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.