Valeri Kharlamov vs. Sergei Makarov

[Cruor]

In Finland, many 60s/70s players - Veli-Pekka Ketola among them - prefer Anatoli Firsov over Kharlamov... and they played against them both.

Firsov commands a great deal of respect in Sweden too, my old man to this day maintains that Firsov was the best Soviet he ever saw play. Maybe it's like with bands, if you catch them on a off day you might never know what the fuss was about

 

[Yakushev72]

The time might be right. I've seen Makarov's stock rise during the past few years (due to more videos being available nowadays?), and there seems to be more and more talk of late along the lines of "Kharlamov is overrated".

I'm pretty sure that in Russia, this poll would be a no contest - at least among the older crowd; Kharlamov's legend is so strong. I'd still say that it's not revisionistic to actually debate which one was better. Namely, Kharlamov was an enourmously popular player even during his lifetime and arguably had more charisma than Makarov. His untimely death has also contributed to his legend; it's almost impossible for any other Soviet player to compete against that. He was the first player to really skate circles around Canadian proffs (1972). However, Kharlamov's "clear superiority" over Makarov is really hard to justify from today's point of view in my opinion.

Some of their accolades etc.:

|Valeri Kharlamov |Sergei Makarov
Top 5 scoring, Soviet league |1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th |1st x 8
Soviet MVP |2 times |3 times
Soviet All-Star, first team |7 times| 10 times
WC Best Forward |- |2 times
WC Top 5 Scoring |5 times |6 times
WC All-Star |4 times |8 times

It could be said that Kharlamov had more competition (i.e. other star players) both internationally and in the Soviet league, so it was harder for him to dominate, though I think that CSKA and the Soviet national team were actually somewhat stronger as teams in the Eighties. But maybe more significant is that Makarov seemed to distinguish himself from his team-/linemates somewhat (although sometimes Krutov was close), whereas Kharlamov never really did that, as far as statistics are concerned. In the Soviet league, for example, Kharlamov did not do as well as Mikhailov or especially 'the third man on the line', Petrov, stats-wise. I've sometimes wondered, if Kharlamov - as a very important player - was occasionally "saved" for the international tournaments like WCs and Olympics, or was he simply more injury-prone than his linemates? Anyway, it was a slightly similar situation with Anatoli Firsov; often Firsov was clearly the best Soviet player in a WC or Olympics, but never truly dominated the Soviet league in scoring.

Kharlamov's and Makarov's play in best-on-best situations...
Makarov played - and played excellently, I might add - in 3 Canada Cups, whereas Kharlamov played in none, as he was badly injured before the 1976 tournament and was 'too old', and actually dead, before the 1981 CC. However, in my mind at least, the 1972 Summit Series makes up for a lot of that. Yep, Makarov faced better Team Canadas (at least on paper) than Kharlamov, but I don't think any of the Canada Cups compare to the heat and the pressure of the 1972 Series. And don't forget, Kharlamov was the player whom the Canadians had to take out to get an advantage. Kharlamov was also clearly the best CSKA player in the 1975-76 Super Series, which arguably remains the most significant (and best-remembered) CSKA vs. NHL series there ever was.

Kharlamov & Makarov highlights on YouTube (probably not overly helpful though):

Kharlamov


Makarov


Some of their better full games on YouTube:

Kharlamov:
1972 Summit Series, game 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z34w_w6pHUg

1972 Summit Series, game 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYnveEDunfQ

1975-76 Super Series, CSKA vs. NY Rangers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzRgC9SeQcM

1975-76 Super Series, CSKA vs. Boston Bruins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Txy4u_b8ds


Makarov:
1981 Canada Cup final
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQHmdxGYkfQ

1982 World Championships, medal round, USSR vs. Canada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXeyMBBKiHc

1985-86 Super Series, CSKA vs. Montreal Canadiens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1d3NWl1nN4

1987 Canada Cup finals, game 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aadw7wDcnfc

I've seen quite a few games of them both, and in my opinion, at his best, Kharlamov was maybe a little bit better than Makarov. On the other hand, I see Makarov as the more consistent performer. That also has something to do with the fact that Kharlamov was simply not the same player after 1976 (car accident that broke his leg). In some post-1976 games, he still looked like the Kharlamov of old, but often too he was a shadow of his former self. His absolute peak (ca 1972-1976) was brilliant, though.

Summa summarum, IMO peak goes to Kharlamov, career (and prime?) to Makarov. Usually I go with peak, but I think Makarov's edge in career makes up for a lot, so I vote "I can't decide" myself.

PS. Please notify, if you see something wrong...

Its hard to rate someone ahead of Sergei Makarov based on sheer speed, balance, strength on skates and open ice stickhandling ability, but I have to rate Kharlamov as the best forward I have ever seen in each of those categories. Kharlamov had an almost magical ability to skate in on multiple defenders all alone, with nothing ever touching anything until the puck hit the back of the net. To illustrate that, check out his goal early in the 2nd period of Game 1, 1972 Series; and his goal toward the end of the 1st period (with CSKA) on December 25, 1975, against the New York Rangers.

Against Canada, he came in alone against Don Awrey and Rod Seiling, blew by them to the outside and walked in untouched against Ken Dryden. Nothing touched anything until the puck ripped the back of the net behind Dryden. Against the Rangers, he came in alone against 4 Rangers defenders (count them!) lined up along the blue line. He made a deke the way that only he could do, split the defenders, and walked in alone against Goalie John Davidson. Nothing touched anything throughout the entire play until the puck hit the back of the net. And these are not isolated instances. If you check out YouTube, you will find all kinds of instances where Kharlamov does the same thing. Unbelievably amazihng!

 

[Yakushev72]

He was 33 when he died and already on the decline points wise. And it's not like Orr had a "full career" himself.

In my mind, there are huge parallels between Kharlamov and Bobby Orr. Both were in a class by themselves in World hockey until sustaining serious leg injuries that changed the trajectories of their careers. In my mind, the greatest hockey player of all time was Bobby Orr, with Kharlamov breathing inches behind him.

 

[Yakushev72]

Firsov commands a great deal of respect in Sweden too, my old man to this day maintains that Firsov was the best Soviet he ever saw play. Maybe it's like with bands, if you catch them on a off day you might never know what the fuss was about

Your Dad may have a point! There is no doubt that Firsov was the dominant Soviet player of the 1960's. A lot of people speculated what would have happened if Firsov would have played in the '72 Series (he was only 31 years old at the time). He was such a dominant player and prolific goal scorer that you have to wonder whether his offense would have been enough the put the Soviets over the top in the '72 Series?

 

[VMBM]

Firsov commands a great deal of respect in Sweden too, my old man to this day maintains that Firsov was the best Soviet he ever saw play. Maybe it's like with bands, if you catch them on a off day you might never know what the fuss was about

Too bad Firsov was not at his best and/or was not considered 'indispensable' to Team USSR in the fall of 1972 anymore. He could've been a bigger legend in North America too. Then again, it's always possible he would've looked like the other 60s icon, Vyacheslav Starshinov, who played in game 2 of the '72 series and was basically invisible throughout the game and did not see any ice-time after that.

There are some games with Firsov available on YouTube:

1968 Winter Olympics (Grenoble)

USSR vs. West Germany
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv6W3Hgqfpg

USSR vs. Finland (not the full game)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi_mO...feature=relmfu

USSR vs. USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6mXZrjHTmI

USSR vs. Sweden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXtduIuhxm8

USSR vs. Canada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cro0xb0C6Eg

Those games are hardly equivalent to Summit Series etc., but that tournament was arbuably one of Firsov's best and one gets at least some idea of him as a player.

PS. Kharlamov actually was a top 5 scorer at the WCs 6 times (1969, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977 and 1979), and not 5 times like I originally had. My bad, adding to Kharlamov's misery like that

 

[Sentinel]

It's amazing how underrated Makarov is in Russia. His number is still not retired either by CSKA or in the national team. People sometimes rank him below Balderis and Kapustin!

 

[Big Phil]

In my mind, there are huge parallels between Kharlamov and Bobby Orr. Both were in a class by themselves in World hockey until sustaining serious leg injuries that changed the trajectories of their careers. In my mind, the greatest hockey player of all time was Bobby Orr, with Kharlamov breathing inches behind him.

Really? That is a far stretch. I loved watching Kharlamov play but it is very difficult to judge Russians from that era because we only ever saw them at a time when they peaked during the year. In other words, there was less competition for them all year and their training had them geared towards Canada Cups and World Championships where they played their best. It is hard to predict how Kharlamov would have fared in the NHL in an 80 game season in the 1970s. Truth is, he probably would have been fine, even a star, but I think that's pretty high praise putting him even close to Orr.

 

[Sentinel]

Really? That is a far stretch. I loved watching Kharlamov play but it is very difficult to judge Russians from that era because we only ever saw them at a time when they peaked during the year. In other words, there was less competition for them all year and their training had them geared towards Canada Cups and World Championships where they played their best. It is hard to predict how Kharlamov would have fared in the NHL in an 80 game season in the 1970s. Truth is, he probably would have been fine, even a star, but I think that's pretty high praise putting him even close to Orr.

WCs -- definitely yes. CCs? Not really. In 1976, 1984, and 1991 they sent seriously substandard teams. In fact, club superseries were given a lot more weight (and, of course, Olympics). Which is probably why Soviet teams have a better record than NHL teams.

Kharlamov would do just fine in a regular NHL championship. Montreal was drooling over him in late 70s.

 

[Zine]

Really? That is a far stretch. I loved watching Kharlamov play but it is very difficult to judge Russians from that era because we only ever saw them at a time when they peaked during the year. In other words, there was less competition for them all year and their training had them geared towards Canada Cups and World Championships where they played their best. It is hard to predict how Kharlamov would have fared in the NHL in an 80 game season in the 1970s. Truth is, he probably would have been fine, even a star, but I think that's pretty high praise putting him even close to Orr.

Not necessarily.

In N.A. there's a misconception that Soviet hockey was this well oiled machine . Quite often (during Kharlamov's prime) national team selection was predicated on rival coaches settling accounts with eachother. The senile Tarasov, alcoholic Bobrov, ineffective Kulagin.

 

[VMBM]

WCs -- definitely yes. CCs? Not really. In 1976, 1984, and 1991 they sent seriously substandard teams. In fact, club superseries were given a lot more weight (and, of course, Olympics). Which is probably why Soviet teams have a better record than NHL teams.

1976 and 1991 definitely, but remind me what was so seriously wrong with the 1984 CC Team USSR. Fetisov was injured and didn't play, and I think they seriously missed him (e.g. if you look at their power play in the semifinal vs. Canada), but there were still KLM + Kasatonov. Okay, also Khomutov, Drozdetsky and Bykov could have been in the lineup instead of some other players, but I don't think any of them was irreplaceable at the time. At least it wasn't the same as in 1976, when they basically had the whole top and 2nd line missing.

Kharlamov would do just fine in a regular NHL championship. Montreal was drooling over him in late 70s.

Agreed. Somehow I don't doubt Kharlamov's chances in the NHL at all. He was just that kind of player. And it should be reminded that the best USSR players often played ca 80-90 games a season (Soviet league games, WCs [/Olympics], exhibition games, tours in North America etc. etc.).

 

[Big Phil]

WCs -- definitely yes. CCs? Not really. In 1976, 1984, and 1991 they sent seriously substandard teams. In fact, club superseries were given a lot more weight (and, of course, Olympics). Which is probably why Soviet teams have a better record than NHL teams.

Kharlamov would do just fine in a regular NHL championship. Montreal was drooling over him in late 70s.

By 1991 they were all pretty much over here and Soviet hockey was divided. This is why they could care less about 1991. I'm never sure why they did what they did in 1976. Protest against the Flyers from earlier in the year? Who knows. But like mentioned already I think the 1984 team was still superb and capable of winning.

Oh hey, look Kharlamov was a great talent. He would have looked great on Montreal. But let's compare him with one of his more common contemporaries who often gets mentioned alongside of him - Guy Lafleur. Could he have done what Lafleur did? The Hart/Art Ross trophies, the clutch scoring in the postseason, etc? I think before you even mention Bobby Orr's name you have to see if he can even be compared favourably to Lafleur.

 

[Boom Boom Bear]

Makarov is thrashing Kharlamov in the poll;
yet, the HOH "community" has Kharlamov
wayyyy ahead of Makarov in their "Top 70 players of all time":

35. Kharalamov
61. Makarov

what has changed?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Makarov is thrashing Kharlamov in the poll;
yet, the HOH "community" has Kharlamov
wayyyy ahead of Makarov in their "Top 70 players of all time":

35. Kharalamov
61. Makarov

what has changed?

I think there has been a move towards judging old Soviet players the same way we judge NHL players - where stats, awards recognition, and longevity matter. Makarov kills Kharlamov in all of those.

In the past, I think we more or less deferred to the traditional methods that Soviet fans judged their players, and Kharlamov was a legend there.

 

[Fred Taylor]

I've always felt that Kharlamov was very overrated based on his accomplishments, and that Makarov was underrated based on his. I admittedly was too young to appreciate any games of Kharlamov in his prime, but I still believe Makarov was actually the better hockey player.

 

[Zine]

Tough poll.

In many ways I think the patterned and structured Soviet style hindered Kharlamov's ability.

 

[Yakushev72]

Really? That is a far stretch. I loved watching Kharlamov play but it is very difficult to judge Russians from that era because we only ever saw them at a time when they peaked during the year. In other words, there was less competition for them all year and their training had them geared towards Canada Cups and World Championships where they played their best. It is hard to predict how Kharlamov would have fared in the NHL in an 80 game season in the 1970s. Truth is, he probably would have been fine, even a star, but I think that's pretty high praise putting him even close to Orr.

Just watch the Soviets from that era play on the ice - that's all you really need to know. I never understood that argument that the Soviets would have had a tough time with an 80 game schedule. After all, it was the Canadians in 1972 who were in dreadful shape, not the Soviets! Whether it was 80 games or 500 practices, the Soviets maintained a level of conditioning that was from another planet!

 

[Yakushev72]

Makarov is thrashing Kharlamov in the poll;
yet, the HOH "community" has Kharlamov
wayyyy ahead of Makarov in their "Top 70 players of all time":

35. Kharalamov
61. Makarov

what has changed?

The date! A lot more people are more familiar with Makarov than with Kharlamov because he played more recently.

 

[jkrx]

By 1991 they were all pretty much over here and Soviet hockey was divided. This is why they could care less about 1991. I'm never sure why they did what they did in 1976. Protest against the Flyers from earlier in the year? Who knows. But like mentioned already I think the 1984 team was still superb and capable of winning.

Oh hey, look Kharlamov was a great talent. He would have looked great on Montreal. But let's compare him with one of his more common contemporaries who often gets mentioned alongside of him - Guy Lafleur. Could he have done what Lafleur did? The Hart/Art Ross trophies, the clutch scoring in the postseason, etc? I think before you even mention Bobby Orr's name you have to see if he can even be compared favourably to Lafleur.

Yes, he could have done what Lafleur did more or less.

 

[Kshahdoo]

Makarov is thrashing Kharlamov in the poll;
yet, the HOH "community" has Kharlamov
wayyyy ahead of Makarov in their "Top 70 players of all time":

35. Kharalamov
61. Makarov

what has changed?

Hehe, that's just overall very interesting list. I mean let's take Canada Cup 87 and compare Makarov to Mark Messier. Both were in their prime, both were on great teams, but Messier was nowhere near Makarov. Sure, Messier had better NHL statistics, but Makarov of NHL was like half the Makarov of Soviet times. And still he was very good. Just imagine a European player who comes to NHL nowdays at age 31 and becomes a star. And it's nowdays when training and medicine are like 10 times better than 20+ years ago (especially in USSR).

 

[Big Phil]

Yes, he could have done what Lafleur did more or less.

Well how do we know though? Because personally, I can't say for sure that he could have. Bottom line what you are saying, is that Kharlamov would have been the best player in the NHL for a few years. This is where Lafleur ranks. I think it downgrades Lafleur a bit when people assume Kharlamov could have done everything he did, as if it were easy.

Just watch the Soviets from that era play on the ice - that's all you really need to know. I never understood that argument that the Soviets would have had a tough time with an 80 game schedule. After all, it was the Canadians in 1972 who were in dreadful shape, not the Soviets! Whether it was 80 games or 500 practices, the Soviets maintained a level of conditioning that was from another planet!

I have, of course. There is little doubt some of them are stars, on what level is another story though and that's hard to measure.

 

[Sentinel]

By 1991 they were all pretty much over here and Soviet hockey was divided. This is why they could care less about 1991. I'm never sure why they did what they did in 1976. Protest against the Flyers from earlier in the year? Who knows. But like mentioned already I think the 1984 team was still superb and capable of winning.

In 1976 Kharlamov was injured in a car accident, and the animosity between Bobrov, Tarasov, Kulagin, and others was at its peak. In 1984 they were missing the entire 2nd line. The only time when Canada Cup REALLY mattered was 1981, after a certain slap in the face from a group of American college kids.

Oh hey, look Kharlamov was a great talent. He would have looked great on Montreal. But let's compare him with one of his more common contemporaries who often gets mentioned alongside of him - Guy Lafleur. Could he have done what Lafleur did? The Hart/Art Ross trophies, the clutch scoring in the postseason, etc? I think before you even mention Bobby Orr's name you have to see if he can even be compared favourably to Lafleur.

Hard to know for sure, but I think he would match Lafleur.

 

[Yakushev72]

By 1991 they were all pretty much over here and Soviet hockey was divided. This is why they could care less about 1991. I'm never sure why they did what they did in 1976. Protest against the Flyers from earlier in the year? Who knows. But like mentioned already I think the 1984 team was still superb and capable of winning.

Oh hey, look Kharlamov was a great talent. He would have looked great on Montreal. But let's compare him with one of his more common contemporaries who often gets mentioned alongside of him - Guy Lafleur. Could he have done what Lafleur did? The Hart/Art Ross trophies, the clutch scoring in the postseason, etc? I think before you even mention Bobby Orr's name you have to see if he can even be compared favourably to Lafleur.

The CC was a brand new exhibition tournament that had no status with the IIHF in terms of conferring a championship title. The Soviets treated it like an exhibition tournament by sending young, inexperienced players, presumably to test their ability against top international competition. It was the first we saw of guys like Balderis, Kapustin, the Golikov brothers, etc.

 

[Yakushev72]

Well how do we know though? Because personally, I can't say for sure that he could have. Bottom line what you are saying, is that Kharlamov would have been the best player in the NHL for a few years. This is where Lafleur ranks. I think it downgrades Lafleur a bit when people assume Kharlamov could have done everything he did, as if it were easy.



I have, of course. There is little doubt some of them are stars, on what level is another story though and that's hard to measure.

When they played against the stars of the NHL, they were always equal in every facet of the game. Every single series they played against the NHL was at least razor close!

 

[Zine]

The CC was a brand new exhibition tournament that had no status with the IIHF in terms of conferring a championship title. The Soviets treated it like an exhibition tournament by sending young, inexperienced players, presumably to test their ability against top international competition. It was the first we saw of guys like Balderis, Kapustin, the Golikov brothers, etc.

Well that was the official party line.

Tretiak has since claimed that Kulagin/Tikhonov power struggle caused players to be omitted.

 

[VMBM]

Hehe, that's just overall very interesting list. I mean let's take Canada Cup 87 and compare Makarov to Mark Messier. Both were in their prime, both were on great teams, but Messier was nowhere near Makarov. Sure, Messier had better NHL statistics, but Makarov of NHL was like half the Makarov of Soviet times. And still he was very good. Just imagine a European player who comes to NHL nowdays at age 31 and becomes a star. And it's nowdays when training and medicine are like 10 times better than 20+ years ago (especially in USSR).

I think Messier was much better than Larionov in '87 CC, though. And his main job vs. the Soviets, i.e. as the center, was actually to hinder Larionov's play.

Along with Gretzky and Lemieux, Makarov and Krutov were the best forwards in the tournament, not much question about that. But Makarov's role was quite different to Messier's, I think.

Edit:
Heh, good ol' Devil already kind of countered this in another thread.

The CC was a brand new exhibition tournament that had no status with the IIHF in terms of conferring a championship title. The Soviets treated it like an exhibition tournament by sending young, inexperienced players, presumably to test their ability against top international competition. It was the first we saw of guys like Balderis, Kapustin, the Golikov brothers, etc.

Actually, Kapustin had already played in the 1974 World Championships, and was the top goal-scorer there, I think. He also played against WHA's Team Canada in 1974, so he was hardly an 'inexperienced player' around the 1976 CC *nitpicking*

In their North American tours vs. WHA clubs, they were clearly doing that (i.e. testing inexperienced players), but are there clear signs of this regarding the Canada Cups?
Sure, the 1976 Canada Cup was definitely treated lightly by the Soviets - unfortunately IMO. But later on (except 1991), I'm pretty sure that the Soviets were always fairly motivated to beat the best possible Team Canada on their home-ice... and knowing Tikhonov... although he always liked to give the impression "yeah, we're just testing players" in public, privately he seemed to care a lot more about the Canadian/NHL 'scalps' he had gotten (e.g. Scotty Bowman's in 1979 and 1981).

Tikhonov has said that winning the 1978 world championship in Prague was the happiest moment of his coaching career, and I believe him; losing would've been a disaster for Soviet hockey (three losses in a row - unforgivable), and he might have been fired (though later he somehow managed to keep his job after the 1980 Olympic fiasco). It makes sense that the World Championships and especially the Olympics were more important to the Soviets, because those were the tournaments USSR simply had to win. With Canada Cups, it was different;"if we win it, great, if we lose, no one's gonna blame us too much." I can sort of understand that. However, while in many ways Canada Cup wasn't perfect, it was still the only true international best-on-best tournament there was back then, and if the Soviets treated it with indifference, well, it was their problem I guess.