HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

It was 39 Years Ago Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-28-2011, 01:52 PM
  #1
Noisespektrum
Registered User
 
Noisespektrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: new york city
Country: United States
Posts: 1,092
vCash: 500
It was 39 Years Ago Today

Summit 72 and Paul Hendersons Goal of the Century. wow, Cannot believe this was almost 40 yrs ago.

Still nothing in Hockey is as Iconic IMO

Noisespektrum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 02:01 PM
  #2
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,275
vCash: 500
As someone who showed up almost a decade late to the party (born in 1981), the significance of the Summit Series is beyond me, since I can't put it in the context of the Cold War and other stuff I missed out in.

Did make for a great episode of Corner Gas, tho

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 02:55 PM
  #3
McNuts
Registered User
 
McNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,825
vCash: 500
39 years ago that Canada disgracefully won after deliberately breaking the best soviet player's ankle? Awesome

Quote:
I called Clarke over to the bench, looked over at Kharlamov and said, 'I think he needs a tap on the ankle.'I didn't think twice about it. It was Us versus Them. And Kharlamov was killing us. I mean, somebody had to do it.

McNuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 03:13 PM
  #4
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
39 years ago that Canada disgracefully won after deliberately breaking the best soviet player's ankle? Awesome
Oh, everything looks bad if you remember it...

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 03:26 PM
  #5
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,779
vCash: 500
The Soviets weren't angels in that series either. Plenty of heinous stick work, kicking with their skates, and other unfavourable actions. Neither teams were clean.


JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 03:43 PM
  #6
Peter9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 367
vCash: 500
Some Thoughts on the Significance of the Summit Series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker View Post
As someone who showed up almost a decade late to the party (born in 1981), the significance of the Summit Series is beyond me, since I can't put it in the context of the Cold War and other stuff I missed out in.

Did make for a great episode of Corner Gas, tho
The Cold War certainly was part of the atmosphere in which the Summit Series was played--the hype surrounding it--but its real significance was that for the first time a foreign team had dared to challenge Canada's supremacy in ice hockey, which was widely presumed and no doubt deserved although it had never been tested.

Before the Summit Series, Canada had not been represented in international play by a full team of NHL stars. Canada had been represented in international play--the world championships and the Olympic Games--by the winners of the Allan Cup, the senior amateur champions of Canada. Until the end of the 1950s, the Allan Cup winners almost always beat the Soviet Union. But during the 1960s, the Soviets began to win international competitions. It was assumed throughout Canada, though, that the Soviets would come a cropper if ever they met a team of NHL stars.

Canada approached the Summit Series with a great deal of arrogance. Most of the players were not in top shape since the series was played pre-season. It was a huge shock when the Soviets creamed Canada in the first game, played in the Montreal Forum, and when the Soviets finished the Canadian legs of the series with the advantage. Ultimately Canada barely edged the Soviets to win the series, but no longer could it be assumed that Canada was supreme in ice hockey.

A somewhat similar scenario occurred in basketball a few decades later on. The USA always sent a team of college all-stars to international competitions and nearly always won. Eventually the competition became stiffer and the USA sent the fabled Dream Team to the Olympic Games in Barcelona in 1992. That team was all-conquering, of course. But a decade later there came a rude awakening. Even a team of NBA professionals could not always be counted on to win in international competition, and the USA has had to up its selection procedures and its preparations. No longer is a USA victory assured in international competition.

I think it's remarkable that Canada, with a population of just a little more than 30 million, not only remains competitive with the much bigger hockey nations, the USA and Russia, but also is still usually capable of beating them. Canada's head start advantage disappeared long ago. But it still has the advantages of the best ice hockey league in the world, the NHL, and the extreme popularity of ice hockey in Canada. I don't have anything to back it up, but I would think that a much higher percentage of Canada's best athletes choose ice hockey over other sports, while a much higher percentage of Russian and American athletes choose other sports over ice hockey, and that compensates in large part for the population differential.

Peter9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 03:53 PM
  #7
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
39 years ago that Canada disgracefully won after deliberately breaking the best soviet player's ankle? Awesome
A lot of people will argue with you on this. I'm not one of them. From a personally based angle - USSR won at hockey, Canada won at cheating. From a mathematical angle, Canada lost a small series against the best available Russian team, and won a small series against the best available Russian team minus Kharlamov.

A personal note towards remarks from Don Cherry and other mongoloids - it takes more heart to tape your ankle up and lose then it does to cheat and win.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 03:55 PM
  #8
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
still an incredibly significant point in hockey history, though ts. The day that the game really started to improve, in my opinion. I bet we will have a TON of media on this next year when it's 40 years!

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 04:00 PM
  #9
McNuts
Registered User
 
McNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysCyYoung View Post
The Soviets weren't angels in that series either. Plenty of heinous stick work, kicking with their skates, and other unfavourable actions. Neither teams were clean.
But did they deliberately injure an opposing player to win the series? That is simply evil. That's the kind of thing bad guys do in movies. It makes me sick. The Soviets would probably have won at least 1 of game 7 or game 8 with a healthy Kharlamov, and the series with it. I'm proud of Canada when they win cleanly, not through despicable cheating.

McNuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 04:00 PM
  #10
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter9 View Post
Ultimately Canada barely edged the Soviets to win the series, but no longer could it be assumed that Canada was supreme in ice hockey.
Indeed, even though we technically won the series, in some sense it was lost in the first game. What people thought they knew about the teams was shattered in a very short time. By the end, those who before were predicting an easy time in the series for Canada were loudly cheering their barest of victories, something which would not have been deemed acceptable before it began.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 04:02 PM
  #11
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter9 View Post
The Cold War certainly was part of the atmosphere in which the Summit Series was played--the hype surrounding it--but its real significance was that for the first time a foreign team had dared to challenge Canada's supremacy in ice hockey, which was widely presumed and no doubt deserved although it had never been tested.

Before the Summit Series, Canada had not been represented in international play by a full team of NHL stars. Canada had been represented in international play--the world championships and the Olympic Games--by the winners of the Allan Cup, the senior amateur champions of Canada. Until the end of the 1950s, the Allan Cup winners almost always beat the Soviet Union. But during the 1960s, the Soviets began to win international competitions. It was assumed throughout Canada, though, that the Soviets would come a cropper if ever they met a team of NHL stars.

Canada approached the Summit Series with a great deal of arrogance. Most of the players were not in top shape since the series was played pre-season. It was a huge shock when the Soviets creamed Canada in the first game, played in the Montreal Forum, and when the Soviets finished the Canadian legs of the series with the advantage. Ultimately Canada barely edged the Soviets to win the series, but no longer could it be assumed that Canada was supreme in ice hockey.

A somewhat similar scenario occurred in basketball a few decades later on. The USA always sent a team of college all-stars to international competitions and nearly always won. Eventually the competition became stiffer and the USA sent the fabled Dream Team to the Olympic Games in Barcelona in 1992. That team was all-conquering, of course. But a decade later there came a rude awakening. Even a team of NBA professionals could not always be counted on to win in international competition, and the USA has had to up its selection procedures and its preparations. No longer is a USA victory assured in international competition.

I think it's remarkable that Canada, with a population of just a little more than 30 million, not only remains competitive with the much bigger hockey nations, the USA and Russia, but also is still usually capable of beating them. Canada's head start advantage disappeared long ago. But it still has the advantages of the best ice hockey league in the world, the NHL, and the extreme popularity of ice hockey in Canada. I don't have anything to back it up, but I would think that a much higher percentage of Canada's best athletes choose ice hockey over other sports, while a much higher percentage of Russian and American athletes choose other sports over ice hockey, and that compensates in large part for the population differential.
great post. we were arrogant. we somehow emerged arrogant from that scare as well. your whole post is good, i just had that comment.

I also want to tell you that when the last Olympics rolled around, they were mentioning stats on the various countries. One of them that stood out was that Russia has only about 110 hockey rinks! We have that, probably within a 100 km radius from my house.

So, although their population is huge, there country is not devoted to hockey like we are. We have community drives, and backing so that kids with less money can still get equipment. You don't have to drive far, at any level, to play hockey. It's all set up.

And yes, I believe most countries majority ofA-level athletes are probably playing soccer. I have read, many times, that Finland loves hockey over and above any other sport, just like us... but they have only 4 million people. Canada will stay on top, I believe

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 04:10 PM
  #12
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
But did they deliberately injure an opposing player to win the series? That is simply evil. That's the kind of thing bad guys do in movies. It makes me sick. The Soviets would probably have won at least 1 of game 7 or game 8 with a healthy Kharlamov, and the series with it. I'm proud of Canada when they win cleanly, not through despicable cheating.
Exactly. Proud of Canada when they win, too. And we have been clean enough for a while now. Those early days were full of arrogance, immediately followed by fear and insecurity. I think the part that might irk me most is, after cheating to squeek by a team that we didn't give any credit to, Espo walks out of that series with, "we never would have lost another game" ****, is that ever a load of ****. And I know people who repeat that as rhetoric. Drives me up the wall.

I think Canada has improved immeasurably since those days.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 04:58 PM
  #13
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,896
vCash: 500
I don't understand why the Summit Series is celebrated. It marked the moment when Canada lost 'ownership' of its own game. It would be similar to USA narrowly defeating somebody in American football and calling it the greatest victory ever.

Also, imo, the political importance is exaggerated....at least by one side. Not that it didn't exist; but from the Soviet perspective, much more political importance was put on games vs USA and Czechoslovakia than against Canada.

Saying that, the importance of the SS to the game, itself, is undeniable.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 05:04 PM
  #14
CanuckistanFlyerfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,386
vCash: 500
I'm just curious how many of the people knocking Canada were old enough to actually see the series. Cause if you were, you wouldn't. There was tons of bs going both ways, and it wasn't just on the ice.

CanuckistanFlyerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 05:22 PM
  #15
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
I don't understand why the Summit Series is celebrated. It marked the moment when Canada lost 'ownership' of its own game. It would be similar to USA narrowly defeating somebody in American football and calling it the greatest victory ever.

Also, imo, the political importance is exaggerated....at least by one side. Not that it didn't exist; but from the Soviet perspective, much more political importance was put on games vs USA and Czechoslovakia than against Canada.

Saying that, the importance of the SS to the game, itself, is undeniable.
No other country in the World plays American football while the Soviets were the most dominant team in the world in international hockey and they hated Canada more than anyone. The USSR and Czechoslovakia actually conspired to play a 0-0 game to deny the Canadians a medal one year.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 05:23 PM
  #16
Noisespektrum
Registered User
 
Noisespektrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: new york city
Country: United States
Posts: 1,092
vCash: 500
the best team won, thats a certainty, but really there was no loser.


Last edited by Doctor No: 09-28-2011 at 07:36 PM. Reason: Trolling
Noisespektrum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 05:53 PM
  #17
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
No other country in the World plays American football while the Soviets were the most dominant team in the world in international hockey and they hated Canada more than anyone. The USSR and Czechoslovakia actually conspired to play a 0-0 game to deny the Canadians a medal one year.
Although they are frequently intertwined, there IS a difference between pure hockey supremacy and political significance.

Soviet-Canada games were about global hockey dominance (yes, there was a political aspect for both).....however, Soviet-USA games, or Soviet-CS games had more political overtones.

For instance, under no circumstance was there ever a more politically charged series than USSR-CS games at 1969 WC.
Miracle on Ice was more politically relevant than Summit Series too.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 06:07 PM
  #18
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
Although they are frequently intertwined, there IS a difference between pure hockey supremacy and political significance.

Soviet-Canada games were about global hockey dominance (yes, there was a political aspect for both).....however, Soviet-USA games, or Soviet-CS games had more political overtones.

For instance, under no circumstance was there ever a more politically charged series than USSR-CS games at 1969 WC.
Miracle on Ice was more politically relevant than Summit Series too.
I don't argue that. Most of the American public only paid attention because of the political issues while Canadians never really care as much.

As far as hockey goes Canada has always been the guy that every other country wanted to beat and in terms of international hockey the Soviets screwed us every chance they could because they were such a power behind the IIHF.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 06:09 PM
  #19
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter9 View Post
I think it's remarkable that Canada, with a population of just a little more than 30 million, not only remains competitive with the much bigger hockey nations, the USA and Russia, but also is still usually capable of beating them. Canada's head start advantage disappeared long ago. But it still has the advantages of the best ice hockey league in the world, the NHL, and the extreme popularity of ice hockey in Canada. I don't have anything to back it up, but I would think that a much higher percentage of Canada's best athletes choose ice hockey over other sports, while a much higher percentage of Russian and American athletes choose other sports over ice hockey, and that compensates in large part for the population differential.

It's not really remarkable for that exact reason. Hockey isnt a number 1 sport anywhere else in the world.

Quote:
The Soviets weren't angels in that series either. Plenty of heinous stick work, kicking with their skates, and other unfavourable actions. Neither teams were clean
There is a big difference between playing dirty and trying to slash someones leg off. There is no doubt that it was a dirty series, the soviets were sneaky with their cheapshots while the canadians were a bit more clumsy in their approach.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 06:19 PM
  #20
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
But did they deliberately injure an opposing player to win the series? That is simply evil. That's the kind of thing bad guys do in movies. It makes me sick. The Soviets would probably have won at least 1 of game 7 or game 8 with a healthy Kharlamov, and the series with it. I'm proud of Canada when they win cleanly, not through despicable cheating.
how is that any different than your average Stanley Cup playoff series? These guys are paid professionals. It isn't realistic to ask them to change the way they play the game just because of some ideal. Even back then, the attitude was the same as it is now. And the Soviets weren't angels either. They consistently used paid professionals in "amateur" events.....

edog37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 06:22 PM
  #21
vadnais1972
Registered User
 
vadnais1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
Let's not forget... the Russians were a team that were together for years while Team Canada came together for a few weeks of training camp and were over-the-top confident (that changed after the first period in Montreal). Had Team Canada prepared better and had a healthy Bobby Orr, Bobby Hull and even Derek Sanderson (shutdown forward and PK specialist)... The loss of those three players is more devastating than the loss of Kharlamov.

vadnais1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 06:23 PM
  #22
jcbio11
Registered User
 
jcbio11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bratislava
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 1,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
I don't understand why the Summit Series is celebrated. It marked the moment when Canada lost 'ownership' of its own game. It would be similar to USA narrowly defeating somebody in American football and calling it the greatest victory ever.

Also, imo, the political importance is exaggerated....at least by one side. Not that it didn't exist; but from the Soviet perspective, much more political importance was put on games vs USA and Czechoslovakia than against Canada.

Saying that, the importance of the SS to the game, itself, is undeniable.
Spot on. I often hear - "this was the cold war, us against them etc" when people defend Clarke's cheating dirtbag ways. Cold war was mostly Soviet union vs the USA. That's why Miracle on Ice was such a wonderful, wonderful moment in hockey history (much more iconic than Canada breaking Kharlamov's ankle to win that series. Let's face it, without that Clarke's action, Canada ain't winning that)

I still don't understand how this series is so celebrated in Canada. Some people even call it the most iconic moment in hockey... Well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by edog37 View Post
how is that any different than your average Stanley Cup playoff series? These guys are paid professionals. It isn't realistic to ask them to change the way they play the game just because of some ideal. Even back then, the attitude was the same as it is now. And the Soviets weren't angels either. They consistently used paid professionals in "amateur" events.....
I'd blame the system for that one though. I mean not allowing professionals in Olympics till I dunno what year was ridiculous.

Plus noone's putting much emphasis on the wins against USA's or Canada's non NHL national hockey teams. It's like Czechoslovakia and Soviet union were more or less expected to win those games. And then the college kids from USA won the Olympics and that was a big thing.

jcbio11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 06:41 PM
  #23
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckistanFlyerfan View Post
I'm just curious how many of the people knocking Canada were old enough to actually see the series. Cause if you were, you wouldn't. There was tons of bs going both ways, and it wasn't just on the ice.
I certainly was, teenager at the time, remember it all quite clearly. Its very true their was a lot foul play going east west & west east, and I also remember, quite clearly, that it was generally instigated by members of Team Canada who did so initially out of frustration, and as the series wound on, a featured tactic. The Soviets replied with their sticks, elbows, kicking, spitting, as outright fighting was anathema to their game. They were goaded into responding. Clarkes deliberate & successful intent to injure ranks right up there with Shores hit on Bailey, the Shack-Zeidel stick swinging incident etc as one of if not the most despicable acts ever committed by a player.

Canada couldve' avoided all of this had they simply entered into a focused training camp at least 4-5 weeks earlier, the players in game shape & ready to go, scouting of the Soviets taken more seriously & thoroughly, as for example the idiots had Tretiak pegged as a "Junior B goalie". They seriously underestimated their opponents, were completely un-prepared physically, mentally & tactically to handle a 12 months of the year beyond well conditioned & highly disciplined brigade of "Soldiers" and if not for sheer will & dirt, slowing down their opponents, throwing their bodies at them, crashing the net, intimidation which the Soviets mocked them for of course, we wouldve had our clocks cleaned.

Never again thereafter was the Soviet Union taken lightly, many of their best equal to or better than our guys. If not for Paul Henderson, far from being a "Superstar" in the NHL, but a good, clean, solid player with a knack for set-up's & scoring playing like he was possessed by the Ghost of Howie Morenz in Russia, responsible for game winners & assists, the outcome would have been very different.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 06:46 PM
  #24
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
As far as hockey goes Canada has always been the guy that every other country wanted to beat and in terms of international hockey the Soviets screwed us every chance they could because they were such a power behind the IIHF.
I dunno. I think Soviets were the team everybody wanted to beat.
Sweden-Finland have always had their rivalry, but:
Czechoslovakia's biggest rival?....Soviets
America's biggest rival?....Soviets
Canada's?....Soviets


Also, USSR didn't have more pull within the IIHF than any other European country. However, i agree, as an entity, the IIHF tended to be biased against Canada.

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 06:47 PM
  #25
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckistanFlyerfan View Post
I'm just curious how many of the people knocking Canada were old enough to actually see the series. Cause if you were, you wouldn't. There was tons of bs going both ways, and it wasn't just on the ice.
On the other hand, people who weren't into hockey at the time have the benefit of being relatively detached from the series, emotionally. It's difficult to examine a subject rationally when you were emotionally invested in it to begin with.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.