Who is better, Hewitt or Larionov?
Foster Hewitt leads with a GOAT score of 87.4 against 87.4 for Igor Larionov — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently scores Foster Hewitt and Igor Larionov level at 87.4. Foster Hewitt leads on Longevity, Dominance, Statistics. Igor Larionov leads on Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Hewitt wins: Dominance, Longevity, Statistics
Larionov wins: Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/foster-hewitt-vs-igor-larionov
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Hewitt leads in 4 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇨🇦 Hewitt | 0 | 0 | 10 | 30 | 150 | 450 |
| 🇷🇺 Larionov | 0 | 0 | 55 | 117 | 342 | 704 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | HewittRetired | LarionovRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Years broadcasting hockey | 58 | — |
| Stanley Cup finals called | 40 | — |
| Summit Series games called | 8 | — |
| Hall of Fame inductions | 1 | — |
| Award named after him | 1 | — |
| Stanley Cups | — | 3 |
| Olympic gold medals | — | 2 |
| World Championship titles | — | 4 |
| NHL points | — | 644 |
| Seasons played | — | 23 |
| Dominance w25% | 84 | 82 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 96 | 90 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 90 |
| Statistics w15% | 88 | 86 |
Foster Hewitt leads with a GOAT score of 87.4 against 87.4 for Igor Larionov — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Larionov scores higher on honours. Hewitt leads on dominance, statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Hewitt: 87.4, Larionov: 87.4.
Make your case for Hewitt vs Larionov. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.