it creates a scenario where a player with the following NHL credentials was elected via the normal procedure.

Sergei Makarov. In the post expansion era < 500 total NHL games, 1 Calder that resulted in eligibility rules being changed, zero NHL championships or honours, with a stats package that is below a point a game:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/makarse01.html

Such criteria would apply to post expansion NHL players in a fashion that would only be limited by imaginations..

As a slippery slope induction under normal HHOF voting procedures it is harder to imagine a steeper one. These issues were not presented by the Fetisov and Larionov inductions The games played were much greater and the SC championships combined with the perception of intangibles virtually leveled the slippery slope.

As the poster just above noted, this is absolutely ridiculous, and total BS.

The GP and Cups 'levelled the slippery slope'? Seriously?

Fetisov only played about 100 games more than Makarov. Fetisov's NHL career is a near carbon-copy of that of Randy Gregg. Unless you think that Randy Gregg is a legitimate HHOF canditate, then Fetisov was inducted mainly on the basis of his performances in the 1980s.

And again, your hypocracy is stunning :

Somehow inducting Dick Duff or Dino Ciccarelli isn't leading the NHL down a slippery slope in your mind. But inducting a guy who was a top-5 player on the planet for a decade does. How on earth does that make sense?

There is no slippery slope here that doesn't exist with any induction. The people making decisions should have the knowledge to 'get it right'. If they induct Valeri Kamensky ... then yeah, they got it wrong and there's a slippery slope there. Same as for Duff and Ciccarelli. But if they pick the guys that legitimately deserve it, no, there isn't.

And Makarov legitimately deserves it. If he were inducted, there wouldn't be a peep of controversy from any corner.
 

jkrx

Registered User
Feb 4, 2010
4,337
21
I can't believe that people is taking a guy seriously when he says that Fetisov is on NHL merits alone which would mean that he thinks that guys like Shawn Chambers, Gregg and Vasko should be inducted.
 

Infinite Vision*

Guest
Makarov was the best Soviet player in the 80's. He was the Russian version of Gretzky. Lets not forget the Soviet league only counted primary assists, he was by far the best player since 17 and only Fetisov was on the same level.

His international play and play in NHL sponsored tournaments is more then enough to get him into the HHOF. His Gold medals and World Championships are fantastic.

Once you put in those "token" Soviet players, thats it. Game over. He will be in eventually. His NHL play means little at the end of the day. He was old, broken and a shadow of himself when he came over.

Meanwhile you have Soviet players with ZERO NHL experience. Sorry, the pandora's box is open. He will get in, he should be in regardless. Soviets or not. He deserves to be there probably more then the others in there.

For people who still don't get it.

Once they put in Cam Neely, they opened the door for Lindros and Bure. They changed the rules and expectations for entry. Token Soviets did the exact same thing. So its pointless to argue.

I'd take Makarov over Neely's induction by far. I never agreed with Neely being in, but there he is, deserving or not.

The whole KLM line should have its own private wing in the HHOF. Its a crime Makarov isn't in already, but he will be eventually.

Canada Cup 87 is some of the most magical hockey I ever witnessed.

In the 3 games against Canada, I'd say he certainly stood out skillwise more so than anyone, including Gretzky and Lemieux IMO. That's just incredible. I honestly have no doubts that the guy was the best forward in the 80's besides them.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
As mentioned by seventies earlier, C1958 is assuming that the decisions made by the HHOF committee are correct/just and giving reasons why these decisions were/are made.

The real questions we need to ask him are, first, do you think that Makarov was among the very best players in the world before he came to the NHL? Second, do you personally think the HHOF should change their standards to include players like Makarov?
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
It's as simple as believing whether or not the HHoF should honor the greatest players in the world, or not.

Im easy that way. You'd really have to open the dam though & start inducting everyone from Hlinka & Dzurilla to Fran Huck & Terry O'Malley because of what they accomplished on the International Stage. The HHOF should not be "all things to all people Worldwide". Its an NHL institution, and due to socio-political contraints throughout the 20th & early part of the 21st century countless dozens of brilliant players, Builders & Coaches were confined & restrained to competing head-head, consistently, against NHL standards. 7 Game "Super Series", NHL & WHA barnstorming tours, the so called "Greatest Games Ever Played" (Mtl etc), the Summit Series in 72 notwithstanding. There is a place to honor these people, the IIHF's Hall of Fame, and many are.

If there are 'problematic ramifications' out of inducting players who should be inducted, the HHOF has more internal issues than I thought. Again, a list of the 10 most important players of the 1980s would have Makarov on it as an automatic selection. The fact that guys like Ciccarelli are in ahead of him is a disgrace.

Ya, there are "problematical ramifications" which the HHOF has already wrought upon itself by inducting Tretiak et al when that was something that shouldve been undertaken by the IIHF HOF. The HHOF only did so in acceding to the armchair critics' who seem to believe the NHL HHOF should somehow morph into a Global repository for the honoring of Builders, Players, Coaches & Referee's. Makarov's best years were behind him when he finally got the opportunity to play in the NHL. If by rote you induct players for what they accomplished internationally prior to playing in the NHL or inducting those who never did, your basing it on "potential" as opposed to the actual history specific to the NHL itself. So, either set-up a separate International Hall within the HHOF or maybe work on something jointly with the IIHF Hall of Fame that addresses the issue head-on.

Or does one size fit all and they simply continue on this path, a mixed stew of NHL, Intl & Womens Hockey all rolled into one?. It would appear that thats the way its headed.....
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Thank You

As mentioned by seventies earlier, C1958 is assuming that the decisions made by the HHOF committee are correct/just and giving reasons why these decisions were/are made.

The real questions we need to ask him are, first, do you think that Makarov was among the very best players in the world before he came to the NHL? Second, do you personally think the HHOF should change their standards to include players like Makarov?

No assumptions. Just stating that the decisions made by the HHOF selection committee to enshrine each and every existing member are understandable given that each decision to enshrine has links to history and precedence. There is also criteria to oust - Gil Stein case.

Sergei Makarov was definitely amongst the best players in the world from the late 1970's until he came to the NHL and I would embrace his inclusion in the HHOF but..........

Should the HHOF change their standards to include players like Makarov? Question obviously presumes that Makarov cannot meet the present standards for induction and that there are other players - unnamed, in comparable situations.

So, lowering the standards is an option but then the standards remain lowered for all. Status quo or raised standards are not options. Only viable alternative remains what Killion outlined and what the HHOF did for the writers/media and women's hockey. Establish a viable parallel alternative to induct Founders of International Hockey or whatever honourific gets chosen. This may slightly tarnish the honour that Sergei Makarov deserves but it will extend honours to a significant number of Soviet, Swedish, and other founding players from various hockey playing countries.

Such an idea would not create any slippery slope positions for the future while rectifying a situation that the HHoF did not create nor foresee.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
No assumptions. Just stating that the decisions made by the HHOF selection committee to enshrine each and every existing member are understandable given that each decision to enshrine has links to history and precedence. There is also criteria to oust - Gil Stein case.

Sergei Makarov was definitely amongst the best players in the world from the late 1970's until he came to the NHL and I would embrace his inclusion in the HHOF but..........

Should the HHOF change their standards to include players like Makarov? Question obviously presumes that Makarov cannot meet the present standards for induction and that there are other players - unnamed, in comparable situations.

So, lowering the standards is an option but then the standards remain lowered for all. Status quo or raised standards are not options. Only viable alternative remains what Killion outlined and what the HHOF did for the writers/media and women's hockey. Establish a viable parallel alternative to induct Founders of International Hockey or whatever honourific gets chosen. This may slightly tarnish the honour that Sergei Makarov deserves but it will extend honours to a significant number of Soviet, Swedish, and other founding players from various hockey playing countries.

Such an idea would not create any slippery slope positions for the future while rectifying a situation that the HHoF did not create nor foresee.

How many players would this even affect? As you said before, there are already standards/precedents set for players that never got to play in the NHL with the Kharlamov and Tretiak inductions. The Makarov case is fairly rare: Among the best players in the world before coming to the NHL, but then got a chance to play in the NHL later in his career.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Then..........

How many players would this even affect? As you said before, there are already standards/precedents set for players that never got to play in the NHL with the Kharlamov and Tretiak inductions. The Makarov case is fairly rare: Among the best players in the world before coming to the NHL, but then got a chance to play in the NHL later in his career.

Then the board should be able to collectively come-up with a presentation based on the Tretiak / Kharlamov enshrinements to include Sergei Makarov. To date there is no evidence of any inclination or ability to do so.

On the other hand the lack of willingness to consider a founders type alternative is rather startling and revealing. A blatant admission that it is a Makarov issue with no concern about founding greats from the Soviet Union - Bobrov, Sologubov................., Sweden - Sven Tumba, Sterner, perhaps Svedberg, ignored by the IIHF HOF,, .... or Czech, Slovak, Finnish, and other hockey playing countries.

The templates are on the table. Step-up and apply the preferred option as outlined.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
1) As mentioned by seventies earlier, C1958 is assuming that the decisions made by the HHOF committee are correct/just and giving reasons why these decisions were/are made.

2) The real questions we need to ask him are, first, do you think that Makarov was among the very best players in the world before he came to the NHL? Second, do you personally think the HHOF should change their standards to include players like Makarov?

1) I'm sorry?. I havent read anything in the op's posts that indicate anything less than an objective perspective on this matter. Certainly no apologist for the HHOF Selection Committee's who have obviously made a number of "questionable" decisions not to mention innumerable mistakes over the years, most notably in the Builders (at the time though, who knew?) category. For all who are naysayers that a Dickie Duff or whomever isnt "worthy"?. There is much more to these guys than stats, paper players, their in for good reason. Duff in particular, love him or hate him as most did as a player, his teaching skills & hockey schools alone merited induction in the Builders category, however, he was "impressive enough" as a player to be inducted in that category. I wont even get into the Dino C' debate as again, there are other considerations that got him his HHOF ring.

2) Of course he was, prior to playing in the NHL, on the international stage he was a Superstar. Combined, Intl/NHL I think he should be in. If based exclusively on his NHL career?. Not so much. Again, it goes back to these transitional type players from the 80's & 90's who in the midst or twilight of their careers were able to make the jump across the pond. I think their entire careers should be taken into account but with a stronger emphasis put on their NHL performances in terms of criteria. The unlucky ones like Dzurilla, Bobrov etc who never got the opportunity?. Like Tretiak they could be inducted but again, Id much prefer to see a separate Intl Div within the HHOF with no less a Platinum membership, but guess what?. Even that would have its critics.

Ideally?. Id like to see the IIHF HOF step-up to the plate & honor these people as opposed to the HHOF, which to my way of thinking is a far more appropriate forum.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,585
15,948
is it just me, or did makarov have easily the most individual NHL success of the green unit? he was a PPG player his first three years, had one excellent playoff run on top of that (which puts him in the company of larionov's run of the same year), and was a key scorer on a powerhouse calgary team though that team underachieved in the playoffs.

not that it should make too much of a difference for their HHOF candidacy-- i don't know that anything larionov, fetisov, or makarov did in the NHL is more just a bonus that we tack onto their pre-NHL careers. but it always strikes me as strange that makarov's NHL career would put him behind, not on par or even ahead of, larionov and fetisov.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Now this is an actual slippery slope argument.
No, if you put Makarov in you do not have to put Fran Huck in.

Fran Hucks' in the IIHF HOF. As is Terry O'Malley and many other Canadians & Americans. Of course neither one could hold a candle to Makarov. That's not the point. There is beyond doubt or argument why Hobey Bakers' in the HHOF; as there is with the other examples you cite. I dont have a problem with any of them, nor do I have a problem with the transitional NHA-NHL inductions. The same, from Makarovs Intl resume' to his NHL career can be applied & for sure the guy gets in. Giddyup.

Your claim that their NHL accomplishments by themselves are worthy of enshrinement is nutty.

Well, just a minute here, why is it "nutty" to suggest that those 2 players NHL accomplishments lopped off of the rest of their resume's is not enough to warrant induction?. Yet when we have a guy like Makarov, whose best years were behind him by the time he made the jump and whose performance & numbers are really rather middling should be given a bye strikes me as being a double standard no?. . He should just be voted in based on his previous Intl play?. Thing is, he's easily in the same company by NHL standards as his 2 countrymen so he should get in. If he hadnt had been a Superstar prior to playing in the NHL, would we be discussing the guy as a candidate at all?.. Its the whole package that puts him over the bar & should get him in. However, take away what came before & Id say maybe not.

Obviously, the HHOF doesnt hold its inductee's to the same standards as some of us here do, as they've opened the door with non NHA-NHL players. What about the WHA?. Shouldnt some of its greats find a home in the HHOF beyond the guys like Howe & Hull?. The HHOF is constantly evolving in order to keep itself current, so, if they decide to create new categories, induct people & players from far flung nations who never played a single shift in the NHL, thats their perogative. I dont agree with it, unless extraordinary circumstances (Hobey Baker) are presented to make a case for doing so. Ive seen, read, heard none.
 
Last edited:

Iain Fyffe

Hockey fact-checker
The same, from Makarovs Intl resume' to his NHL career can be applied & for sure the guy gets in. Giddyup.
Okay, but how does with equate with the idea that the HOF is an NHL institution?

Well, just a minute here, why is it "nutty" to suggest that those 2 players NHL accomplishments lopped off of the rest of their resume's is not enough to warrant induction?.
It's not; that's the opposite of what I said. I'm saying that Makarov should be in, and there is precedent for similar players in the form of Larionov and Fetisov.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
....equate with the idea that the HOF is an NHL institution?.

In essence, I think we agree on Makarov & transitional players....... as for the HHOF being an NHL "institution", if its not that, then what is it?.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
NHL "Institution"

In essence, I think we agree on Makarov & transitional players....... as for the HHOF being an NHL "institution", if its not that, then what is it?.

It is of course an NHL "Institution". Repository for the various NHL trophies, honours,etc. funded and supported by the NHL to a large degree which allows it to extend its scope beyond strict NHL boundaries. The recent move to honour women testifies to this.

The HHOF enjoys a "free ride" when it comes to the use of NHL logos, marks and assorted intellectual property. It also enjoys priority rights at events when it comes time to amass relics and memorabilia, first access to NHL advertising, marketing and licensing partners,etc. All of which provides the HHOF with an enormous advantage over other hockey halls.

The main reason why the HHOF, from the start, has been able to honour various levels of hockey and other hockey entities is a function of the NHL recognizing its links to hockey at all levels in North America and the developing game outside North America..
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
The solution is simple and was mentioned far back in the thread: the committee needs more international representation.
How are committee members determined?

The 18 Member Selection Committee's are picked by the Hall of Fames Board of Directors & serve 3yr terms. These Committee's consist of HHOF members, members of the media, former coaches, scouts, GM's, Refs' etc with at least one selection to the Committee having an extensive background in International Hockey. In addition to the controversy's surrounding Tretiak & other International players, another that sort of runs parallel to it is the one concerning Paul Henderson and "The Goal of the Century".

Many people feel he should be inducted for scoring the most famous goal in Canadian-Soviet history back in 72, however, his career stats though solid (20 goals+ in 7 seasons, 2X All Star) and his game in general was not of HOF caliber. Still, in order to appease & satisfy the fan base, maybe he too should be inducted?. Some choices, some selections are made for purely altruistic reasons, the motivations for which are many, and never does it get more confusing when one starts considering players from International play. Henderson included. Your heart says yes, but your head says no.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
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.

Well he certainly does have a fondness for 06 hockey
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Selection Committe Members etc.

The solution is simple and was mentioned far back in the thread: the committee needs more international representation.

How are committee members determined?

The following link with related sub links contains the requisite details:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/indselect.htm

Easier said than done.First you would have to find qualified and available candidates. Then you get to the difficult part - they would have to have the time and be willing to take on the responsibility while being able to fulfill their existing priorites and obligations.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->