International TournamentsDiscuss International Tournaments like the WJC, Olympics, and World Cup, as they take place, or discuss past tournaments. performances.
Apparently Moscow is hosting a game on February 26 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Summit Series. Its possible it will happen in Red Square:
Quote:
An official close to event organizers told RIA Novosti that 30 stars of past and present had been invited to take part, and four had already accepted: Former Boston Bruins and Colorado Avalanche defenseman Ray Bourque; Finland's former Edmonton Oilers forwards Jari Kurri and Esa Tikkanen; and Paul Henderson, who scored Canada's winning goals in the last three games of the summit series, securing victory for Canada.
Has there been any other discussion about this anywhere? Its the first I've heard of it, and with a month to go, it seems a rather short time to get things organised.
Did anyone see the documentary NBC Sports did on it recently? I thought they portrayed it in a light where Canada realized playing actual hockey wasn't getting them anywhere so they decided to "goon it up" in the last three games and won the tournament and it worked. I wasn't born until 1975 so I don't know if that's how it really was but that's the spin they seemed to put on it. And everyone but Paul Henderson spoke so glowingly about Bobby Clarke whacking the Russian on the ankle, almost as if they were proud of it. Clarke and Esposito glowingly beamed about how great that was, and weren't ashamed at all. I hope that's not the case. Call me a troll but, if one of your country's proudest hockey moments is Bobby Clarke intentionally breaking some dude's ankle with a two-hand stick chop to the boot, there's something wrong with that.
Last edited by PaulieVegas: 01-27-2012 at 08:17 AM.
Reason: Left the "e" off "Clarke"
Good ole paulie vegas, he never misses a chance to slag Canada at every possible opportunity, even one as slim as this.
no paulie, Canada won because Russia simply couldn't win a single game over the last 3, they had every opportunity to win, even a crooked ref like Kompala calling infraction after infraction against Canada. Even the cheating couldn't keep down the good guys and their heart and talent won out.
They won because they were a better team, I know that's always an impossibility to so many bitter fans around here but that's the truth.
Nice hearing your sorrid erroneous spin though, it's always fun.
So, what's your next trick? Calling your boys 2010 loss to us the work of Alan Eagleson?
Good ole paulie vegas, he never misses a chance to slag Canada at every possible opportunity, even one as slim as this.
no paulie, Canada won because Russia simply couldn't win a single game over the last 3, they had every opportunity to win, even a crooked ref like Kompala calling infraction after infraction against Canada. Even the cheating couldn't keep down the good guys and their heart and talent won out.
They won because they were a better team, I know that's always an impossibility to so many bitter fans around here but that's the truth.
Nice hearing your sorrid erroneous spin though, it's always fun.
So, what's your next trick? Calling your boys 2010 loss to us the work of Alan Eagleson?
That's not what I was trying to say at all. I said the documentary put that kind of spin on it. Come on, in 1972 you were our friends (still are) and the Soviets were our bitter enemy, who do you think I would have supported?
You won in 2010 because you were better. Happy now?
In 1972 though, you played 8 games and only won the decider in the dying moments. And that's after getting slaughtered in 3 of 4 games on your home ice. I don't see how that makes you "better." It was an even series, there was a winner and a loser but as close as it was there was no "better."
And please don't hit me with "we won, so we were better." We won the 1996 World Cup, never stopped your countrymen from saying they were better and we just got lucky.
I for one have never said Canada was the better team in 1996, the U.S won because they were the better team right from the start of the tournament until the end.
However, that was one time and it's almost 20 years ago now, no big deal imo.
We proved who was the top dog before that and since then haven't we?
That's not what the results say, like you said, there is a winner and a loser............... we won and they lost.
That's why sports has winners and losers.
I thought this was common knowledge, apparently not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulieVegas
That's not what I was trying to say at all. I said the documentary put that kind of spin on it. Come on, in 1972 you were our friends (still are) and the Soviets were our bitter enemy, who do you think I would have supported?
You won in 2010 because you were better. Happy now?
In 1972 though, you played 8 games and only won the decider in the dying moments. And that's after getting slaughtered in 3 of 4 games on your home ice. I don't see how that makes you "better." It was an even series, there was a winner and a loser but as close as it was there was no "better."
And please don't hit me with "we won, so we were better." We won the 1996 World Cup, never stopped your countrymen from saying they were better and we just got lucky.
I'm not trolling, its an honest question. Why is the Summit Series so celebrated in Canada? Is it not the moment when Canada lost sole possession of their own pastime?
I for one have never said Canada was the better team in 1996, the U.S won because they were the better team right from the start of the tournament until the end.
However, that was one time and it's almost 20 years ago now, no big deal imo.
We proved who was the top dog before that and since then haven't we?
By most measurable standards, yes, you are the top dog. But now that more than two countries take hockey seriously, the gap between top dog and the rest of the pack is rapidly shrinking.
But this is off topic, and out of respect to the thread poster I'm going to drop it. If you want to discuss further in another thread or in PM's, I'd be happy to.
That's not what the results say, like you said, there is a winner and a loser............... we won and they lost.
That's why sports has winners and losers.
I thought this was common knowledge, apparently not.
Just because you win doesn't make you better. That's why we have the term "upset." If the winning team was always the better team, we would never have beaten the Soviets in 1980, Switzerland would have never shut out Canada in 2006, Belarus wouldn't have beaten Sweden in 2002, etc.
We won more games then them, if that doesn't make a team better I don't know what does,
That's sports, that's competition, that's life.
Was Canada better in 72? yes, if they weren't, they would have lost.
But they didn't.............they won.
Just like the U.S won in 96 and were better. Are you saying your team wasn't better then Canada in 96?
Of course you're not, you said as much yourself above.
I guess that's the end of the story.
Now you're just twisting my words, if you want to start a philosophical discussion in another thread about whether you're automatically "better" just because you won, be my guest. In the meantime maybe you can get back on topic and answer my compatriot's question about why the Summit Series is so important to Canada.
I make it a habit of never twisting anyones words, they seem to do a good enough job of that on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulieVegas
Now you're just twisting my words, if you want to start a philosophical discussion in another thread about whether you're automatically "better" just because you won, be my guest. In the meantime maybe you can get back on topic and answer my compatriot's question about why the Summit Series is so important to Canada.
I must be missing something, why are Jari Kurri and Esa Tikkanen a part of this game?
I would love to see both Clarke and Kharlamov play in this game and see Kharlamov whack Clarke in the ankle with his stick. There's a word for that: "justice."
I might point out that the 1972 team was Team Canada in name and fan support only. In reality there were a number of players that had jumped to the WHA and wer not allowed to participate as this was a NHL only show.
Even then Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau asked that those players be allowed to play and was turned down.
Good ole paulie vegas, he never misses a chance to slag Canada at every possible opportunity, even one as slim as this.
no paulie, Canada won because Russia simply couldn't win a single game over the last 3, they had every opportunity to win, even a crooked ref like Kompala calling infraction after infraction against Canada. Even the cheating couldn't keep down the good guys and their heart and talent won out.
They won because they were a better team, I know that's always an impossibility to so many bitter fans around here but that's the truth.
Nice hearing your sorrid erroneous spin though, it's always fun.
So, what's your next trick? Calling your boys 2010 loss to us the work of Alan Eagleson?
I lived and breathed that series when it was on. (I also wrote a book on the 1974 Summit entitled "The Forgotten Summit.)
I think what we saw in 1972 was a clash of two great teams who were fairly evenly matched. Overall I believe the Soviets had better basic skills (passing, skating, etc.) Canada had more heart and played with a passion and fury the Soviets had never before experienced. Both sides "cheated." Clarke's attack on Kharlamov was a disgrace and it was also plain stupid. What if the Soviets had responded by doing the same to Phil Esposito? Once you open that door...... On the other side Boris Mikhailov's kicking of Gary Bergman was equally appalling.
In Canada we celebrate that series as it was the most unifying event in our history. Canada has always been a nation of "hyphenated Canadians. Few people are “Canadians.” We have “Native Canadians”, “English Canadians”, “French Canadians”, etc. In both world wars Canadian society splintered among linguistic lines. And then came the 1972 Summit. And for the first and probably only time there was no “hyphenated Canadians.” For 28 days in September 1972 we were all just Canadians.
I lived and breathed that series when it was on. (I also wrote a book on the 1974 Summit entitled "The Forgotten Summit.)
I think what we saw in 1972 was a clash of two great teams who were fairly evenly matched. Overall I believe the Soviets had better basic skills (passing, skating, etc.) Canada had more heart and played with a passion and fury the Soviets had never before experienced. Both sides "cheated." Clarke's attack on Kharlamov was a disgrace and it was also plain stupid. What if the Soviets had responded by doing the same to Phil Esposito? Once you open that door...... On the other side Boris Mikhailov's kicking of Gary Bergman was equally appalling.
In Canada we celebrate that series as it was the most unifying event in our history. Canada has always been a nation of "hyphenated Canadians. Few people are “Canadians.” We have “Native Canadians”, “English Canadians”, “French Canadians”, etc. In both world wars Canadian society splintered among linguistic lines. And then came the 1972 Summit. And for the first and probably only time there was no “hyphenated Canadians.” For 28 days in September 1972 we were all just Canadians.
Peace,
Craig Wallace
It still amazes me how Canada could slap together a team with almost no prep time and beat what was practically a full time nation team. Just think of how good Canada would have been if they had the top WHAer's and played together year round.
As to why it is so well remembered is as much to do with the politics as the hockey. It was how we won our piece of the cold war.
btw maybe we could make PaulieV an honorary southern-canadian...
Last edited by Mr Kanadensisk: 04-05-2012 at 10:45 PM.
It still amazes me how Canada could slap together a team with almost no prep time and beat what was practically a full time nation team. Just think of how good Canada would have been if they had the top WHAer's and played together year round.
As to why it is so well remembered is as much to do with the politics as the hockey. It was how we won our piece of the cold war.
btw maybe we could make PaulieV an honorary southern-canadian...
Your speculation about how dominant the Canadians would have been if the "WHA'ers" would have been on board is not supported by the facts. As soon afterward as September, 1976, all Canadians good enough to make the team played for Team Canada in the Canada Cup, and the result was as always, no appreciable difference in the quality of the teams. Arguably the greatest Canadian hockey team every assembled played a Soviet "B" team on Canadian ice, and won by a modest 3-1 margin. Just a little more than two years later, in the 1979 Challenge Cup, the Soviets routed the best Canadian players in the NHL.
As for the idea of a "year-round" national team, that was never true, but even if it was, there is no way to make a credible argument that one team would have been better than the other if they played together all year, because there was no noticeable difference in the talent and skill of players from both teams when they met on the ice. Its one of the woulda-coulda-shoulda arguments that we keep litigating over and over and over.
Your speculation about how dominant the Canadians would have been if the "WHA'ers" would have been on board is not supported by the facts. As soon afterward as September, 1976, all Canadians good enough to make the team played for Team Canada in the Canada Cup, and the result was as always, no appreciable difference in the quality of the teams. Arguably the greatest Canadian hockey team every assembled played a Soviet "B" team on Canadian ice, and won by a modest 3-1 margin. Just a little more than two years later, in the 1979 Challenge Cup, the Soviets routed the best Canadian players in the NHL.
As for the idea of a "year-round" national team, that was never true, but even if it was, there is no way to make a credible argument that one team would have been better than the other if they played together all year, because there was no noticeable difference in the talent and skill of players from both teams when they met on the ice. Its one of the woulda-coulda-shoulda arguments that we keep litigating over and over and over.
Players both as a team and individuals are going to perform much better if they are familiar with their teammates, team play is critical in hockey. Look at how well the USA NTDP teams are doing, although they don't produce more talented individuals than any of the other major hockey countries, same thing really. Seems kind of obvious, not sure what else can be said.
What a tremendous series that was. Wonder if they'll re-release the games on a DVD set as they did for the 30th anniversary set. Only this time have them on Blu-Ray and have new player interviews.
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
NBC Sports Network will be replaying their special - Cold War On
Ice-Summit Series 72 - Saturday evening, May 5 - 10:00 pm ET-
12:00 am ET - right after coverage of the United States-Canada
prelim game - 7:30 pm ET-10:00 pm ET.
I'm not trolling, its an honest question. Why is the Summit Series so celebrated in Canada? Is it not the moment when Canada lost sole possession of their own pastime?
Because it was the first time Canada's dominance over ice hockey had been challenged and we came out ahead.
The series also changed the way Canadians approached the game, which in turn, paved the way for this:
