HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

[Canadiens1958]

Glenn Hall 1956-1960 Playoffs SV%

I have to disagree with the bolded part. In the playoffs, every goalie in the league faces, on average, better teams than they do in the regular season, so their stats probably should all get worse. Of the top goalies to ever play, he is the only one whose stats actually do take a significant drop in the playoffs. In fact, most of these goalies have performed better than they did in the regular season. Hall may not have been worse in the playoffs than he was in the regular season, but he did not step it up like many of his peers.

You're going to have a tough time selling your argument that Hall's stats are significantly worse in the playoffs because most of his teammates played worse every single year. What is more likely, one person consistently underperforms or a dozen people all consistenly underperform?

Part of a larger study.

Glenn Hall(with Detroit)
1956 playoffs .9320 SV% against Toronto,won in 5 .8861SV% against Montreal, Plante against Detroit .9274

1957 playoffs .8837 SV% against Boston,lost in 5,first place Red Wings, vs Simmons .8888 SV%

Glenn Hall(with Chicago)
1959 playoffs .9086 SV% against Montreal,vs Plante .8967 SV%,Chicago lost in 6

1960 playoffs .8923 SV% against Montreal,vs Plante .9583 SV%, Chicago swept in 4. Plante had a .9504 SV% in the 1960 playoffs.

Comments. 1956 Red Wings blew a 4-2 lead midway thru the third period losing 6-4, in game 1 of the finals at Montreal. 1957 looks like Hall played Simmons equal BUT the Red Wings won game 2, 7-2 while losing the other four. Only good series was against an offensively challenged young Maple Leaf team. <.9000 SV% in the playoffs does not get the job done.

Thanks to the HSP for providing the raw data.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Part of a larger study.

Glenn Hall(with Detroit)
1956 playoffs .9320 SV% against Toronto,won in 5 .8861SV% against Montreal, Plante against Detroit .9274

1957 playoffs .8837 SV% against Boston,lost in 5,first place Red Wings, vs Simmons .8888 SV%

Glenn Hall(with Chicago)
1959 playoffs .9086 SV% against Montreal,vs Plante .8967 SV%,Chicago lost in 6

1960 playoffs .8923 SV% against Montreal,vs Plante .9583 SV%, Chicago swept in 4. Plante had a .9504 SV% in the 1960 playoffs.

Comments. 1956 Red Wings blew a 4-2 lead midway thru the third period losing 6-4, in game 1 of the finals at Montreal. 1957 looks like Hall played Simmons equal BUT the Red Wings won game 2, 7-2 while losing the other four. Only good series was against an offensively challenged young Maple Leaf team. <.9000 SV% in the playoffs does not get the job done.

Thanks to the HSP for providing the raw data.

These are some things I addressed in my studies.

I haven't looked at Hall's first two years in Chicago, but we'll see.

S% is the probably the best stat we have for evaluating a goaltender and keeping his performance seperate from team- but fact is, even it is not perfect in that sense.

First off- 1956- you should note just how dominant Montreal was that season. The Habs broke the 100 point mark in the regular season- the Wings were a whopping 24 points behind them.

You cite the first game where the Wings blew the lead- want to know what happened?

Account of Hall in 1956 Game 1 against Canadiens-Habs win 6-4

But both teams soon called it quits on the excessive rought stuff and the Red Wings began to cash in on superior play- smart defensive work and knife-like thrusts at the slightest opening while Glenn Hall's work overshadowed that of Jacques plante in nets.

Hmm- Wings play good defensively, Hall does well and overshadows great goalie across the rink. A link?

But later in the game..

But then the wings were falling under pressure and Beliveau broke the tie at 7:31. Olmstead fed the puck at Geoffrion, who centred it it back from a corner to Beliveau, six feet in front of Hall.

The tying, winning, and clinching goals while Detroit's redoubtable defence pair of Red Kelly and Bob Goldham were trying desperately to stem the onslaught on Hall, who faced 18 shots in the third period against only five in the Red Wings drilled at Plante.

Wings start to play poorly, allowing Montreal to drill shot after shot at Hall, star failing under pressure, and 4 goals are allowed. Let's see..Wings play good defensively, Hall's goaltending praised. Wings play poorly and fall under pressure, let lots of shots go off, Hall let's in more goals (not necessarily his fault- the article certainly didn't blame him, and I don't think they were hesitant to blame guys back then).

If you want more from the series, the link is on the previous page- but from my readings, Hall did not play poorly and the Habs were just too much better than the team on his side.

As far as the Boston series go, the 7-2 score was again, a result of team play. The Wings played like they were supposed to in that game- otherwise, not so good from what I read of the series.

More can be found here- http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22327576&postcount=47 - but from everything I read, I did not at all get any impression Hall played poorly in the playoffs in Detroit, contraditorary to the stats, which I feel are more a result of the tea efforts in front than Hall himself.

 

[Canadiens1958]

First Game

These are some things I addressed in my studies.

I haven't looked at Hall's first two years in Chicago, but we'll see.

S% is the probably the best stat we have for evaluating a goaltender and keeping his performance seperate from team- but fact is, even it is not perfect in that sense.

First off- 1956- you should note just how dominant Montreal was that season. The Habs broke the 100 point mark in the regular season- the Wings were a whopping 24 points behind them.

You cite the first game where the Wings blew the lead- want to know what happened?

Account of Hall in 1956 Game 1 against Canadiens-Habs win 6-4



Hmm- Wings play good defensively, Hall does well and overshadows great goalie across the rink. A link?

But later in the game..



Wings start to play poorly, allowing Montreal to drill shot after shot at Hall, star failing under pressure, and 4 goals are allowed. Let's see..Wings play good defensively, Hall's goaltending praised. Wings play poorly and fall under pressure, let lots of shots go off, Hall let's in more goals (not necessarily his fault- the article certainly didn't blame him, and I don't think they were hesitant to blame guys back then).

If you want more from the series, the link is on the previous page- but from my readings, Hall did not play poorly and the Habs were just too much better than the team on his side.

As far as the Boston series go, the 7-2 score was again, a result of team play. The Wings played like they were supposed to in that game- otherwise, not so good from what I read of the series.

More can be found here- http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22327576&postcount=47 - but from everything I read, I did not at all get any impression Hall played poorly in the playoffs in Detroit, contraditorary to the stats, which I feel are more a result of the tea efforts in front than Hall himself.

Watched the game as a youngster and the Canadiens makeshift line of Floyd Curry, Jackie Leclair and Claude Provost scored two goals that made the difference. See the summary:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?O19560011

Learned the importance of depth.

As for 1957 Hall gave up 4 goals on 15 shots in the fifth and final game. Not exactly impressive.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?O19570009

 

[Leafs Forever]

Watched the game as a youngster and the Canadiens makeshift line of Floyd Curry, Jackie Leclair and Claude Provost scored two goals that made the difference. See the summary:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?O19560011

Great- the guy who wrote the article saw the game as an adult. But it seems to me a reminder was in order.

Beliveau and Geoffrion had a goal apiece that could be said to have made the difference...Beliveau actually had the game winner..what is your point exactly? It seems that Detroit was dominated on a whole by the Habs team- the Provost line couldn't have a good game to be a good part of that?

Learned the importance of depth.

As for 1957 Hall gave up 4 goals on 15 shots in the fifth and final game. Not exactly impressive.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?O19570009

[/QUOTE]

It wasn't a good game for Hall, but it didn't seem like he was letting in beachball goals so to speak, and I did not gather any impression of Hall playing poorly from what I read (which I don't tink they were afraid to point out back then.) Over the course of the series though, I certainly do not feel Hall played bad- seemed to do decently.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Provost Line?????????????

Great- the guy who wrote the article saw the game as an adult. But it seems to me a reminder was in order.

Beliveau and Geoffrion had a goal apiece that could be said to have made the difference...Beliveau actually had the game winner..what is your point exactly? It seems that Detroit was dominated on a whole by the Habs team- the Provost line couldn't have a good game to be a good part of that?

Learned the importance of depth.

It wasn't a good game for Hall, but it didn't seem like he was letting in beachball goals so to speak, and I did not gather any impression of Hall playing poorly from what I read (which I don't tink they were afraid to point out back then.) Over the course of the series though, I certainly do not feel Hall played bad- seemed to do decently.[/QUOTE]

DS has posted extracts from articles where Jack Adams - Red Wings GM criticzed Glenn Hall for his efforts in the 1957 playoffs.

Provost line?????????? The Curry / Leclair / Provost unit was cobbled together for the third period by Toe Blake. Leclair was a center who could give you a change of pace - dressed for only 8 of the 10 playoff games and those were his only points. Top three lines were centered by Beliveau, H.Richard and Ken Mosdell.

 

[Leafs Forever]

It wasn't a good game for Hall, but it didn't seem like he was letting in beachball goals so to speak, and I did not gather any impression of Hall playing poorly from what I read (which I don't tink they were afraid to point out back then.) Over the course of the series though, I certainly do not feel Hall played bad- seemed to do decently.

DS has posted extracts from articles where Jack Adams - Red Wings GM criticzed Glenn Hall for his efforts in the 1957 playoffs.

Provost line?????????? The Curry / Leclair / Provost unit was cobbled together for the third period by Toe Blake. Leclair was a center who could give you a change of pace - dressed for only 8 of the 10 playoff games and those were his only points. Top three lines were centered by Beliveau, H.Richard and Ken Mosdell.[/QUOTE]

The quote DS posted?

"I don't mean to criticize", Adams said, preparing to criticize, "But Hall looked bad on Doug Mohns goal and worse on Cal Gardiner's. We should have had a 2 goal lead after the second period"

Doesn't seem like Adams was critisizing Hall for the whole playoffs- merely game 5 of it.

And it's not as if the Wings team was playing greatly either- getting shutout one loss, and only scoring 1 goal another.

And after game 3, Adams notes we lost through "our" errors, and not Hall's (in game 4, which Wings lost 2-0). Perhaps Hall didn't have a good game (although I didn't see any quote to suggest that when reading, as I didn't find the Jack Adams quote when searching through the Globe and Mail archive), but the series went 5 games.

I was more so just shortening the name of it using it's best player.

Again, the Wings weren't playing well defensively by the looks of things and giving the Habs plenty of opportunities to shoot. Considering the players on the line you note were good enough to make an original-6 franchise, and the high-powered Canadiens no less, they certainly had some ability to score if given particularly good opportunity and having a particularly good game.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I guess the last list is officially over at 70 then.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I guess the last list is officially over at 70 then.

Don't give up yet.

As a Bruins & Red Sox fan I've learned to be (very) patient.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Well, it was a full year or so ago that we submitted our original lists, and there hasn't been any discussion on the remaining 30 spots for months...I dunno seems like picking it back up again now is kind of pointless. Arguments that were going to be presented for certain players have probably since been forgotten in some cases and would require research to be redone, but maybe that's just me.

I'd definitely still participate in this if it got going again, but would anyone have interest in a different sort of project eventually? A Top 50 pre-WWII players or something like that? Something else a little smaller and more specific perhaps?

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

I can't take any list not recognizing Soviet players seriously.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I can't take any list not recognizing Soviet players seriously.

There are 5 Russians on the list. They are very recognizable if you look closely.

You should have said you can't take a top 100 list with only 70 players on it seriously.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

There are 5 Russians on the list. They are very recognizable if you look closely.

You should have said you can't take a top 100 list with only 70 players on it seriously.

Yes, and all of them are upwards of 30th. Which can not be taken seriously.

 

[MXD]

I can't take any list not recognizing Soviet players seriously.

Then don't.
It's not like we're taking individuals who ranks Kharlamov ahead of Gordie Howe anyways.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

Then don't.
It's not like we're taking individuals who ranks Kharlamov ahead of Gordie Howe anyways.

It's not Kharlamov's fault he died so young. He was a better overall player that Howe.

 

[Leafs Forever]

It's not Kharlamov's fault he died so young. He was a better overall player that Howe.

We don't value players on what they might have/probably would have done/will do. It really messes things up, and it's really just speculation-we don't know for sure if those players would have accomplished those things without injury or other factors.

Again, what the heck are you basing that off of? Let's run down Howe's accomplishments, clearly something you need to clearly be educated on:

-6 Art Ross Trophies
-6 Hart Trophies-as many as Lemieux and Orr combined
-Led in NHL goals 5 times
-Led in NHL assists 3 times
-First or Second Team All-Star 21 times in 22 seasons
-Top 5 in NHL goals 13 times
-Top 5 in NHL assist 17 times
-Very accomplished all-around player- very tough- great defensively.

And he accomplished all of this while ALWAYS playing against the best hockey players in the world, something Khlarmov did not do. How many times did Khlarmov lead his weaker league in scoring? How many times did he come 1st in MVP voting in his league?

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

We don't value players on what they might have/probably would have done/will do. It really messes things up, and it's really just speculation-we don't know for sure if those players would have accomplished those things without injury or other factors.

Again, what the heck are you basing that off of? Let's run down Howe's accomplishments, clearly something you need to clearly be educated on:

-6 Art Ross Trophies
-6 Hart Trophies-as many as Lemieux and Orr combined
-Led in NHL goals 5 times
-Led in NHL assists 3 times
-First or Second Team All-Star 21 times in 22 seasons
-Top 5 in NHL goals 13 times
-Top 5 in NHL assist 17 times
-Very accomplished all-around player- very tough- great defensively.

And he accomplished all of this while ALWAYS playing against the best hockey players in the world, something Khlarmov did not do. How many times did Khlarmov lead his weaker league in scoring? How many times did he come 1st in MVP voting in his league?

Howe won 4 Stanley Cups in his 193 Year Career, 6 Hart trophies, All Star teams, blah blahblah sounds good right? Too bad there were 6 teams and even less teams than what Kharlamov had to compete against.
The Ussr league had around 9 teams. He led his championship team in points nearly every year.
You claim the USSR league was weaker? Why did the Soviet Union (Basically USSR league all stars) win every Super Series against NHL All Star teams?
Kharlamov played in a more advanced time. Howe only played against other Canucks.
Howe accomplished nothing Internationally, and I mean nothing. No Olympic competition understood, but still. It was a time when the NHL was afraid to play against the Soviets.

-11 time USSR championship
-8 WC Winner
-2 Time OLY. Gold Medalist (We'll talk about '80 a different day.)
-USSR League MVP 1972, 1973
-USSR All Star Team 1971-1976, 1978
-Scoring champion (goals) 1971
-Scoring champion (points) 1972
-IIHF All Star: 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976
-Inducted into Hockey Hall of Fame in 2005


By the way Canadians, If it weren't for Bobby Clarke fracturing Kharlamov's ankle in game 6, you lose the Summit Series.

 

[Rzeznik]

Howe won 4 Stanley Cups in his 193 Year Career, 6 Hart trophies, All Star teams, blah blahblah sounds good right? Too bad there were 6 teams and even less teams than what Kharlamov had to compete against.
The Ussr league had around 9 teams. He led his championship team in points nearly every year.
You claim the USSR league was weaker? Why did the Soviet Union (Basically USSR league all stars) win every Super Series against NHL All Star teams?
Kharlamov played in a more advanced time. Howe only played against other Canucks.
Howe accomplished nothing Internationally, and I mean nothing. No Olympic competition understood, but still. It was a time when the NHL was afraid to play against the Soviets.

-11 time USSR championship
-8 WC Winner
-2 Time OLY. Gold Medalist (We'll talk about '80 a different day.)
-USSR League MVP 1972, 1973
-USSR All Star Team 1971-1976, 1978
-Scoring champion (goals) 1971
-Scoring champion (points) 1972
-IIHF All Star: 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976
-Inducted into Hockey Hall of Fame in 2005


By the way Canadians, If it weren't for Bobby Clarke fracturing Kharlamov's ankle in game 6, you lose the Summit Series.

The 6 team argument has been beaten to death. The league still had the worlds best players, so throwing 600 more guys into the league would have made the slightest difference in finishes for stats and awards.

The Super League was weaker as a whole. The top-end talent was on par, for the most part, with the top talent in the NHL, Kharlamov included. But once you start getting into 2nd, 3rd and 4th liners, its not comparison.

As for stats, Kharlamov lead his own league in scoring 1 time. That's right, once, to go along with two MVPs. Howe dominated the best league in the world for two decades. Now you may disagree, but IMO, throwing a few top-end Europeans from Howes time into the NHL doesn't change a thing.

Oh, and about the ankle, IF Clarke doesn't slash Kharlamov, we might have lost the series. He did though, and Canadian was victorious. IF won't get you very far when comparing all-time greats.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

The 6 team argument has been beaten to death. The league still had the worlds best players, so throwing 600 more guys into the league would have made the slightest difference in finishes for stats and awards.

The Super League was weaker as a whole. The top-end talent was on par, for the most part, with the top talent in the NHL, Kharlamov included. But once you start getting into 2nd, 3rd and 4th liners, its not comparison.

As for stats, Kharlamov lead his own league in scoring 1 time. That's right, once, to go along with two MVPs. Howe dominated the best league in the world for two decades. Now you may disagree, but IMO, throwing a few top-end Europeans from Howes time into the NHL doesn't change a thing.

Oh, and about the ankle, IF Clarke doesn't slash Kharlamov, we might have lost the series. He did though, and Canadian was victorious. IF won't get you very far when comparing all-time greats.

Just for a quick response, the RSL had 36 game seasons, Kharlamov never played a more than 32 games. An average of 26 games.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Howe won 4 Stanley Cups in his 193 Year Career, 6 Hart trophies, All Star teams, blah blahblah sounds good right? Too bad there were 6 teams and even less teams than what Kharlamov had to compete against.
The Ussr league had around 9 teams. He led his championship team in points nearly every year.
You claim the USSR league was weaker? Why did the Soviet Union (Basically USSR league all stars) win every Super Series against NHL All Star teams?
Kharlamov played in a more advanced time. Howe only played against other Canucks.
Howe accomplished nothing Internationally, and I mean nothing. No Olympic competition understood, but still. It was a time when the NHL was afraid to play against the Soviets.

-11 time USSR championship
-8 WC Winner
-2 Time OLY. Gold Medalist (We'll talk about '80 a different day.)
-USSR League MVP 1972, 1973
-USSR All Star Team 1971-1976, 1978
-Scoring champion (goals) 1971
-Scoring champion (points) 1972
-IIHF All Star: 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976
-Inducted into Hockey Hall of Fame in 2005


By the way Canadians, If it weren't for Bobby Clarke fracturing Kharlamov's ankle in game 6, you lose the Summit Series.

The very foolish (to me) 6 team arguement again. Find me someone who couldn't get into the NHL at the time due to 6 teams who could have even come close to challenging Howe for his awards.

There is the summit series to consider with your question of these guys going head to head, but I don't know. I think chemistry may be a factor there if it was NHL all star teams you're talking about.

Khlarmov played mostly against only Europeans- there weren't any Canadians in his league, and most of the best players of the time were canadian. In Howe's time, there were very few Europeans who could actually be top-10 scorers in Howe's league- unlikely anyone in the 50s Russians, who struggled against Canadian amateurs form what I've heard, and only a couple 60s Russians perhaps.

Howe accomplished nothing internationally because he never got the chance. All those events were done by amateur and minor league teams. The fact that khlarmov accomplished nothing in the NHL is a bigger minus mark than Howe accomplishing nothing internationally.

Championships, medals, etc. are team awards. Howe won 4 more MVP's against tougher competition, 5 more league scoring titles against tougher competition, got about twice more NHL AST's than Khlarmov had IIHF AST's and USSR AST's combined..now factor in Howe's much better intangibles and his much better longevity, and this isn't remotely close.

 

[Rzeznik]

Just for a quick response, the RSL had 36 game seasons, Kharlamov never played a more than 32 games. An average of 26 games.

Again with projections. Tough luck for Kharlamov for missing so many games. Who knows what could have been, but that's the thing... nobody does for sure. The only thing anyone knows is what was actually accomplished and when comparing that to Howe, it is really no contest.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

The very foolish (to me) 6 team arguement again. Find me someone who couldn't get into the NHL at the time due to 6 teams who could have even come close to challenging Howe for his awards.

There is the summit series to consider with your question of these guys going head to head, but I don't know. I think chemistry may be a factor there if it was NHL all star teams you're talking about.

Khlarmov played mostly against only Europeans- there weren't any Canadians in his league, and most of the best players of the time were canadian. In Howe's time, there were very few Europeans who could actually be top-10 scorers in Howe's league- unlikely anyone in the 50s Russians, who struggled against Canadian amateurs form what I've heard, and only a couple 60s Russians perhaps.

Howe accomplished nothing internationally because he never got the chance. All those events were done by amateur and minor league teams. The fact that khlarmov accomplished nothing in the NHL is a bigger minus mark than Howe accomplishing nothing internationally.

Championships, medals, etc. are team awards. Howe won 4 more MVP's ahaisnt tougher competition, 5 more league scoring titles against tougher competition, got about twice more NHL AST's than Khlarmov had IIHF AST's and USSR AST's combined..now factor in Howe's much better intangibles and his much better longevity, and this isn't remotely close.

For every argument you have an exact counterargument.

People get this idea in their head that the Russians trained for nothing but International competition. WRONG, the RSL was their premier league. The Soviet National Team was nothing but the best Soviets who got some extra time to train every few years.

This is the argument itself! People just assume the Canadians here were the best.

Howe could have played internationally if he wanted, he chose not to though. (Not that he had a reason to) The difference is, Kharlamov didnt even have the choice fear of death prevented him.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

I'll finish with that. I give up.

 

[Leafs Forever]

For every argument you have an exact counterargument.

People get this idea in their head that the Russians trained for nothing but International competition. WRONG, the RSL was their premier league. The Soviet National Team was nothing but the best Soviets who got some extra time to train every few years.

This is the argument itself! People just assume the Canadians here were the best.

Howe could have played internationally if he wanted, he chose not to though. (Not that he had a reason to) The difference is, Kharlamov didnt even have the choice fear of death prevented him.

What?

Yes, I know it was their premier league. Doesn't make it a good a league as the NHL in Howe's times.

What? I don't just assume the Canadians were the best. From everything I have heard, the 50s is when Russian hockey truly dawned, led by Bobrov. They couldn't dominate Canadian amateurs. 70s was of course the heyday of of the Russian leagues, who could match the best NHLers. This was clearly not an overnight change, and as such, the 60s, where Howe also played, were likely somewhere in the middle of the two (Russians dominated internationally at this point, including against canadian amateurs). By the time the Russian peak came around, Howe was virtually done. There wasn't likely anyone in the 50s who could challenge Howe's scoring from Europe based on how there faired internationally, and only a handful of guys in the 60s. This is my understanding of Russian hockey in the time period.

No NHLers played internationally in the 50s or 60s. I'm not sure when the tournaments took place, but if they did during the NHL regular schedule, Howe and all the other Canadians weren't going to get a break to go compete if they wanted too- remember, players rights stunk during this time. He couldn't play if he wanted without some seriously bad reprucussions. Besides, the olympics were much more amateurish at the time ot my knowledge- NHLers may not have even been elligible, but I'm not sure on that.

Yes, it's bad all the blocks in Khlarmov career, but again, we aren't going to value him for things he did nto actually do.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

What?

Yes, I know it was their premier league. Doesn't make it a good a league as the NHL in Howe's times.

What? I don't just assume the Canadians were the best. From everything I have heard, the 50s is when Russian hockey truly dawned, led by Bobrov. They couldn't dominate Canadian amateurs. 70s was of course the heyday of of the Russian leagues, who could match the best NHLers. This was clearly not an overnight change, and as such, the 60s, where Howe also played, were likely somewhere in the middle of the two (Russians dominated internationally at this point, including against canadian amateurs). By the time the Russian peak came around, Howe was virtually done. There wasn't likely anyone in the 50s who could challenge Howe's scoring from Europe based on how there faired internationally, and only a handful of guys in the 60s. This is my understanding of Russian hockey in the time period.

No NHLers played internationally in the 50s or 60s. I'm not sure when the tournaments took place, but if they did during the NHL regular schedule, Howe and all the other Canadians weren't going to get a break to go compete if they wanted too- remember, players rights stunk during this time. He couldn't play if he wanted without some seriously bad reprucussions. Besides, the olympics were much more amateurish at the time ot my knowledge- NHLers may not have even been elligible, but I'm not sure on that.

Yes, it's bad all the blocks in Khlarmov career, but again, we aren't going to value him for things he did nto actually do.

I wasn't downplaying Howe for the sake of saying he wasn't any good. I was just trying to make Kharlamov sound better.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I wasn't downplaying Howe for the sake of saying he wasn't any good. I was just trying to make Kharlamov sound better.

Nothing wrong with that. But you're much better off tyring to compare him to a guy who isn't someone that certain people think is the best hockey player ever (and most consider him in that top tier with Gretzky and Orr around here).