HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Last soviet generation defs to HHoF: any chance?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-27-2012, 11:58 AM
  #26
PelagicJoe
Registered User
 
PelagicJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 433
vCash: 570
I think Vladimir Konstantinov would have had a decent shot at being the HoF if his career wasn't tragically cut short.

PelagicJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 12:23 PM
  #27
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
IIHF HoF

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
I meant logically speaking as in Makarov is superior compared to Zubov and Gonchar so logically they should have no chance.

List of players performance as rookies over 30


People use the age against Makarov but I'll say that age is a disadvantage. You have a heavily reduced ability to adapt and learn new things compared to a kid in his late-teens or early twenties.
Should Zubov and Gonchar make the IIHF HoF?

There is the rub since the IIHF is housed in the HHOF in Toronto.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2012, 03:30 AM
  #28
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
I take Larionov over Krutov any day. Sure, Vladimir was a tank and a great scorer, but people with Professor's vision, passing, hockey sense, leadership, and durability come once in a great while.
May I ask, how old are you?

I might be generalizing, but it has seemed to me that those who favour Larionov over Krutov are usually young(ish) and/or North Americans, and those old geezers who watched them throughout the Eighties - like me - tend to think that Krutov was better.

Krutov was an excellent passer too. And skater. And dangler. Certainly NOT just a 'power forward'. Take the 1987 Canada Cup, for example. Which Soviet player has ever performed so well in such high-quality series? That is not just him 'benefiting from a five-man unit'; you really have to be an ignoramus thinking that. It's a great individual performance by a player. Period. And the thing is, he was that good around 1987. BTW, I would also advice to watch Krutov as a 19-old in the pre-Olympic game vs. USA in 1980, which is available on YouTube. Krutov scores 3 goals, and at least to me, looks like the best Soviet player. The same thing with the actual Olympics (Lake Placid), Krutov was one of the very few really good Soviet players in the tournament.

I never felt that Larionov was a key player on the Green Unit. It would have functioned (and it did!) just fine without him. I remember Kasatonov also saying that he saw Fetisov, Makarov and even Krutov as key players - not himself or Larionov. And hey, Slava Fetisov was the leader of that unit, not Larionov (even Larionov says so in the Swedish documentary on the famous five).
Compare Larionov's and Krutov's USSR/international stats & awards & accolades & whatever, Krutov's are easily more impressive.

Yes, if I was to make an all-time list (where both peak AND career matter), then I would probably have to - grudginly - take Larionov over Krutov. You can't really ignore what happened in their later careers. But neither is in my Soviet/Russian top 10 all-time.

Maybe this should be another thread, but there you go.


Last edited by VMBM: 07-28-2012 at 03:40 AM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2012, 04:12 AM
  #29
Kshahdoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 3,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I think the simple fact is that Hall selections are from a completely North American perspective. European league play and World Championship play mean nothing, because North Americans don't care about that. It's all about the Summit Series, Canada Cups, and the NHL.

But even under that criteria it seems to me that Makarov should be in easily. Maybe Canada Cups don't really count for that much...

Looking beyond Europeans, it seems to be important that a player's career have a satisfying narrative. This is why Eric Lindros has fallen short. Yes, he was a great player at his peak. But he refused to play in Quebec, clashed with Flyers management, led an NHL team to being swept in the finals, led Team Canada to finishing out of the medals, and retired without a Stanley Cup at a young age. His career included several high profile failures and incidents, and he failed to live up to expectations. You can almost forget that for a time he was an incredible player.

Makarov is similar in a way. For years people said "Those Soviet players are great, imagine if we could see them in the NHL." But when they came over they failed to live up to expectations, and there was a sense of disappointment. Fetisov and Larionov redeemed themselves by playing for a long time and by winning a Stanley Cup - and it probably didn't hurt that the Russian Five were prominent in Detroit's success. Makarov did not win a Cup despite joining the defending Cup champions and retired at 36. Is this fair to Makarov? Probably not, for several reasons you gave. But I think it's the way the committee has thought.

And yet the committee was willing to induct Mark Howe after over a decade, so there's still hope. Howe had several narrative strikes against him. Lots of expectations coming out of junior and didn't quite live up to expectations. Playing for years in the WHA. Never winning a Stanley Cup. No Norris trophies. But he was still inducted after some time, because he was a great player. And with Larionov on the committee, you know Makarov's name will be discussed over the years.
Imagine a 31 years old european who'd never have played a single game in the NHL and come right now and immediately become a 60 pts player. I bet you will say it's impossible... Makarov was a PPG player for a few years. Sure it was a different era, but anyway.

And he came to NA from another world, not just country. You can't imagine the difference between USSR and America... It was like... i don't know... being an ant and come to live to spiders...

Kshahdoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2012, 04:47 AM
  #30
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Should Zubov and Gonchar make the IIHF HoF?

There is the rub since the IIHF is housed in the HHOF in Toronto.
IIHF is for international careers only. If hockey hall of fame changes name to NHL Hall of fame then Makarov would not be eligble. As of now they have decided to induct Tretiak and Kharlamov so they have decided that some international stars warrants an induction which makes the lack of a Makarov iduction baffeling.

Zubov has bsically a none existant record internationally so no.

Gonchar hasn't been good enough for Russia. No there too.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2012, 06:27 AM
  #31
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Relationship

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
IIHF is for international careers only. If hockey hall of fame changes name to NHL Hall of fame then Makarov would not be eligble. As of now they have decided to induct Tretiak and Kharlamov so they have decided that some international stars warrants an induction which makes the lack of a Makarov iduction baffeling.

Zubov has bsically a none existant record internationally so no.

Gonchar hasn't been good enough for Russia. No there too.
The relationship between The HHOF and the IIHF HOF has to be addressed. Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Pavel Bure, Valeri Kharlamov, Vladislav Tretiak, Vyacheslav Fetisov, Igor Larianov are in both, Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr are in the the HHOF only. Some builders are in both while others are in one only.

Similar to Zubov and Gonchar lacking International achievements the point may be made that Sergei Makarov comes up short in North American achievements.

A comparison may be made to Phil Housley being in the IIHF HOF while Bobby Orr is not. Yet Orr compares favourably to Fetisov while Housley does not. Likewise in the international sphere all Housley offers is longevity over Orr.

Vaclav Nedomansky and Sergei Makarov both came to NA after the age of 30. Nedomansky had a slightly longer NA career while Makarov had a slightly better PPG%. Yet neither is in the HHOF since their team and individual achievements are lacking in NA.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2012, 09:28 AM
  #32
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The relationship between The HHOF and the IIHF HOF has to be addressed. Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Pavel Bure, Valeri Kharlamov, Vladislav Tretiak, Vyacheslav Fetisov, Igor Larianov are in both, Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr are in the the HHOF only. Some builders are in both while others are in one only.

Similar to Zubov and Gonchar lacking International achievements the point may be made that Sergei Makarov comes up short in North American achievements.

A comparison may be made to Phil Housley being in the IIHF HOF while Bobby Orr is not. Yet Orr compares favourably to Fetisov while Housley does not. Likewise in the international sphere all Housley offers is longevity over Orr.

Vaclav Nedomansky and Sergei Makarov both came to NA after the age of 30. Nedomansky had a slightly longer NA career while Makarov had a slightly better PPG%. Yet neither is in the HHOF since their team and individual achievements are lacking in NA.
Thats what I meant with NHL HOF. They should rename it if it only applies to NA achievements but it doesnt as Tretiak and Kharlamov is inducted. Neither Howe nor Orr really has any international merits except one exceptional tournament each. Also IIHF don't induct players in terms of greatness only.

If I was able to decide for a bit in the HoF I would start to induct the true greats like Makarov, Holecek, Novy, Svedberg, Tumba, Pospisil, Sterner and more since they are not only legendary players, they also help selling the sport of hockey throughout europe.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2012, 09:51 AM
  #33
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Premise

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Thats what I meant with NHL HOF. They should rename it if it only applies to NA achievements but it doesnt as Tretiak and Kharlamov is inducted. Neither Howe nor Orr really has any international merits except one exceptional tournament each. Also IIHF don't induct players in terms of greatness only.

If I was able to decide for a bit in the HoF I would start to induct the true greats like Makarov, Holecek, Novy, Svedberg, Tumba, Pospisil, Sterner and more since they are not only legendary players, they also help selling the sport of hockey throughout europe.
Your premise does not hold since it implies that the NHL should have been renamed when it expanded to the USA in the twenties. The National part of NHL refers to the objective of extending across Canada.

The IIHF HoF was established in 1997, 15 years ago. It is housed in Toronto at the HHoF subject to protocols between the various organizations involved. Each has a niche with some overlap. Point is that it is not the role of the HHOF to systematically usurp and diminish the IIHF HoF. Example Holecek and Sterner are enhanced in the IIHF HoF but start to fade in the context of the HHOF.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2012, 10:06 AM
  #34
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kshahdoo View Post
Imagine a 31 years old european who'd never have played a single game in the NHL and come right now and immediately become a 60 pts player. I bet you will say it's impossible... Makarov was a PPG player for a few years. Sure it was a different era, but anyway.

And he came to NA from another world, not just country. You can't imagine the difference between USSR and America... It was like... i don't know... being an ant and come to live to spiders...
I agree that Makarov's NHL career is consistent with him being a great, HOF level player.

But he still failed to have a successful NHL career, in the sense that he never won a Cup and won no individual awards (except for a Calder, and they changed the criteria the year after he won it.) And it seems that's what the committee is looking for.

Tretiak and Kharlamov were evaluated differently because they never had a chance to succeed or fail in the NHL. Actually, if Kharlamov had joined the NHL at age 31, he almost certainly would not have performed as well as Makarov did, but since this never happened his decline in play in his 30s probably wasn't a factor for the committee.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2012, 10:42 PM
  #35
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PelagicJoe View Post
I think Vladimir Konstantinov would have had a decent shot at being the HoF if his career wasn't tragically cut short.
Its hard to say. He had a wonderful year in 1996, a good year in 1997 and was a key player in the 1997 Cup win. The only issue is that he was 30 years old in 1997. I would assume that the Wings win the Cup again in 1998 with Vladdy since they won without him so he'd have a couple of Cups to his arsenal. But I remember doing an examination of his career post 1997, and for a defenseman who would have been in his 30s it is hard to find a season where he wins a Norris. 1999? Can't imagine he is better than MacInnis. 2000? No chance. 2001-2003? Lidstrom still wins them.

By my count 1998 and 2004 are the only years he has a chance. I don't think any of those years were as good as 1996 Chelios or 1997 Leetch which were the only times Vladdy was close. So there is a chance. But then again, if Lidstrom doesn't beat Blake in 1998 is it possible that his own teammate does? Doubt it. In 2004 he is 37 years old. We saw MacInnis win the Norris at 36, but that's MacInnis we are talking about. I can't imagine Vladdy having a season good enough to win the Norris. Then there is the lockout and the next hockey played is when he's 38.

So you have him going his whole career without a Norris. Certainly wouldn't be the first defenseman to get into the HHOF that way but he would have needed more all-star nods to get in. I think his status has been elevated a bit because his career ended right after he won a Cup, so we look at things with a little bit more grace with him. But objectively, I think from the standards of a tough position he would have been in tough to make the HHOF

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2012, 12:10 AM
  #36
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukcha View Post
Sergei Zubov
Sergei Gonchar
These two were NHL stars as well, so they've a shot. But no way any Soviet era player gets in before Sergei Makarov, if there's any justice in the hockey world. (Of course, I still think Shero will get in the Builder category someday. I pine for the deserving yet unlikely.)

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.