Toews/Kane vs Mikita/Hull

[illpucks]

Heard somewhere Toews/Kane is the new Mikita/Hull

Who was better? I know this will be a long shot, but is there anyone on here who have watched all 4 players play in their primes (ie watched hockey in the 60's)

Would be very interested in hearing opinions of those people.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Heard somewhere Toews/Kane is the new Mikita/Hull

Who was better? I know this will be a long shot, but is there anyone on here who have watched all 4 players play in their primes (ie watched hockey in the 60's)

Would be very interested in hearing opinions of those people.

Killion and Canadiens58 are good probabilities.

 

[Passchendaele]

This is not even close.

Mikita won multiple scoring championships and Hart trophies. Toews never finished top-10 in scoring.

Hull led the NHL in goals seven times. Won the Art Ross three times. Is arguably a top-5 player all-time.

 

[Big Phil]

It's a cute comparison, and all 4 will be together in the HHOF someday. But I can't imagine a GM ever passing up on a Mikita/Hull combo. Toews is the type that does everything right, he can score big goals, be on the ice in the final minute with a lead and he is probably the best leader we have seen in a couple of decades. That being said, Mikita was all of those things as well on top of being a better scorer.

Kane as well is an offensive treat to watch. Incredibly dangerous and a rare case of someone who is worth the price of admission. But Bobby Hull was just so dangerous offensively in so many ways that I think this comparison is almost a little unfair to Toews and Kane. It forces us to downgrade them and nitpick about them. Not something I like to do about great players when there is too big of a gap to compare.

 

[jason1919spezza]

Not close at all lol.
Hull is top 10 all time, while Mikita is top 20 (around there) all time.

I'm pretty sure neither Toews or Kane will make the top 100 all time. Maybe Kane if he can continue his regular season dominance like this year, but I highly doubt it. He's usually a borderline PPG player who becomes extremely clutch come playoff time.

 

[Sentinel]

It's a cute comparison, and all 4 will be together in the HHOF someday. But I can't imagine a GM ever passing up on a Mikita/Hull combo. Toews is the type that does everything right, he can score big goals, be on the ice in the final minute with a lead and he is probably the best leader we have seen in a couple of decades. That being said, Mikita was all of those things as well on top of being a better scorer.

Going back to 1996? Yzerman and Sakic could probably say something about this.

On the OP: individually Hull and Mikita were probably better players, especially Hull. But the fact that between them they have TWO Stanley Cups to T&K's SIX (+ two "best on best" golds) is irrefutable.

 

[tony d]

Toews and Kane are both amazing players for sure but right now mikita and Hull are top 15 all time guys. It's them and not close right now.

 

[Big Phil]

Going back to 1996? Yzerman and Sakic could probably say something about this.

It is really hard to rank a "leader" as a fan because it is all just what we see on the ice and the bench. But as a leader I think you have to start putting Toews with Yzerman and Sakic if you aren't doing it already, even if he wasn't as good of a player.

On the OP: individually Hull and Mikita were probably better players, especially Hull. But the fact that between them they have TWO Stanley Cups to T&K's SIX (+ two "best on best" golds) is irrefutable.

They have more Cups, no argument there. But let's look at who the Hawks with Mikita and Hull lost to after 1961 in the final. It was the 1962 Leafs, 1965 Habs, 1971 Habs and then without Hull the 1973 Habs. They weren't losing to patsies and both Hull and Mikita definitely did their part, it has been discovered that the secondary scoring for the Hawks so there's that. Not to take anything away from Toews and Kane, they've won more for sure but does it equate with them being better players and a better one-two punch? I don't think it does at all.

 

[Killion]

Heard somewhere Toews/Kane is the new Mikita/Hull

Who was better? I know this will be a long shot, but is there anyone on here who have watched all 4 players play in their primes (ie watched hockey in the 60's)

Would be very interested in hearing opinions of those people.

Killion and Canadiens58 are good probabilities.

This is not even close.

Mikita won multiple scoring championships and Hart trophies. Toews never finished top-10 in scoring.

Hull led the NHL in goals seven times. Won the Art Ross three times. Is arguably a top-5 player all-time.

Toews and Kane are both amazing players for sure but right now mikita and Hull are top 15 all time guys. It's them and not close right now.

Ya, all correct really as you have to consider that kind of comment or statement within the context of the Chicago Black Hawks organization and its successes & failures. More generally its sort of like saying "Lennon & McCartney were the greatest song writing duo of the 60's, Elton John & Bernie Taupin of the 70's, Joe Strummer & Mick Jones of the Clash in the 80's, Johnny Marr & Morrissey (The Smiths) of the 90's" and so on. Its a generational thing. For whichever generation, they'll have their favorites, they'll consider so & so "superior" to a past or later duo. Sales or in the case of hockey Silverware & personal achievements (goals, assists etc) irrelevant. Thats not what the comments meant to portray. Its accurate in that Toews/Kane are "as important" (arguably more important as their Closing the Deal) than Hull or Mikita were to the Chicago Black Hawks of the 60's. So sure, Toews/Kane = the Hull/Mikita of this generations Black Hawks.

 

[pappyline]

It is really hard to rank a "leader" as a fan because it is all just what we see on the ice and the bench. But as a leader I think you have to start putting Toews with Yzerman and Sakic if you aren't doing it already, even if he wasn't as good of a player.



They have more Cups, no argument there. But let's look at who the Hawks with Mikita and Hull lost to after 1961 in the final. It was the 1962 Leafs, 1965 Habs, 1971 Habs and then without Hull the 1973 Habs. They weren't losing to patsies and both Hull and Mikita definitely did their part, it has been discovered that the secondary scoring for the Hawks so there's that. Not to take anything away from Toews and Kane, they've won more for sure but does it equate with them being better players and a better one-two punch? I don't think it does at all.

Right on Phil. Hull & Mikita were great playoff performers but the secondary players didn't come through. Those Montreal & Toronto teams were extremely deep.

Sentinel is one of those posters who judges individuals by how many team awards they win. Regarding Hull, it is kind of hard to win Stanley cups when you are playing in a different league and he did win a couple of WHA championships. He also includes Towes' 2 Olympic golds in his comparison but ignores the fact that Hull & Mikita were never given the opportunity to participate in the Olympics. However, Hull was the top Canadian goal scorer at age 37 at the 1976 Canada cup and Mikita participated in the 1972 summit series where Hull was blackballed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Cornerstones

Heard somewhere Toews/Kane is the new Mikita/Hull

Who was better? I know this will be a long shot, but is there anyone on here who have watched all 4 players play in their primes (ie watched hockey in the 60's)

Would be very interested in hearing opinions of those people.

Both pairs are cornerstones of the Chicago franchise, app. 50 years apart. Present day team has better coaching and management so the chances of team success are much better. Better team depth especially on defence.

Individually better?

Hull and Mikita had a more diversified skill set. Both were in the top three in terms of their shooting skills relative to the rest of the league. Both entered the league as centers, stronger playmakers, better overall defensively. Hull was the best skater amongst the four. More powerful than Ovechkin, with a more varied offensive skill set. Mikita, sandpaper type player even after his penalties dropped significantly after the 1965 playoffs.

Patrick Kane, gamer, lethal in PO overtime, one of the best backhand shots that i have seen. Dangerous from both wings offensively, excellent skater, especially laterally. Slowly getting better defensively.

Jonathan Toews. Very solid, complete player, no holes, game in, game out. Leader.

 

[Sentinel]

Right on Phil. Hull & Mikita were great playoff performers but the secondary players didn't come through. Those Montreal & Toronto teams were extremely deep.

Sentinel is one of those posters who judges individuals by how many team awards they win. Regarding Hull, it is kind of hard to win Stanley cups when you are playing in a different league and he did win a couple of WHA championships. He also includes Towes' 2 Olympic golds in his comparison but ignores the fact that Hull & Mikita were never given the opportunity to participate in the Olympics. However, Hull was the top Canadian goal scorer at age 37 at the 1976 Canada cup and Mikita participated in the 1972 summit series where Hull was blackballed.

I'm not ignoring anything. This is why I specifically said "best-on-best" tournaments. Which Mikita barely played in, and Hull lost one.

Yes, I absolutely rely on winning pedigree more than on shooting percentages.

 

[MXD]

Right on Phil. Hull & Mikita were great playoff performers but the secondary players didn't come through. Those Montreal & Toronto teams were extremely deep.

Sentinel is one of those posters who judges individuals by how many team awards they win. Regarding Hull, it is kind of hard to win Stanley cups when you are playing in a different league and he did win a couple of WHA championships. He also includes Towes' 2 Olympic golds in his comparison but ignores the fact that Hull & Mikita were never given the opportunity to participate in the Olympics. However, Hull was the top Canadian goal scorer at age 37 at the 1976 Canada cup and Mikita participated in the 1972 summit series where Hull was blackballed.

.... Sortof.

I mean, I can't see the Habs NOT winning the Cup in the early 70ies if they somehow replace Frank Mahovlich with Bobby Hull. Even if Frank indeed played very well for those two Cups and was otherwise a great standalone player, a bit like Hull (went with F. Mahovlich because replacing Cashman with Hull is a bit like apples-to-tomatoes; both can work in the same setting, but you'll just end up with something completely different).

I'm frankly aware that Hull was a better player than Frank Mahovlich by the way.

I'd like to say that the Hawks wouldn't be more successful if you replaced Hull with one of the multiple LW's of the Habs in the 60ies, but that would be a huge downgrade to begin with that might actually make the Hawks miss the playoffs altogether (not looking at specifics -- of course the Hawks don't end up being a ,350 hockey team with Hull removed).

 

[MXD]

Not close at all lol.
Hull is top 10 all time, while Mikita is top 20 (around there) all time.

I'm pretty sure neither Toews or Kane will make the top 100 all time. Maybe Kane if he can continue his regular season dominance like this year, but I highly doubt it. He's usually a borderline PPG player who becomes extremely clutch come playoff time.

A reasonable guess as to the 100th best player of all time would be Jarome Iginla, who could be described in such words... And Kane is already WAY ahead in the playoffs.

It's not a given that Kane ends up with a better career, but at Age27, he's reasonable close (ahead or behind, whatever).

 

[pappyline]

I'm not ignoring anything. This is why I specifically said "best-on-best" tournaments. Which Mikita barely played in, and Hull lost one.

Yes, I absolutely rely on winning pedigree more than on shooting percentages.

Which best on best tournament did Hull lose. The only one he played in was the 76 Canada cup and he won that one.

 

[Big Phil]

Right on Phil. Hull & Mikita were great playoff performers but the secondary players didn't come through. Those Montreal & Toronto teams were extremely deep.

Sentinel is one of those posters who judges individuals by how many team awards they win. Regarding Hull, it is kind of hard to win Stanley cups when you are playing in a different league and he did win a couple of WHA championships. He also includes Towes' 2 Olympic golds in his comparison but ignores the fact that Hull & Mikita were never given the opportunity to participate in the Olympics. However, Hull was the top Canadian goal scorer at age 37 at the 1976 Canada cup and Mikita participated in the 1972 summit series where Hull was blackballed.

There is always more to a story. Cups count a lot and how you produce in them, but it goes further than that. It isn't as if Kane and Toews' Hawks haven't lost in the first round either. Mikita for the record had 21 points in 1962, unheard of in two rounds of hockey. Hull wins the Smythe in 1971 if the Hawks win Game 7. He also has other great runs. When the Hawks went deep he contributed. Or in a year like 1963 they get bounced out first round but he had 10 points in 5 games. Hull never really had a bad postseason other than his first two. Not to mention between Hull and Mikita there are 4 Harts and 7 Art Ross trophies. At the end of this year between Kane and Toews there might be 1 each tops.

I'm not ignoring anything. This is why I specifically said "best-on-best" tournaments. Which Mikita barely played in, and Hull lost one.

Yes, I absolutely rely on winning pedigree more than on shooting percentages.

Just while we're on the same page, Kane has lost two best on best as well. Toews has won two. Mikita won in the only one he played in. Hull was snubbed in 1972 and played great in a win in the 1976 Canada Cup? Are you counting 1974 and the WHA series as a "best on best"? I don't think anyone ever thought it was one of those, even the Russians.

 

[bobholly39]

Going back to 1996? Yzerman and Sakic could probably say something about this.

On the OP: individually Hull and Mikita were probably better players, especially Hull. But the fact that between them they have TWO Stanley Cups to T&K's SIX (+ two "best on best" golds) is irrefutable.

In terms of being a "leader" - Toews is way ahead of both Sakic and Yzerman at a similar age I would think.

Of course - insomuch as we - as fans- can tell. But based on what people say about Toews, both players, coaches and gms, i think he is definitely a good leader and up there.

 

[double5son10]

Which best on best tournament did Hull lose. The only one he played in was the 76 Canada cup and he won that one.

1974 Summit between WHA and the Soviets. Whether one counts the WHA All-Stars as "best" would certainly be open for debate. Hull was the leading scorer in that tournament.

 

[Voight]

Going back to 1996? Yzerman and Sakic could probably say something about this.

On the OP: individually Hull and Mikita were probably better players, especially Hull. But the fact that between them they have TWO Stanley Cups to T&K's SIX (+ two "best on best" golds) is irrefutable.

3 cups in a salary cap era is pretty damn good. Plus the impact he's had on the Canadian Gold Olympic teams.

 

[MarkStone]

Ya, all correct really as you have to consider that kind of comment or statement within the context of the Chicago Black Hawks organization and its successes & failures. More generally its sort of like saying "Lennon & McCartney were the greatest song writing duo of the 60's, Elton John & Bernie Taupin of the 70's, Joe Strummer & Mick Jones of the Clash in the 80's, Johnny Marr & Morrissey (The Smiths) of the 90's" and so on. Its a generational thing. For whichever generation, they'll have their favorites, they'll consider so & so "superior" to a past or later duo. Sales or in the case of hockey Silverware & personal achievements (goals, assists etc) irrelevant. Thats not what the comments meant to portray. Its accurate in that Toews/Kane are "as important" (arguably more important as their Closing the Deal) than Hull or Mikita were to the Chicago Black Hawks of the 60's. So sure, Toews/Kane = the Hull/Mikita of this generations Black Hawks.

The Smiths, my favourite 90's band . Agreed with the rest, and when people say Toews/Kane are the new Mikita/Hull I think what they mean is that these two superstar pairings helped bring success and respect back to the Blackhawks organization after two lengthy stints of mediocrity for the franchise.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Mikita/Hull were more like Malkin/Crosby, in terms of talent and (until this year?) limited team success