HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   International Tournaments (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   How much more dominant Soviets would have been (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1613733)

Juubito 02-28-2014 09:15 PM

How much more dominant Soviets would have been
 
If they had the MASSIVE referee advantage like Canada did in Canada Cups, had not been disturbed in their hotels and had not played a socialistic game where everyone played as much no matter if it was PP or SH?

Lars65 02-28-2014 09:23 PM

Well they could have hosted a 'Commie Cup' if they wanted, I guess. don't know if everybody would've shown up though. All the teams knew the referees and rules involved, and they still showed up, didn't they? I guess they thought they were so good they could overcome the 'Massive' advantage.

An Argument For 02-28-2014 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juubito (Post 80691003)
If they had the MASSIVE referee advantage like Canada did in Canada Cups, had not been disturbed in their hotels and had not played a socialistic game where everyone played as much no matter if it was PP or SH?

They weren't dominant period.

The country failed. The hockey system failed. This thread appears to be garbage but to everyone's surprise I will give it a bronze.

TonsofPuppies* 02-28-2014 09:37 PM

The Soviets were never truly "dominant". Sending their pros to beat down on everyone's amateurs for decades is far from an impressive feat.

Acallabeth 02-28-2014 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonsofPuppies (Post 80692899)
The Soviets were never truly "dominant". Sending their pros to beat down on everyone's amateurs for decades is far from an impressive feat.

Only "amateurs" were the Canadian and Americans. And to say that the team that won all but 2 Olympics it participated in, medaled in every IIHF tournament they participated in, wasn't dominant is just laughable.

On topic, I don't think it would make a massive difference. Though the 1987 Canada Cup would be Soviet for sure...

TonsofPuppies* 02-28-2014 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acallabeth (Post 80693717)
Only "amateurs" were the Canadian and Americans. And to say that the team that won all but 2 Olympics it participated in, medaled in every IIHF tournament they participated in, wasn't dominant is just laughable.

On topic, I don't think it would make a massive difference. Though the 1987 Canada Cup would be Soviet for sure...

You mean the only country that had the depth and talent to compete on the same level, and could offer a consistent worthy challenge wasn't allowed to actually fairly compete? Yeah, the Soviets should be really proud of their "accomplishments". :laugh:

An Argument For 02-28-2014 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acallabeth (Post 80693717)
Only "amateurs" were the Canadian and Americans. And to say that the team that won all but 2 Olympics it participated in, medaled in every IIHF tournament they participated in, wasn't dominant is just laughable.

On topic, I don't think it would make a massive difference. Though the 1987 Canada Cup would be Soviet for sure...

Of course they won the Olympics, they used professional athletes while NHL players weren't allowed to until the 90s. Canada didn't even send hockey teams in the 70s because it was so lopsided.

Good luck with your Russian quarter final goals of the future.

Mr Kanadensisk 02-28-2014 10:03 PM

How much more dominant would Canada have been if their national team played and practiced together as much as the Soviets?

TonsofPuppies* 02-28-2014 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk (Post 80694569)
How much more dominant would Canada have been if their national team played and practiced together as much as the Soviets?

I think you mean if they were actually able to ice a national team.

Pilky01 02-28-2014 10:12 PM

I dont think alot of Canadians, particularly those under 30, view any Canada Cup victories as anything more than just hockey exhibitions put on by Hockey Canada.

By the same token, I don't think any Canadians view the pre-NHL Olympic tournaments as meaning anything because the best hockey nation in the world, the nation that is the economic engine of the world's most successful pro hockey league, the nation that has won gold in 3/5 NHL Olympics, was sending a team of amateurs.

As for the USSR's "socialist" game plan, that was their prerogative. If they want to play a stupid game that isn't Canada's fault.

Stonewall 02-28-2014 10:26 PM

They were dominant in 1980 except for the game against the US. Look at them scores.

16 - 0 against Japan
17 - 4 against the Netherlands
8 - 1 against Poland
4 - 2 against Finland
6 - 4 against Canada
9 - 2 against Sweden

They would have won gold too if the US lost against Finland.

CSKA Moscow was also dominant in the Super Series

Pilky01 02-28-2014 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonewall (Post 80696125)
They were dominant in 1980 except for the game against the US. Look at them scores.

16 - 0 against Japan
17 - 4 against the Netherlands
8 - 1 against Poland
4 - 2 against Finland
6 - 4 against Canada
9 - 2 against Sweden

They would have won gold too if the US lost against Finland.

CSKA Moscow was also dominant in the Super Series

Is 41-5 against hockey nobodies Japan/Netherlands/Poland supposed to mean something?

Those scores tell me they blew out Sweden and played tight games against the Fins and Canadians before losing the US. How is that "dominant"?

TonsofPuppies* 02-28-2014 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilky01 (Post 80696555)
Is 41-5 against hockey nobodies Japan/Netherlands/Poland supposed to mean something?

Those scores tell me they blew out Sweden and played tight games against the Fins and Canadians before losing the US. How is that "dominant"?

The Russians have a funny definition of the word. :laugh:

Uncle Rotter 02-28-2014 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonewall (Post 80696125)
4 - 2 against Finland
6 - 4 against Canada

They trailed in both games, they were down 3-1 to a bunch of Canadian college kids early in the 2nd period being outshot by a wide margin (the game's on youtube)

Fantomas 03-01-2014 12:01 AM

Canadians are so insecure. Someone posts that the Soviets were dominant and they have to barge in and say "nooooooooo."

Darth Yoda 03-01-2014 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantomas (Post 80701273)
Canadians are so insecure. Someone posts that the Soviets were dominant and they have to barge in and say "nooooooooo."

I think it is safe to say they where not dominant, no?

TonsofPuppies* 03-01-2014 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantomas (Post 80701273)
Canadians are so insecure. Someone posts that the Soviets were dominant and they have to barge in and say "nooooooooo."

Lol, we've won 3 or the last 4 olympic golds. Believe me, we're very happy with where we are. How are those back to back QF exits sitting with you guys? The Soviets were an embarrassment to the sport by proclaiming themselves to be some sort of hockey gods, knowing full well that they were facing nothing but inferior competition by cheating the system. And the current Russian national team is carrying on that embarrassment to this day with their pathetic showings at best-on-best competitions. 1981 and counting. Not dominant. Not even close. :laugh:

WarriorofTime 03-01-2014 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonsofPuppies (Post 80692899)
The Soviets were never truly "dominant". Sending their pros to beat down on everyone's amateurs for decades is far from an impressive feat.

Actually, they were pretty darn dominant, show a little respect. So much that Canada had to make up a little exhibition tournament called the "Canada Cup" as a way to counteract that.

If you want proof of how good the Soviet system was, see the Russian invasion of the NHL in the 1990s when the iron curtain fell. It was only once far enough removed from that Soviet system that Russia really declined as a hockey power.

Note that this isn't some way of proclaiming that Canada wasn't also awesome. So don't get all insecure Canadians. Canada #1!!! We get it..

The fact that Russia was competitive with Canada in the "Canada Cup" speaks volumes about how strong the Soviet system was.

TonsofPuppies* 03-01-2014 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarriorofTime (Post 80702779)
Actually, they were pretty darn dominant, show a little respect. So much that Canada had to make up a little exhibition tournament called the "Canada Cup" as a way to counteract that.

If you want proof of how good the Soviet system was, see the Russian invasion of the NHL in the 1990s when the iron curtain fell. It was only once far enough removed from that Soviet system that Russia really declined as a hockey power.

Note that this isn't some way of proclaiming that Canada wasn't also awesome. So don't get all insecure Canadians. Canada #1!!! We get it..

The fact that Russia was competitive with Canada in the "Canada Cup" speaks volumes about how strong the Soviet system was.

If you're trying to come up with tournaments as a gauge for Soviet dominance, how about you don't choose the one where they lost 4 out 5? A winning percentage of .200 is far from dominant. In 5 Canada Cups, the Soviets have a record of 18-10-4, while the Canadians have a record of 28-5-6.

As for respect, I'll never respect the Soviets because almost all of their wins are tainted by the fact that they faced next to zero legitimate competition by masquerading their pros as amateurs.

WarriorofTime 03-01-2014 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonsofPuppies (Post 80703707)
If you're trying to come up with tournaments as a gauge for Soviet dominance, how about you don't choose the one where they lost 4 out 5? A winning percentage of .200 is far from dominant. In 5 Canada Cups, the Soviets have a record of 18-10-4, while the Canadians have a record of 28-5-6.

As for respect, I'll never respect the Soviets because almost all of their wins are tainted by the fact that they faced next to zero legitimate competition by masquerading their pros as amateurs.

I guess you never saw the games. Like the '72 Summit Series where the Canadians expected to win 8-0 with 5+ goal margins of victories and ended up realizing the Soviets were the equals. Or the various Challenge Cups where the Soviets spanked top NHL teams. Or the 81 Canada Cup where the final was heavily lopsided in favor of the Russians. Or the 87 Canada Cup where the greatest Canadians of all times (Gretzky and Lemieux in their primes) needed awful officiating just to barely beat their Soviet counterparts.

If all you gather out of all that is CANADA #1! RUSSIA SUXORZ! you need to grow up and learn how to respect your opposition.

TonsofPuppies* 03-01-2014 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarriorofTime (Post 80703897)
I guess you never saw the games. Like the '72 Summit Series where the Canadians expected to win 8-0 with 5+ goal margins of victories and ended up realizing the Soviets were the equals. Or the various Challenge Cups where the Soviets spanked top NHL teams. Or the 81 Canada Cup where the final was heavily lopsided in favor of the Russians. Or the 87 Canada Cup where the greatest Canadians of all times (Gretzky and Lemieux in their primes) needed awful officiating just to barely beat their Soviet counterparts.

If all you gather out of all that is CANADA #1! RUSSIA SUXORZ! you need to grow up and learn how to respect your opposition.

So.. you're using the '72 Summit Series, which was won by Canada and lost by the Soviets, and the Canada Cup tournaments, 4 of which were won by Canada and 1 of which was won by the Soviets as proof of Soviet dominance? Before you embarrass yourself further, perhaps you should Google the definition of "dominant". I never once said the Soviets weren't good hockey players. I said they can't be called dominant when they never faced real competition (and when they did, they usually lost).

If Canada took all of their best players out of the NHL and had them practice and play games together year round, then put them up against hockey powerhouses like Kazakhstan, Poland, the Ukraine and the Russian and American WJC teams and decimated them, would that suffice for dominance? :laugh:

WarriorofTime 03-01-2014 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonsofPuppies (Post 80703971)
So.. you're using the '72 Summit Series, which was won by Canada and lost by the Soviets, and the Canada Cup tournaments, 4 of which were won by Canada and 1 of which was won by the Soviets as proof of Soviet dominance? Before you embarrass yourself further, perhaps you should Google the definition of "dominant". I never once said the Soviets weren't good hockey players. I said they can't be called dominant when they never faced real competition (and when they did, they usually lost).

If Canada took all of their best players out of the NHL and had them practice and play games together year round, then put them up against hockey powerhouses like Kazakhstan, Poland, the Ukraine and the Russian and American WJC teams and decimated them, would that suffice for dominance? :laugh:

They "dominated" the tournaments they cared about most. That's pretty indisputable. I get your shtick. Canada is awesome. Cool. Good for them. I'm just saying show a little bit of respect. This whole "LOL AMATEUERZZZZZ" is a sad display of class from some posters. It's too bad Hasek took the gold medal game in Nagano '98 (not a true "best on best" as you all like to say as Russia was missing some notable players)... if that's what it would take to validate how strong the Soviet hockey program was.

FYI: just because a team LOSES doesn't mean they didn't play admirably and put on an excellent display of hockey ability. If all you take away from the '72 Summit Series is CANADA RULEZ USSR DROOLZ then you weren't paying enough attention.

TonsofPuppies* 03-01-2014 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarriorofTime (Post 80704255)
They "dominated" the tournaments they cared about most. That's pretty indisputable. I get your shtick. Canada is awesome. Cool. Good for them. I'm just saying show a little bit of respect. This whole "LOL AMATEUERZZZZZ" is a sad display of class from some posters. It's too bad Hasek took the gold medal game in Nagano '98 (not a true "best on best" as you all like to say as Russia was missing some notable players)... if that's what it would take to validate how strong the Soviet hockey program was.

FYI: just because a team LOSES doesn't mean they didn't play admirably and put on an excellent display of hockey ability. If all you take away from the '72 Summit Series is CANADA RULEZ USSR DROOLZ then you weren't paying enough attention.

I don't think you're paying attention. It's impossible to lose and be dominant. They are opposites. If you lose a tournament, you didn't dominate said tournament. Likewise, even if you win a tournament, you may not have dominated it. For instance, the '72 Summit Series was a win for Canada, but hardly a dominant one. The only tournaments that the Soviets "dominated" were ones where the only team capable of giving them an actual challenge was put at an insurmountable disadvantage. This really isn't hard to understand. Again, if I were you, I'd start here.

WarriorofTime 03-01-2014 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonsofPuppies (Post 80704351)
I don't think you're paying attention. It's impossible to lose and be dominant. They are opposites. If you lose a tournament, you didn't dominate it. The only tournaments that the Soviets "dominated" were ones where the only team capable of giving them an actual challenge was out at an insurmountable disadvantage. This really isn't hard to understand. Again, if I were you, I'd start here.

They were dominant in the tournament they cared about and competitive in the obviously biased exhibitions Canada put on to display their awesomeness. Get it?

You started this all with your whole "The Soviets were an embarrassment to the sport by proclaiming themselves to be some sort of hockey gods, knowing full well that they were facing nothing but inferior competition by cheating the system. And the current Russian national team is carrying on that embarrassment to this day with their pathetic showings at best-on-best competitions. 1981 and counting." flame. I mean, an embarrassment, really? You should learn how to show some respect, kid.

TonsofPuppies* 03-01-2014 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarriorofTime (Post 80704369)
They were dominant in the tournament they cared about and competitive in the obviously biased exhibitions Canada put on to display their awesomeness. Get it?

Which tournament are you referring to? :laugh:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.