SidGenoMario
Registered User
Why is Sergei Makarov not in the HoF? I get that he only spent a few years in the NHL, but there are non-NHLers in the hall. Even Igor Larionov is in. Why isn't Sergei Makarov? It's very odd.
Why is Sergei Makarov not in the HoF? I get that he only spent a few years in the NHL, but there are non-NHLers in the hall. Even Igor Larionov is in. Why isn't Sergei Makarov? It's very odd.
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.
Why is Sergei Makarov not in the HoF? I get that he only spent a few years in the NHL, but there are non-NHLers in the hall. Even Igor Larionov is in. Why isn't Sergei Makarov? It's very odd.
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.
...
Show how his activities in the NHL approached that of a Fetisov or a Larionov.
If there it 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).
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.
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.
Why is Sergei Makarov not in the HoF? I get that he only spent a few years in the NHL, but there are non-NHLers in the hall. Even Igor Larionov is in. Why isn't Sergei Makarov? It's very odd.
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.
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.
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.
for those who want makarov in then should also want Valeri Kamensky in
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.
.
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.
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.