How come the Russians are so low ranked in the all time lists?

[Ben White]

Makarov still looked pretty good at the age of 36-37

 

[Ben White]

Ok let’s play a game: Messier at the age of 31 moves to Russia and replaces Makarov as the top dog of the first line. Is he looking better or worse than Makarov?

 

[Ben White]

Look at Makarov on Soviet’s second goal. So ahead of his time

 

[Corto]

Whether you're ranking them correctly or not, it's difficult to slot players you see on limited viewings during their prime and

Doesn't really stop people pimping Eddie Shore and saying he's better than Lidstrom, for example.

In short, yes, NHL all-time lists are NA biased... But that's hardly surprising.

 

[newfy]

Then let me reframe this.

If Sergei Federov went from being one of the top players in the league, and then at the age of 31, then why the hell are we holding it against Makarov/Fetisov?

Fedorov is a weird one. He was only really considered a top 5ish player for a short ~2 year peak. But at 31 he was still a great top line player. But this discussion isnt about if Makarov couldve been a top player in the league for a couple years at his peak in the first place, its people wondering why hes not considered top 10-20 all time. Fedorov isnt close to that all time and neither is Makarov

 

[Theokritos]

Great. You made my point for me as you're discounting his entire career after 30. Unless you're Bobby Orr, you can't build a resume on that.

That is up to debate.

And you also ignored my point about his time in Russia. He barely outscored a 17-year-old Bure (also nowhere near a top-20 player of all-time). He had 21 goals to Bure's 17 and he played 28% more games. Presumably he was getting the best minutes and the PP time too.

Talk about cherry picking. Makarov scored 54 points (21 goals and 33 assists) in 44 games (and that in a league that was more stingy handing out assists than the NHL) while Bure scored 26 points (17 goals and 9 assists) in 32 games. Here's how the 79 Soviet sports journalists who actually watched them play throughout the season ranked them at the end of the season:

#	Player:	Pos:	Team:	Pts:	1st:	2nd:	3rd:
1.	Sergei Makarov	C	CSKA	145	31	20	12
2.	Vyacheslav Bykov	C	CSKA	130	21	27	13
3.	Vyacheslav Fetisov	D	CSKA	110	24	13	12
4.	Sergei Mylnikov	G	Chelyabinsk	30	1	7	13
5.	Vladimir Krutov	LW	CSKA	11	1	2	4
6.	Artūrs Irbe	G	Riga	9	0	2	5
6.	Igor Larionov	C	CSKA	9	0	4	1
8.	Valeri Shiryayev	D	Kiev	6	0	0	6
8.	Andrei Khomutov	RW	CSKA	6	0	2	2
10.	Alexei Kasatonov	D	CSKA	5	1	0	2
10.	Valeri Kamensky	LW	CSKA	5	0	2	1
12.	Ilya Byakin	D	Sverdlovsk	2	0	0	2
13.	Alexander Chernykh	C	Voskresensk	1	0	0	1
13.	Sergei Fyodorov	C	CSKA	1	0	0	1
13.	Svyatoslav Khalizov	D	Leningrad	1	0	0	1
13.	Dmitri Kvartalnov	RW	Voskresensk	1	0	0	1
13.	Vladimir Myshkin	G	Dinamo	1	0	0	1
13.	Sergei Nemchinov	C	Krylya Sovietov	1	0	0	1
xx.	Pavel Bure	LW	CSKA	0	0	0	0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

​

See International & European Award & All-star voting thread on the History of Hockey board.

It actually did.

Actually it didn't. Your claim was that the following statement...

The soviet group trained together constantly. The NA teams were throw-togethers, taken from different teams playing different systems. You are discounting team chemistry and context.

...was "literally describing the political differences of Marxism vs Capitalism". Which is not true. While the Soviet emphasis on collective/team play was a logical consequence of Marxist-Leninist teachings, the stacking of CSKA Moscow "in the interest of the Soviet national team" was not. It was the result of a peculiar policy of the USSR. Czechoslovakia, the other Communist hockey power, did not follow this pattern. I guess they weren't Marxist, eh?​

 

[Stephen]

Doesn't really stop people pimping Eddie Shore and saying he's better than Lidstrom, for example.

In short, yes, NHL all-time lists are NA biased... But that's hardly surprising.

I have my own issues with hockey hagiographies, don't get me started, though I generally reject the North American vs European bias.

 

[Stephen]

this is pure bs. The Russians were clearly ahead of everyone, incl Canadians, in the 80’s skill wise. It’s a different thing to adjust your game to a completely new sport basically (nhl vs European style) at the age of 31. Look at the super series and Canada cup from the 80’s. Makarov and his pals skated circles around nhl superstars. That’s a fact. He’s top 20 period. Kharlamov too and probably Fetisov. And this is only cause we can’t evaluate the Russians fairly from an NHL standpoint, otherwise even more Russians would’ve sneaked into the all time greats due to have dominated their peers more than most players in most eras.

It seems like you're making the case that the Soviet trained players of their era possessed superior technical skills to the NHL players of that era, looked better technically from a skill and athletic point of view in best on best competition, came over late into the NHL playing a "different sport" and as such should be Top 20 players. But there are so many examples of where this kind of extrapolation falls short.

We never got to see Kharlamov, Tretiak, Makarov, Larionov, Krutov or Fetisov in their primes in the NHL, but we have had the fortune of watching about 2.5 generations of Russian players that came after, and I think we can safely say that even though we got to see some supremely talented individuals over the years, there are many different factors aside from pure skill level that ultimately determine the quality of a career.

 

[Absolut]

My dad watched Kharlamov live several times, and said his talent was unbelievable. From watching old games, it's obvious Tretiak was an all-time great. But the others, how do we judge their careers? Bias or not, we don't know where guys like Fetisov and Larionov, for example, should be slotted.

 

[BruinsBtn]

I have my own issues with hockey hagiographies, don't get me started, though I generally reject the North American vs European bias.

You missed the point completely. Bure was 17 years old and buried down the lineup and he scored more goals per game. You also realized that CSKA was ridiculously stacked and won like 15 championships in a row and it wasn't even close. Playing on a team like that certainly inflates your assist totals. As a team they had 224 goals for. The second place team had 143. That's equal to the difference between Boston and Detroit this year -- and that's the 2nd place team! The last place team had 57 goals all year.

 

[DFC]

Ovy's gonna wind up pretty high on every list.

 

[wetcoast]

C'mon, people think Makarov is in the discussion? He was 31 when he came over, not 40. He never finished higher than 4th in scoring on the Flames. He was outscored by Al MacInnis every year he was there.

He barely outscored Todd Elik (who?) on San Jose and had less PPG.

The reality is that Makarov doesn't have a case for top-200 players of all time, let alone top-20.

This seriously is one of the worst takes I have seen for quite some time.

The guy has an extremely legit argument as the best forward in the world in the 80s....not named Gretzky.

 

[BruinsBtn]

This seriously is one of the worst takes I have seen for quite some time.

The guy has an extremely legit argument as the best forward in the world in the 80s....not named Gretzky.

Then 1990 rolls around and he's the 5th best player on the Calgary Flames. Lol

 

[wetcoast]

Then 1990 rolls around and he's the 5th best player on the Calgary Flames. Lol

how about some context here buddy?

He was 31 years old and finished 29th in NHL scoring.

Not a single player his age or alder had more points, the next guy who was 33 years old, Peter Stastny, had 73 points good for 33rd in the NHL.

Like I said before your take that he isn't a top 200 player of all time is simply a horrible and misinformed take.

 

[BruinsBtn]

how about some context here buddy?

He was 31 years old and finished 29th in NHL scoring.

Not a single player his age or alder had more points, the next guy who was 33 years old, Peter Stastny, had 73 points good for 33rd in the NHL.

Like I said before your take that he isn't a top 200 player of all time is simply a horrible and misinformed take.

So what? If you're the second best player after Gretzky then you better be better than that. And that was his best year in the NHL.

Marcel Dionne had 126 points at age 33 on a dismal LA Kings team

A 34 year old Joe Mullen wrecked Makarov's career high

And context??? He was on an utterly dominant Russian club that waltzed to the championship every year in a short season in a soft league. The NHL guys his age went through hell for 80 games plus playoffs every year. That's context

 

[Stephen]

You missed the point completely. Bure was 17 years old and buried down the lineup and he scored more goals per game. You also realized that CSKA was ridiculously stacked and won like 15 championships in a row and it wasn't even close. Playing on a team like that certainly inflates your assist totals. As a team they had 224 goals for. The second place team had 143. That's equal to the difference between Boston and Detroit this year -- and that's the 2nd place team! The last place team had 57 goals all year.

Are you responding to the right person? I’m talking about Eddie Shore.

 

[BruinsBtn]

Are you responding to the right person? I’m talking about Eddie Shore.

This website is all screwy right now with these horrible mobile ads

 

[Ben White]

So what? If you're the second best player after Gretzky then you better be better than that. And that was his best year in the NHL.

Marcel Dionne had 126 points at age 33 on a dismal LA Kings team

A 34 year old Joe Mullen wrecked Makarov's career high

And context??? He was on an utterly dominant Russian club that waltzed to the championship every year in a short season in a soft league. The NHL guys his age went through hell for 80 games plus playoffs every year. That's context

Still very difficult to adjust to an entirely different kind of sport at the age of 31. Nothing can take away his performances in best on best competitions during the 80’s and if we’re talking best hockey players of all time the nhl shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt as the superior world hockey concept with superior players just for being the NHL.

As far as I can tell the skill level of NHL players also increased dramatically in the early 90’s and I think the influences from Russian hockey and how the NHL embraced a more skilled ideal for players partly came from getting humiliated from time to time skill wise during the 80’s.

All in all, talking “vs their peers”, which is the standard of player comparisons through history in general, I think Makarov, Larionov as well as Fetisov deserves being in the conversation for top 20 all time players.

not to mention how inferior Ovi looks when it comes to best on best international tournaments

 

[Stephen]

My dad watched Kharlamov live several times, and said his talent was unbelievable. From watching old games, it's obvious Tretiak was an all-time great. But the others, how do we judge their careers? Bias or not, we don't know where guys like Fetisov and Larionov, for example, should be slotted.

Just imagine if we got small snippets of Alexander Ovechkin, Alexei Kovalev and Alexander Mogilny over the course of their careers without the NHL context. Three supreme talents and impact players over the course of their careers, probably more advanced skillsets relative to their era in each case, some truly spectacular production in some cases, and yet 2 out of 3 fall short of being absolute all-time greats for a variety of reasons.

 

[Stephen]

Still very difficult to adjust to an entirely different kind of sport at the age of 31. Nothing can take away his performances in best on best competitions during the 80’s and if we’re talking best hockey players of all time the nhl shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt as the superior world hockey concept with superior players just for being the NHL.

As far as I can tell the skill level of NHL players also increased dramatically in the early 90’s and I think the influences from Russian hockey and how the NHL embraced a more skilled ideal for players partly came from getting humiliated from time to time skill wise during the 80’s.

All in all, talking “vs their peers”, which is the standard of player comparisons through history in general, I think Makarov, Larionov as well as Fetisov deserves being in the conversation for top 20 all time players.

The problem with that line of thinking is Fetisov, Makarov and Larionov actually did play vs their peers in the 90s.

For example, Larionov was a useful player in 1994 at the age of 34 and would continue to be for many years after that, but Wayne Gretzky was 33 and won an Art Ross Trophy.

Fetisov was a little older by the mid 90s, but so was Paul Coffey, who won a Norris Trophy in 1995 at the age of 34. Ray Bourque won a Norris Trophy in 1994 at the age of 34. Chris Chelios won a Norris Trophy in 1996 at the age of 34.

If you're trying to stake claim to being Top 20 of all-time, you actually have to do some very special things in the NHL over a long period of time and not rely on extrapolation from a small sample size in the 1980s. Look at Kent Nilsson. All time technical skillset, tremendous NHL production, short peak. Is he an all time great? Not exactly.

 

[Ben White]

The problem with that line of thinking is Fetisov, Makarov and Larionov actually did play vs their peers in the 90s.

For example, Larionov was a useful player in 1994 at the age of 34 and would continue to be for many years after that, but Wayne Gretzky was 33 and won an Art Ross Trophy.

Fetisov was a little older by the mid 90s, but so was Paul Coffey, who won a Norris Trophy in 1995 at the age of 34. Ray Bourque won a Norris Trophy in 1994 at the age of 34. Chris Chelios won a Norris Trophy in 1996 at the age of 34.

If you're trying to stake claim to being Top 20 of all-time, you actually have to do some very special things in the NHL over a long period of time and not rely on extrapolation from a small sample size in the 1980s. Look at Kent Nilsson. All time technical skillset, tremendous NHL production, short peak. Is he an all time great? Not exactly.

If you wanna go ahead and be all NHL focused when evaluating the history of hockey go ahead. But nhl trophy cases and longevity in the nhl with lots of good nhl seasons simply doesn’t cut it when it comes to who were actually the better hockey players in their prime. Check out some games from the 80’s when Fetisov and Coffey played against each other. I’d say Fetisov looked better, was more skilled, well rounded and looking more like a modern day dman, reminding more of a Lidstrom, Doughty kind of Dman.

 

[Ben White]

Makarov was so ahead of his time. Gotta give the guy credit

 

[Stephen]

If you wanna go ahead and be all NHL focused when evaluating the history of hockey go ahead. But nhl trophy cases and longevity in the nhl with lots of good nhl seasons simply doesn’t cut it when it comes to who were actually the better hockey players in their prime. Check out some games from the 80’s when Fetisov and Coffey played against each other. I’d say Fetisov looked better, was more skilled, well rounded and looking more like a modern day dman, reminding more of a Lidstrom, Doughty kind of Dman.

Again, the reason I am more NHL focused and why a lot of other people are too is because a long NHL career gives you insights into a player's abilities vs their peers as opposed to very select tournaments. Some or all of those Soviet greats may very well have been Top 20 players given their peak form in the 1980s, but since we never saw them in repeated 80 game regular season and playoff formats in their prime, we don't have a good way of evaluating them.

Just use some contemporary Russian examples. I can tell you Ilya Kovalchuk has looked every bit as dominant and technically impressive in some instances as Alex Ovechkin, but we can also recognize Ovie has something like 10x 50 goal seasons in him and has performed at a level Kovalchuk can't get to either in terms of consistency, longevity or peak play. Then you have guys like Kovalev, Mogilny, who have shown all-time talent, but suffered from motivational issues. Countless other examples, but with the NHL format we can get a more full and well rounded picture.

 

[wetcoast]

So what? If you're the second best player after Gretzky then you better be better than that. And that was his best year in the NHL.

Marcel Dionne had 126 points at age 33 on a dismal LA Kings team

A 34 year old Joe Mullen wrecked Makarov's career high

And context??? He was on an utterly dominant Russian club that waltzed to the championship every year in a short season in a soft league. The NHL guys his age went through hell for 80 games plus playoffs every year. That's context

Perhaps some background for you might help

Backchecking: Russian star Sergei Makarov speaks (very) softly but carried a huge stick - TheHockeyNews

Sergei Makarov was a pioneer of puck possession hockey

 

[Ben White]

This is my current top 20 (“best” not “greatest”) list for 1970-2020 (no goalies):

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Orr
4. Howe
5. Kharlamov
6. Crosby
7. Jagr
8. Bossy
9. Esposito
10. Bourque
11. Potvin
12. Lafleur
13. Forsberg
14. Ovechkin
15. Lidstrom
16. Makarov
17. Fetisov
18. Malkin
19. Larionov
20. Fedorov