So if the Soviets had responded by saying taking out Phil Esposito you would have firmly agreed with that tactic?
Fair is fair.
Craig Wallace
Fair is fair for level-headed people, and I am glad you are one.
I have often tried to imagine the Canadian outrage if Fetisov (or anyone) had broken Gretzky's ankle in 1987, and the Soviets had gone on to win.
I think there are many posters on here, and people in this country, who call Suter's numbers hit on 99 inexcusably, unforgivably dirty - yet, will call Clarke's slash the act of someone who wanted it more.
I'm certain this mindset isn't unique to Canada. There is a world full of evil 'otherguys', and heroic 'our guys'.
As for Orr and Hull. The 'otherguys' were missing Firsov, and their legendary coach Anatoli Tarasov.
But none of that is the point. The point is that two teams entered a series, and that series ended after 5 games.
For the typical response that it wouldn't have been close if the Orr-God had graced the series with his presence - yes, maybe, could be - we could all argue back and forth about how Gretzky never won a Cup without Edmonton, and they did without him, and others could say, "you just don't know how much Orr dominated games", and it could all go back and forth, in hypothetical fashion, with not one person relinquishing his concrete claims, or we could look at the series in hand, without hypothetics, and see, irrefutably, that the series was ended by Clarke.
Hockey games are played, like all other sports' games, to find the winner. If things worked out the way they were predicted, we would stop playing. Just draw up your lineup, and both coaches say, "Yup, Orr's in, now - let's just have a beer - Canada wins." Handshake, and we're done here.
As for Orr and Hull. The 'otherguys' were missing Firsov, and their legendary coach Anatoli Tarasov.
But none of that is the point. The point is that two teams entered a series, and that series ended after 5 games.
For the typical response that it wouldn't have been close if the Orr-God had graced the series with his presence - yes, maybe, could be - we could all argue back and forth about how Gretzky never won a Cup without Edmonton, and they did without him, and others could say, "you just don't know how much Orr dominated games", and it could all go back and forth, in hypothetical fashion, with not one person relinquishing his concrete claims, or we could look at the series in hand, without hypothetics, and see, irrefutably, that the series was ended by Clarke.
Hockey games are played, like all other sports' games, to find the winner. If things worked out the way they were predicted, we would stop playing. Just draw up your lineup, and both coaches say, "Yup, Orr's in, now - let's just have a beer - Canada wins." Handshake, and we're done here.
I don't approve of Clarke's actions. But teams are more than one player. It seems a bit dismissive of the other 40 players in the series to say that the series was over when Kharlamov's ankle was broken.
I don't approve of Clarke's actions. But teams are more than one player. It seems a bit dismissive of the other 40 players in the series to say that the series was over when Kharlamov's ankle was broken.
Might be true but Clarke did take out Soviets most dominating player so in retrospect the series were over. These international games were filled with propaganda though. Russians, Swedes and Czechs were painted as the dirtiest players to ever take the ice by the Canadian media. Since there were no proof of it, it went on to say that they were sneaky and did dirty things that no one could see not even the cameras(!).
It became a mythical fairytale where canada were a knight in shining armour. It couldn't have been further from the truth.
It's interesting how politics shape people's opinions of sporting events.
Had that same series happened against Sweden, the Canadian players would've been shamed for life because:
1. of the means by which they achieved victory; and 2. Canada ceased being the sole hockey super-power.
However, seeing as it was against the 'evil communists', the players returned as heroes.
Exactly and I will add that it was a wake up call to the world on two fronts.
1) Canada couldn't just mail it in and they were going to be challenged for #1 in the world, something that was unthinkable even in the late 60's
2) Russia was a force and team play and systems would begin to influence organized hockey in the post 72 period.
What Clarke did clearly counts as shameful, but you can't just then say that the whole series counts as shameful for Canada or that the series ended at that moment. Glory and shame are not mutually exclusive. Both countries should be proud of their performance in that series.
It's a good story one way or another with a lot of great and terrible things done by a variety of people.
I sort of see it the same way as when the most recent Batman movie came out, and a parade of left-wing writers immediately denounced them as fascist — what I saw was a story about a city nearly destroyed by the actions of both well-meaning and malevolent people. The movie's only fascist if you watch it while cheering for the fascists yourself, and you don't have to.
What Clarke did was the worst single thing anyone did during the series, but I'm not sure that we as Canadians have to be ashamed of the team or the series as a whole. I would hope nobody's proud of that particular action though.
What Clarke did was the worst single thing anyone did during the series, but I'm not sure that we as Canadians have to be ashamed of the team or the series as a whole. I would hope nobody's proud of that particular action though.
Apparently injuring Kharlamov was an order from the bench. If this is true, Clarke's slash is no longer about the individual but becomes part of Canada's game plan and tactics. Not only does that shame the team but I'd personally consider it a tainted victory.
I have not been trying to justify what Clarke or his coach did, but just saying it should not bring "shame" on the entire series. It has just struck me how much of a backlash 'the slash' has received in recent years, that it nullifies the entire series and the Canadian win is tarnished as a result. I do not see it that way.
This backlash has mainly come from younger fans who view the incident in an isolated bubble and were not around for the Cold War.
Cold War hockey is the best hockey I have ever seen, because of the hatred and how much it meant to both sides, beyond the scope of just the sport.
Ultimately, the real triumph lies with the Soviet Union for legitimately challenging Canada's supremacy on ice, but I can not view it as as a 'tarnished' or 'shameful' victory based on one acknowledged dirty play. That series was so much more than that.
Darren McCarty sucker-punched Claude Lemieux in 1997. A reprehensible act viewed in isolation, but not as much when viewed in context. The context is what has been ignored by this very new idea that Canada should be "ashamed" by the '72 series win.
If Clarke had 'only' kicked Kharlamov with his razor sharp skates would Canadians feel less ashamed?
I just think it was one of the best series of hockey ever played, with less than commendable tactics employed by both sides, and that 'ugly' incidents were to be expected given the climate at the time.
Canadian hockey fans absolutely should not feel ashamed about the '72 summit series.
Shame on both sides. The Clarke slash and the Mikhailov kick. Both were intended to injure but we only ever seem to talk about one.
Pretty much. Clarke by all accounts wanted to hurt Kharlamov. Or slow him down. Clarke was a filthy - but great player. I think all of us historians tend to have the same opinion of him. He was a dirty player plain and simple. But so much happened in that tournament. Mikhailov's kick was dirty too. Not to mention the dirty tricks used to ensure Kompalla was refereeing the 8th game. Certainly not ethical. The treatment of the Canadians in Russia was bad too. Their beer and their food went missing. I mean, we can go back and forth all day here. Team Canada beat a very good team under immense pressure and poor circumstances.
What gets forgotten here is that Ron Ellis gets overlooked for the wonderful job he did at checking Kharlamov after Game 1 when he had two goals. He had only one goal in the remaining 8 games. That can be attributed mostly to Ellis shutting him down. No one mentions that, but I will mention it for sure in the hopes that the myth that Kharlamov was shredding us like a tiger at the time of the slash gets debunked. He had been slowed down long before that slash.
While we're at it, let's ask Wayne Cashman what it was like to have his tongue split from a Swedish player in those exhibition games. There were many sides who were guilty there.
What Clarke did clearly counts as shameful, but you can't just then say that the whole series counts as shameful for Canada or that the series ended at that moment. Glory and shame are not mutually exclusive. Both countries should be proud of their performance in that series.
It was a candian tactic. We wanted Kharlamov out of the series and we got our wish. If Clarke didn't get it done someone else would. Right before the slash he was elbowed in the head, stepped on, crosschecked over the face and over the neck etc. The whole canadian team were out to injure Kharlamov.
Pretty much. Clarke by all accounts wanted to hurt Kharlamov. Or slow him down. Clarke was a filthy - but great player. I think all of us historians tend to have the same opinion of him. He was a dirty player plain and simple. But so much happened in that tournament. Mikhailov's kick was dirty too. Not to mention the dirty tricks used to ensure Kompalla was refereeing the 8th game. Certainly not ethical. The treatment of the Canadians in Russia was bad too. Their beer and their food went missing. I mean, we can go back and forth all day here. Team Canada beat a very good team under immense pressure and poor circumstances.
What gets forgotten here is that Ron Ellis gets overlooked for the wonderful job he did at checking Kharlamov after Game 1 when he had two goals. He had only one goal in the remaining 8 games. That can be attributed mostly to Ellis shutting him down. No one mentions that, but I will mention it for sure in the hopes that the myth that Kharlamov was shredding us like a tiger at the time of the slash gets debunked. He had been slowed down long before that slash.
While we're at it, let's ask Wayne Cashman what it was like to have his tongue split from a Swedish player in those exhibition games. There were many sides who were guilty there.
You mean when Cashman charged Sterner? Sterner had already played the puck when Cashman felt it necessary to "finish his check" and skated right into the blade of Sterner. Later Canada retaliated when Esposito went after Salming for some reason even though Sterner were on the ice and even stood right infront of him while he kept on screaming at players who were already in the dressing room.
This backlash has mainly come from younger fans who view the incident in an isolated bubble and were not around for the Cold War.
I don't want to stir up a great controversy and I hope you don't misunderstand the following analogy, but isn't that comparable to what happened in Germany after WW2? In both cases something wrong was done, although there was much more wrongdoing in WW2 of course. But you also had that kind of backlash in the 1960s when the younger generation started to critize and villainize the WW2 generation for things that happened in the 1930s and 1940s. Didn't they have the right to do so? Were the elders right who told them to shut up because they didn't know what it was like back in the days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
What gets forgotten here is that Ron Ellis gets overlooked for the wonderful job he did at checking Kharlamov after Game 1 when he had two goals. He had only one goal in the remaining 8 games. That can be attributed mostly to Ellis shutting him down. No one mentions that, but I will mention it for sure in the hopes that the myth that Kharlamov was shredding us like a tiger at the time of the slash gets debunked. He had been slowed down long before that slash.
Yes, they did a good job and Kharlamov was slowed down. But he was still dangerous enough for John Ferguson to say: "Kharlamov was killing us. I mean, somebody had to do it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
While we're at it, let's ask Wayne Cashman what it was like to have his tongue split from a Swedish player in those exhibition games. There were many sides who were guilty there.
Was that Kharlamov's fault? That incident had nothing to do with Canada vs USSR. What you say here is what someone like John Ferguson would say to give a blanket excuse for Team Canada. That's not a neutral attitude, it's "Us vs the World" for you just like it was for Team Canada in 1972.
Plus, the Cashman incident: The referee had blown the whistle, offside against Sweden, and Ulf Sterner stopped to play. Still Cashman went and charged him. That's what Wayne Cashman and Harry Sinden doesn't mention when they complain about the vicious Swedes. Video evidence:
Sounds like total B.S. This is taken from some random book. The article lists a total of THREE such incidents since 2001.
"August 2012 in the United States saw seven attacks of mosques with pellet guns, acid bombs, eggs, or unclean animal parts. Some are being investigated as hate crimes."
Obviously, if attacking a building with an egg constitutes a "hate crime," then yes, the numbers may go up... but even then "a thousand" is a huge leap of faith.
What Canadians don't get is that, during the Cold War, Canada was fairly low on the list of enemies for the Soviet Union. American victory in Lake Placid is far more important (and impressive) from this standpoint. I think it had more to do with Canada's inability to cope with another country (any country) being as good as or better than they were at the time. They still have that problem.
The hit was a truly filthy incident. Tarnished the victory... but it was still a victory and kudos to those Canadian players who played the series cleanly.
Arrogance! Pride before the fall. I am Canadian but sick of the false bravado over the sport we spawned: ice hockey outgrew us and we learned it the hard way in 1972. Several of the best players of the world were not Canadian, one didn't have to be Canadian or play the Canadian way to excel and win at the sport.
1972 was a moment of GLORY for the sport, but a moment of SHAME for our overblown egos. Nowadays, TSN still covers the sport a tad too nationalistic imo.
Am I the only one whose love of the SPORT of hockey reflects his nationalism, not the other way around?
I have loved Ovechkin and the Washington Capitals without an iota of nationalistic dread or loss of Canadian passion. Ice hockey is my sport, a love spawned in Canada as a Canadian, a love that does not need to pimp Stamkos over Datsyuk, Brodeur over Lundqvist.
I am Canadian. I am a hockey fan. The two parts of my identity are intertwined in ways I cannot unravel.
I cannot relate to those who only cheer for Canadian players or Canadian teams. The Don Cherry myopia ironically seems to me deficient rather than robust in nationalism. Is not the love of the sport of hockey part of the history and character of this country, from its origins to where the hell ever it takes us in terms of excellence?
Canadian hockey fans absolutely should not feel ashamed about the '72 summit series.
I sure don't, any more than I feel shame over Ben Johnson or I'm sure Americans feel about Marion Jones or whomever. What Clarke did was wrong but it was typical of the game in the '70s, unfortunately, and that series was nasty and heated like few others. What bothers me is the selective focus on an incident that was no worse than at least one other in the series. Both teams did things they shouldn't be proud of. Mikhailov, to his credit, apologized years later for kicking Gary Bergman so hard he put his skate blade through his shin pad and into his leg. Clarke, I don't believe, has ever apologized, which is typical of him. Different times, different game and more at stake than probably any series ever played.
It makes me laugh when people who probably haven't even seen the series say the Russians would have won if the slash had never occurred. Kharlamov wasn't even the best Russian out there and he did return to finish the series, something that's never pointed out. Yakushev was the guy who was truly killing Canada while Kharlamov was becoming less effective as the series went on. Would a non-slash have kept Tretiak from largely crapping the bed in Moscow or prevented Canada from playing much better as the series wore on? I don't think so.
The fact is Russia had the series in the bag. They had everything in their favour. Home fans and big ice that the Canadian players had no experience with. Referees who kept a steady stream of Canadians going to the penalty box, rightly or wrongly. And in the face of that, Canada still pulled off one of the greatest comebacks in sports history. Something to be proud of, not ashamed.
Sounds like total B.S. This is taken from some random book. The article lists a total of THREE such incidents since 2001.
"August 2012 in the United States saw seven attacks of mosques with pellet guns, acid bombs, eggs, or unclean animal parts. Some are being investigated as hate crimes."
Obviously, if attacking a building with an egg constitutes a "hate crime," then yes, the numbers may go up... but even then "a thousand" is a huge leap of faith.
you are aware that since 9/11 there have been 300 violent hate crimes that we know of committed against sikhs because some idiot thought they were muslim, yes? this was widely reported by all major news outlets only one month ago.
now ask yourself how many must have been committed against actual muslims.
also, you are aware of the big lawsuit being filed in your own state against the NYPD for targeting muslim communities, no?
Everybody talks about the Kharlamov slash, yet nobody talks about how the Soviets brought in a hand picked ref that called ridiculous penalties against Canada, hell, they nearly didn't count the tying goal for christs sakes!
The level was pretty damn even. Canada beat them, that's it, no discussion.
It was a candian tactic. We wanted Kharlamov out of the series and we got our wish. If Clarke didn't get it done someone else would. Right before the slash he was elbowed in the head, stepped on, crosschecked over the face and over the neck etc. The whole canadian team were out to injure Kharlamov.
You have evidence that the whole team was out to injure Kharlamov? It seems clear that Ferguson said it to Clarke, but I never noticed the whole Canadian team taking cheap shots at Kharlamov in an attempt to seriously injure him. If they were doing this as a team wide tactic, I would think that they would be adept enough to injure Kharlamov early in the series when he was having a much greater impact. I doubt you would feel so strongly if Sweden was in the Canadian role.
Fair is fair for level-headed people, and I am glad you are one.
I have often tried to imagine the Canadian outrage if Fetisov (or anyone) had broken Gretzky's ankle in 1987, and the Soviets had gone on to win.
I think there are many posters on here, and people in this country, who call Suter's numbers hit on 99 inexcusably, unforgivably dirty - yet, will call Clarke's slash the act of someone who wanted it more.
I'm certain this mindset isn't unique to Canada. There is a world full of evil 'otherguys', and heroic 'our guys'.
Depressing.
Thank you.
We have to remember that when you open the door to tactics such as what Clarke did, then you agree with the repercussions. Once you cross that line, you may find things get out of control very quickly.
You raised a good point. Imagine what Canadians would have said if say going into the first O/T of Game 2 of the 1987 Canada Cup finals if a Soviet player was told to take out Gretzky in the same manner as Clarke did Kharlamov and went ahead and did so. We would have gone nuts. Or again, what if the Soviets responded to the loss of Karlamov by breaking Phil Esposito's leg? Neither Harry Sinden nor John Ferguson would have had a leg to stand on as by sending Clarke out to injure Kharlamov they were stating that they firmly agreed with those tactics.
I lived and died watching Team Canada in 72 and was disgusted by Clarke's slash. And to this date for the above mentioned reasons also think it is a stupid way to act as you don't know what the consequences may be.
