So why is Makarov not in the HHOF?

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The NHLHOF has thrown a few token inductions this way (pre-NHL) and that (a couple of Soviets, no Czechoslovakians, WHA's) but it is as always essentially an NHL-run NHL-honoring hall of fame. It just has pretentions to represent all of hockey history.

The absence of Marakov is a glaring example of it.

The HHOF has a lot of pre-NHL players, as well as players from the early rival leagues. Plus Phat Wilson. It's basically a North American Hall of Fame

 

[VMBM]

He wasn't as effective as Gretzky, but to a lot of people taste, he was the most spectacular. Take stickhandling of Alexei Kovalev, add to it 2-way game of Fedorov, speed of Bure and grit of Kulemin, and you get a prime Makarov.

Agree with everything except the bolded. Makarov (with Krutov) was a terrific and very dangerous penalty killer, but I don't think you can compare him with Fedorov, as far as his defensive play in general is concerned.

 

[VMBM]

I have thought for long that 'pound for pound', Makarov was maybe the best one-on-one player ever, i.e. when taking size/height into consideration (around 5'8"-ish). All in all, perhaps due to his ridiculous size & reach, Lemieux was even more effective. And you may be able to find even more spectacular highlights of Valeri Kharlamov, but I don't think even Kharlamov was able to beat defensemen/adversaries with so great consistency as Makarov.

 

[sr edler]

Agree with everything except the bolded. Makarov (with Krutov) was a terrific and very dangerous penalty killer, but I don't think you can compare him with Fedorov, as far as his defensive play in general is concerned.

Ya, he was definitely no Fedorov as defense goes. Shifty though, he was shifty.

 

[Batis]

I have thought for long that 'pound for pound', Makarov was maybe the best one-on-one player ever, i.e. when taking size/height into consideration (around 5'8"-ish). All in all, perhaps due to his ridiculous size & reach, Lemieux was even more effective. And you may be able to find even more spectacular highlights of Valeri Kharlamov, but I don't think even Kharlamov was able to beat defensemen/adversaries with so great consistency as Makarov.

I agree with this. Of the players that I have seen play enough to judge Lemieux is the only one I rank ahead of Makarov when it comes to one against one situations.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree with this. Of the players that I have seen play enough to judge Lemieux is the only one I rank ahead of Makarov when it comes to one against one situations.

Would Kharlamov be included in that?

 

[Batis]

Would Kharlamov be included in that?

Yes he was included. I think that Kharlamov and Makarov are close in that regard. But while Kharlamov may have been more spectacular in one-on-one situations Makarov was in my opinion even more efficient when it came to beating his defenceman. Meaning that I personally feel that Kharlamov at times seemed to try more difficult moves that were more likely to fail than Makarovs more subtle but in my opinion more efficient moves. Both were amazing in those situations of course but if my team got a one-on-one situation with the game on the line and 20 seconds left on the clock Makarov would be the player that I would rather have in that situation.

Edit: I should probably add that I am too young to have seen Kharlamov and Makarov play in real-time at their best. But ever since I was a kid Soviet hockey has been one of my main interests (thanks to the stories that my father and uncle told me) and in recent years I have spent countless hours watching old games and learned as much as I can about those amazing players that I idolized while all the other kids favourite players were called Bure, Fedorov, Jagr or Forsberg So don't mistake me for someone who watched the entire primes of Kharlamov and Makarov. My opinion is based on watching the available old games of these players.

 

[Fantomas]

If it's NA-centrism you mean when you write "politics" then I do agree with you.

It's both.

Inducing Larionov and Fetisov into the Hall of Fame is a symbolic celebration of capitalism's victory over communism.

 

[Theokritos]

Merged this thread with one from last year dealing with exactly the same topic.

It's both.

Inducing Larionov and Fetisov into the Hall of Fame is a symbolic celebration of capitalism's victory over communism.

Do you believe they would have been induced into the Hall if they left the NHL in the mid-1990s and didn't win the Cup?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It's both.

Inducing Larionov and Fetisov into the Hall of Fame is a symbolic celebration of capitalism's victory over communism.

Do you believe they would have been induced into the Hall if they left the NHL in the mid-1990s and didn't win the Cup?

i think that's part of the point. makarov comes over, and by the way is awesome, but feuds with almost all of his north american coaches. krutov comes over and is a trainwreck. both of those guys don't fit the narrative that they were just "yearning to breathe free" over in the soviet union under tikhonov.

whereas larionov and fetisov came over and, as their success in detroit is meant to communicate, they bought in enthusiastically, even though the truth of their early years in the NHL is a little less black and white. they were also, of course, the two to challenge tikhonov, and CSKA, and fight for their release. as well as the best english speakers in the green unit. (and also the blondest, but that's probably going too far.)

two halves of the same coin: their latter day success, we can all agree, is trivial relative to what all five guys achieved in the 80s. what made that late career success notable for the HHOF, and worthy of celebrating, was that it capped off a long struggle against the totalitarian soviet system. you can't make that claim with makarov, who came over and publicly suggested that the soviet system made better use of his abilities. or with krutov, who was ruined by western capitalism; that guy, it seems, needed the totalitarian state and soviet sports bureaucracy to shine. those latter two don't fit the assimilationist narrative.

 

[BayStreetBully]

Makarov should have a great chance for the Hall in 2016. Lindros too.

 

[sr edler]

whereas larionov and fetisov came over and, as their success in detroit is meant to communicate, they bought in enthusiastically, even though the truth of their early years in the NHL is a little less black and white. they were also, of course, the two to challenge tikhonov, and CSKA, and fight for their release. as well as the best english speakers in the green unit. (and also the blondest, but that's probably going too far.)

Fetisov & Larionov were more into the politics of it, yes. And allegedly more intellectual. One of them even sports nerdy glasses and drink wine.

 

[Fantomas]

Do you believe they would have been induced into the Hall if they left the NHL in the mid-1990s and didn't win the Cup?

Fetisov and Larionov? I think they still would have been in.

I think there are three contributing factors: a) These players' excellence on the International stage against NHLers (Rendez Vous, Canada Cups), b) Their role as critics of Tikhonov and the old system, c) Their NHL accomplishments.

The NHL accomplishments are not irrelevant, but I think A) and B) is what makes these players special in North American hockey lore.

 

[Fantomas]

i think that's part of the point. makarov comes over, and by the way is awesome, but feuds with almost all of his north american coaches. krutov comes over and is a trainwreck. both of those guys don't fit the narrative that they were just "yearning to breathe free" over in the soviet union under tikhonov.

whereas larionov and fetisov came over and, as their success in detroit is meant to communicate, they bought in enthusiastically, even though the truth of their early years in the NHL is a little less black and white. they were also, of course, the two to challenge tikhonov, and CSKA, and fight for their release. as well as the best english speakers in the green unit. (and also the blondest, but that's probably going too far.)

two halves of the same coin: their latter day success, we can all agree, is trivial relative to what all five guys achieved in the 80s. what made that late career success notable for the HHOF, and worthy of celebrating, was that it capped off a long struggle against the totalitarian soviet system. you can't make that claim with makarov, who came over and publicly suggested that the soviet system made better use of his abilities. or with krutov, who was ruined by western capitalism; that guy, it seems, needed the totalitarian state and soviet sports bureaucracy to shine. those latter two don't fit the assimilationist narrative.

Ironically Fetisov made some similar complaints about the NHL style as those of Makarov, but those fell on deaf ears. At least until the recent documentary "Red Army".

Fetisov was never an enthusiastic consumer of American culture, but I think most people assumed he was because of the Tikhonov rebellion.

 

[Theokritos]

Fetisov and Larionov? I think they still would have been in.

I think there are three contributing factors: a) These players' excellence on the International stage against NHLers (Rendez Vous, Canada Cups), b) Their role as critics of Tikhonov and the old system, c) Their NHL accomplishments.

The NHL accomplishments are not irrelevant, but I think A) and B) is what makes these players special in North American hockey lore.

Conversely, do you think Makarov would still not be in the Hall if he played the role of a respected veteran in a Stanley Cup winning campaign in the mid to late 1990s?

 

[Fantomas]

Conversely, do you think Makarov would still not be in the Hall if he played the role of a respected veteran in a Stanley Cup winning campaign in the mid to late 1990s?

I think this would aid the existing campaign to induct him. But he would still be on the heels of the other two (even though he is a superior player).

 

[The Panther]

We need to start a thread of "most bizarre photos" of hockey players, with this one at the top.

 

[Sentinel]

Fetisov was never an enthusiastic consumer of American culture, but I think most people assumed he was because of the Tikhonov rebellion.

I wouldn't say that. He enjoyed his American lifestyle rather fully.

I ran into him and his daughters in the Russian Vodka Room lounge in Manhattan in 2002. He was a Devils coach then. Funnily enough, for reasons I can't remember, I had a Red Wings Jersey on. Fetisov looked stunned at the sight of the Winged Wheel, but after I gave him a few compliments, he warmed up and we had a short chat.

 

[Sentinel]

Conversely, do you think Makarov would still not be in the Hall if he played the role of a respected veteran in a Stanley Cup winning campaign in the mid to late 1990s?

Had it been Makarov, not Larionov, traded from San Jose, there is no doubt he would already be enshrined. He could then play wing to Fedorov's center... oooh...

 

[patnyrnyg]

I know this has been discussed to death, but I find it utterly outrageous that he hasn't been inducted to the HOF. I'm certainly no expert on Russian hockey pre-1990, but good god-

Calder Trophy (1990)
Olympic Gold Medal (1984 & 1988) The Soviet Union
MVP Soviet League (1980, 1985, 1989)
Izvestia Trophy (Soviet League Leading Scorer) (1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989)

I feel like there is a span of 6 or 7 years where you could make a realistic argument for him being the second best player in the world. Im not going to bring up the whole "he is better than X and X is in" because I think that argument makes no sense, but how has this guy been ignored for a decade?

I don't think anyone on the voting committee takes those Olympic Golds seriously.

 

[Fantomas]

I wouldn't say that. He enjoyed his American lifestyle rather fully.

I ran into him and his daughters in the Russian Vodka Room lounge in Manhattan in 2002. He was a Devils coach then. Funnily enough, for reasons I can't remember, I had a Red Wings Jersey on. Fetisov looked stunned at the sight of the Winged Wheel, but after I gave him a few compliments, he warmed up and we had a short chat.

But he had toska, if you know what I mean.

 

[Sentinel]

But he had toska, if you know what I mean.

I do (it's usually an excuse for Russians to get hammered), but in his book "Overtime" IIRC he admires Western way of life.

 

[Sadekuuro]

We need to start a thread of "most bizarre photos" of hockey players, with this one at the top.

Is it really more bizarre than that one of Mark Messier and Gary Coleman?

 

[Kshahdoo]

I don't think anyone on the voting committee takes those Olympic Golds seriously.

But what about Canada Cup 81? And the whole hockey world saw how good Makarov was in Canada Cup 87. If he'd had as much TOI then, as Gretzki and Lemieux, I'm sure, he'd have scored even more points, but Soviet system was different. I mean, they had all 4 lines playing on PP.

 

[Batis]

But what about Canada Cup 81? And the whole hockey world saw how good Makarov was in Canada Cup 87. If he'd had as much TOI then, as Gretzki and Lemieux, I'm sure, he'd have scored even more points, but Soviet system was different. I mean, they had all 4 lines playing on PP.

Makarov was also very good in the 1984 Canada Cup where he made the all-star team. He was tied for 2nd in the tournaments goalscoring race despite playing two games less than all the other players at the top of that list. Makarov was 1st in goals per game and 8th in points per game and as mentioned earlier in the thread he was only minutes away from having scored the game winning goal in the semifinal against Canada. If not for Canadas late equalizer it is quite likely that the Soviets would have won the tournament and Makarov would have led the tournament in goalscoring. Small margins.

Having recently watched all the available Canada Cup games of Makarov I would personally rank his performance per tournament like this.

1. 1987
2. 1984
3. 1981