2010 Olympics vs. 72 Summit Series

[Hanji]

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?

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.

Yes it's more understandable in context now. Thanks for the replies.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

The Summit Series was the greatest hockey moment of all time.

 

[Atas2000]

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?

Since when is the Summit Series a "triumph"? They cheated their way to a victory by a hair.

The 2010 Olympics I give them without any sidenotes.

 

[patnyrnyg]

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

Why a series that Canada expected to steamroll the opponent, then barely won is considered the defining or biggest moment in Canada's hockey history on the international scene?

 

[patnyrnyg]

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?

No, it would be embarrassing. Look at USA Basketball. First Dream Team was 92. Everyone expected them to and they did slaughter everyone. The semis the US did not play in was dubbed "The Silver Medal Game". Then, in 2000 they beat Lithuania by 2 in the semis and France by 10 in the Gold Medal game it was considered a humiliating performance. Then, of course they lost to Argentina in the 2004 semis, which was the ultimate blow. Since, that loss, they have not lost an Olympic games, but 2000 and 2004 were low points for USA Basketball, not exciting or huge.

 

[NyQuil]

If Canada HAD steam-rolled the Soviets into oblivion, it would barely be a footnote in hockey history at this point.

Everyone should be happy that they didn't.

Since when is the Summit Series a "triumph"? They cheated their way to a victory by a hair.

Why a series that Canada expected to steamroll the opponent, then barely won is considered the defining or biggest moment in Canada's hockey history on the international scene?

Consider that Canada had never really faced any real competition in international hockey until their amateur teams were no longer able to dominate and their pros were unable to participate.

The drama alone was worth it for Canadian fans. Finally! A worthy opponent!

Russians should be honoured and proud that they played such a major role in perhaps the most thrilling Canadian victory of all time.

Before that, can you even name a moment in Canada's hockey history on the international scene?

You don't see nostalgia for the decades of Canadian dominance from 1920 to 1948 because it is a relatively empty accomplishment.

The only one I can think of is when Great Britain (staffed with British citizens who grew up in Canada) beat the Canadians for an Olympic medal in 1936.

 

[JackSlater]

No, it would be embarrassing.

Well, I'll have to defer to the people of Canada who almost unanimously disagree, having actually gone through such a situation.

Look at USA Basketball. First Dream Team was 92. Everyone expected them to and they did slaughter everyone. The semis the US did not play in was dubbed "The Silver Medal Game". Then, in 2000 they beat Lithuania by 2 in the semis and France by 10 in the Gold Medal game it was considered a humiliating performance. Then, of course they lost to Argentina in the 2004 semis, which was the ultimate blow. Since, that loss, they have not lost an Olympic games, but 2000 and 2004 were low points for USA Basketball, not exciting or huge.

Horrible example, given that the situation is completely different. The dream team had no adversity and certainly didn't have to make a historic comeback, there were no political considerations, the opponents were basically a known quantity (Jordan, Ewing, Mullen and Robinson had played in Olympic tournaments before, others had competed internationally unlike the Canadians) and most importantly... they didn't lose until over a decade later. The only two similarities are that the two teams (Canada 1972 and USA 1992) were expected to win and did. Everything else is completely different.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Well, I'll have to defer to the people of Canada who almost unanimously disagree, having actually gone through such a situation.



Horrible example, given that the situation is completely different. The dream team had no adversity and certainly didn't have to make a historic comeback, there were no political considerations, the opponents were basically a known quantity (Jordan, Ewing, Mullen and Robinson had played in Olympic tournaments before, others had competed internationally unlike the Canadians) and most importantly... they didn't lose until over a decade later. The only two similarities are that the two teams (Canada 1972 and USA 1992) were expected to win and did. Everything else is completely different.

I was comparing USA BBall to replace the hypothetical football scenario you laid out. The 92 US team was expected to dominate the tourney just as the 72 Canada team was expected to dominate the USSR. One team dominated, the other did not. Yet, when the US did not dominate in 2000 and 2004 it was seen as the low mark for USA Basketball.

But, if I have this right, it showed Canada was not head and shoulders above the Soviets in hockey, yet somehow it is their biggest moment?

 

[patnyrnyg]

If Canada HAD steam-rolled the Soviets into oblivion, it would barely be a footnote in hockey history at this point.

Everyone should be happy that they didn't.





Consider that Canada had never really faced any real competition in international hockey until their amateur teams were no longer able to dominate and their pros were unable to participate.

The drama alone was worth it for Canadian fans. Finally! A worthy opponent!

Russians should be honoured and proud that they played such a major role in perhaps the most thrilling Canadian victory of all time.

Before that, can you even name a moment in Canada's hockey history on the international scene?

You don't see nostalgia for the decades of Canadian dominance from 1920 to 1948 because it is a relatively empty accomplishment.

The only one I can think of is when Great Britain (staffed with British citizens who grew up in Canada) beat the Canadians for an Olympic medal in 1936.

Right, a worthy opponent. Canada was looking to dominate and prove the Soviet Olympic Golds were nothing more than pros beating up on amateurs and that if Canada used its pros than the Soviets wouldn't have a chance. Uhm, it completely backfired and showed the Soviets were just as good.

And, I disagree about it barely being a footprint. It would be huge. It WOULD show that the Olympic Gold medals shouldn't be taken seriously and that Canada was far and away the top hockey nation. Just like the 92 USA Mens basketball is not just a footnote in Basketball history. That tournament confirmed what everyone already knew and that was if the US could send it's best players, they would dominate, and they did. They have not dominated EVERY tournament since, and when they don't it is an embarrassment. Now, other countries have improved and the US doesn't always have their top 12 players for different reasons. You ask any American about the Dream Team and they are going to think of the 92 Olympics.

 

[patnyrnyg]

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?

I agree about it leading to the Canada and World Cup.

Canada had been blown out? It was supposed to be the Soviets being blown out. Canada was supposed to destroy them. If you meant "If the Soviets had been blown out...." I would disagree. They would have dedicated more resources to their national team to figure out how to get to Canada's level.

 

[NyQuil]

It WOULD show that the Olympic Gold medals shouldn't be taken seriously and that Canada was far and away the top hockey nation.

What's great about the Olympics is that since 1998, there hasn't been any issue with taking them seriously.

 

[NyQuil]

Canada had been blown out? It was supposed to be the Soviets being blown out. Canada was supposed to destroy them

After the first handful of games, it seemed likely to happen anyway.

In a remarkable turn of events, the team that was supposed to win started to win and just kept winning until they won the series.

 

[NyQuil]

That tournament confirmed what everyone already knew and that was if the US could send it's best players, they would dominate, and they did. They have not dominated EVERY tournament since, and when they don't it is an embarrassment. Now, other countries have improved and the US doesn't always have their top 12 players for different reasons. You ask any American about the Dream Team and they are going to think of the 92 Olympics.

The difference is that Canada just delivered the most dominant performance in the post-1998 best-on-best era.

Countries have regressed, not improved. Where are the Czechs now? Slovakia?

How has Russia performed on the big stage?

It's the exact opposite of your example.

The 2014 Olympics are the Dream Team example in hockey. It really wasn't close this time.

Canada wasn't supposed to be able to win outside of North America. And they weren't supposed to win on the "big ice" of Sochi. These were common refrains.

And they went over there and gave up 3 goals in the entire tournament.

 

[JackSlater]

I was comparing USA BBall to replace the hypothetical football scenario you laid out. The 92 US team was expected to dominate the tourney just as the 72 Canada team was expected to dominate the USSR. One team dominated, the other did not. Yet, when the US did not dominate in 2000 and 2004 it was seen as the low mark for USA Basketball.

But, if I have this right, it showed Canada was not head and shoulders above the Soviets in hockey, yet somehow it is their biggest moment?

I fail to see how pretty much any person can grasp this and yet you cannot. The question in the topic is which is bigger or more important. Beating up on a bunch of nobodies is not a big or important achievement. People admire the dream team, but I can't imagine that anyone views winning that tournament as some big achievement. In fact, I suspect that USA won't view anything as a big basketball achievement until there is actually a country that is a legitimate rival for them in basketball. Canada already showed that many Olympic medals were basically worthless by winning tournaments with amateurs. No one views the dominant performances of Canadian amateurs as big, historic hockey moments. Many Canadians do view the hockey wins that were much more difficult (like in 2010) as big achievements. Is that not easy to understand?

Having a massive comeback against a worthy adversary, particularly in the context that existed in 1972, is big. Beating up on nobodies, even by massive margins, is not. It also helps the 1972 team that since the end of the Soviet Union, no national team comes close to scaring Canadians to that level.

 

[Macman]

I was comparing USA BBall to replace the hypothetical football scenario you laid out. The 92 US team was expected to dominate the tourney just as the 72 Canada team was expected to dominate the USSR. One team dominated, the other did not. Yet, when the US did not dominate in 2000 and 2004 it was seen as the low mark for USA Basketball.

But, if I have this right, it showed Canada was not head and shoulders above the Soviets in hockey, yet somehow it is their biggest moment?

If Canada had blown a 3-1-1 series lead yet still won the series overall, you might have a point. It would have ended as a bit of a downer. But instead they trailed 3-1-1 and won the final three games in Moscow, came from behind in two of them, then had Henderson's goal for the ages with seconds to go. Don't worry, there was plenty of embarrassment over the losses in Canada. No one expected Canada to come back at that point, except maybe the players. In the end they engineered one of the most dramatic and improbable comebacks in sports history. That's why it's considered a classic.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I fail to see how pretty much any person can grasp this and yet you cannot. The question in the topic is which is bigger or more important. Beating up on a bunch of nobodies is not a big or important achievement. People admire the dream team, but I can't imagine that anyone views winning that tournament as some big achievement. In fact, I suspect that USA won't view anything as a big basketball achievement until there is actually a country that is a legitimate rival for them in basketball. Canada already showed that many Olympic medals were basically worthless by winning tournaments with amateurs. No one views the dominant performances of Canadian amateurs as big, historic hockey moments. Many Canadians do view the hockey wins that were much more difficult (like in 2010) as big achievements. Is that not easy to understand?

Having a massive comeback against a worthy adversary, particularly in the context that existed in 1972, is big. Beating up on nobodies, even by massive margins, is not. It also helps the 1972 team that since the end of the Soviet Union, no national team comes close to scaring Canadians to that level.

No, I get it just fine. The Soviets were a bunch of nobodies in Canada's eyes before the tournament just like the opponents of the 92 dream team. Difference is the US kept them as nobodies, yet the Soviets were no longer nobodies. Had Canada done what it was SUPPOSED to do, the Soviets still would have been nobodies.

 

[patnyrnyg]

The difference is that Canada just delivered the most dominant performance in the post-1998 best-on-best era.

Countries have regressed, not improved. Where are the Czechs now? Slovakia?

How has Russia performed on the big stage?

It's the exact opposite of your example.

The 2014 Olympics are the Dream Team example in hockey. It really wasn't close this time.

Canada wasn't supposed to be able to win outside of North America. And they weren't supposed to win on the "big ice" of Sochi. These were common refrains.

And they went over there and gave up 3 goals in the entire tournament.

Exactly, and that is why I say this recent run of 3 golds in 4 tries to be a much bigger accomplishment than the showing in 1972. You basically support everything I say.

However, you can't say it wasn't close in 2014. They beat the US by 1 goal. The only people saying Canada couldn't win outside of NA or on the big ice were the naive people who thought Russia somehow had some home ice advantage and it was their destiny to win. I found it amusing. People yapping about how motivated Russia will be to win it on their soil as if that really meant anything.

 

[NyQuil]

Exactly, and that is why I say this recent run of 3 golds in 4 tries to be a much bigger accomplishment than the showing in 1972. You basically support everything I say.

I'm saying that I understand your argument.

But most Canadians (including myself) will likely disagree.

The OP stated: "biggest/most important" and I still feel that 1972 is the answer.

However, you can't say it wasn't close in 2014. They beat the US by 1 goal.

The score was close.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Exactly, and that is why I say this recent run of 3 golds in 4 tries to be a much bigger accomplishment than the showing in 1972. You basically support everything I say.

However, you can't say it wasn't close in 2014. They beat the US by 1 goal. The only people saying Canada couldn't win outside of NA or on the big ice were the naive people who thought Russia somehow had some home ice advantage and it was their destiny to win. I found it amusing. People yapping about how motivated Russia will be to win it on their soil as if that really meant anything.

It's hard to compare. Back in the Soviet times we were up against teams with vastly more experience playing and practicing together than our guys. Although we didn't appreciate it at the time that makes an absolutely massive difference. Winning 4 out of 5 bests on best these days, where all teams enter on essentially a level playing field, is impressive, but still doesn't feel as big. The original OP asked what was important not only to Canadian hockey, but to the country as a whole and I think you would have had to have lived through the cold war to really appreciate what it all meant in '72.

On the flip side I see it as funny that the 1980 OG is so revered in the US. All I see is that the US beat the Soviets at their own game, i.e. team preparation, no miracle required. '96 World Cup was a way bigger accomplishment in my mind. Also with the Swedes I think the '06 OG gold was a way bigger accomplishment than '94, but many put '94 first.

 

[Macman]

Exactly, and that is why I say this recent run of 3 golds in 4 tries to be a much bigger accomplishment than the showing in 1972. You basically support everything I say.

However, you can't say it wasn't close in 2014. They beat the US by 1 goal. The only people saying Canada couldn't win outside of NA or on the big ice were the naive people who thought Russia somehow had some home ice advantage and it was their destiny to win. I found it amusing. People yapping about how motivated Russia will be to win it on their soil as if that really meant anything.

You're really talking about two different things now. I agree that Canada's recent Olympic success is the greater accomplishment, but the greatest moment is still '72 because of the dramatics, the tension and bitterness, the newness of it all, the comeback, the Cold War and the way it changed hockey.

 

[JackSlater]

No, I get it just fine. The Soviets were a bunch of nobodies in Canada's eyes before the tournament just like the opponents of the 92 dream team. Difference is the US kept them as nobodies, yet the Soviets were no longer nobodies. Had Canada done what it was SUPPOSED to do, the Soviets still would have been nobodies.

The lack of logic is amusing. The Soviets were nobodies to the Canadians at first, but they turned out to be an exceptional team. The Americans thought their opponents were nobodies, and they were right. This isn't true because of the results - it's true because of the players involved. Canada wrongly thought their opponents were weak, but USA correctly concluded that their opposition was weak. Your comparison was horrible, for the reasons I listed already.

1. The dream team faced inferior opponents. Beating crappy teams is pretty much never considered a big deal. There's a reason people were more excited to see the American players on the same team than they were to see if they could win.

2. The dream team never faced adversity. Overcoming adversity tends to make normal people value something more.

3. The Canadians were facing an unknown. The Americans were not, having access to far more scouting than Canada did. They also featured numerous players experienced in international competition.

4. Nothing approaching the political overtones of the Summit Series was found at the 1992 Olympics. In fact, many opposing players were awestruck by the Americans and honoured to be pounded by them.

5. Basketball isn't as popular in USA as hockey is in Canada, and isn't remotely as connected to the national psyche.

If a remotely similar situation to the summit series existed for Americans, I would have used that instead of creating a hypothetical.

If you do not understand how a comeback against an elite opponent is a bigger deal than pounding some nobody, then there is something missing that I won't be able to fix for you.

 

[xxxx]

Jack Slater said it well. Canada has many of those wins like the one in Vancouver. And all of them are memorable, all of them have something. But the 1972 Summit Series is probably the most memorable. And also "different", which is maybe why it's labaled as "the best".

Personally I enjoyed the 2010 tournament and I will never forget it.

 

[Atas2000]

If Canada HAD steam-rolled the Soviets into oblivion, it would barely be a footnote in hockey history at this point.

Everyone should be happy that they didn't.





Consider that Canada had never really faced any real competition in international hockey until their amateur teams were no longer able to dominate and their pros were unable to participate.

The drama alone was worth it for Canadian fans. Finally! A worthy opponent!

Russians should be honoured and proud that they played such a major role in perhaps the most thrilling Canadian victory of all time.

You probaly don't even realize how arrogant you sound.

Canada lost the series by the way. Losing credibility by cheating weighs more.

 

[Theokritos]

On the flip side I see it as funny that the 1980 OG is so revered in the US. All I see is that the US beat the Soviets at their own game, i.e. team preparation, no miracle required.

Which is why the US beat the Soviets again and again once they had figured out the team preparation thing... oh wait, they didn't.

 

[babylonzoo]

You probaly don't even realize how arrogant you sound.

Canada lost the series by the way. Losing credibility by cheating weighs more.

the tactics used by the russians weren't too kosher either