2010 Olympics vs. 72 Summit Series

[rfournier103]

Which was the bigger/more important triumph for Canadian hockey and Canada as a nation? The 2010 Olympics or the 72 Summit Series?

And why do you think so?

Click to read more...

 

[1Gold Standard]

Which was the bigger/more important triumph for Canadian hockey and Canada as a nation? The 2010 Olympics or the 72 Summit Series?

And why do you think so?

2010 Olympics. only because I'm too young to remember 72. In 2010 I was living and working in Moscow, watched the 1/4 game there and then upon reveling in that victory for a day with colleagues, booked my flight home to be on Canadian soil for the historic event. I partied for a few days before the long flight back to work.

 

[Macman]

2010 was big but '72 was generational and transcended more than hockey. The 2010 team, though, would have destroyed the '72 team and the Soviets.

 

[JackSlater]

Summit Series, not close. 2010 was a big win, but Canada has many of those. The summit series is a pretty unique event in sports history for numerous reasons. That team was picked as Canada's team of the century and the series is commemorated basically every anniversary in five year intervals. The 2010 Olympic team isn't going to get that treatment.

Preemtively, yes Clarke did break Kharlamov's ankle and yes it was incredibly dirty. The actions of both sides show that the stakes were higher in 1972.

 

[VOB]

IMO the Summit Series had a far greater impact than just about any hockey tournament or games for that matter and not because Canada squeaked out a win during the final seconds of the last game but for the sole reason that the summit introduced the Soviet style game to the North American masses and the unequivocal transformative impact that style had on the way the game was played.

 

[tony d]

The Summit Series for sure.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

Summit series for Hockey. Different World, different Canada.

2010 did more for national unity. Canada changed after 2010. Just those years of wait for the Olympics exploded across coast to coast, the initial struggle, the following victories, the emotion only an Olympics can bring you.

Summit series was important during that time because of political reasons. 2010 was important for this generation, they needed a moment. 27 million watched after 15 days of build up we will never see in our lifetime again, that's nearly 85% of the country I think back then, it was a fairytale.

And then for the Golden Boy to score. Just typing about it and reminiscing gives you chills.

I don't know though, I mean Canadian Hockey's faults were shown back in the 70's by the Russians, we needed Russians to teach us their way to play was something needed in Canadian Hockey, and parts of the Canadian game into theirs. Canada won, but the sport was the real winner in 1972. In 2010 more competition, more countries, more people around the World watching, the scope of an Olympics was much bigger Worldwide.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

2010 because we can see this how Canadians reacted with modern media.

 

[Macman]

2010 because we can see this how Canadians reacted with modern media.

I might change my vote. That was something to see again.

 

[iCanada]

I might change my vote. That was something to see again.

We've been a bunch of hockey crazed Hosers for ever, haha.

That video was really cool to watch, but I'd be willing to bet the same thing happened in 72.

In fact, I bet that same thing happened in a few other nations who had tuned in. The Summit Series was not just a big deal for the hockey, but it was politically a big deal at the time as well.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

To be honest you can't really put one over the other, I really think both moments happened at the right time.

1972 was one generation
2010 completely another

Canada is a completely different country now in many aspects but one thing remains constant, Hockey is the glue that brings everyone together. In a country that prides itself with multiculturaism, and a unity through diversity approach, this moment brought everyone together. Also 2010 a point had to be made, that this is no longer the shy, keep it inside Canadiana, as shown above, we can be loud and as patriotic as the best of them.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why 2010, not 2002?

 

[Pi]

Why 2010, not 2002?

Won at home after giving up a deflating tying goal. I definitely thought USA was going to win after Parise scored.

 

[JackSlater]

Why 2010, not 2002?

2010 was a bit bigger in Canada. I've seen many American posters over the years that are surprised by this.

I'm pretty surprised that 2010 is getting any legitimate support. Both were big hockey wins. 1972 was Canada's first real exposure to international hockey, was viewed as a proxy battle between cold war opponents and was far more built up due to the long series preceeding the final game. Henderson's goal is often listed as one of the greatest moments in Canadian history. Crosby's goal is one of Canada's biggest goals, right along with Lemieux's goal in 1987. Henderson's goal came at a pretty bad time in Canadian history and basically transcends hockey, in Canada at least.

 

[RandV]

To be honest you can't really put one over the other, I really think both moments happened at the right time.

1972 was one generation
2010 completely another

Yeah the historian answer would be the summit series because it's been celebrated for longer and it had a lot more going on with the politics at the time, but were the people of this generations moment not as deeply involved and did they not celebrate just as hard as the people in the 70's with there's?

 

[NyQuil]

2002 was bigger for me. Part of that was watching every game at the same pub. I'd go super early to save seats for my group. They hadn't won in 50 years and lost the first best-on-best Olympcs in Nagano so that was pretty special. But that's personal for me. I still remember every game with crystal clarity (Selanne was a beast in that 2-1 win over Finland).

In 2010, I was on the road a lot more and saw games in hotel rooms and hotel bars so I wasn't as connected to it. I missed all of the game against Switzerland and only caught part of the semi-final against Slovakia. That Russia game was something though. The OT nature of the win, that it was Sid that scored, and the fact that we hosted (and it gave us the Olympic record for gold medals at that time) pretty much elevate it to great importance.

1972 was a watershed moment for Canadian hockey in a way that the others were not. We knew the competition by 2002 and 2010. We didn't in 1972. I think it's a lot friendlier now than it was back then. You had Americans and Canadians from the Wings and Hawks posing with each other after the game for pictures.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Something I don't understand about the 72 Summit Series. Granted, I was not yet born and I am not Canadian, so maybe that is part of it. But, from what I have read and watched Canada expected to go on the ice and destroy the Soviets in all 8 games. Then, it goes 2-1-1 for the Soviets in Canada. Soviets win the first game in Moscow and Canada comes back to win the last 3. I know the last game was dramatic with Henderson's late goal. But, from my point of view, that series made Canada eat some humble pie. It showed that they were not that much better than the Soviets and that when it came to International Best on Best, they could no longer just show up and be guaranteed victory.

 

[NyQuil]

Something I don't understand about the 72 Summit Series. Granted, I was not yet born and I am not Canadian, so maybe that is part of it. But, from what I have read and watched Canada expected to go on the ice and destroy the Soviets in all 8 games. Then, it goes 2-1-1 for the Soviets in Canada. Soviets win the first game in Moscow and Canada comes back to win the last 3. I know the last game was dramatic with Henderson's late goal. But, from my point of view, that series made Canada eat some humble pie. It showed that they were not that much better than the Soviets and that when it came to International Best on Best, they could no longer just show up and be guaranteed victory.

What you don't understand is that there wasn't any international best on best until the 72 series. So there was no previous experience to draw from.

Definitely some humble pie served, along with recognition that assembling a team of stars and putting them on the ice isn't putting together an actual team.

Canada learned a lot about how to assemble international squads from multiple NHL teams through that experience and how to manage all of the egos involved.

Canada certainly learned a lot from the Soviets and vice versa I think.

International hockey was the ultimate winner in the end I think. Without the 72 series, you may not have had the Canada Cups, which led to interest in international hockey on the part of Canadians who grew up watching them, and set the stage for NHL participation in the Olympics that we have today.

If Canada had been blown out in that series, they may have turned their backs on international hockey entirely. Who knows?

 

[JackSlater]

Something I don't understand about the 72 Summit Series. Granted, I was not yet born and I am not Canadian, so maybe that is part of it. But, from what I have read and watched Canada expected to go on the ice and destroy the Soviets in all 8 games. Then, it goes 2-1-1 for the Soviets in Canada. Soviets win the first game in Moscow and Canada comes back to win the last 3. I know the last game was dramatic with Henderson's late goal. But, from my point of view, that series made Canada eat some humble pie. It showed that they were not that much better than the Soviets and that when it came to International Best on Best, they could no longer just show up and be guaranteed victory.

All of that is true. What don't you understand?

 

[SanDogBrewin]

I'm just glad Kane and Parise didn't get there ankles hatcheted up for playing well.

 

[Hanji]

What you don't understand is that there wasn't any international best on best until the 72 series. So there was no previous experience to draw from.

Definitely some humble pie served, along with recognition that assembling a team of stars and putting them on the ice isn't putting together an actual team.

Canada learned a lot about how to assemble international squads from multiple NHL teams through that experience and how to manage all of the egos involved.

Canada certainly learned a lot from the Soviets and vice versa I think.

International hockey was the ultimate winner in the end I think. Without the 72 series, you may not have had the Canada Cups, which led to interest in international hockey on the part of Canadians who grew up watching them, and set the stage for NHL participation in the Olympics that we have today.

If Canada had been blown out in that series, they may have turned their backs on international hockey entirely. Who knows?

All of that is true. What don't you understand?

It's just difficult to wrap one's head around why the Summit Series is viewed as a watershed moment as it pertains to national pride.
I get the political importance, but I never understood why a series in which you lost sole possession of your own cultivated and cherished game would be so celebrated and revered.
I mean, although it will be good for the sport, it will be a sad and humiliating time in America when another country can defeat us in football.

 

[JackSlater]

It's just difficult to wrap one's head around why the Summit Series is viewed as a watershed moment as it pertains to national pride.
I get the political importance, but I never understood why a series in which you lost sole possession of your own cultivated and cherished game would be so celebrated and revered.
I mean, although it will be good for the sport, it will be a sad and humiliating time in America when another country can defeat us in football.

In the span of eight games Canada lost its hockey pride and regained it. Losing several games, and coming so incredibly close to losing the series without giving up, made the victory much more significant.

The football analogy is good for an American perspective. Imagine football becomes even more popular in the United States and American relations with say... China become worse to the point that there is some fear that China could some day attack USA. China challenges USA to some football series. Americans find this funny, and expect Brady, Watt and company to annihilate the Chinese. Then, the Chinese come over and beat USA convincingly and control the American portion of the series. In the end USA pulls out the win on a hail mary on the last play in Beijing. That wouldn't be huge?

 

[ResilientBeast]

Summit Series, was monumental for hockey not just Canada. It proved the Soviets were on our level at the top end

 

[Cursed Lemon]

1972 was quite possibly the most important event in hockey history, for both sides as well. Compared to the Miracle On Ice, which by comparison was an excellent story but ultimately didn't have much consequence, 1972 was the ultimate meshing of eastern and western hockey that gave us a glimpse into the future of what the sport would turn out to be.

On 2002 and 2010, BigPhil (I think) explained it in a thread I made about that very question in that 2002 was more important for Canadian hockey, while 2010 was more significant for Canada. He argued that in 2002, Canada was still reeling from losing in 1996 and 1998, and they weren't sure whether they were the best hockey nation anymore. The win in Salt Lake was like a giant sigh of relief. 2010, meanwhile, was just the perfect cultural celebration for Canada, winning in overtime in such superbly dramatic fashion against their rival team on home turf, with Mustache Boy getting the winner - doesn't really get much better than that.

 

[Macman]

It's just difficult to wrap one's head around why the Summit Series is viewed as a watershed moment as it pertains to national pride.
I get the political importance, but I never understood why a series in which you lost sole possession of your own cultivated and cherished game would be so celebrated and revered.
I mean, although it will be good for the sport, it will be a sad and humiliating time in America when another country can defeat us in football.

You had to be there to truly understand. Canada wasn't good at much of anything back then. Our movies, TV shows and music mostly stunk. We were lousy at pretty much every other sport. We rarely won medals at the Olympics. And on top of that we lived next to the most powerful nation on earth. We were a young country and we were dwarfed culturally, politically and militarily, but we had hockey. We were secure in the belief that we were the best, even though that belief had never been tested. In the end, we won narrowly and in dramatic fashion and it was a relief and we celebrated. To lose would have been devastating.