Sergei Makarov not in HoF?

Hardyvan123

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

I can see the Larinov induction, let's face it part of the reason he is in is because he stuck it to the Russian federation.

I think both Fetisov and Makarov should be in the Hall quite easily and really can't see Fetisov's "greater NHL career" (as it was presented, althoguh I highly disagree) trumping what Makarov did in those 3 Canada Cups (not to mention the rest of his impressive resume)
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Too bad out HHOF effort on these boards got stiffled on the pre NHL players and the order those guys would get in.

There is no doubt Makarov would have made that Hall but maybe after some other russian pioneers.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Rene' Fasel is on the HHOF Board of Directors, so you've gotta figure he might push for more Euro-experienced appointments to the Selection Committee's if he wanted to poke his nose into things yes?. The other 19 members of the Board consist of some curious and some not so curious appointments; among the expected Bill Daly, Donald Fehr, Bob Gainey, Jim Gregory etc..... The other thing to consider is that annually, like the Draft, you can be looking down a short list of "eligible" players, Slim Pickens. Tretiak was inducted in 89 for example. It would be interesting to know who was sitting on the Board back then, who was on the Selection Committee, and who else was being considered. 89/90/91 was a time of change for the HHOF, as they were in the midst of moving to new digs at Yonge & Front Streets in Toronto, and may well have decided to elect Tretiak (and others) as a flashy splash to garner attention & publicity in picking so beloved and legendary a player; no matter that he never laced them up & strapped on the pads for a single game in the NHL.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,425
Vancouver, BC
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.

This is again just a giant red herring.

The Hockey Hall of Fame presents itself as a global Hall for the best and greatest the sport has offered. There is no mention of 'North America' or 'NHL' in induction guidelines.

Therefore, it's only fair to expect that they hold to what they present themselves as.

Moreover, the HHOF has backed up their induction guidelines by inducting 2 players solely on international play and 2 other players mainly on international play.

Therefore, it's also only fair to expect that they are consistent in applying their induction criteria.

Is the HHOF North America and NHL-centric? Of course it is.

Prior to 1970, every high-level player on a global scale was from North America and played in the NHL.

After 1990, every high-level player from anywhere in the world was playing in the NHL.

For the periods between 1930 and 1970, and between 1990 and now, NHL play is an excellent single source of truth for evaluating player ability and which players were the finest in the world.

However, between 1970 and 1990, there was quite clearly a break from this where not all the best players were in the NHL. The HHOF was very slow to address this in their inductions, but acknowledged their error and inducted 4 players based on their play in this era.

The HHOF doesn't need to 'change' their standards to induct Makarov (and the few other players who merit induction). They just need to apply them correctly. As they did with Kharlamov and Tretiak.

Makarov meets and exceeds the standards for induction as defined by the HHOF, and clearly belongs there based on his own obvious ability and his relative achievements as compared to inducted players. There is no need to change anything or set up a new panel, and inducting him doesn't create any other issues. It's a black-and-white matter of getting it right and inducting a player who belongs.
 

Canadiens1958

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

I can see the Larinov induction, let's face it part of the reason he is in is because he stuck it to the Russian federation.

I think both Fetisov and Makarov should be in the Hall quite easily and really can't see Fetisov's "greater NHL career" (as it was presented, althoguh I highly disagree) trumping what Makarov did in those 3 Canada Cups (not to mention the rest of his impressive resume)

Vyacheslav Fetisov is in the HHOF since 2001.
 

Canadiens1958

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

This is again just a giant red herring.

The Hockey Hall of Fame presents itself as a global Hall for the best and greatest the sport has offered. There is no mention of 'North America' or 'NHL' in induction guidelines.

Therefore, it's only fair to expect that they hold to what they present themselves as.

Moreover, the HHOF has backed up their induction guidelines by inducting 2 players solely on international play and 2 other players mainly on international play.

Therefore, it's also only fair to expect that they are consistent in applying their induction criteria.

Is the HHOF North America and NHL-centric? Of course it is.

Prior to 1970, every high-level player on a global scale was from North America and played in the NHL.

After 1990, every high-level player from anywhere in the world was playing in the NHL.

For the periods between 1930 and 1970, and between 1990 and now, NHL play is an excellent single source of truth for evaluating player ability and which players were the finest in the world.

However, between 1970 and 1990, there was quite clearly a break from this where not all the best players were in the NHL. The HHOF was very slow to address this in their inductions, but acknowledged their error and inducted 4 players based on their play in this era.

The HHOF doesn't need to 'change' their standards to induct Makarov (and the few other players who merit induction). They just need to apply them correctly. As they did with Kharlamov and Tretiak.

Makarov meets and exceeds the standards for induction as defined by the HHOF, and clearly belongs there based on his own obvious ability and his relative achievements as compared to inducted players. There is no need to change anything or set up a new panel, and inducting him doesn't create any other issues. It's a black-and-white matter of getting it right and inducting a player who belongs.

Up thread post #78 and elsewhere, explanations have been provided about the composition of the HHOF Board - Rene Fasel, and The HHOF Selection Committee.

Likewise comments have been made about specific inductions Tretiak - 1989, Fetisov - 2001, Kharlamov - 2005, Larionov - 2008.

For reasons that are not clear you choose to push your singular agenda Makarov, refusing to even recognize that while the HHOF has criteria, procedures and mandates, they are not an island but an institution that has to co-exist with the IIHF HOF within the political realities of the hockey world.

To the point at hand. There is an underlying sentiment in this thread that the HHOF needs greater international representation. Going beyond the obvious problem of finding qualified candidates with the time and willingness to serve on the selection committee you have the additional problem of having to work with them and respecting their positions and the political realities that they have to deal with either at the IIHF level or the home or regional federation/organization levels.

The international representatives have loyalties to and concerns about the IIHF HOF. Pressuring them or pulling an end run on the process by having a non-international nominate an international candidate would be counter-productive.
 
Last edited:

Iain Fyffe

Hockey fact-checker
To the point at hand. There is an underlying sentiment in this thread that the HHOF needs greater international representation.
This is a misstatement. "International representation" is not a goal unto itself. It's that one of the very best players not in the Hall, who matches or exceeds similar players in qualifications, is not in the Hall. Makarov is clearly deserving of the honour, based on the Hall's own apparent, existing guidelines. This oversight should be corrected, regardless of where he played his hockey.

The international representatives have loyalties to and concerns about the IIHF HOF. Pressuring them or pulling an end run on the process by having a non-international nominate an international candidate would be counter-productive.
There are four Russians in the Hall already, two with zero NHL experience and two with NHL experience similar to Makarov's.

If Makarov would be the first Russian inducted, your words might have some merit. But considering he would be the fifth, your arguments are flimsy at best.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,425
Vancouver, BC
Up thread post #78 and elsewhere, explanations have been provided about the composition of the HHOF Board - Rene Fasel, and The HHOF Selection Committee.

Composition of the HHOF board is neither here nor there. They are put in those positions to make correct decisions on inductions, and should do so.

Canadiens1958 said:
Likewise comments have been made about specific inductions Tretiak - 1989, Fetisov - 2001, Kharlamov - 2005, Larionov - 2008.

Very weak comments that were debunked in responses by several posters, which you then proceeded to ignore.

Canadiens1958 said:
For reasons that are not clear you choose to push your singular agenda Makarov, refusing to even recognize that while the HHOF has criteria, procedures and mandates, they are not an island but an institution that has to co-exist with the IIHF HOF within the political realities of the hockey world.

?????

The IIHF HOF has absolutely nothing to do with this. I could care less about the IIHF HOF. They have a completely different mandate.

The IIHF and whatever they do had no effect on the HHOF inducting Tretiak, Kharlamov, Fetisov, and Larionov based on their international play.

I'm 'pushing the Makarov agenda' because it's an absolute crime that a guy who was a top-5 player in the world for a decade is not inducted into a Hall of Fame that presents itself as a global hall, while at the same time they are inducting comparitive hacks like Ciccarelli and Duff. His is the most obvious case of a 1970-1990 European player who should clearly be inducted.

Even if I disagree with some of the inductions, they do a solid job of presenting a good balance of the best that the sport had to offer for most eras of hockey history. This is not the case for the 1970-1990 period, where there is a gaping hole in the inductions, where some of the best players in the world have been omitted. It's in everyone's best interests to fix that hole.


Canadiens1958 said:
To the point at hand. There is an underlying sentiment in this thread that the HHOF needs greater international representation. Going beyond the obvious problem of finding qualified candidates with the time and willingness to serve on the selection committee you have the additional problem of having to work with them and respecting their positions and the political realities that they have to deal with either at the IIHF level or the home or regional federation/organization levels.

The international representatives have loyalties to and concerns about the IIHF HOF. Pressuring them or pulling an end run on the process by having a non-international nominate an international candidate would be counter-productive.

There doesn't need to be more international representatives.

The current board just need to do their job and induct the right players.

It isn't like Sergei Makarov is some giant mystery from the 1920s. The guy played a ton of games in high-profile tournaments against high-level competition and dominated. A few of the board members played/coached with and against him. We know exactly how good he was. We know where he stood in the global hockey hierarchy. We know that he was a generational talent.

We didn't need more international representatives. The induction committee as is did just fine in inducting Kharlamov, Larionov, and Fetisov. There is no reason they can't do the same for Makarov, Mikhailov, etc.

________

Again, this isn't the complicated job you're making it out to be. There are 5-8 players who merit induction, not 50.

The existing board with their current knowledge, a little homework, and some good guidence from Fasel/Stastny/etc. should be able to make the correct decisions. At least you'd hope so.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,425
Vancouver, BC
This is a misstatement. "International representation" is not a goal unto itself. It's that one of the very best players not in the Hall, who matches or exceeds similar players in qualifications, is not in the Hall. Makarov is clearly deserving of the honour, based on the Hall's own apparent, existing guidelines. This oversight should be corrected, regardless of where he played his hockey.

Well put.

It's no different than if the HHOF completely ignored PCHA players from 1915-25 while inducting NHL/NHA players. There would be a huge gap there that would obviously merit addressing.

HHOF inductions are about honouring the greatest, most important players to play the sport - no matter what league they played in. When players who obviously meet the induction guidelines are not being inducted because they didn't play in the right league, there is a major problem which affects the credibility of the inductions as a whole.

Iain Fyffe said:
There are four Russians in the Hall already, two with zero NHL experience and two with NHL experience similar to Makarov's.

If Makarov would be the first Russian inducted, your words might have some merit. But considering he would be the fifth, your arguments are flimsy at best.

Exactly.
 
Last edited:

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,981
137,353
Bojangles Parking Lot
There doesn't need to be more international representatives.

The current board just need to do their job and induct the right players.

Well, there's that too :laugh: Ideally, any 18 knowledgeable hockey fans could get together and create a perfect list of inductees.

But I've been to enough board meetings, including the Hall of Fame in my industry, to know that things are more complicated than that in reality. The crash-and-burn of the HFHOF was a glimpse of what happens when a large group brings their agendas to the table... things get sidetracked, people get frustrated, the results start to skew toward cliques and "boosters" (not a comment on the HF effort, that's just how it works in general). Board composition is extremely important in getting the results you want -- in this case, a reasonable balance between NHL and international representation.

If you have a group of 18, and only one token member represents a minority, you are going to get tokenism in your results. Look at the Russians in the HOF. Off the top, 2 of 4 were NHL players. Tretiak publicized his desire to play in Montreal, and for a lot of people seems to be a sort of icon for Soviet repression ("imagine what he would have done in the NHL if he had his freedom!", that sort of thing). It's no coincidence he was inducted in 1989. So you're left with Kharmalov alone as a non-NHL-friendly Russian player -- tokenism.

There's a Rule of Three in business that, if you want genuine diversity of opinion, you need to have at least three employees of a given minority. One or two will only give you a token presence. Once you add a third person, there's enough cross-pollination of personalities and ideas that you start to see a real culture change which affects the organization at a deeper level. IMO, given the size of the selection committee, there should be at least three members with an international-hockey background. That would be enough for players like Makarov to be nominated and discussed seriously on a higher level than just being the "pet project" of a lone international member.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->